1) Preparatory assistance to States Parties should be granted on a priority basis for:

(i) the establishment of tentative lists of cultural and natural properties situated in their territories and suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List;

(ii) the preparation of nominations of types of properties underrepresented in the World Heritage List.

2) States Parties to the Convention should provide the Secretariat with the name and address of the governmental organization(s) primarily responsible for cultural and natural properties so that copies of all official correspondence and documents can be sent by the Secretariat to these focal points as appropriate. All States Parties to the Convention as of 5 September 1980 are asked to provide this information to the Secretariat by 31st December 1980. New States Parties are requested to do so as soon as possible after the deposit of their instrument of ratification acceptance or accession.

3) States Parties to the Convention should convene at regular intervals at the national level a joint meeting of those persons responsible for natural and cultural heritage in order that they may discuss matters pertaining to the implementation of the Convention. This does not apply to States Parties where one single organization is dealing with both cultural and natural heritage.

4) The Committee, deeply concerned with maintaining a balance in the number of experts from the natural and cultural fields represented on the Bureau urges that every effort be made in future elections in order to ensure that :

(i) the chair is not held by persons with expertise in the same field, either cultural or natural, for more than two succeeding years ;

(ii) at least two "cultural" and at least two "natural" experts are present at Bureau meetings to ensure balance and credibility in reviewing nominations to the World Heritage List.

5) States Parties to the Convention should choose as their representatives persons qualified in the field of natural and cultural heritage thus complying with Article 9, paragraph 3 of the Convention.

1. Decides to maintain in the revised Operational Guidelines existing text from the July 2002 Operational Guidelines concerning:
   1. reactive monitoring (paragraph 68),
   2. the development of a programme of corrective measures (paragraphs 22, 46b, 86, 87 and 89),
   3. inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger (paragraphs 80-93) and,
   4. possible deletion from the World Heritage List (paragraphs 46-56).
2. Requests the World Heritage Centre to re-order the text in the revised Operational Guidelines to ensure a logical and consistent presentation of the procedures for management and monitoring, reactive monitoring of the state of conservation of World Heritage properties, inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger and deletion from the World Heritage List.

15. In regard to the Bureau's proposed measures to reduce the number of nominations to be processed each year, the Committee was of the view that it was preferable not to lay down strict rules but rather to appeal to States that already had a large number of properties on the List to restrict their nominations voluntarily. At the same time, the Committee recalled that ICOMOS could evaluate nominations only from States Parties which had submitted tentative lists.

16. On the subject of monitoring the status of conservation of properties on the List, the Committee requested IUCN to report on its system of monitoring the status, not only of natural World Heritage properties, but also of endangered species and natural habitats. The IUCN system is based at the Conservation Monitoring Centre at Cambridge (United Kingdom) and has close links with the Global Environmental Monitoring System of the United Nations Environment Programme. IUCN is assisted by 4000 voluntary correspondents located in 126 countries who report regularly to the Conservation Monitoring Centre. Thus, IUCN is in a position to obtain reliable and up-to-date information on almost all natural World Heritage properties. This year IUCN would be reporting on 12 of the 56 natural World Heritage sites, a task which was assuming larger proportions than that of evaluating new proposals. In general, between 8 and 13 new nominations were examined each year, a number which IUCN considered reasonable. The representative of IUCN underlined the importance of regularly monitoring the quality of World Heritage properties and suggested that the Committee might follow-up the proposals for monitoring made to the Committee at its seventh session in Florence (Italy) in 1983.

17. The Committee acknowledged that a solution should be found to enable the Committee to be kept regularly informed of the status of conservation of cultural as well as natural properties. Such information should be collated at regular intervals, yet to be determined, and could be collected by expert missions, through questionnaires sent out to States, or with the help of ICOMOS national committees. This could only be done, however, if ICOMOS were provided with the necessary funds. In addition, the Secretariat informed the Committee of the forthcoming Unesco publication of a "Manual for the Management of World Cultural Heritage Sites" aimed at the persons responsible for the preservation of these sites.

18. The Committee considered that it was premature to adopt a monitoring system for cultural properties and that possible solutions and their financial implications should first be studied in depth. It recommended that ICOMOS and ICCROM should take the procedures adopted by IUCN for monitoring the status of natural properties as a guide, and make proposals to the Bureau at its tenth session.

32. Several members of the Committee considered that it was desirable to keep the World Heritage List, established under the increasingly popular World Heritage Convention, open to as many nominations as possible while ensuring quality control and adherence to the operational guidelines. One view was expressed that it should be possible to improve the working methods and procedures of the Committee, particularly for examining nominations more rapidly and effectively, by providing information on the categories of nominations already received and the States Parties concerned.

33. The Committee reviewed the means that could be envisaged for limiting the number of nominations in the future in as fair as possible a manner: several ideas were put forward such as limiting the maximum of nominations to be examined each year to say 25 or 30 giving priority to previously deferred nominations; the strict application of criteria; the review and updating of tentative lists particularly for cultural sites; the possibility of classifying nominations by types giving preference to nominations of sites corresponding to themes which were under or not represented on the World Heritage List; calling on States Parties to voluntarily limit the number of nominations submitted each year, etc.

34. A member of the Committee suggested that although the Convention did not oblige the States Parties to draw up lists of properties of national or regional importance, such lists could possibly be brought to the attention of the Committee for its information.

35. The Committee recognised that the question of the number and type of nominations was a complex issue which had already been raised at its previous sessions and which would need to be studied in some depth. The Committee decided to establish a working group, and the Chairman set out its terms of reference as follows: to review all the sites already inscribed on the World Heritage List; to review the tentative lists already received; to review ways and means of ensuring a rigorous application of the criteria established by the Committee; to review ways and means of better managing the agenda of the Committee sessions. The proposals of the working group on the above questions will be submitted to the Bureau at its next session.

36. The following States Parties indicated that they wished to participate in the working group, under the chairmanship of Sri Lanka: Australia, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Mexico, Tunisia. The working group would remain open to other members of the Committee who wished also to take part.

43. The Committee agreed that there was a need to ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world, as is stated in Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Convention. It requested the Secretariat to present the Bureau and the Committee with proposals which would respond to this need and which could eventually be adopted by the 7th General Assembly of States Parties in 1989.

Furthermore, he presented the Group's recommendation concerning a global study which might include an international tentative list of references designed to assist the States Parties in identifying their properties and the Committee in evaluating nominations. Finally, the attention of the Committee was drawn to the recommendation of complementary studies of rural landscapes, traditional villages and contemporary architecture.

13. Several members made a point of congratulating the Working Group on the results achieved. The Committee approved the Working Group's recommendations. However, several questions arose with respect to items 4.7 and 4.8 of the Working Group's report (study and global reference list, thematic studies of several categories of properties). The Chairman of the Committee recalled that the Bureau had requested ICOMOS to state its views on these points and invited the representative of this organisation to comment.

14. The proposal presented by the representative of ICOMOS would define the principles of a retrospective and prospective global reflection on the Convention. Within the framework of such a reflection ICOMOS would like to satisfy the wish of the Working Group with a view to establishing lists of examples of cultural properties of countries throughout the world, whether or not they were Parties to the Convention. Research to this effect would allow the identification of entities according to different parameters of coherence - chronological, geographical, ecological, functional, social, religious, etc.

15. The representative of IUCN also stated his views on the global list. He reminded the Committee that in 1982 IUCN had already established a list of this type and referred to its current shortcomings. This list was to be revised in the near future and, in his opinion, was a highly useful working tool. On the other hand, he suggested that an a posteriori review of results achieved during the first twenty years of implementation of the Convention and a projection thereof over the coming twenty years be made in 1992 for cultural properties. Indeed, in 1992 IUCN would be organizing the Fourth World Parks Congress at which it was planned to hold a special session marking the twentieth year of the World Heritage Convention.

16. The repesentative of ICCROM shared the views expressed by the Working Group and ICOMOS as regards a global study. He stressed that cooperation between ICCROM and ICOMOS would be most useful, since this concerned matters of mutual interest. He further stressed the need to conceive an evolutive list which, in particular, should take into account recent progress in the field of conservation doctrines.

17. A member of the Committee raised the question of the budgetary implications of preparing a global list. Another member suggested that it would be possible to call upon ICOMOS experts and the historical monuments services of each country

18. As regards tentative lists, several Committee members noted that these were highly useful instruments and a significant basis for the global survey. A member stressed that tentative lists were of great importance in the context of natural properties as well, since they allowed comparative studies. On the subject of specific studies of rural landscapes, traditional villages and contemporary architecture, a member stated that no deadlines had been set and that it would be proper to define their general outline. The representative of ICOMOS suggested that such studies might be integrated into the global study. Two Committee members voiced their doubts as to the need for a global study and specific surveys. It was therefore suggested that an informal group co-ordinated by the Chairman of the Working Group (Mr. A. Guruge) further examine this matter.

19. This Working Group met twice. Besides already existing documentation, it considered a short reflection note prepared by Mr. J.S. Collinson. Discussions highlighted the need to define a framework and principles prior to any further study, whether for the "global" study or thematic surveys of traditional villages, rural landscapes and contemporary architecture. The Working Group requested that the Secretariat and ICOMOS examine these questions in depth over the coming months and submit a more elaborate proposal to the Bureau in June 1989. Meanwhile, it proposed to include in the 1989 budget an amount of US$20,000 for the purpose of the global study and the thematic studies. The release of these funds would be considered by the Bureau. The Committee agreed to this proposal.

31. He recalled that at its twenty-second session, the World Heritage Committee inscribed this item on the provisional agenda of the twenty-third session of the Bureau. The document informs the General Assembly of the implications and development of the Global Strategy. It was examined and approved by the Bureau at its twenty-third session (Paris, 5-10 July 1999). He underlined its paramount importance because it addresses the issue of the Global Strategy.

32. He said that since the adoption of the World Heritage Convention in 1972, innumerable discussions have been conducted as to the means of ensuring the representative nature of the World Heritage List. He underlined that since 1979, disparities and imbalances have been pointed out. The predominance of western European monumental architecture in comparison to non-monumental architectural heritage of other regions has also been highlighted. The need to strengthen the protection of past and continuing interactions between humans and the environment has been stressed.

33. He referred to the June 1994 expert meeting organised by the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS which established a methodology to remedy such disparities. The expert group defined a “Global Strategy”, a thematic methodology to redress the geographical, temporal, and spiritual imbalances of the List. The expert group also identified the following areas or themes whose investigation would help to improve the representativity of the List:

• Human coexistence with the land (movement of peoples, settlements)
• Human beings in society (human interactions, spirituality and creative expressions).

34. In December 1994, the Committee adopted the report of the expert group and it revised the criteria for inscription of cultural properties. The scope of the Global Strategy was extended from cultural heritage to include natural and mixed properties. He referred also to the category of cultural landscapes and recalled that the World Heritage Committee, aware of the changing definition of cultural heritage, had defined this category which is still under-represented on the World Heritage List.

35. He mentioned also that every year since 1995, the Committee has approved the organization by the World Heritage Centre of regional and thematic Global Strategy meetings and studies. A list of background documents concerning these Global Strategy meetings can be found in document WHC-99/CONF.206/INF.5. The advisory bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS) have contributed to the preparation of these meetings and publications.

36. He defined the objectives of the Global Strategy as follows “The Global Strategy is a framework and methodology for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. It relies on regional and thematic definitions of categories of heritage that have outstanding universal value. Its aim is to ensure a more balanced and representative World Heritage List. It encourages countries to become States Parties to the Convention, to prepare tentative lists and to harmonise them, and to prepare nominations of properties from categories and regions currently under-represented on the World Heritage List”.

37. He then gave the floor to the Director of the World Heritage Centre who presented the process set in motion at the twenty-second session of the Committee, under the Chairmanship of Japan to “move from recommendations to action”.

38. The Director of the Centre recalled that by letter of 22 September 1999, he had transmitted all the working documents to the States Parties, requesting them to send him written comments on the draft Resolution. He referred to the only letter received, that from the Czech Delegation, dated 26 October 1999, of which he had acknowledged receipt. He then presented the main points of the draft project, stressing the following considerations: 

• It is in the interest of all States Parties and advisory bodies to preserve the authority of the 1972 Convention, by improving the representativity of the World Heritage List, which should reflect the diversity of all cultures and ecosystem of all regions.  

• Since the adoption of the Global Strategy by the World Heritage Committee in December 1994, to improve the representativity of the list, this objective has not been attained, despite the efforts of the Secretariat and the States Parties concerned.

• To address these continuing deficiencies, the Bureau in July 1999 prepared the Draft Resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of States Parties.

39. He recalled that the 1972 Convention is a framework for international co-operation, he reaffirmed the sovereignty of States Parties, and underlined the importance of moving from recommendations to action, as decided by the Committee at its twenty-second session. He highlighted the following paragraphs of the Draft Resolution which had been prepared by a working group at the Bureau composed of the following members of the Bureau: Benin, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Morocco, Republic of Korea; the following members of the Committee: Canada, Finland, France, Zimbabwe; the following observers: Belgium, United Kingdom and the Secretary- General of ICOMOS.

A. The General Assembly invites all States Parties to:

• Integrate the protection of cultural and natural heritage into comprehensive planning programmes (Art.5 of the Convention)
• Prepare or re-examine tentative lists by focusing on under-represented heritage
• Prioritise categories highlighting interaction between humans and their environment, and humans in society

 On a voluntary basis,

• Space voluntarily their future nominations; and/or
• Propose only properties in the under-represented categories; and/or
• Link their nominations with those of another State Party with under-represented heritage; or
• Decide to suspend the presentation of new nominations; and
• Inform the Committee of their choices.

C. Invites States Parties with under-represented heritage to:

•  Prioritise nominations and tentative lists
• Initiate regional partnerships based on the exchange of technical expertise
• Encourage bilateral and multilateral co-operation to increase their expertise
• Maximise their participation in World Heritage meetings

D. Invites the Advisory bodies to:

•  Pursue programmes of thematic studies and classification of themes
• Observe the greatest scientific rigor while evaluating nominations
• Develop mechanisms to deliver training to experts in under-represented regions to prepare and evaluate nominations

E. Invites the World Heritage Committee to:

• Continue its actions within the Global Strategy framework
• Provide necessary resources from the World Heritage Fund to support the efforts of States Parties whose heritage is under-represented
• Adopt regional and multi-year action plans to implement the Global Strategy
• Evaluate, with all States Parties, progress in the Implementation of the Global Strategy

• Support States Parties with under-represented heritage in the preparation of tentative lists and nominations
• Ensure that sufficient human resources are allocated for the implementation of the regional Action Plans

G. Invites the international community and the donor agencies to:

• Support the protection of natural and cultural heritage and the 1972 Convention
• Prioritise actions directed to the implementation of the Global Strategy in States Parties with under-represented heritage

40. Thirty-eight (38) States participated in the debate. All the speakers expressed satisfaction with the text adopted by the Bureau at its twenty-third session. They thanked the Chairperson of the Committee, the Chairperson of the working group and the States Parties. They stressed the pertinence of the draft resolution, its structure that identifies the responsibilities of each of the partners involved in the implementation of the Global Strategy, and the choice of the measures proposed which aim to improve the representativity of the World Heritage List.

41. Moreover many countries, following France which had been the first speaker in the debate, declared that the principles set out in the draft resolution, when adopted, can only take effect if they are supported by the political will of the States. Indeed, the draft resolution requests the States that already have a substantial number of sites inscribed to limit the rate of new nominations, to make a concentrated effort to help strengthen the co-operative mechanisms and international solidarity, and to assist countries without sufficient capacity to prepare their nomination files and ensure the management of their properties.

42. France’s opinion that a strategy must be developed with three main components: (i) definition of the objectives, (ii) establishment of action plans with timetables, and (iii) an evaluation procedure, found an echo amongst the speakers who affirmed the need to move from recommendations to action.

43. Although Austria and France were the only States to declare, for the former, that it had limited the rate of nomination proposals to one site per year, and for the latter, that it had decided to abstain from presenting new sites in 2000, many States whose heritage is still under-represented stressed the importance of international co-operation and, referring to activities for which they had received assistance from States with substantial conservation capacities, they thanked the donor countries.

44. During the debate, certain States put forward the principle of rotation within the Committee and congratulated France for having withdrawn its candidacy. The large majority of the speakers stressed the discrepancy between the number of States Parties (157) and the number of Committee members (21). Some speakers referred to Article 8.2 of the Convention “Election of members of the Committee shall ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world”, and requested an equitable representation within the Committee. Certain speakers evoked the possibility of reducing the length of the mandate of the Committee members.

45. At the end of the debate a draft resolution was adopted by consensus and without modification (the full text is contained in Annex II).

46. The President felt that a possible increase in the number of States members of the Committee, fixed at twenty-one, according to Article 8 of the Convention could make it necessary to revise this important legal instrument. He therefore invited the Legal Advisor to explain the procedure for modifying the Convention

47. Taking the floor, the Legal Advisor referred to Article 37 of the Convention which states that :

48. Taking account of the clarifications of the Legal Advisor and the debate on an equitable representation within the Committee, the President presented the following draft resolution that the General Assembly adopted by consensus:

12. In accordance with the conclusions of the Bureau at its 13th session and taking account of the above-mentioned resolution, the Committee decided to allocate under the 1990 budget a sum of $20,000 to cover the costs of the participation at the Bureau and Committee sessions of specialists in cultural and natural heritage conservation representing the States Members of the Committee which appear on the United Nations List of Least Developed Countries (LDCs). For 1990, this measure would apply to two States Members of the Committee: the United Republic of Tanzania and Yemen Arab Republic.

13. In the discussions on this question, the Committee stressed the fact that such an allocation should be given exclusively for national experts or managers of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List.

14. Having being mandated by the Committee, the Bureau considered that it would be difficult to apply rigid mechanisms for the election of Committee members so as to ensure an appropriate balance between an equitable representation of the geographical regions and of the cultural areas. The Bureau, in addition, requested the Secretariat to submit proposals for guidelines at its next session which the Committee could submit for consideration to the General Assembly for the next elections.

41. The question of thematic studies was again raised, several delegates having pointed out the interdependence of these studies and the global study. The work undertaken through these two initiatives could be mutually reinforcing and could lead to the presentation of an overall policy for implementing the World Heritage Convention at the special session of the Committee which will commemorate the twentieth anniversary of its adoption. In particular, a study on mixed sites and rural landscapes should be undertaken as a priority, according to several delegates (Canada, France, Greece, Italy and Mexico) who offered to participate in a working group that might be created for this purpose. In this respect, the representative of Italy stressed that in countries of the Old World, natural properties have always been strongly modified by man and that it was necessary to take this human presence into account when considering the integrity of these properties.

42. The Committee took note with satisfaction of a delegate's offer to place an expert from the archeological service of his country at the disposal of the Secretariat to help the work of the global study.

43. The Committee took note of document SC-89/CONF.004/INF.4 describing the progress made in drawing up a global indicative list of geological and fossil sites which have the potential to meet natural World Heritage criteria (i) and (ii). The Committee was glad to learn that the Secretariat had contacted Unesco's International Geological Correlation Programme (IGCP) and the International Union for the Geological Sciences (IUGS) and had engaged a high level consultant who had drawn up a preliminary indicative list. This preliminary list was being circulated to more than 150 experts in the field of geology around the world and would be finalized by the IGCP and IUGS in co-operation with IUCN in February 1990. The Committee welcomed the co-operation of the geological scientists' community in this endeavour and noted that the global indicative list would be presented to the Bureau at its 14th session.

51. The Committee congratulated the Greek and Bulgarian experts for their in-depth treatment of the areas in question and thanked them for their participation in the study, which was described as being of high quality and, indeed, of elegance.

52. Frameworks for national historic monuments had been developed in the U.S.A. and Canada and one of the delegates offered to make these frameworks and some account of their methodology available to the Secretariat. Another delegate commented on the importance of having a mixed temporal, cultural and thematic approach. It was suggested that the global study should include landscapes.

53. Another delegate, in expressing appreciation of the work done, said that her country would seek to contribute to the study in its future elaboration. The Secretariat explained that it intended to proceed by establishing the framework first with the assistance of experts and it was noted that an amount had been included in the budget from the various regions for this purpose. The possible contribution of expertise by States Parties was warmly welcomed and, where such contribution may not be possible, the Secretariat would in any case appreciate the names of appropriate experts whom the Secretariat could approach to work on the project.

54. Another delegate emphasized that it was not just a question of providing the framework but that it should be a carefully considered one. Due allowance should be made 'for the time and cost of such studies which should not be expected to be done in haste without adequate reflection: Furthermore, it is important that experts in the States Parties Provide information for the study since there is much available in languages which are not so easily accessible.

55. Another expert suggested reference to a specialist in the Institut de l'Afrique Noire and the Secretariat mentioned that there had already been discussion with Mr. Konare, President of ICOM, a historian and archaeologist, about the project.

56. The Committee thanked the Secretariat for the work done on the project.

57. The Committee also noted that the study of geological sites conducted jointly by the Unesco International Geological Correlation Programme and the International Union of Geological Sciences has resulted in a preliminary global tentative list of geological sites of outstanding universal value. This list was to be revised early in 1991 by a team of experts meeting at Unesco headquarters. The results of the study would then be finalized and made available for the next session of the World Heritage Committee.

58. The Committee considered the document on Equitable Representation (CC-90/CONF.004/INF.4). The Secretariat noted that it had followed this question closely over years and that it was difficult to make any more suggestions since ultimately this was a decision for the Committee. 

59. In respect of paragraph 5(iii), the Secretariat emphasized that it could be difficult for States to indicate at the time of their candidature the names of experts who would represent them for the duration of their term of office. Recognizing this problem and the need for the system to remain flexible, the Committee decided to submit to the General Assembly the proposals contained in paragraph 5 with the exception of that relating to the names of experts.

Information on Berinq Region

60. The representative of the United States of America called the attention of the Committee to the establishment by the Governments of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of a Working Group on Heritage Conservation and Management. The Working Group had completed a joint report on the significant shared natural and cultural heritage of the Bering Region, copies of which were provided to the Committee.

61. The Report was endorsed by the Presidents of the USA and the USSR in June 1990 with a statement calling for continued co-operation towards a US-Soviet International Park.

62. Recalling the IUCN General Assembly Resolutions of 1988 and 1990, encouraging both governments to also consider a joint World Heritage nomination of the area, the representative of the USA and the observer from the USSR confirmed their governments continued interest in a possible joint nomination.

63. The Committee commended both governments for this initiative.

Other matters

64. The Committee instructed the Secretariat to prepare its report to the General Conference. This report will be submitted to the Bureau, which is authorized to approve it, at its fifteenth session.

65. The Bureau held a special session during the Committee meeting and met four times to examine nominations which had been referred back to the nominating State for additional information, to examine requests for technical assistance and the budget for 1991.

66. The Secretariat drew the Committee's attention to a decision made

at the Committee's thirteenth session, to the effect that "States Parties that are behind in their payments for the biennium considered would not be able to obtain international assistance financed by the Fund, except in unusual circumstances or emergencies." The Committee had asked the Secretariat to amend the Operational Guidelines accordingly. The Secretariat explained to the Committee that it had intentionally not done so, since experience during 1990 had shown that the Committee's decision as it had been worded was too ambiguous to allow clear interpretation and implementation. The Committee admitted that this problem must be resolved as soon as possible, with the understanding that consistent measures must be implemented without penalizing sites endangered by emergencies. The Committee therefore asked the Secretariat to prepare a proposal in this regard, which the Bureau will use as a basis for discussion at its next session.

67. The Committee wished to confirm its 1989 decision to finance attendance at sessions of the Committee and the Bureau by experts from least developed countries (LDCs) who are members of the Committee. The Committee wished to specify that this decision should be very strictly applied and that assuming the costs could be justified only for attendance at sessions of natural and cultural conservation experts.

68. The representative of Canada informed the Committee of the problems that could be posed by the inclusion of an already listed site within a larger site. For instance, such was the case in Canada, with regard to the Burgess Shale site, whose scientific importance was universally recognized. Now part of the Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks World Heritage site, it is no longer identified as the Burgess Shale site on the List. The Committee recalled that this has also arisen with respect to other properties, the value of which had nonetheless been enhanced by the change.

5. Welcomes the adoption by the 26th session of the World Heritage Committee of new Strategic Objectives that include the strengthening of the Credibility of the World Heritage List and the development of effective Capacity-building measures;
6. Notes the progress report on the implementation of the Global Strategy for a credible, representative and balanced World Heritage List presented in documents WHC-03/14.GA/8 and WHC-03/27.COM/13;
7. Also notes that the 28th session of the World Heritage Committee (Suzhou, China, June-July 2004) will evaluate the 1994 Global Strategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List;
8. Recommends that additional financial resources be allocated to the World Heritage Centre for programmes to strengthen capacity in the States Parties and regions under-represented on the World Heritage List. In addition, an allocation of part of the carry-over of unobligated funds of the regular budget for 2002-2003 could be considered for this purpose by the Executive Board during one of its forthcoming sessions;
9. Requests that the World Heritage Centre include in its evaluation of the Global Strategy to be submitted to the 28th session of the World Heritage Committee, draft proposals so as to enable the Committee to develop appropriate action plans.

9. Having examined Document WHC-07/16.GA/9,
10. Takes note of the progress report on the implementation of the Global Strategy for a credible, representative and balanced World Heritage List from 2003 to 2007 presented in this document, and expresses its deep concern for the limited results achieved so far;
11. Calls upon the World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies and other partners to significantly increase their support to States Parties, particularly in less developed countries, in the identification of cultural, natural and mixed properties as well as the harmonization of their Tentative List taking into account the existing studies;
12. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation with the Advisory Bodies, to prepare an in-depth analysis of the representation of the regions in order to identify the obstacles and challenges for achieving the objectives of the Global Strategy for a credible, representative and balanced World Heritage List;
13. Encourages having a special focus on the need for action in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and also exploring the possibilities of strengthened development cooperation;
14. Urges the World Heritage Committee, at its 33rd session in 2009, based on the analysis described in paragraph 4 and taking into account the spirit of the Convention, to recommend concrete actions that might be taken to redress the present imbalance to be examined by the General Assembly at its 17th session in 2009;
15. Requests the World Heritage Centre to compile all reports from sub-regional meetings and thematic studies and to make them available on a specific web page of the World Heritage Centre’s website;
16. Invites the States Parties to share their national experiences concerning the preparation of Tentative Lists with other countries, in particular in the harmonization of Tentative Lists;
17. Calls upon States Parties to cooperate with other States Parties which so request on the preparation of nominations for the World Heritage List, and especially encourages South-South and North-South-South cooperation initiatives;
18. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation with the Advisory Bodies to provide to the next session of the General Assembly in 2009 a report on the implementation of this Resolution.
19. Requests the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre to develop additional technical and policy guidance for Serial and Transboundary nominations and in particular for their identification and management;

XVI.2 The Committee recalled that a specific recommendation by the experts concerning Paragraph 14 of the Operational Guidelines regarding the involvement of people in the nomination procedure was taken into account during the discussion on the revision of the operational Guidelines (see Chapter XIV of this Report).

XVI.3 Several delegates stressed the necessity of an increased involvement of regional experts. The Secretariat confirmed that the publication of the report of the expert meeting will also include contributions from regions that were not represented at the meeting, and that in the implementation of the Action Plan for the Future a regional approach will be applied. The Delegate of the Philippines announced that preparations are underway for a regional meeting on cultural landscapes to be held in the Philippines in autumn 1994. The Australian Observer underlined the importance of values of indigenous peoples to be recognized both under natural and cultural criteria.

XVI.4 Several delegates complemented the Centre and ICOMOS for the work carried out. The Committee adopted the "Action Plan for the Future", including an amendment proposed by the Delegate of Italy stressing the importance of management experiences on the local and community level (the amended Action Plan is attached as an Annex).

XVI.5 The Committee invited the Centre to undertake the following actions in 1994 and report back to the eighteenth session of the Committee:

• initiate comparative regional thematic studies;
• in line with the decisions taken by the Committee regarding tentative lists (see para XI.6), give priority to the revision of these lists to include cultural landscapes;
• initiate the development of specific guidelines for the management of cultural landscapes along the lines of the already existing guidelines for cultural World Heritage.

XVI.6 The Committee commended the regional approach for future evaluations as outlined by the expert meeting, and requested that the World Heritage Centre implements the suggestions and recommendations made.

X.2 Consequently, the Centre and ICOMOS organized jointly at UNESCO, from 20 to 22 June 1994, a first meeting of experts representing different regions of the world and different disciplines concerned (specialists in cultural heritage, anthropologists, art and architecture historians, archaeologists, etc.) with the objective of reviewing the issues and considering all the different approaches, and especially all the work and contributions made to date, in an attempt to define a conceptual framework, a methodology and common goals.

X.3 The Vice-President of ICOMOS, Ms Joan Domicelj, presented to the Bureau at its eighteenth session the report of this meeting of experts, as well as a major outline of its recommendations to the Committee, in order to implement a Global strategy to ameliorate the representativity of the List. These recommendations have been included "in extenso" in document WHC-94/CONF.003/INF.6.

X.4 Having taken note of the Secretariat's report concerning the proposals made by the experts, and its presentation of different thematic meetings which took place in 1994 on Heritage Canals (Canada), Routes as a Part of our Cultural Heritage (Spain) and Authenticity (Japan), the Committee adopted the following three proposals concerning work to be undertaken in 1995:

1) the revision of certain criteria for the inscription of cultural properties on the World Heritage List, based on Recommendation 7 proposed by the experts (see section XIV of the Report).

2) the participation of one member of the World Heritage Centre or of ICOMOS at future regional or thematic meetings, in order to present to them the substance of the Global Strategy, place the discussions in the wider framework of current scientific thought concerning the concept of cultural heritage, and to identify potential partners for future regional meetings of a specific nature;

3) the allocation of an amount of US $ 40.000 for the organization, in cooperation with ICOMOS, and on a regional basis, of a first scientific meeting in Africa with States Parties and those that are not yet party to the Convention, which would deal with African cultural heritage and the Convention. The Committee agreed to allocate also US $ 5.000 for the preparation of this meeting. This meeting will deal with various types of cultural properties which presently are not represented on the List or inadequately so. The Committee also allocated an amount of US $ 30.000 for the organization, in collaboration with the National Commission of Philippines, ICOMOS, IUCN/ENPPA and UNESCO Regional Offices, a regional meeting on cultural landscapes of rice terraces of Asia and the Pacific.

X.5 The representative of ICOMOS stated that its cooperation with the Centre was excellent, particularly as regards the meeting of experts held in June 1994. He expressed his wish that the implementation of the Global strategy would be done jointly in 1995 by the two institutions, as this action is for ICOMOS a part of a global scientific programme which includes other themes for reflection.

X.6 At the suggestion of the German Delegation, the Committee adopted the following text as the basis for future deliberations by the Committee on the Global strategy:

"As . a follow-up of the decisions of the Committee during the previous years, several initiatives were launched to improve the implementation of the convention with regard to cul tural properties. One of these initiatives was a working group on the Global strategy, taking place in Paris in July 1994 (see working document CONF.003.INF.6.) For the cultural sites this document stresses imbalances on the List between regions of the world, types of monuments and period but this is not reflected for the natural sites in this working document. To reduce these imbalances for natural properties as well, the following measures would seem to be adequate:

1) expansion of Documents CONF.003/INF.6 and CONF. 003/6 to include an equal emphasis on natural properties;

2) adjustment of the formal and scientific criteria for the evaluation of nominated cultural and natural sites respectively, taking into consideration also the cultural landscape approach;

3) giving priority to thematic studies on the main types of ecosystems and developing strategies to implement the results without delay;

4) reconsideration of the procedure for the assessment of nominated natural' sites with special respect to the term "integrity."

To facilitate this, a specialists' meeting should be organized in the first half of 1995."

X.7 The Chair asked the opinion of the Director of the Centre if it would be possible to organize such a expert meeting. The Director responded by warmly welcoming this suggestion and noted that if the Centre had a budget of USD 20,000 put at its disposal, it could organize such a meeting. The Director also called to the Committee's attention the relevance of such a study to Mixed sites.

X.8 The Delegate of France, explained that in order to understand the concern expressed in the document prepared by the German Delegation and which met with the approval of the French Delegation, it must be recalled that the imbalance noted is partly due to the decisions taken during the sixteenth session of the Committee at Santa Fe:

• deletion of criterion (ii) for cultural properties (interaction between man and nature);
• modification of cultural criteria to allow the inscription of cultural landscapes, the recognition of which had been strongly endorsed by France.

He indicated that the "natural" part of cultural landscapes was not sufficiently taken into account and that it would be appropriate to place more emphasis on paragraph 38 of the Guidelines. He suggested that in the future ICOMOS and IUCN proceed with a joint evaluation of properties proposed for inscription as cultural landscapes.

X.9 Several other delegates, including those from the United States of America, Japan, 'Italy and Niger expressed their support for the German proposal for a expert working group on natural and mixed sites. The United States Delegate remarked on the importance of establishing computerized data bases for sites. The Delegate from Niger expressed his hope that, eventually, separate criteria for Natural and Cultural sites could be eliminated in favour of an unified set of criteria applicable for all types of World Heritage sites.

X.10 Because of time constraints items D, E and F of this agenda item could not be considered by the eighteenth session of the Committee and were postponed for consideration by the nineteenths session of the Bureau.

- the concept of universal value and standards to be applied;
- the interpretation of universal value by the advisory bodies;
- the number of natural and cultural specialists present at sessions of the Committee and its Bureau;
- priorities for granting international assistance.

X.2 The Committee furthermore recalled that the question of balance relates also to the "Strategic Goals for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention" adopted by the sixteenth session of the Committee. It also recalled that at the same session the categories for cultural landscapes were adopted which are considered under the cultural criteria only.

The Committee, in the light of earlier discussions:

- invites states Parties to nominate types of sites presently under-represented on the World Heritage List;

- invites states Parties attending the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau to be represented by both cultural and natural heritage specialists;

- requests states Parties to communicate regularly to the Centre updated addresses of the national institutions primarily responsible for cultural and natural heritage;

- asks the World Heritage Centre to undertake efforts to strengthen the links to natural heritage institutions in states Parties to the Convention;

- requests the Centre to work on an overall global strategy for natural heritage in close cooperation with IUCN and ICOMOS;

- prior to the establishment of a post, by UNESCO, of at least one specialist for natural heritage in the World Heritage Centre and considering the importance of this field, the Committee requested the Chairperson to emphasize to the Director-General of UNESCO the need to strengthen cooperation between the Centre and the Division of Ecological Sciences;

- requests both advisory bodies to adhere to strict and harmonized evaluation procedures in order to ensure representivity of the World Heritage List for the diversity of the world's heritage;

- commends the French authorities for their efforts to host a small natural heritage specialists meeting on the "notion of integrity", and requested that this meeting reviews the Global Strategy for Natural Heritage and the question of a global indicative inventory.

A.2 Second Global Strategy Meeting (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 29 July-1 August 1996)
IX.2 This meeting, decided by the World Heritage Committee during its nineteenth session, was prepared by the Centre and ICOMOS. Its goal was to improve the representativity of the World Heritage List. It was preceded by a meeting, on 6 May 1996, of an international Scientific Committee.

IX.3 The Addis Ababa meeting was attended by representatives from seven countries (Chad, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Niger and Uganda). It was organized around four themes:

• The Convention, the notion of cultural heritage today and African heritage
• Archaeological heritage
• Historical heritage, human settlements and living cultures
• Religious places, places of technical production, cultural itineraries and trade routes.

IX.4 The African experts presented a report on major cultural heritage in their countries, emphasizing important sites. They confirmed and illustrated the extraordinary wealth and diversity of cultural heritage of this regional of Africa. Through the examples presented significant groupings became evident. Three of these types of cultural sites requiring specific approaches were identified during discussions:

• archaeological and historical heritage
• traditional architecture and material traces of living non-monumental cultures, including technical heritage and unbuilt sacred places
• routes, itineraries, vast natural zones where traditional populations live.

IX.5 At the end of this meeting, the participants concluded that it was unnecessary presently to modify the cultural criteria in their actual form, but that in the application of the Convention account should be taken of: i) the total interaction of the nature-culture continuum in African societies; ii) the spiritual and sacred heritage and its physical supports; iii) the specificities of cultural landscapes and exchange routes in Africa. They thanked the Committee for their assistance in the organization of the meeting which allowed them to become more familiar with the Convention and provide a basis for reflection concerning the specificities of African cultural heritage.

IX.6 Publication of the proceedings of the meeting in the form of a bilingual scientific publication, in collaboration with the African Research Centre of the University of Paris I is under preparation. The synthetic report of the Addis Abeba meeting was distributed as Information Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.7.

IX.8 The Committee commended the French authorities for hosting the expert meeting on "Evaluation of general principles and criteria for nominations of natural World Heritage sites" from 22 to 24 March 1996 at the Parc National de la Vanoise (France) and took note of the full report of the meeting presented in Information Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.8 in English and French.

IX.9 The Australian Delegation endorsed the results of the La Vanoise meeting and indicated Australia's support for the proposed Global Strategy for Natural Heritage. Australia offered to contribute US$ 20,000 towards the undertaking of such a Strategy.

IX.10 The expert group reviewed the natural heritage concepts, the coverage of natural sites on the World Heritage List as well as its balance, manageability and credibility.

IX.11 The expert group emphasized the unifying concept of World Heritage embracing both cultural and natural heritage as outlined in the text of the Convention and the need for an overarching Global Strategy for both natural and cultural heritage. As a result of the discussions, the experts recommended changes to the Operational Guidelines, which were presented in Working Document WHC-96/CONF.201/18.

IX.12 The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its twentieth session did not discuss the recommendations of the experts in detail and that a Circular Letter No. 5/96 was sent to all States Parties of the World Heritage Convention together with the report of the expert meeting. The Secretariat informed the Committee that replies to this Circular Letter were received from the following States Parties: Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Ireland, Lebanon, Morocco, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Spain and Switzerland, as well as by ICOMOS Poland.

IX.13 The Committee took note that the replies were of quite substantive nature and that general agreement and support for the recommendations were expressed by Colombia, Croatia, Ireland, Lebanon, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Spain and Switzerland. Several States Parties underlined however, the complexity of the issue, in particular the problem of the application of "outstanding universal value", the usefulness of one set of criteria, the definition of universal beauty and the application of the conditions of integrity to all sites.

IX.14 Several delegates commented on the report of La Vanoise and indicated that the interaction between culture and nature is in the spirit of the Convention and that the report of the experts is extremely interesting. There is however a more in-depth discussion needed on (a) the application of the "conditions of integrity" versus the "test of authenticity", (b) the question of a unified or a harmonized set of criteria, and (c) the notion of outstanding universal value and its application in different regional and cultural contexts. The Delegate of Italy proposed to involve other experts and offered to select experts from his country.

IX.15 The Delegate of Canada proposed a truly joint meeting of cultural and natural heritage experts to consider these questions and to ensure that all advisory bodies be involved. This proposal was adopted.

IX.16 The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its eighteenth session in July 1994, had asked for an expert meeting on geological and fossil sites. This expert meeting was held at the 30th International Geological Congress (Beijing, China, 8 to 10 August 1996) in order to enhance the preparation of a comparative global study of Earth's evolutionary history. The meeting was organized by the UNESCO Division of Earth Sciences, the World Heritage Centre in cooperation with IUCN and IUGS (International Union of Geological Sciences). The Canadian authorities provided financial support for participants' travel to the expert meeting.

IX.17 The Committee took note of the full report of this expert group which is contained in Information Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.10 and the annexed report "Earth's Geological History. A conceptual framework for assessment of World Heritage fossil site nominations". The Delegate of Italy noted that the list of sites proposed in this study is not exhaustive. Following the experts' recommendations, the Committee (a) encouraged States Parties to the Convention to prepare inventories of their national geological heritage, and further to consider identifying from these inventories sites for national tentative lists for World Heritage, (b) that IUGS, through the Global Geosite Working Group, make a first assessment of the values of these sites and compile a global comparative inventory and database, (c) invited IUCN to cooperate closely with IUGS and other NGOs as appropriate for further evaluation of sites proposed for World Heritage listing and (d) encouraged in-depth thematic studies, taking into account the important study prepared by Mr Wells on fossil sites.

IX.18 The Committee approved a Global Strategy meeting for the Pacific Region in 1997, and the principle of a meeting for the Caribbean region with the French Ministry of Education nationale et d'Enseignement Superieur et de la Recherche in 1998. The Committee allocated an amount of US$ 40,000 under Chapter 11 of the budget for the Pacific region.  

D.2 Global Strategy for Natural Heritage

IX.19 The Committee decided that, in view of the Vanoise conclusions on strengthening the links between cultural and natural values, and in the spirit of the Global strategy adopted at the eighteenth session of the Committee in Phuket, a regionally balanced workshop of experts from both cultural and natural fields be organized in 1997. The Committee allocated an amount of US$ 30,000 under Chapter II of the budget for this Workshop.

D.3 Thematic Studies

i) Expert Meeting on Cultural Landscapes of the Andes
IX.20 Following regional thematic study meetings on specific aspects of cultural landscapes in the Asia Pacific Region and Europe, the Committee approved holding an expert meeting on the cultural landscapes of the Andes in 1997 to guide States Parties in the region in the identification, selection and presentation of cultural landscapes in the Andean Region. The Committee allocated an amount of US$ 30,000 under Chapter II of the budget for this meeting.

ii) Expert Meeting on Cultural Landscapes in Africa
IX.21 Following recommendations by the sub-regional training seminar held at La Tapoa, Niger, in September-October 1996, the Committee approved holding an expert meeting on cultural landscapes in Africa in 1998.

1. Having examined document WHC-15/20.GA/9,
2. Recalling Resolution 19 GA 9 adopted at its 19th session (UNESCO, 2013),
3. Takes note of the good follow-up of most of the recommendations of the implementation as detailed in the implementation plan updated for 2014-2015 and document 196 EX/23.INF.4;
4. Also takes note of the amendments made by the World Heritage Committee to its Rules of Procedure in order to implement recommendations 12 and 20 of the independent evaluation;
5. Strongly urges the World Heritage Committee to continue implementing any pending requests in relation to its mandate;
6. Also urges the World Heritage Committee to pursue the efforts undertaken to link the follow-up of the Implementation Plan for the recommendations of the independent evaluation on the Global Strategy and the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan drawn up as part of the reflections on the Future of the World Heritage Convention;
7. Requests the World Heritage Centre to include any further follow-up in the Report of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage on its activities (2016-2017) to be presented to the General Assembly at its 21st session in 2017.

Emphasizing that the Constitutional Act of UNESCO which foresees that it will assist in maintaining, advancing and diffusing knowledge whilst protecting the conservation and safeguarding of universal heritage and in recommending to concerned peoples of international conventions to this effect,

Recalling that Article 1 of the Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage considers as "cultural heritage" the monuments, groups of buildings and sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic or scientific points of view,

Taking into account the fact that the intergovernmental Committee for the protection of world cultural and natural heritage establishes a list of cultural and natural properties of outstanding universal value,

Considering the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention and notably the relative criteria concerning the inscription of cultural heritage on the World Heritage List,

Invites the Consultative Body of the Committee to re-examine the criteria concerning the inscription of cultural heritage and notably criterion (i) as well as that of authenticity."

The World Heritage Committee,

Emphasizing that the Constitutional Act of UNESCO which foresees that it will assist in maintaining, advancing and diffusing knowledge whilst protecting the conservation and safeguarding of universal heritage and in recommending to concerned peoples of international conventions to this effect,

Recalling that Article 1 of the Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage considers as "cultural heritage" the monuments, groups of buildings and sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic or scientific points of view,

Taking into account the fact that the intergovernmental Committee for the protection of world cultural and natural heritage establishes a list of cultural and natural properties of outstanding universal value,

Considering the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention and notably the relative criteria concerning the inscription of cultural heritage on the World Heritage List,

Invites the Consultative Body of the Committee to re-examine the criteria concerning the inscription of cultural heritage and notably criterion (i) as well as that of authenticity.

IX.1 The Global Strategy approved by the Committee in 1994 aims at improving the representivity of cultural heritage on the World Heritage List and redressing the imbalance due to the pre-eminence of Europe, Christianity and monumental architecture, as well as to encourage the nomination of properties illustrating archaeological, industrial and technical heritage from non-European cultures and, in general, of all living cultures, particularly traditional societies and their many continuing interactions with their natural environment.

IX.2 In its presentation, the Secretariat did not repeat the information contained in Document WHC-97/CONF.208/11 relating to progress on the Global Strategy for cultural heritage, but took this opportunity to evaluate the activities undertaken in Africa since the adoption in 1994 of the Global Strategy. From 1995 to 1997, the World Heritage Centre, in close co-operation with ICOMOS, organized two expert meetings to which representatives of States Parties and non-States Parties to the Convention were invited, as well as two workshops during which the participants were able to practise the preparation of tentative lists and proposals for the inscription of properties. Although the methodology adopted had enhanced the knowledge of the procedures in force, and fifteen of the thirty States Parties had already prepared tentative lists and a calendar of proposals for inscription on the World Heritage List up until the year 2001 had been prepared, the Secretariat underlined the specificity of the situation and drew attention to the conditions for "preparatory assistance", for which many countries from the region could not apply until they have paid their outstanding dues to the World Heritage Fund. Furthermore, during meetings and workshops, African experts emphasized that the ceiling of "preparatory assistance" (US$ 15,000) was insufficient to prepare nomination dossiers, because at many African sites, listed on the tentative lists, the costs for the gathering of documentation, preparation of conservation and management plans, was far superior to US$ 15,000. Therefore, complementary measures appear indispensable to assist these countries in the efficient implementation of the Global Strategy. This situation implies a proposal for a coherent training policy in co-operation with ICCROM. To achieve this, the Secretariat also proposes to use UNESCO offices.

IX.3 During the debate, the African delegates recognized the pertinence of the methodology proposed and suggested associating their efforts with those undertaken by the World Heritage Centre to encourage countries south of the Sahara to ratify the 1972 Convention. The Delegate of Benin suggested that the Director of the Centre be a member of the UNESCO Delegation participating at the Organization for African Unity (OAU) to inform as many States as possible about World Heritage. The Observer of South Africa proposed that the African States Parties should, in the same way, create national committees for the implementation of the 1972 Convention, so as to activate the process from the establishment of tentative lists through to the preparation of the nomination dossier. The delegates reiterated their support for the training strategy adopted at the twentieth session of the Committee (Merida, 1996). It was also recommended to invite experts from all Sub-saharan African regions to the expert meeting on African Cultural Landscape, scheduled in 1998, in Kenya. Finally, the suggestion to organize a meeting on Global Strategy in Western Africa was welcome and the Republic of Benin offered to host it in autumn 1998, instead of 1999, as it was originally foreseen.

IX.4 Concerning the implementation of the Global Strategy in the Pacific, it was noted that there are still very few States Parties to the Convention in the Pacific. The Director of the Centre informed the Committee that the need to encourage greater adherence to, and implementation of the Convention in the Pacific has been included as part of UNESCO's new strategic approach called "Focus on the Pacific". The Delegate of Australia gave her encouragement and support for Global Strategy work in the Pacific stressing that the region's cultural and natural heritage is currently under-represented on the List. She made reference to the Global Strategy work already performed in the Pacific, most notably the meeting held in Suva, Fiji, in association with the Fiji Museum, which was already leading to tangible results (WHC-97/CONF.208/INF.8). She supported the proposal to hold a follow-up meeting for the Pacific in 1998, indicating that Australia would be active in assisting in the meeting and asked that a progress report on Global Strategy work in the Pacific be presented to the next session of the Committee. The Delegate of the Republic of Korea suggested that the Committee members of the region, Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea and Thailand, participate in the meeting together with experts, to undertake joint efforts regarding those small islands' Governments of the Pacific, especially noting that the main objective of the proposed Global Strategy meeting is to encourage those Pacific islands to accede to the Convention. IUCN asked that the meeting address both cultural and natural heritage as they are so intrinsically linked in the Pacific.

IX.5 The Committee took note of the comparative studies which were undertaken by ICOMOS in 1997 on Fossil Hominid sites, Iberian Colonial towns in Latin America, Islamic military sites in Central and South Asia, and Castles of the Teutonic Order in Central and Eastern Europe.

IX.6 The Committee recalled that the Global Strategy was originally devised with particular reference to cultural heritage and that in March 1996 an expert meeting in the Parc National de la Vanoise, France, affirmed the application of the Global Strategy for natural heritage.

The Committee noted that thematic studies (e.g. on tropical forests and wetlands, coastal and marine ecosystems) funded by an earmarked contribution from Australia, have commenced in co-operation with IUCN. The Committee was informed of a number of actions concerning geological heritage, including a thematic brochure on World Heritage sites of geological value and co-ordination meetings with the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), the International Geological Correlation Programme (IGCP) and the UNESCO Division of Earth Sciences. The Committee noted that within the framework of the Global Strategy a study was carried out in 1997 on the "Identification of potential natural heritage sites in the Arab Countries" and was provided to States Parties in the Arab Region.

IX.7 The Committee took note of the preliminary Draft European Landscape Convention (Resolution 53/97 of the Council of Europe) and Recommendation 31 of the Council of Europe's "Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe" (CLRAE) presented in Information Document WHC-97/CONF.208/INF.12. The Committee welcomed the complementarity of the World Heritage Convention and the proposed Preliminary Draft of the European Landscape Convention and the synergy of efforts. The Committee was informed of the "Intergovernmental Consultation Conference on the Preliminary Draft European Landscape Convention" organized by CLRAE and to be held from 2 to 4 April 1998 in Florence (Italy) and welcomed the initiative by CLRAE to enhance the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of European landscapes. The Delegate of France underlined that new instruments should find their place among existing legal instruments, on the national, regional and international level and that a collaboration between the World Heritage Committee, the Centre and the new European instrument should be organized. The Committee recalled that at its twentieth session in December 1996, it approved US $30,000 for an Expert Meeting on cultural landscapes of the Andean Region to guide States Parties in the identification, selection and presentation of cultural landscapes in the Andes. The meeting will be held in Peru in May 1998.

IX.8 The Committee recalled that a preliminary consultation meeting took place in conjunction with the World Heritage Bureau session, on 28 June 1997, to further define the objectives and agenda for the Global Strategy Expert Meeting on Natural and Cultural Heritage to be held in 1998. The report of the consultation meeting was included as ANNEX XI of the report of the twenty-first session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (WHC-97/CONF.208/4A). The Secretariat informed the Committee that co-ordination meetings were held with the advisory bodies and with colleagues from the Culture and Science Sectors of UNESCO. These meetings reviewed replies to the circular letter on the Selection of National Experts, and refined the agenda items into more detailed terms of reference, noting in particular that the meeting should focus on an analysis of issues through case studies. The Committee also recalled that it approved US $30,000 for this activity at its twentieth session in December 1996 and welcomed the offer by the Government of the Netherlands to host the Expert Meeting.

IX.9 While referring to the Global Strategy meeting scheduled in South East Asia in 1999, the Committee stressed the importance of wood architectural heritage and its conservation. In addition, it emphasized the relation of this heritage to ritual ceremonies and therefore its link to intangible heritage. The Observer of India underlined the importance of living cultures and the suggested meeting in Central Asia and offered to host a Global Strategy meeting for South Asia in India in 1999.

 Summary Budget for the Global Strategy, 1998 to 1999

1) The Committee thanked the Delegate of Italy (who had chaired the Consultative Body in 1998) and all the members of the Consultative Body for their productive work on the technical issues and paid tribute to the work of the Global Strategy Expert Meeting held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in March 1998.

2) The Committee stressed the urgent need to establish a representative World Heritage List and considered it imperative to ensure more participation of those States Parties whose heritage is currently underrepresented on the World Heritage List. The Committee requested the Centre and the advisory bodies to actively consult with these States Parties to encourage and support their active participation in the implementation of the Global Strategy for a credible and representative World Heritage List through the concrete regional actions described in the Global Strategy Action Plan adopted by the Committee at its twenty-second session.

3) Given the purposes of the World Heritage Convention, the policy of the Committee regarding nominations should have two parts: (i) the Committee should value all nominations from all States Parties and (ii) the Committee should strategically expend its resources to increase nomination of sites from parts of the world which are presently not represented or underrepresented.

4) The Committee asked that when the Bureau examines new nominations at its future sessions, it take into account the debate of the twenty-second session of the Committee on the establishment of a representative World Heritage List.

5) The Committee requested the Centre to work with the advisory bodies, to further develop the revision of Section I of the Operational Guidelines and submit them to the twenty-third session of the Bureau. The Bureau should submit for adoption its recommendations to the twenty-third session of the World Heritage Committee.

6) The Committee urged the advisory bodies to pursue further work on breaking down the themes into sub-themes, taking into consideration the recommendations of relevant expert meetings. Particular attention should be given to secure the highest level of scientific and technical consensus. The advisory bodies are asked to report on progress made and suggest any concrete decisions to be taken by future sessions of the Committee.

7) The Committee requested that the Centre, in collaboration with the advisory bodies present a progress report on the implementation of the regional actions described in the Global Strategy Action Plan adopted by the Committee at its twenty-second session to the twenty-third session of the Committee.

8) The Committee requested that an agenda item on "Ways and means to ensure a representative World Heritage List" be presented to the twelfth General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention in 1999. The twentythird session of the Bureau is asked to prepare the agenda item for the General Assembly.

Summary Workplan of regional activities approved in 1999 under Chapter II: Global Strategy

1. AFRICA

Publication of report and follow-up of the 4th Global Strategy Meeting	3,000
Regional Thematic Global Strategy Meeting on Cultural Landscapes(40,000 approved in 1997)	8,000
	11,000

2. ARAB STATES                                                                                                                        

Second Regional Study on the identification of potential natural sites (Publication and translation of the report in Arabic)	8,000
Seminar on Monuments (Publication and distribution of the report in Arabic)	30,000
	38,000

3. ASIA

Publication and distribution of the report of the Central Asian Archaeological Heritage meeting	5,000
Completion of ongoing analysis on representativity of World Heritage Cultural sites in Asia in cooperation with ICOMOS and ICCROM	6,000
Mission and case study on Afghanistan to address issue of cultural properties in situation of armed conflicts	10,000
	21,000

4. PACIFIC

Regional review of all protected areas including South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) initiated Community Based Conservation Area (CBCAs)	15,000
Support to Pacific participants to attend regional workshops and meetings	15,000
	30,000

5. EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA

Expert meeting on Cultural Landscapes for Eastern and Central Europe and Baltic States	30,000
	30,000

6. LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

Latin America
Expert meeting on Cultural Landscapes in the Andean region (Publication of report in Spanish)	5,000
Expert meeting on Cultural Landscapes in Central America	25,000
The Caribbean
The Cultural Heritage of the Caribbean and the World Heritage Convention(Publication and distribution of the report)	5,000
Compilation of existing studies of Caribbean natural and cultural heritage	10,000
Grand Total	45,000

TOTAL BY REGION

- Africa - Arab States - Asia - Pacific - Europe and North America - Latin America and the  Caribbean

1999  11,000  38,000  21,000  30,000  30,000  45,000  ______  175,000

having recognized that regional action plans had already contributed in a tangible manner towards the implementation of the Global Strategy,

adopted under Chapter II for the Budget for 2000 an amount of US$ 278,000, of which US$ 20,000 for Central and Eastern Europe, and under Thematic Studies US$ 40,000 for ICOMOS and US$ 15,000 for IUCN.

It also took note of Information Documents WHC-99/CONF.209/INF.8, WHC-99/CONF.209/INF.11, WHC-99/CONF.209/INF.14 and WHC-99/CONF.209/INF.16.

VII.2 The Director of the Centre took the floor and described the content of the Working Document and summarized the decisions to be taken that he proposed for submission to the Committee. The decision concerning the technical questions, amended by Benin, were adopted as follows:

The Committee requested that the World Heritage Centre and the advisory bodies continue to take into consideration the work of the Consultative Body on technical questions (application of cultural criteria (i) and (vi), examination of authenticity, imbalance of the World Heritage List and the implementation of the Global Strategy) in particular with regard to the implementation of the Global Strategy, the resolution of the General Assembly concerning the ways and means to ensure a representative World Heritage List, and the meetings on the Rationalisation of Operational Guidelines which should be held in the United Kingdom in April 2000 and the meeting on Integrity/Authenticity in the African context which should be held in Africa in May 2000.

VII.3 Following the adoption of the above, several members of the Committee intervened to request that discussion on this item of the agenda be conducted in a global manner as the different elements submitted for discussion are closely linked. Some delegates requested that a special working group be rapidly formed so that it may submit concrete proposals to this Committee session.

VII.4 Canada, supported by several delegations, of which Belgium - who proposed themes to be studied by this special working group - Australia, France and the United Kingdom suggested that the working group concentrate first of all on the finalisation of the work of the Consultative Body, created in 1996 by the Committee. The Delegate of Canada also proposed that the special working group should not discuss the subject of representativity of the List, which should be studied within the context of the Global Strategy. This proposal was endorsed by the delegates.

VII.5 With regard to the composition of the small working group, delegates indicated that it should be geographically representative of States Parties to the Convention whilst being limited in number. It was also suggested that the advisory bodies to the Convention be represented.

VII.6 At the end of the debate that discussed many aspects of the terms of reference of the working group, the Chairperson of the Committee suggested the following composition of the group that would meet at the end of the plenary session and would submit a draft decision on detailed terms of reference of the future task force to the Committee: Canada (Chairperson), Australia, Belgium, Hungary, Mexico, Morocco, South Africa and Thailand, and the advisory bodies (ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM). The Secretariat was provided by the World Heritage Centre. The Committee suggested that the working group should discuss the following items, among others: the working methods of the Committee and its Bureau; proliferation of the statutory meetings; the role of the advisory bodies; the calendar of nominations; the human and financial resources of the World Heritage Centre.

VII.7 These proposals were approved by the Committee and the Chairperson requested that the working group submit its deliberations to the Committee on Thursday, 2 December during the afternoon session. The Chairperson proposed that delegations wishing to contribute to the working group provide their proposals to the Chairperson or their representatives in the Task Force.

VII.8 The working group met twice and formulated a proposal for the terms of reference of the task force. These were submitted to the Committee and, after discussions were amended and approved. During the debate, delegates pointed out the need to keep the composition of the task force open to States Parties wishing to contribute to its work. The approved terms of reference are the following:

TASK FORCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION

At the request of the World Heritage Committee, a working group chaired by Canada submits to the Committee proposals relating to the composition and terms of reference of a Task Force aimed at improving the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

Composition of the Task Force: The same as the working group established by the Committee in Marrakesh 1999, chaired by Canada and including Australia, Belgium, Hungary, Morocco, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, and the advisory bodies (ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN) and a representative of the World Heritage Centre. Australia agreed to act as rapporteur.

Terms of reference of the Task Force: To identify and propose for consideration of the Bureau in June 2000 priority practical measures for more effective operation of the Convention, taking account of pressures affecting the Convention over the coming years. Those measures, some of which should be applicable in preparation of and during the Committee meeting of December 2000, will focus on:

• The organization and running of the statutory meetings,
• The procedures for decision making,
• The information and documentation management,
• The Operational Guidelines.

The Task Force will take into account and further build upon all discussions in previous General Assembly, Committee and Bureau meetings (see WHC-99/CONF.209/9), the management review and financial audit, and proposals made by State Parties.

Working methods: The Task Force will operate in a way that maximizes the opportunity for State Party input. A concise draft paper will be circulated by March 2000 and comments will be sought by fax and email. The draft paper will be posted on the UNESCO homepage.

Possible further developments: After having considered the proposals of the Task Force, the Bureau, at its meeting of June 2000, will recommend for Committee consideration a possible new working group to reflect in depth on the objectives and fundamental priorities in implementing the Convention.

XIII.3 The Secretariat recalled that the Amsterdam meeting made several recommendations including a proposal to develop a unified set of criteria to bring together the existing six cultural and four natural heritage criteria currently presented in Paragraphs 24 and 44 in the first section of the Operational Guidelines. The expert meeting concluded that a unified set of criteria would improve the logic of the Guidelines and emphasize and more clearly express the underlying principles of the Convention in relation to both cultural and natural, and mixed heritage, and cultural landscapes demonstrating outstanding interactions between people and the environment. The Amsterdam meeting also recommended that conditions of integrity be prepared for all ten criteria. For cultural properties this would include a test of authenticity.

XIII.4 The Secretariat informed the Committee that the Working Document concerning revisions to Section I of the Operational Guidelines examined by the twenty-third session of the Bureau in July, had been made available to the Committee as WHC-99/CONF.209/INF.12. The Secretariat recalled that the draft revisions had been prepared in full consultation with all three advisory bodies. The draft revisions, included a draft unified set of criteria with minimal change to the actual text of the criteria as a way of improving the presentation and clarity of Section I of the Guidelines and to better reflect what has been described as the nature/culture continuum expressed at many World Heritage properties around the world.

XIII.5 The Secretariat recalled that at its twenty-third session, the Bureau welcomed the generous invitation by the Observer of the United Kingdom to host an international expert meeting on the Operational Guidelines. The meeting will take place in Canterbury in the United Kingdom from 10-14 April 2000.

XIII.6 The Representative of ICOMOS noted the considerable importance of the discussions on the proposed unified set of criteria and on interpretations of the "test of authenticity". He noted that the meeting to be held in Zimbabwe in May 2000 would examine the application of the "test of authenticity" and "conditions of integrity" for Africa. He informed the Committee that the ICOMOS General Assembly held in Mexico in October 1999 had approved the Nara Document on Authenticity and that it therefore became part of the corpus of reference texts of ICOMOS. He emphasized the importance of the Nara Document in recognising, in differing regional contexts, the diversity of cultural heritage and human development. He referred to the constructive discussions that are linking culture and nature, and that had recognised cultural landscapes. Finally, he highlighted the need to recognise authenticity in the context of heritage of spiritual value.

XIII.7 The Observer of the United Kingdom informed the Committee of the aims, objectives and expected outcomes of the Expert Meeting on the Operational Guidelines to be held in Canterbury in 2000. He noted that representatives, including States Parties and site managers, from all regions would be invited. He indicated that the meeting would not re-write the Operational Guidelines but instead work on proposals to reorganise them to ensure a more user-friendly version. He thanked the Committee for having provided funds, additional to those contributed by the United Kingdom, for the meeting.

XIII.8 The Representative of ICCROM provided complementary comments to those of ICOMOS. He informed the Committee that ICCROM and ICOMOS had prepared a joint paper on the subject that they would provide to the Secretariat. He commented that it was important that a unified set of criteria did not blur the distinction between integrity and authenticity.

XIII.9 In recalling the resolution of the twelfth General Assembly of States Parties, the Observer of France commented that a unified set of criteria could contribute to ensuring a more representative World Heritage List. He expressed his concern that the Committee continued to delay the unification of the criteria and called for immediate action in this respect.

XIII.10 IUCN expressed their strong agreement with the Delegate of France stating that it was time for action by bringing the natural and cultural criteria into a continuum of criteria for World Heritage. IUCN stated that they had consulted widely within its constituency and that there is consistent support for the change to the criteria and that a decision is keenly awaited. IUCN urged that the Canterbury meeting be encouraged to work towards a draft which accommodates the integration of the criteria and endeavour to include both the conditions of integrity and the test of authenticity. The Observer of France underlined the confusion that the draft decision II.3 might encourage. With such a procedure, the Committee would confer a 'decisional' character to the evaluations of the advisory bodies that only the Bureau session in June disposes. The Delegate of Morocco noted that the revision of the Operational Guidelines is not in itself negative. What is of concern is more the rhythm of the revisions. He added that it would be advantageous to have a revised text that could be valid for the next twenty years. The importance of a concertation between the different working groups created by the Committee was emphasized.

XIII.11 The Delegate of Zimbabwe referred to the Amsterdam meeting as a milestone and expressed his agreement with the statements made by France and IUCN saying that it was time to act on the proposal to unifiy the criteria.

XIII.12 The Committee decided to refer the subject of a unified set of criteria to the Expert Meeting to be held in Canterbury, United Kingdom for review.

IX.2 The Delegate of Benin noted the importance of implementing the Global Strategy and linking it to issues related to improving the representivity of the List. The Centre's efforts in Africa were commended. He informed the Committee that international co-operation activities offered by countries such as Norway and France have improved support to African States Parties and appealed for the expansion of such effective partnerships with other donor nations. He drew the attention of the Committee to the recommendations of the meeting held in Zimbabwe on authenticity within the African context (reference: WHC-2000/CONF.4/INF.11) and suggested that the list of recommendations of that meeting be widely circulated. He welcomed planned activities to improve awareness of the work of the Convention in States Parties and urged the Centre to aim for a balanced distribution of activities 2.2 - 2.8 of the Action Plan among the various sub-regions of Africa.

IX.3 The Delegate of South Africa acknowledged the usefulness of Global Strategy activities in Africa and called for special attention to raise awareness for the protection of World Heritage of States Parties such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) suffering from war and armed conflict. She expressed the hope that peace would return to DRC soon and in the meantime urged the Centre to make efforts to raise awareness among decisionmakers and the people as a whole so that they can understand the universal significance of these sites. She proposed that consideration be given to designating World Heritage sites in zones of conflict, such as those in the DRC, as 'peace parks' and efforts be made to link protection of these sites to peace-making efforts.

IX.4 The Observer of Japan made reference to the Workshop on "Nature and Biodiversity as World Heritage", (page 12 of working document CONF.204/11), and expressed Japan's satisfaction with the successful conduct of that Workshop which was held in close cooperation with the Centre, IUCN and East and Southeast Asian States Parties, as well as with the participation of New Zealand. The Workshop had resulted in a "Strategic Statement on Natural World Heritage in East and Southeast Asia" describing practical measures to enhance the implementation of the Global Strategy Action Plan and raising awareness of the role of the Convention in biodiversity conservation. He said that copies of the "Strategic Statement" and the proceedings of the Workshop could be made available to interested States Parties. He expressed Japan's continuing interest to collaborate with the Centre and IUCN to improve the implementation of the Convention and attain the objectives of the "Strategic Statement" in East and Southeast Asia.

IX.5 Japan intends to host a thematic expert meeting on Asian Sacred Mountains as Cultural Landscapes at the Wakayama Prefecture from 4 to 12 September 2001 and hoped that the participation of representatives of less developed countries at the Workshop could be supported through international assistance from the World Heritage Fund.

IX.6 The Delegate of Greece pointed out that the document needed to set out priorities as well as emphasizing a selection of themes for meetings and workshops. She called for a better illustration of the links between the activities implemented as part of the Global Strategy Action Plan and the preparation of indicative lists and training activities. She noted that several workshops and seminars had been held, but a critical analysis and evaluation of such activities was lacking.

IX.7 The Representative of IUCN highlighted the need to link the implementation of the Global Strategy Action Plan and improving the representivity of the World Heritage List. He noted the importance of identifying critical gaps in the List and in that regard highlighted the work of the Centre and IUCN to undertake a global review of the application of the Convention in coastal and marine ecosystems. Currently, World Heritage sites in coastal and marine ecosystems are under-represented. To address that, there would be a workshop on marine World Heritage in 2001. The IUCN Representative also drew the attention to the World Parks Congress to be held in 2003 in Durban, South Africa. Referring to the comments of the Delegate of South Africa, he emphasized the significance of the links between the Global Strategy and periodic and reactive monitoring activities.

IX.8 The Ambassador of France to UNESCO made a presentation of the France-UNESCO Co-operation Agreement for Protection of Monumental, Urban and Natural Heritage signed in 1997. This instrument of cooperation aims to support the implementation of the Convention, and in particular, includes provisions for preparatory assistance to assist under-represented States Parties to meet the conditions required for the nomination of sites. The co-operation therefore includes activities that strengthen legal protection, management and restoration of sites on the tentative lists as well as designated World Heritage sites, and support for improvement of documentation and training of personnel in less developed countries. A joint co-ordination and a technical committee facilitate the selection and implementation of activities and emphasis is on decentralised co-operation; i.e. cooperation between designated sites in less developed countries (e.g. Luang Prabang in Laos) and in France (e.g. Chinon), or co-operation between local authorities. Most projects are of a minimum 3-year duration and between 1997 and 1999, 17 projects have been launched in 26 countries including amongst others, Argentina, Brazil and Colombia in Latin America, Benin, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Nigeria and Senegal in Africa and China and Laos in Asia. He invited other countries interested in participating in the co-operative programme to contact the French Delegation at UNESCO, Paris.

IX.9 The Chairperson thanked the Ambassador of France for the information provided and noted that the French-UNESCO co-operative programme could serve as a model for similar efforts of other interested States Parties. He requested the Ambassador of France to transmit the Committee's thanks to the relevant French authorities.

IX.10 The Delegate of Italy informed the Committee that following the "Regional Thematic Expert Meeting on Potential Natural World Heritage Sites in the Alps" (Hallstatt, Austria, 18 to 22 June 2000) it wished to follow-up on the important issues related to the definition and protection of the Alpine Arc as a transborder territory with outstanding natural and cultural landscape values. To this end, a meeting is to be organized in spring 2001 in Turin, Italy. States Parties from the Alpine Arc, the Centre, the advisory bodies, local communities, NGOs, as well as other institutions and organizations involved were invited to attend.

IX.11 The Observer of Germany congratulated the Centre for the excellent and valuable work in the framework of the Global Strategy. Following the comments from Greece, he felt that the results are sometimes not well recognized by the national and local authorities and that a more comprehensive follow-up including publication and dissemination of results, would be needed. He requested that the Centre report back on this matter to the next Committee session.

1. Takes note of document WHC-02/CONF.202/7 to be amended as requested by the Committee before it is given public access;

2. Recalls the decision of the 164th session of the Executive Board on the establishment of a working group to explore and examine ways and means of creating necessary conditions for prevention of the intentional destruction of culturally important monuments and sites (164 EX/48 and 164 EX/51);

3. tes the Director-General to consider the role of the World Heritage Convention with regard to initiatives being developed to explore and examine ways and means of creating necessary conditions for the prevention of intentional destruction of culturally important monuments and sites;

4. Further invites the Director-General to inform the World Heritage Committee at its 27th session (June/July 2003) on the developments concerning these initiatives and to provide the Committee at each of its sessions with a comparative table of state of ratification to all UNESCO cultural heritage conventions.

1. Noting the Regional Progress Reports (2002-2003) and Action Plans 2004-2005 for  the Global Strategy presented in document WHC-03/27.COM/1,3;

2. Requests the World Heritage Centre, working in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies and States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to continue to implement the Global Strategy as a contribution to strengthening the credibility of the World Heritage List; (check French - from Belgium)

3. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to prepare summaries and assessments of the results of the Global Strategy meetings and the thematic studies.

1. Taking note of the information provided by the World Heritage Centre in WHC-03/27.COM/13 and WHC-03/27.COM/INF.13 on the initiative of five Andean States Parties to collaborate in the process of nominating the Qhapac Nan - Camino Inca road system for inscription on the World Heritage List,;

2. Considering the results of the consultation meeting with the Permanent Delegations to UNESCO (29th January 2003 at UNESCO Headquarters), and the documents adopted at the first sub-regional technical meeting held in Lima, Peru, on 1 and 2 April 2003, 

3. Welcoming the wishdesire of the States Parties to develop multi-national co-operation for a joint World Heritage nomination and to respond to priorities established by the World Heritage Committee in the context of the Global Strategy for a Representative World Heritage List and the Committee's Budapest Declaration,;

4. Encourages the States Parties concerned to include in their Tentative Lists properties related to Qhapac Nan - Camino Inca situated on their territories;

5. Requests the World Heritage Centre to establish a consultation mechanism with the Permanent Delegations of the States Parties concerned. This should ensure the proper coordination and follow-up of actions and international assistance on the sub-regional level, and national level as appropriate, that will be required to implement successfully the process of nomination of the Qhapac Nan - Camino Inca for inscription on the World Heritage List;

6. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in consultation and coordination with the Permanent Delegations of the States Parties concerned and in co-operation with the relevant UNESCO offices in the region, to ensure the proper coordination of the World Heritage inscription initiative with other relevant programmes, projects and activities, such as the Inter-Development Bank (IDB) Technical Co-operation project and the IUCN protected areas project;

7. Requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to collaborate with the States Parties concerned in the implementation of the recommendations of the first sub-regional technical meeting held in Lima, Peru, and in seeking extra-budgetary contributions from relevant donor and financing institutions;

8. Authorizes the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to organize a scientific meeting on the Qhapac Nan - Camino Inca as recommended by the delegates at the meeting in Lima in April 2003. This meeting should take place in Peru in the second half of 2003;

9. Requests that the World Heritage Centre inform the World Heritage Committee at its 28th session in 2004 on the progress made in the implementation of this initiative.

1. Noting with concern the continuing disparities between regions and States Parties in their capacity to prepare Tentative Lists and nominations of properties for inscription on the World Heritage List,;

2. Noting the progress made in the analyses of the World Heritage List being undertaken by ICOMOS and IUCN for submission to the 28th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2004,;

3. Recognizing the progress in the preparation of studies to promote the revision of national tentative lists through regional consultations and the periodic reporting exercise, 

4. Recommends that States Parties link the revision of their Tentative Lists to the Periodic Report;

5. Invites the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to reinforce the links between the first Strategic Objective (1st C - reinforce the Credibility of the World Heritage List), the "Global Strategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List", the Periodic Report on the implementation of the Convention and the Regional Programmes;

6. Bearing in mind Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention, considers that the status of the tentative lists should be enhanced so that the inclusion of properties on this list would already entail, for the State Party, a form of international recognition,;

7. Recalling the spirit of the Resolution of the 12th General Assembly of States Parties in 1999, notably in encouraging bilateral and multilateral co-operation for the benefit of States Parties whose heritage is under-represented in the List; and to promote their capacity-building and training,;

8. Invites States Parties whose heritage is well represented on the List to voluntarily space new nominations and to assist the under-represented States Parties requiring technical co-operation to enhance conditions for the preparation and updating of Tentative Lists and the nomination of their cultural and natural heritage;

9. Recalling  its decision 26 COM 13 regarding the analyses of the World Heritage List and the Tentative Lists and the presentation of the results of these analyses at the 28th session in 2004,;

10. Requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to support the States Parties:

(a) implementation of the Global Strategy for a credible, balanced and representative World Heritage List and Tentative Lists, and

(b) elaboration of practical and operational actions within the Regional Programmes to enhance the representivity of the World Heritage List in view of the world's cultural and natural diversity, as part of the implementation of the Strategic Objective to strengthen the credibility of the World Heritage List.

1. Decides to retain the limit of one new and complete nomination per State Party with properties already on the World Heritage List, as the best means of managing the workload of the Committee, the Advisory Bodies, and the World Heritage Centre, and of improving the geographic distribution of properties on the World Heritage List; States Parties that have no properties inscribed on the World Heritage List will have the opportunity to nominate two or three properties;

2. Decides to continue to exempt from this limit transboundary and emergency nominations, changes to the boundaries of properties already inscribed, as well as those nominations which have been deferred and referred by previous sessions of the Committee;

3. Invites States Parties nominating properties to keep in mind the desirability of achieving a reasonable balance between the numbers of cultural heritage and natural heritage properties included in the World Heritage List (Paragraph 15 of the Operational Guidelines, July 2002);

4. Decides to set at 40 the annual limit on the number of new nominations it will review, exclusive of nominations deferred and referred by previous sessions of the Committee, changes to the boundaries of properties already inscribed, transboundary nominations and nominations submitted on an emergency basis;

5. Decides to maintain the deadline for the receipt of complete nominations as 1 February and encourages States Parties to submit draft nominations by 30 September to ensure that nominations have the maximum opportunity of being complete on 1 February (Decision 6 EXT.COM 5.1 Annex 3.9);.

6. Requests States Parties to send comments and proposals on the Cairns Decision to the World Heritage Centre by 31 December 2003. Comments, sent by post, by facsimile to +33 (0)1 4568 5570, or by e-mail to cairns@unesco.org, will be made available on the World Heritage web site at the following address: https://whc.unesco.org/cairns/;.

7. Decides to establish, at the beginning of the 28th session of the Committee in Suzhou, China (2004), an open-ended working group to review the comments of States Parties, documents (including the results of the Advisory Bodies' analyses of the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists, and the Report of the 1999/2000 working group on the Representativity of the World Heritage List) and statistics relative to the operation of the Cairns Decision, and to make recommendations to the Committee. For this purpose, the World Heritage Centre will distribute the necessary documentation as early as possible prior to the 28th session to be held in 2004.

1. Takes note of document WHC-03/27.COM/15.

[67]  See also Decision 27 COM 2

1. Recalling the conclusions on the "Evaluation of the Cairns Decision" by the 27th session (Decision 27 COM 14), the Decision adopted on the Representivity of the World Heritage List at its 24th session ("Cairns Decision", 2000), subsequently endorsed by the General Assembly of State Parties at its 13th session (2001); and the Resolution on ways and means to ensure a  representative World Heritage List adopted by the General Assembly at its 12th session (1999),

2. Further recalling that the World Heritage Convention establishes a system of international co-operation and assistance for the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,

3. Recognising the need to increase the technical and administrative capacity of the World Heritage systems, to encourage growth of under-represented categories and geographical coverage, and acknowledge the work constraints of the Committee, the Advisory Bodies, World Heritage Centre and States Parties to achieve this objective,

4. Noting with interest the results of the ICOMOS and IUCN analyses, as well as additional analyses undertaken by the World Heritage Centre as presented in document WHC-04/28.COM/13,

5. Concerned in particular with the conclusion that constraints and gaps in the World Heritage List primarily relate to lack of technical capacity to prepare adequate assessments and inventories of heritage properties, to promote and prepare nominations and relate to the lack of an appropriate legal and management framework;

6. Emphasizing that Tentative Lists are an effective and indispensable tool in the identification of potential World Heritage properties at national and (sub)regional level, and thereby contributing to the representativity of the World Heritage List,

7. Considering that these concerns are already essential elements of the "Cairns Decision" that have, however, not been fully implemented,

8. Further emphasizing that all issues addressed by the "Cairns Decision" need full and adequate implementation and that the World Heritage Centre and States Parties in the coming years should focus on those elements that have not been sufficiently addressed such as the development of balanced Tentative Lists and capacity building,

9. Recalls that the Committee had previously decided:

a) to make available to all stakeholders all appropriate statutory World Heritage documentation, including documentation on the pre-, during and post-inscription process of World Heritage properties,

b) to encourage the increased participation of local authorities, civil society organizations and populations in the identification of the cultural and natural heritage of States Parties,

c) to implement regional, and, as appropriate, sub-regional programmes based on results of Periodic Reporting to increase the State Parties' capacity for the identification, nomination, and conservation of World Heritage properties,

d) to encourage States Parties to initiate and complete national inventories for cultural and natural heritage,

e) to review the effectiveness and appropriateness of national legal and institutional frameworks and policies and to provide advice to States Parties, upon their request, on reform of national, legal and institutional frameworks and policies,

f) to identify national, regional and international existing institutions, facilities and networks that offer training in heritage conservation and management and that can participate in the implementation of capacity building strategies and programmes;

10. Considers that capacity-building should be strategic, comprehensive, and institutionalised, and that it should focus, in particular on the identification of potential properties, preparation of representative Tentative Lists, preparation of nominations, conservation action and management of properties;

11. Calls upon

a) States Parties, the World Heritage Centre and other partners to significantly increase their support to States Parties, in particular those less represented in the List, in the identification of cultural, natural and mixed properties of potential outstanding universal value, as well as in the preparation of nomination dossiers ;

b) the Advisory Bodies (ICOMOS, ICCROM, IUCN) to increase their support to States Parties, in particular those less represented in the List, in the identification of cultural, natural and mixed properties of potential outstanding universal value;

12. Requests IUCN and ICOMOS to complete their analyses of the Tentative Lists, work on the gaps in the World Heritage List with due consideration to all States Parties and regions of the world and continue their thematic studies;

13. Further requests the World Heritage Centre, in co-operation with States Parties, ICOMOS, IUCN, ICCROM, appropriate scientific institutions, selected governmental and non-governmental experts, appropriate ntergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and other relevant partners, to convene, as soon as possible and not later than March 2005, a special meeting of experts of all regions with the following aims:

a) make specific proposals to enable States Parties to better identify natural, cultural and mixed properties of potential outstanding universal value. Such proposals should include a reflection on the concept of Outstanding Universal Value as defined by the World Heritage Convention and in the context of regions, including cultural and biogeographical regions – and, as appropriate, sub regions -, with a view to compiling representative Tentative Lists, as well as the elaboration of a comparative analysis and evaluation of the Tentative Lists, and a compilation of best practices in the preparation of such lists. At a minimum, the proposals should generate the conditions to ensure that by 2007 all States Parties have submitted Tentative Lists, which are substantially in accordance with Article 11 of the World Heritage Convention and its Operational Guidelines, 

b) in the framework of Article 7 of the World Heritage Convention, make specific proposals to enable less-represented and non-represented States Parties to improve the quality of nominations and, consequently, the success rate of inscriptions on the World Heritage List of properties from such States Parties. At a minimum, by 2007 the proposals should lead to a decrease of at least 30% in the number of such less-represented and nonrepresented States Parties,

c) in the framework of Article 7 of the World Heritage Convention, make specific proposals to enable States Parties - in particular those lessrepresented and non-represented - to identify sufficient funding sources for the sustainable conservation of the properties thus inscribed. Such proposals could include the creation of inter-institutional and inter-sectoral site commissions and the networking of properties in order to ensure their adequate monitoring, management, including traditional management mechanisms, involvement of local populations and sustainable conservation. At a minimum, by 2007 the proposals should lead to the removal from the World Heritage List in Danger of at least 20% of the properties inscribed on that List,

d) on the basis of the refinement of the analysis referred to in paragraph 4 make specific proposals for the follow–up of such analysis. At a minimum, by 2007 such proposals should lead to the elaboration of regional – and, as appropriate, sub regional- programs, as well as to the adoption and harmonization of regional – and, as appropriate, sub regional- action plans fully consistent with the pertinent periodic reports;

14. Takes note of the offer by the Russian Federation to host the special meeting of experts of all regions referred to in paragraph 13 above;

15. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to report on the proposals and conclusions of the special meeting of experts of all regions referred to in paragraph 13, for consideration by the Committee at its 29th session (2005);

16. Decides to apply at its 29th session (2005) the mechanism set out in paragraphs 1 to 5 of Decision 27 COM 14, and requests the World Heritage Centre to distribute as soon as possible the full list of nominations admissible for examination by such session;

17. Also decides, on an experimental and transitory basis, to apply the following mechanism at its 30th session (2006):

a) examine up to two complete nominations per State Party, provided that at least one of such nominations concerns a natural property; and,

b) set at 45 the annual limit on the number of nominations it will review , inclusive of nominations deferred and referred by previous sessions of the Committee, extensions (except minor modifications of limits of the property), transboundary nominations, serial nominations and nominations submitted on an emergency basis,

c) the order of priorities for the examination of new nominations shall remain as decided by the Committee at its 24th session (2000):

(i) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties with no properties inscribed on the List,
(ii) nominations of properties from any State Party that illustrate unrepresented or less represented categories of natural and cultural categories,
(iii) other nominations,
(iv) when applying this priority system, date of receipt of full and complete nominations by the World Heritage Centre shall be used as secondary determining factor within the category where the number of nomination fixed by the Committee has been reached;

18. Further decides to examine the transitory mechanism set out in paragraph 17 at its 31st session (2007), on the basis of:

a) the results of the process set out in paragraphs 13 and 15 above,

b) the extent to which the nominations presented at its 30th session (2006) contribute to the aim of a representative World Heritage List.

1. Takes note of the information provided by the World Heritage Centre in WHC-03/28.COM/INF 13A and commends Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru on the progress made on the implementation of the candidature process for the inscription of the Qhapaq Ñan (Main Andean Road) on the World Heritage List;

2. Considering the results of the consultation meetings with the Permanent Delegations to UNESCO of the referred six States Parties and the documents adopted at the Second Expert Meeting held in Cusco on 24 - 26 October 2003
and Third Expert Meeting held in La Paz on 4-7 April 2004, commends the World Heritage Centre on establishing a consultation mechanism with the States Parties concerned to ensure the proper coordination and follow-up of actions and international assistance, that will be required to successfully implement the process of nomination of the Qhapaq Ñan (Main Andean Road) for inscription on the World Heritage List and requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to collaborate with the States Parties concerned in the implementation of the recommendations of the Second and Third expert
meetings;

3. Welcomes the desire of the States Party to develop multi-national co-operation for a joint World Heritage nomination and to respond to priorities established by
the World Heritage Committee in the context of the Global Strategy for a Representative World Heritage List, the Periodic Report for Latin America and the Caribbean and the Budapest Declaration;

4. Encourages Ecuador and Colombia to include in their Tentative Lists properties related to Qhapaq Ñan (Main Andean Road) situated on their territories;

5. Also requests the World Heritage Centre, in consultation and coordination with the States Parties concerned and in co-operation with UNESCO office in Lima and, when appropriate, other regional offices of UNESCO to promote an adequate coordination of the World Heritage inscription initiative with other relevant programmers, projects and activities, such as the Inter- American Development Bank (IDB) Technical Co-operation project;

6. Agrees on the need to begin, in parallel to the process of the candidature, a
forward-looking process for international co-operation between the World
Heritage Centre and international donors or funding agencies worldwide to
establish a solid mechanism to ensure the continuity of a successful future after
the nomination, taking into account the Regional Action Plan which is being
prepared by the six State Parties with the financial support of the Inter-American
Development Bank;
7. Congratulates the World Heritage Centre on its initiative to organize, in 2006, an
International Conference to seek extra-budgetary contributions from relevant
donor and financing institutions to develop an action plan for the coming 10
years;
8. Thanks Spain and Netherlands for contributing Extra-budgetary Funds for
implementing actions foreseen in 2004 and encourages other State Parties to the
World Heritage Convention to contribute additional financial and human
resources for the project;
9. Requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre to use appropriate resources
for the implementation of this project from the World Heritage Fund in 2005;
10. Encourages the World Heritage Centre to implement an awareness-raising action
to increase the general public knowledge of the project;
11. Further requests that the World Heritage Centre inform the World Heritage
Committee at its 29th session in 2005 on the progress made in the
implementation of this initiative.

1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/9, WHC-05/29.COM/INF.9A and WHC-05/29.COM/INF.9B,

2. Recalling Decisions 28 COM. 13.1 and 7 EXT.COM 4B.2, respectively adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004) and at its 7th extraordinary session (UNESCO, 2004), which requested the World Heritage Centre to convene a Special Meeting of Experts of all regions on the concept of outstanding universal value, and invited that meeting to make specific proposals for better identification of properties of potential outstanding universal value, for enabling less-represented and non-represented states to improve the quality of their nominations and thereby the success rate of inscriptions on the World Heritage List, and for enabling States Parties to indemnify sufficient funding sources for the sustainable conservation of World Heritage properties;

3. Thanks the Russian Federation and, in particular, the Kazan authorities for having generously hosted the Special Meeting, which took place from 6 to 9 April 2005;

4. Also thanks the experts for their active contribution to the meeting;

5. Takes note of the Recommendations resulting from the meeting, included in Annex I of Document WHC-05/29.COM/9;

6. Requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre to start implementing paragraphs 11 to 25 of the above-mentioned recommendations, by making best use of resources from the UNESCO Regular Budget, extra-budgetary resources and the specific amount approved under the World Heritage Fund in Decision 20 COM 16, and taking particularly into account:

a) the need to draw out references or obvious omissions concerning the values assigned by local communities and indigenous peoples, as related to World Heritage; and

b) the relevance of assigning an adequate priority to both sustainable conservation and to the involvement of all stakeholders in the management of World Heritage properties;

7. Decides to further explore the concept of outstanding universal value at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006), using as a guide paragraphs 6 to 10 of the above mentioned Recommendations.

1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/12,

2. Recalling Decisions 7 EXT.COM 10 adopted at its 7th extraordinary session (UNESCO, 2004) and 27 COM 20B adopted at its 27th session (UNESCO, 2003),

3. Emphasizing that setting precise but realistic and measurable results and indicators is essential for effective performance appraisal and monitoring,

4. Takes note of the set of performance indicators described in Table 1 of the Document WHC-05/29.COM/12, which constitutes a framework for Performance monitoring with respect to the four Strategic Objectives set at its 26th session (Budapest, 2002);

5. Invites the States Parties and the Advisory Bodies to submit to the Director of the World Heritage Centre comments on document WHC-05/29.COM/12 by 1 December 2005;

6. Requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre to continue to develop and present a completely integrated Result Based Management (RBM) framework including the Thematic Programmes and to develop the corresponding performance indicators for examination by the Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006), taking into account the debate at its 29th session (Durban, 2005);

7. Encourages the Director of the World Heritage Centre to seek appropriate funding for this activity and invites donors to provide financial support to this effort.

1. Having examined Document WHC-06/30.COM/11A.2,

2. Takes note of the clarification of property limits provided by States Parties in the European Region in response to the Retrospective Inventory;

3. Further notes that other clarifications will be provided in the follow-up to European Periodic Reporting (Decision 30 COM.11A.1);

4. Thanks the States Parties concerned for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List.

1. Having examined Document WHC-06/30.COM/11B,

2. RecallingDecisions 29 COM 11 A.4 and 29 COM 11 A.5 adopted at its 29th session (Durban, 2005),

3. Noting proposals for changes to the nomination dossiers for some World Heritage properties in North America,

4. Approves the Statements of significance for the World Heritage properties in North America as included in Annex I of Document WHC-06/30.COM/11B;

5. Notes the changes to the names as indicated in Document WHC-06/30.COM/8B, and further notes the adjustments to natural heritage criteria concerning geological values, as indicated in Document WHC-06/30.COM/8D and decides to also change the name of Redwood National Park to Redwood National and State Parks;

6. Encourages the State Party of Canada to put forward extensions to Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks and Wood Buffalo National Park, pursuant to Canada's Tentative List for World Heritage Sites (2004);

7. Encourages Canada and the United States of America to submit any outstanding documentation related to World Heritage properties, as soon as possible;

8. Recommends that Canada and the United States of America continue, in cooperation with other Committee members, States Parties, the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre to explore, as appropriate, the potential for developing guidelines for management plans and principles for evaluating visual impacts for activities in and adjacent to World Heritage properties;

9. Encourages Canada and the United States of America to continue their strong collaboration and to consider how to enhance collaboration with the State Party of Mexico in matters of shared interest for natural and cultural heritage.

1.  Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/7.3,
2.  Recalling Decisions 29 COM 7C and 30 COM 9 adopted at its 29th (Durban, 2005) and 30th (Vilnius, 2006) sessions respectively,
3.  Thanking the Government of the Netherlands for having hosted the meeting of experts, which took place from 2 to 3 April 2007 in Paris, as well as all the experts who contributed to it,
4.  Noting the results and recommendations of the expert meeting,
5.   Decides to formally adopt a monitoring framework for World Heritage properties;
6.   Decides to integrate the monitoring framework into the next revision of the Operational Guidelines and to ensure cross referencing for all World Heritage processes;
7.  Specifically requests for the revision of the Operational Guidelines to ensure the link between outstanding universal value and the format for nominations (Annex 5: 4a on present state of conservation and 4b on factors affecting the property);
8.   Further requests the States Parties, the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre to establish desired state of conservation in all state of conservation reports to facilitate sound decisions, specifically for inclusion in / removal of properties from the List of World Heritage in Danger;
9.   Urges the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre to provide technical guidance on how to draft statements of significance / outstanding universal value  and requests ICCROM to use the funds, already allocated, for a focussed guidance manual, in consultation with IUCN and ICOMOS, to be published by the end of 2007;
10.  Noting the prioritised implementation strategy with focus on the application of the monitoring framework to properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger, requests States Parties with properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger to prepare a draft Statement of outstanding universal value for these properties,
11.  Further requests all States Parties, with the Advisory Bodies, to prepare a draft Statement of outstanding universal value for their properties prior to the arrival of a reactive monitoring mission, and to ensure that the draft statements of outstanding universal value be prepared in advance for the next cycle of Periodic Reporting;
12.  Requests that stakeholders be involved in preparing all reports required under the World Heritage Convention (nomination documents, state of conservation reports, periodic reports) in order to ensure full participation in the definition of the values and desired state of conservation of a property;
13.  Recalls the requirement that at the time of inscription the Committee decision should entail a clear Statement of outstanding universal value with authenticity and/or integrity and decides to add the requirements to describe the desired state of conservation;
14. Notes confusion around the term "benchmarks" and requests instead the use of the terms "desired state of conservation" and "corrective measures" in all state of conservation documents relating to the List of World Heritage in Danger, and adopts in principle the format for state of conservation reports in Annex II.

1. Having examined Document WHC-08/32.COM/8D,

2. Recalling Decisions 30 COM 11A.2 and 31 COM 11A.2, adopted at its 30th (Vilnius, 2006) and 31st (Christchurch, 2007) sessions respectively,

3. Recalls that, as decided at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007) by Decision 31 COM 11A.2, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will not be able to examine proposals for minor or significant modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties whenever the delimitation of such properties as inscribed is unclear;

4. Congratulates States Parties in the European Region and the States Parties of Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia on the excellent work accomplished in the clarification of the delimitation of their World Heritage properties and thanks them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List,

5. Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and sizes provided by the following States Parties in the European and Arab Regions in response to the Retrospective Inventory, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-08/32.COM/8D:

• Armenia: Monasteries of Haghpat and Sanahin;
• Austria: Historic Centre of the City of Salzburg; Palace and Gardens of Schönbrunn; Hallstatt-Dachstein-Salzkammergut Cultural Landscape;
• Belgium: Flemish Béguinages;
• Bulgaria: Boyana Church; Thracian Tomb of Kazanlak; Rila Monastery; Ancient City of Nessebar;
• Croatia: Old City of Dubrovnik; Historical Complex of Split with the Palace of Diocletian; Episcopal Complex of the Euphrasian Basilica in the Historic Centre of Poreč;
• Czech Republic: Historic Centre of Telč; Pilgrimage Church of St. John of Nepomuk at Zelená Hora; Lednice-Valtice Cultural Landscape; Gardens and Castle at Kroměříž;
• Denmark: Jelling Mounds, Runic Stones and Church; Roskilde Cathedral;
• Egypt: Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur; Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis; Nubian Monuments from Abu Simbel to Philae; Historic Cairo; Abu Mena; Saint Catherine Area;
• Estonia: Historic Centre (Old Town) of Tallinn;
• Germany: Würzburg Residence with the Court Gardens and Residence Square; Castles of Augustusburg and Falkenlust at Brühl; Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin; Town of Bamberg;
• Greece: Temple of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae; Mount Athos; Medieval City of Rhodes; Archaeological Site of Mystras; Delos;
• Hungary: Budapest, including the Banks of the Danube, the Buda Castle Quarter and Andrássy Avenue; Old Village of Hollókö and its Surroundings; Millenary Benedictine Abbey of Pannonhalma and its Natural Environment; Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst (presented jointly with Slovakia);
• Ireland: Archaeological Ensemble of the Bend of the Boyne; Skellig Michael;
• Italy: Historic Centre of San Gimignano; City of Vicenza and the Palladian Villas of the Veneto; Historic Centre of Siena; Ferrara, City of the Renaissance, and its Po Delta; The trulli of Alberobello; Early Christian Monuments of Ravenna; Historic Centre of the City of Pienza; Residences of the Royal House of Savoy; Botanical Garden (Orto Botanico), Padua; Portovenere, Cinque Terre, and the Islands (Palmaria, Tino and Tinetto); Costiera Amalfitana; Archaeological area of Agrigento; Su Nuraxi di Barumini; Archaeological Area and the Patriarchal Basilica of Aquileia;
• Latvia: Historic Centre of Riga;
• Luxembourg: City of Luxembourg: its Old Quarters and Fortifications;
• Morocco: Medina of Marrakesh; Ksar of Ait-Ben-Haddou; Archaeological Site of Volubilis;
• Poland: Cracow's Historic Centre; Historic Centre of Warsaw; Old City of Zamość; Medieval Town of Torún; Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork;
• Portugal: Monastery of Batalha; Cultural Landscape of Sintra; Prehistoric Rock-Art Sites in the Côa Valley;
• Romania: Danube Delta;
• Slovakia: Historic Town of Banská Štiavnica and the Technical Monuments in its Vicinity; Spišský Hrad and its Associated Cultural Monuments; Vlkolínec; Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst (presented jointly with Hungary);
• Spain: Garajonay National Park;
• Tunisia: Ichkeul National Park;
• Ukraine: Kiev: Saint-Sophia Cathedral and Related Monastic Buildings, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra;
• United Kingdom: Durham Castle and Cathedral; Ironbridge Gorge; Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites; Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd; Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church; Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine's Abbey and St Martin's Church; Maritime Greenwich;

6. Requests the European and Arab States Parties which have not yet answered the questions raised in 2005, 2006 and 2007 within the framework of the Retrospective Inventory to provide all requested clarifications and documentation as soon as possible and by 1 December 2008 at the latest.

1. Having examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/8D,

2. Recalling Decisions 30 COM 11A.2, 31 COM 11A.2 and 32 COM 8D, adopted at its 30th (Vilnius, 2006), 31st (Christchurch, 2007) and 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) sessions respectively,

3. Recalls that, as decided at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007) by Decision 31 COM 11A.2, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will not be able to examine proposals for minor or significant modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties whenever the delimitation of such properties as inscribed is unclear;

4. Congratulates States Parties in the Europe Region and the State Party of Algeria on the excellent work accomplished in the clarification of the delimitation of their World Heritage properties and thanks them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;

5. Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and sizes provided by the following States Parties in the European and Arab Regions in response to the Retrospective Inventory, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-09/33.COM/8D:

- Algeria: Tipasa;

- Austria: Semmering Railway;

- Belarus/Poland: Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Białowieża Forest;

- Bulgaria: Madara Rider; Rila Monastery;

- Croatia: Old City of Dubrovnik; Historic City of Trogir;

- Czech Republic: Holašovice Historical Village Reservation;

- France: Chartres Cathedral;

- Germany: St. Mary's Cathedral and St. Michael's Church in Hildesheim; Pilgrimage Church of Wies; Hanseatic City of Lübeck;

- Greece: Archaeological Site of Delphi; Acropolis, Athens; Meteora; Sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidaurus; Archaeological Site of Olympia; Monastery of Daphni, Hosios Loukas and Nea Moni of Chios;

- Holy See/Italy: Historic Centre of Rome, the Properties of the Holy See in that City enjoying Extraterritorial Rights and San Paolo Fuori le Mura;

- Italy: Castel del Monte; 18th-Century Royal Palace at Caserta with the Park, the Aqueduct of Vanvitelli and the San Leucio Complex; Cathedral, Torre Civica and Piazza Grande, Modena; Archaeological Areas of Pompei, Herculaneum and Torre Annunziata; Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park with the Archaeological sites of Paestum and Velia, and the Certosa di Padula;

- Montenegro: Durmitor National Park;

- Turkey: Great Mosque and Hospital of Divriği; Hattusha: the Hittite Capital; Nemrut Dağ; Xanthos-Letoon; Archaeological Site of Troy.

6. Requests the European and Arab States Parties which have not yet answered the questions raised in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 within the framework of the Retrospective Inventory to provide all requested clarifications and documentation as soon as possible and by 1 December 2009 at the latest.

1. Having examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/8E,

2. Adopts the retrospective Statements of Significance, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-09/33.COM/8E, for the following World Heritage properties:

Poland: Cracow's Historic Centre; Wieliczka Salt Mine; Historic Centre of Warsaw; Old City of Zamość; Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork;

3. Adopts the retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-09/33.COM/8E, for the following World Heritage property:
Bulgaria: Srebarna Nature Reserve;

4. Decides to adjourn until its next ordinary session the examination of the remainder of document WHC-09/33.COM/8E.

1. Having examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/10A,

2. Recalling Decision 32 COM 10B adopted at its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008),

3. Thanking the Government of Germany for having hosted the Workshop on natural serial properties in Vilm, (Germany, 26 - 30 November 2008) as well as all the experts who contributed to it,

4. Takes note of the outcomes and conclusions of the Workshop published in the BfN-Skripten series, as well as the analysis of the present situation of "Serial natural World Heritage Properties" prepared for publication by IUCN and the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation as Number 6 in IUCN's series of World Heritage Studies;

5. Welcomes the offer of the government of Switzerland to host an expert meeting on natural and cultural serial World Heritage properties in the first half of 2010, which will take into account the results of the 2008 workshop on natural serial properties in Vilm (Germany);

6. Requests the World Heritage Centre to present the conclusions and recommendations of the above-mentioned expert meeting at its 34th session in 2010.

1. Having examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/10C,

2. Recalling Decision 32 COM 10A adopted at its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008),

3. Having reviewed the application of the thematic studies and their contribution to the global strategy based on the underrepresented categories developed by the advisory bodies,

4. Requests the Advisory Bodies, in cooperation with the World Heritage Centre, to incorporate into Annex III of the Operational Guidelines references to the thematic studies included in document WHC-09/33.COM/10C;

5. Welcomes the proposed thematic studies programmes of the Advisory Bodies;

6. Also welcomes the proposal for a new IUCN thematic study on marine World Heritage in the 'Draft Bahrain Action Plan for Marine World Heritage' and commends the State Party of Bahrain, IUCN and the World Heritage Centre for their efforts in developing the Draft Action Plan; and recognizes the contributions from partners and donors including the State Party of Belgium;

7. Notes the intention of IUCN to present the completed thematic study on marine World Heritage to the 35th session of the Committee in 2011; invites States Parties to the Convention to provide comments to IUCN on the 'Draft Bahrain Action Plan for Marine World Heritage' by 1 December 2009, and also notes that this thematic study should strengthen the contribution of the World Heritage Convention towards the commitments arising from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the World Summit on Sustainable Development for increasing the global extent of marine protected areas;

8. Further notes that this thematic study will help to reinforce the protected marine areas which are currently on the Tentative List of the States Parties;

9. Invites States Parties to the Convention to consider providing extra-budgetary assistance to support the thematic studies programmes of the Advisory Bodies as identified above and by the Committee at previous sessions, and to also identify opportunities to support translation of completed studies;

10. Requests the World Heritage Centre with the Advisory Bodies to present a report on the thematic studies and their continuing prioritization at the 35th session of the Committee in 2011.

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/5D,

2. Recalling Decisions 32 COM 10 and 33 COM 14A.2, adopted at its 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) and 33rd (Seville, 2009) sessions respectively,

3. Thanks the State Party of Brazil for supporting the organization of an expert meeting on the relations between the World Heritage Convention, conservation and sustainable development, held in Paraty (Brazil) from 29 to 31 March 2010;

4. Welcomes the outcomes of the above-mentioned meeting and agrees that it would be desirable to further consider, in the implementation of the Convention, policies and procedures that maintain the Outstanding Universal Value of properties, and also contribute to sustainable development; 

5. Also welcomes the proposed Action Plan for 2012 developed during the Expert Meeting at Paraty and presented in the above-mentioned Document, and encourages to reflect and to pursue the efforts to strengthen linkages between the World Heritage Convention and other relevant multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs);

6. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in close collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, to pursue the study of the revision of the Operational Guidelines, to integrate sustainable development, and to further consider these matters within the framework of the reflection on the Future of the Convention;

7. Also requests the World Heritage Centre, in close collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, to seek extra-budgetary funding to organize, within the framework of the reflection on the Future of the Convention, a consultative meeting on "World Heritage and Sustainable Development" with all States Parties and secretariats of the concerned MEAs, before the 36th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2012, and further requests the World Heritage Centre, within the limits of its capacity, to seek extra-budgetary funding for the implementation of the other activities mentioned in the Action Plan for 2012 presented in Document WHC-10/34.COM/5D;

8. Also requests the World Heritage Centre to identify opportunities, of potential collaboration with the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other MEAs, and taking into account the needs of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), in the form of pilot projects to address the relation between conservation and sustainable development at regional/ecosystem scales;

9. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to report on the progress accomplished in the implementation of the above for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.

1. Having examined Documents WHC-10/34.COM/5F and WHC-10/34.COM/INF.5F.1 and WHC-10/34.COM/INF.5F.2,

2. Takes note, with satisfaction, of the progress made in the implementation of the World Heritage Thematic Programmes;

3. Commends the important contribution of the international Scientific Working Group, States Parties and Advisory Bodies in the development of World Heritage Thematic Programme on Prehistory and approves the suggestion of the Drafting group to revise the name of the World Heritage Thematic Programme on Prehistory as "Human Evolution : Adaptations, Dispersals and Social Developments (HEADS)";

4. Also takes note of the activities organized by the States Parties within the framework of the Thematic Initiative "Astronomy and World Heritage", and requests the World Heritage Centre to disseminate the Thematic Study on Astronomical Heritage jointly prepared by ICOMOS and the IAU Working Group, in conformity with its Decision 32 COM 10A, among the States Parties;

5. Notes the activities undertaken to progress the implementation of the framework of the Marine World Heritage Thematic Programme and the Bahrain Action Plan, and thanks the relevant States Parties, IUCN and the World Heritage Centre for their involvement to date.

6. Also thanks the States Parties having supported the implementation of the World Heritage Thematic Programmes;

7. Further takes note , in particular, of the contribution of the other World Heritage Thematic Programmes and Initiatives to the implementation of its Strategic Objectives and also requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre to identify extra budgetary funding and ensure adequate staffing for their continued development on key World Heritage conservation issues;

8. Also notes the concerns expressed regarding the need for economies of scale, particulary in relation to SIDS and takes this into account within the execution of these programmes;

9. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to present a progress report on the Thematic Programmes at its 36th session in 2012.

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/INF.5F.1 and WHC-10/34.COM/INF.5F.3,

2. Highlighting that the global tourism sector is large and rapidly growing, is diverse and dynamic in its business models and structures, and the relationship between World Heritage and tourism is two way: tourism, if managed well, offers benefits to World Heritage properties and can contribute to cross-cultural exchange but, if not managed well, poses challenges to these properties and recognizing the increasing challenges and opportunities relating to tourism;

3. Expresses its appreciation to the States Parties of Australia, China, France, India, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, and to the United Nations Foundation and the Nordic World Heritage Foundation for the financial and technical support to the World Heritage Tourism Programme since its establishment in 2001;

4. Welcomes the report of the international workshop on Advancing Sustainable Tourism at Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites (Mogao, China, September 2009) and adopts the policy orientation which defines the relationship between World Heritage and sustainable tourism (Attachment A);

5. Takes note of the evaluation of the World Heritage Tourism Programme by the UN Foundation, and encourages the World Heritage Centre to take fully into account the eight programme elements recommended in the draft final report in any future work on tourism (Attachment B);

6. Decides to conclude the World Heritage Tourism Programme and requests the World Heritage Centre to convene a new and inclusive programme on World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism, with a steering group comprising interested States Parties and other relevant stakeholders, and also requests the World Heritage Centre to outline the objectives and approach to implementation of this programme, drawing on the directions established in the reports identified in Paragraphs 4 and 5 above, for consideration at the 35th session of the World Heritage Committee (2011);

7. Also welcomes the offer of the Government of Switzerland to provide financial and technical support to specific activities supporting the steering group; further welcomes the offer of the Governments of Sweden, Norway and Denmark to organize a Nordic-Baltic regional workshop in Visby, Gotland, Sweden in October 2010 on World Heritage and sustainable tourism; and also encourages States Parties to support the new programme on World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism including through regional events and the publication of materials identifying good practices;

8. Based upon the experience gained under the World Heritage Convention of issues related to tourism, invites the Director General of UNESCO to consider the feasibility of a Recommendation on the relationship between heritage conservation and sustainable tourism. 

Attachment A

Recommendations of the international workshop

on Advancing Sustainable Tourism at Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites 

Policy orientations: defining the relationship between World Heritage and tourism

1. The tourism sector

The global tourism sector is large and rapidly growing, is diverse and dynamic in its business models and structures.

Tourists/visitors are diverse in terms of cultural background, interests, behaviour, economy, impact, awareness and expectations of World Heritage.

There is no one single way for the World Heritage Convention, or World Heritage properties, to engage with the tourism sector or with tourists/visitors.

2. The relationship between World Heritage and tourism

The relationship between World Heritage and tourism is two-way:

a. World Heritage offers tourists/visitors and the tourism sector destinations

b. Tourism offers World Heritage the ability to meet the requirement in the Convention to 'present' World Heritage properties, and also a means to realise community and economic benefits through sustainable use.

Tourism is critical for World Heritage:

a. For States Parties and their individual properties,

i. to meet the requirement in the Convention to 'present' World Heritage

ii. to realise community and economic benefits

b. For the World Heritage Convention as a whole, as the means by which World Heritage properties are experienced by visitors travelling nationally and internationally

c. As a major means by which the performance of World Heritage properties, and therefore the standing of the Convention, is judged,

i. many World Heritage properties do not identify themselves as such, or do not adequately present their Outstanding Universal Value

ii. it would be beneficial to develop indicators of the quality of presentation, and the representation of the World Heritage brand

d. As a credibility issue in relation to: i. the potential for tourism infrastructure to damage Outstanding Universal Value

i. the threat that World Heritage properties may be unsustainably managed in relation to their adjoining communities

ii. sustaining the conservation objectives of the Convention whilst engaging with economic development

iii. realistic aspirations that World Heritage can attract tourism.

World Heritage is a major resource for the tourism sector:

a. Almost all individual World Heritage properties are significant tourism destinations

b. The World Heritage brand can attract tourists/visitors,

i. the World Heritage brand has more impact upon tourism to lesser known properties than to iconic properties.

Tourism, if managed well, offers benefits to World Heritage properties:

a. to meet the requirement in Article 4 of the Convention to present World Heritage to current and future generations

b. to realise economic benefits.

Tourism, if not managed well, poses threats to World Heritage properties.

3. The responses of World Heritage to tourism

The impact of tourism, and the management response, is different for each World Heritage property: World Heritage properties have many options to manage the impacts of tourism.

The management responses of World Heritage properties need to:

a. work closely with the tourism sector

b. be informed by the experiences of tourists/visitors to the visitation of the property

c. include local communities in the planning and management of all aspects of properties, including tourism.

While there are many excellent examples of World Heritage properties successfully managing their relationship to tourism, it is also clear that many properties could improve:

a. the prevention and management of tourism threats and impacts

b. their relationship to the tourism sector inside and outside the property

c. their interaction with local communities inside and outside the property

d. their presentation of Outstanding Universal Value and focus upon the experience of tourists/visitors.

The management responses of World Heritage properties need to:

a. be based on the protection and conservation of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, and its effective and authentic presentation

b. work closely with the tourism sector

c. be informed by the experiences of tourists/visitors to the visitation of the property

d. their presentation of Outstanding Universal Value and focus upon the experience of tourists/visitors.

The management responses of World Heritage properties need to:

a. be based on the protection and conservation of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, and its effective and authentic presentation

b. work closely with the tourism sector

c. be informed by the experiences of tourists/visitors to the visitation of the property

d. to include local communities in the planning and management of all aspects of properties, including tourism.

4. Responsibilities of different actors in relation to World Heritage and tourism

The World Heritage Convention (World Heritage Committee, World Heritage Centre, Advisory Bodies):

a. set frameworks and policy approaches

b. confirm that properties have adequate mechanisms to address tourism before they are inscribed on the World Heritage List

i. develop guidance on the expectations to be include in management plans

c. monitor the impact upon OUV of tourism activities at inscribed sites, including through indicators for state of conservation reporting

d. cooperate with other international organisations to enable:

i. other international organisations to integrate World Heritage considerations in their programs

ii. all parties involved in World Heritage to learn from the activities of other international organisations

e. assist State Parties and sites to access support and advice on good practices

f. reward best practice examples of World Heritage properties and businesses within the tourist/visitor sector

g. develop guidance on the use of the World Heritage emblem as part of site branding.

Individual States Parties:

a. develop national policies for protection

b. develop national policies for promotion

c. engage with their sites to provide and enable support, and to ensure that the promotion and the tourism objectives respect Outstanding Universal Value and are appropriate and sustainable

d. ensure that individual World Heritage properties within their territory do not have their OUV negatively affected by tourism.

Individual property managers:

a. manage the impact of tourism upon the OUV of properties

i. common tools at properties include fees, charges, schedules of opening and restrictions on access

b. lead onsite presentation and provide meaningful visitor experiences

c. work with the tourist/visitor sector, and be aware of the needs and experiences of tourists/visitors, to best protect the property

i. the best point of engagement between the World Heritage Convention and the tourism sector as a whole is at the direct site level, or within countries

d. engage with communities and business on conservation and development.

Tourism sector:

a. work with World Heritage property managers to help protect Outstanding Universal Value

b. recognize and engage in shared responsibility to sustain World Heritage properties as tourism resources

c. work on authentic presentation and quality experiences.

Individual tourists/visitors with the assistance of World Heritage property managers and the tourism sector, can be helped to appreciate and protect the OUV of World Heritage properties. 

Attachment B

Programme elements recommended by the Draft Final Report of the Evaluation of the World Heritage Tourism Programme by the UN Foundation:

1. Adopt and disseminate standards and principles relating to sustainable tourism at World Heritage sites;

 2. Support the incorporation of appropriate tourism management into the workings of the Convention;

 3. Collation of evidence to support sustainable tourism programme design, and to support targeting;

 4. Contribution of a World Heritage perspective to cross agency sustainable tourism policy initiatives;

 5. Strategic support for the dissemination of lessons learned;

 6. Strategic support for the development of training and guidance materials for national policy agencies and site managers;

 7. Provision of advice on the cost benefit impact of World Heritage inscription;

 8. Provision of advice on UNESCO World Heritage branding.

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7.1,

2. Recalling its Decision 33 COM 7.1, adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009),

3. Thanks the State Party of Brazil and IPHAN for having generously hosted the expert meeting which took place from 7 to 11 December 2009 in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), and the experts having contributed to the meeting;

4. Takes note with satisfaction of the outcomes of the expert meeting and the recommendations for the inclusion of an Historic Urban Landscape approach in the Operational Guidelines;

5. Requests the World Heritage Centre to develop, in cooperation with the Advisory Bodies, a manual on the applications and case studies reflecting best practices of the Historic Urban Landscape approach;

6. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to inform the World Heritage Committee of progress in the development of this manual of best practices at its 35th session in 2011.

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7C,

2. Recalling Decisions 32 COM 7B.129 and 33 COM 7C, adopted at its 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) and 33rd (Seville, 2009) sessions respectively,

3. Welcomes the analytical summary of the perceived trends, changes and threats to the state of conservation of World Heritage properties over the past five years (2005-2009), as the basis for further reflection and more extensive analysis of this information;

4. Considers that this work highlights the need for more systematic monitoring of threats and of how to identify and react to emerging trends;

5. Suggests that data on the emergence of trends and on the underlying reasons for the emergence of trends could be helpful to States Parties, to the World Heritage Centre and to the Advisory Bodies;

6. Notes that the availability and application of satellite imagery and other remote sensing techniques are continually improving, and also notes that such techniques can provide evidence over time to determine whether some impacts on World Heritage values continue to occur or are being addressed;

7. Requests that the Advisory Bodies, and in particular IUCN, work with the World Heritage Centre, the UNESCO Science Sector, and relevant remote sensing agencies, to examine the feasibility of using remote sensing to help assess the potential contribution that it could make to the monitoring of certain threats to the Outstanding Universal Value of properties;

8. Given the percentage of threats related to development and infrastructure projects and to high-rise buildings, stresses the need for structured heritage impact assessments of major projects to be carried out at the earliest opportunity in order to assess the impact of potential projects on the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties;

9. Recalls the provisions of Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines and that prompt information on potential development projects and their review for impact on Outstanding Universal Value is a key tool for ensuring the effective conservation of World Heritage properties and the credibility of the Convention;

10. Taking into account the information provided in the introduction of Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B and specifically the impact of natural disasters affecting World Heritage properties, notes the progress made in the implementation of the Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction at World Heritage properties as indicated in Document WHC-10/34.COM/7.3, as well as the newly published Resource Manual on this subject;

11. Also notes that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies have considered the approaches for the selection of properties for state of conservation reports and processes for preparing Desired State of Conservation Statements for the removal of properties from the List of World Heritage in Danger and further notes that these will be subject to a further review at the next World Heritage Centre/Advisory Bodies meeting in September 2010;

12. Acknowledges the inclusion of links to illustrative material in the state of conservation reports which provide information on potential visual impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of a property and encourages the States Parties to share their experiences concerning visual impact studies and simulations by providing to the Word Heritage Centre links to relevant information to be made available through the web-page;

13. Requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to report back on criteria, thresholds and processes relevant to the initiation of state of conservation reports, the feasibility of improved utilization of remote sensing, and the preparation and review of Desired State of Conservation Statements for the removal of properties from the List of World Heritage in Danger, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.

1.   Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/8D,

2.   Recalling Decision 33 COM 8D, adopted at its 33th session (Seville, 2009);

3.   Congratulates States Parties in the Europe Region and the States Parties of Algeria, Lebanon and Tunisia on the excellent work accomplished in the clarification of the delimitation of their World Heritage properties and thanks them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;

5.   Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and areas provided by the following States Parties in the European and Arab Regions in response to the Retrospective Inventory, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-10/34.COM/8D:

- Algeria: Al Qal'a of Beni Hammad; Djémila;

- Georgia: Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery;

- Greece: Paleochristian and Byzantine Monuments of Thessaloniki; Pythagoreion and Heraion of Samos; Archaeological Site of Aigai (modern name Vergina);

- Holy See/Italy: Historic Centre of Rome, the Properties of the Holy See in that City enjoying Extraterritorial Rights and San Paolo Fuori le Mura;

- Lebanon: Tyre;

- Malta: City of Valletta;

- Netherlands: Historic Area of Willemstad, Inner City and Harbour, Netherlands Antilles; Ir. D.F. Woudagemaal (D.F. Wouda Steam Pumping Station);

- Romania: Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania; Monastery of Horezu; Churches of Moldavia;

- Serbia: Stari Ras and Sopoćani; Studenica Monastery;

- Tunisia: Medina of Tunis; Amphitheatre of El Jem; Punic Town of Kerkuane and its Necropolis; Medina of Sousse; Kairouan;

- Turkey: Historic Areas of Istanbul; Hierapolis-Pamukkale; City of Safranbolu.

6.   Requests the European and Arab States Parties, which have not yet answered the questions raised in the framework of the Retrospective Inventory, to provide all requested clarifications and documentation as soon as possible and by 1 April 2011 at the latest.

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/9A,

2. Adopts the Terms of Reference for the evaluation of the Global Strategy for a representative, balanced, and credible World Heritage List, by deleting Paragraph 1a;

3. Also adopts the Terms of Reference for the evaluation of the PACT initiative, changing the formulation of its Paragraph 5 by adding "and of their traceability" and by completing the Terms of Reference with the following evaluations:

a) Evaluate the contents of the respective engagements of the World Heritage Centre and its private sector partners and appreciate the equitable character of these engagements,

b) Evaluate the conditions of use of the emblem of the Convention by private sector partners in order to assess whether they correspond to the objectives and provisions of the Convention,

c) Evaluate the contribution of PACT in developing partnerships at the local and regional levels in order to identify the possibility of establishing such partnerships at these levels, as well as the need to provide guidelines in this respect.

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/9B,

2. Recalling Decisions 32 COM 10B and 33 COM 10A adopted at its 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) and 33rd (Seville, 2009) sessions respectively and thanking the State Party of Switzerland for having hosted the International Expert Meeting on serial nominations and properties (Ittingen, Switzerland, 25 -27 February 2010) in cooperation with the World Heritage Centre,

3. Notes the detailed report provided by the expert meeting which reflects on a wide range of issues relevant to serial and transnational World Heritage properties and nominations and also notes that an publication is under preparation;

4. Approves the conclusions and recommendations aimed at promoting and implementing the concept of transnational serial nominations as a tool for international cooperation, shared approaches and better management and conservation practice;

5. Further notes that draft changes to Annex 2 and Annex 5 of the Operational Guidelines have been included in Document WHC-10/34.COM/13 for consideration of the World Heritage Committee.

6. Takes note of the discussions of the working group on the Operational Guidelines established during the 34th session of the World Heritage Committee and requests the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation with the Advisory Bodies, to prepare proposals for amendments, in particular for annex 2 and 5, for discussion by the working group and for examination by the Committee at its 35th session in 2011.

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/5E,

2. Recalling Decisions 32 COM 10, 33 COM 14A.2, 34 COM 5D adopted at its 32nd (Quebec City, 2008), 33rd (Seville, 2009) and 34th (Brasilia, 2010) sessions respectively,

3. Welcomes the progress made in implementing the recommended actions;

4. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, and with the support of interested States Parties to continue its efforts to implement various activities contained in the Action Plan 2012;

5. Also requests that the results of the proposed consultative meeting on "World Heritage and Sustainable Development" be reported for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012 and thanks the State Party of Brazil for its offer to host such a meeting.

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/5F,

2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 5F.2 adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3. Thanks the Government of Switzerland for its offer of financial and technical support to specific activities supporting the Steering Group guiding the development of the new and inclusive Programme on World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism, and welcomes its offer to host an expert meeting in Sils/Engadine, Switzerland, in October 2011;

4. Also thanks the Governments of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Nordic World Heritage Foundation for organizing a Nordic-Baltic regional workshop in Visby, Gotland, Sweden in October 2010 on World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism;

5. Requests the World Heritage Centre to transmit to States Parties the draft of the new Programme on World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism for consultation and to present it to the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012.

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/7.1,

2. Recalling Decisions 30 COM 9, 32 COM 7.1, 33 COM 7C and 34 COM 19 adopted at its 30th (Vilnius, 2006), 32nd (Quebec City, 2008), 33rd (Seville, 2009) and 34th (Brasilia, 2010) sessions respectively, and the provisions for buffer zones established in the Operational Guidelines,

3. Notes the progress made with the wide range of issues relevant to World Heritage and buffer zones including the publication on "World Heritage and Buffer Zones" (World Heritage Papers 25), and considerations within discussions on "World Heritage and sustainable development";

4. Further notes that threats originating outside the World Heritage properties and beyond buffer zones may have adverse impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of properties and therefore encourages States Parties, together with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, to take into account the recommendations of the «International Expert Meeting on Buffer zones» (Davos, Switzerland 2008) as provided in the detailed report of the meeting and its publication;

5. Also encourages States Parties to refine and put in place relevant legal tools or management plans concerning the conservation of properties and management of buffer zones.

1. Having examined Documents WHC-11/35.COM/7C, WHC-11/35.COM/INF.7C and WHC-11/35.COM/7B,

2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 7C, adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3. Thanks the States Parties of Senegal and Australia for the organization of the Expert meeting on the global state of conservation challenges for World Heritage properties (Dakar, Senegal, 13-15 April 2011);

4. Endorses the recommendations of the Expert meeting on the global state of conservation challenges for World Heritage properties presented in Document WHC-11/35.COM/INF.7C and invites States Parties to the Convention, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to develop plans to implement them, and identify the required resources;

5. Considering the need for more systematic monitoring of threats, calls upon the States Parties to the Convention to support the establishment of a comprehensive "state of conservation information system" to support analytical studies and assist all stakeholders in site-management, with the target to make this system available, on the World Heritage Centre's website, before the 37th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2013;

6. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in consultation with the Advisory Bodies, to prepare clear modalities and guidance for the drafting and adoption of the Desired state of conservation for the removal of properties from the List of World Heritage in Danger, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012;

7. Decides to amend paragraph 183 of the Operational Guidelines to read: "When considering the inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Committee shall develop, and adopt, as far as possible, in consultation with the State Party concerned, a Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, and a programme for corrective measures";

8. Also requests the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies to prepare a progress report on the issues mentioned above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012.

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/8B.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 10 adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007);

3. Decides to re-establish the practice of examining two complete nominations per State Party per year provided that at least one of such nominations concerns a natural property or cultural landscapes;

4. Also decides to amend paragraph 61(a) of the Operational Guidelines accordingly, which takes effect on 2 February 2012, in order to ensure a smooth transition period for all States Parties;

5. Further decides that it will review the impact of this decision at its 39th session in 2015;

6. Encourages States Parties to submit draft nominations by 30 September to ensure that nominations have the best opportunity of being considered complete by the deadline of 1February.

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/8D,

2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 8D, adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3. Recalls that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will not be able to examine proposals for minor or significant modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties when the delimitation of such properties as inscribed is unclear;

4. Acknowledges the excellent work accomplished by States Parties in the clarification of the delimitation of their World Heritage properties and thanks them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;

5. Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and areas provided by the following States Parties in response to the Retrospective Inventory, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-11/35.COM/8D:

• Algeria: Timgad;
• Australia: Kakadu National Park;
• Czech Republic: Historic Centre of Český Krumlov; Kutná Hora: Historical Town Centre with the Church of St Barbara and the Cathedral of Our Lady at Sedlec;
• France: Amiens Cathedral; Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Former Abbey of Saint-Remi and Palace of Tau, Reims; Bourges Cathedral; Historic Centre of Avignon: Papal Palace, Episcopal Ensemble and Avignon Bridge; Historic Fortified City of Carcassonne; Historic Site of Lyons;
• Georgia: Upper Svaneti;
• Italy: Rock Drawings in Valcamonica; Historic Centre of Naples; Villa Romana del Casale;
• Madagascar: Tsingy de Bemaraha Strict Nature Reserve;
• Russian Federation: Volcanoes of Kamchatka;
• Spain: Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzín, Granada; Burgos Cathedral;
• Syrian Arab Republic: Ancient City of Damascus;
• Uganda: Bwindi Impenetrable National Park; Rwenzori Mountains National Park;

6. Requests the European, Arab and African States Parties, which have not yet answered the questions raised in the framework of the Retrospective Inventory, to provide all clarifications and documentation as soon as possible and by 1 December 2011 at the latest.

1. Having examined Documents WHC-11/35.COM/9A and WHC-11/35.COM/INF.9A ,

2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 9A , adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3. Also recalling Resolution 17 GA 9 , adopted by the 17th session of the General Assembly (UNESCO, 2009),

4. Requests the World Heritage Centre to transmit the documents to the 18th session of the General Assembly (UNESCO, 2011) for examination.

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/9C,

2. Recalling Decisions 31 COM 9 and 32 COM 10A adopted at its 31st (Christchurch, 2007) and 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) sessions respectively,

3. Notes the information provided on the Recommendations of the Science and Technology Expert Working Group in the context of World Heritage Nominations (London, 2008) and subsequent discussions on revisions to the Operational Guidelines;

4. Further notes the completion of the thematic study on "Heritage Sites of Astronomy and Archaeoastronomy in the context of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention" and progress made on the study on "Water Heritage Management";

5. Encourages States Parties to take into account the recommendations provided by the Science and Technology Expert Working Group in the context of World Heritage Nominations (London, 2008), as well as recommendations developed within the framework of the Thematic Initiative "Astronomy and World Heritage" while preparing nominations to the World Heritage List and requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to integrate relevant issues into a future expert meeting on criterion (vi);

6. Further encourages States Parties and donors to identify additional resources for the completion of thematic studies, their publication and dissemination.

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/12C,

2. Recalling Decision 32 COM 10 adopted at its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008), Decision 33 COM 14A.2 adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009), 34 COM 12 adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010) and Resolution 17 GA 9 adopted at the 17th General Assembly of States Parties (UNESCO Headquarters, 2009);

3. Taking into consideration the findings and recommendations of the evaluation of the Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List (Final report of the Audit of the Global Strategy and the PACT initiative, Document WHC-11/35.COM/INF.9A),

4. Welcomes all the actions undertaken to improve the processes and practices prior to consideration by the World Heritage Committee of a nomination (the 'upstream processes') and expresses its appreciation to States Parties for their collaboration in the selection of the proposed pilot projects and to the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre that prepared the feasibility studies;

5. Takes note of the pilot projects that have been chosen to implement this experimental approach and requests the States Parties concerned to nominate focal points for this purpose;

6. Requests the States Parties concerned to fully collaborate, providing technical support and seek funding to implement the required actions, encourages them to seek assistance from the World Heritage Fund, if necessary and calls upon States Parties and the international community to provide technical and financial support to assist the States Parties concerned in the implementation of their pilot projects;

7. Decides that priority should be given to Preparatory Assistance requests submitted by concerned States Parties who do not have the necessary financial means;

8. Invites the Director General to use existing extra-budgetary funds to support the upstream processes and to seek new extra-budgetary funds for this purpose;

9. Also requests States Parties whose heritage is already well represented on the World Heritage List to consider linking each of their nominations with a nomination presented by a State Party whose heritage is un-represented or under-represented as foreseen in paragraph 59c of the Operational Guidelines, in the framework of the Global Strategy;

10. Further requests the Advisory Bodies to work with the States Parties concerned to place the work of the upstream process within the larger context of national capacity building, and where possible, link this work to the development of national capacity-building strategies foreseen within the World Heritage Capacity-Building Strategy;

11. Requests furthermore the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre to report on the progress in implementing the pilot projects for consideration of the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012.

1. Having examined Documents WHC-11/35.COM/12D and WHC-11/35.COM/9B,

2. Recalling Decision 32 COM 10 adopted at its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008), Decision 33 COM 14A.2 adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009), 34 COM 12 adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010) and Resolution 17 GA 9 adopted at the 17th General Assembly of States Parties (UNESCO Headquarters, 2009),

3. Notes that the World Heritage Convention is fast approaching a number of important milestones, including its 40th anniversary in 2012;

4. Takes note of the progress made in preparing for celebrating the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention under the theme "World Heritage and Sustainable Development: the Role of Local Communities";

5. Encourages States Parties to develop, support and carry out activities to promote the anniversary and to notify the World Heritage Centre of their intention to host events to celebrate the 40th anniversary as soon as practicable, and further encourages States Parties to mobilize various UNESCO related institutions, programmes and networks to join in celebrating the anniversary and reaching out to the broader public;

6. Invites the World Heritage Centre to implement the proposed programme of activities assisted by extrabudgetary funding available or to be identified;

7. Requests the World Heritage Centre, with the support of the Advisory Bodies, to develop, for further consideration the proposal contained in Document WHC-11/35.COM/12D on the establishment of a Site Management Network to facilitate exchange and sharing of information on best practice heritage management and further to explore ways of recognising and rewarding best practice through a one-off initiative at the closing event of the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention (November 2012, Japan); also requests the World Heritage Centre to seek extrabudgetary funding to secure the necessary resources and technical support;

8. Notes that the World Heritage Capacity-Building Strategy (WHC-11/35.COM/9B) includes several global activities for capacity building under the theme of World Heritage and Sustainable Development;

9. Requests the World Heritage Centre to research further the implications of and possible timing for an International World Heritage Day for raising awareness on World Heritage;

10. Acknowledges the statements made by the Representative of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) at its 34th and 35th sessions, held in Brasilia (Brazil, 2010) and Paris (UNESCO Headquarters, 2011), respectively, and notes that UNESCO is in the process of preparing a policy with regard to its programs on indigenous peoples; further notes that these considerations should be included in the theme of the 40th anniversary, "World Heritage and Sustainable Development: the Role of Local Communities";

11. Invites the World Heritage Centre to organise an exhibition paying tribute to Egyptologist Christiane Desroche-Noblecourt (1913-2011) and her role in saving the Nubian Temples in 1959, which gave rise to international cooperation for the safeguarding of monuments and the creation of the World Heritage Convention, provided extra-budgetary funds are identified for this purpose;

12. Requests the World Heritage Centre to report on the progress made to the 36th session of the World Heritage Committee (2012).

1. Having examined document WHC-12/36.COM/5C,

2. Recalling Decisions 33 COM 14A.2, 34 COM 5D and 35 COM 5E adopted at its 33rd (Seville, 2009), 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th(Paris, 2011) sessions respectively,

3. Welcomes the outcome of the Consultative Meeting on World Heritage and Sustainable Development held in Ouro Preto (Brazil) from 5 to 8 February 2012, takes note of its recommended actions and thanks the State Party of Brazil for having generously hosted this event;

4. Recognizing that the conservation of cultural and natural heritage is of critical importance for the achievement of sustainable development in its various dimensions at global and local levels, recommends that, in full consistency with the Convention’s primary objectives, the processes of the Convention should seek to appropriately integrate a sustainable development perspective to realize the full benefits of heritage to society, and the benefits of sustainable development approaches to the enhanced protection and conservation of heritage;

5. Requests the World Heritage Centre, with the support of the Advisory Bodies to convene a small expert working group to develop, within a year, a proposal for a policy on the integration of sustainable development into the processes of the World Heritage Convention, for possible inclusion in the future Policy Guidelines document. This policy should take into consideration the outcomes of the Ouro Preto Meeting, of other meetings that are taking place in the anniversary year across the world and of the Rio + 20 Conference, as well as integrate the relevant reflection from previous and ongoing discussions on related topics, in connection with the UNESCO initiative to promote the role of culture in development;

6. Further requests the interested States Parties to consider provision of extrabudgetary resources to enable the implementation of this and the other actions recommended by the Ouro Preto Meeting;

7. Also requests, within available resources, the World Heritage Centre to submit a draft of the above-mentioned policy and a report on the progress made in the implementation of other actions recommended by the Paraty and Ouro Preto meetings, for examination by the Committee no later than at its 38th session in 2014. 

1. Having examined document WHC-12/36.COM/5D,

2. Recalling Decisions 32 COM 10, 32 COM 10A and 34 COM 5F.1 adopted at its 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) and 34th (Brasilia, 2010) sessions respectively,

3. Welcomes the progress report made on the implementation of the World Heritage Thematic Programmes;

4. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, and with the support of interested States Parties to continue its efforts to implement the activities foreseen under each of these programmes in 2012-2013;

5. Expresses its appreciation to the Government of Spain for its financial commitment and support given by other States Parties to the programme Human Evolution: Adaptations, Dispersals and Social Developments (HEADS) and encourages the development of the category 2 Centre for Rock Art in Spain to enhance fruitful international cooperation in rock art research, conservation and management;

6. Further requests States Parties, site managers and research institutions in the Africa Region to strengthen collaboration in support of human evolution-related research, conservation and awareness-raising activities and in pursuance to the activities which have taken place in the framework of HEADS in the Region;

7. Also welcomes financial and technical support provided by States Parties and the International Astronomical Union for Thematic Initiative “AstronomyandWorld Heritage”, since 2003 and also encourages cooperation between the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, specialized agencies and relevant interdisciplinary scientific initiatives towards the elaboration of a Global Thematic Study on Heritage of Science and Technology, including studies and research on technological heritage connected with space exploration;

8. Further encourages States Parties, international organizations and other donors to contribute to the thematic programmes and initiative and also requests an updated report on Thematic Programmes to the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014.

1.  Having examined document WHC-12/36.COM/5E,

2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 5F.2 adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3. Welcomes the finalization of the new and inclusive Programme on World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism and notes with appreciation the participatory process for its development, objectives and approach towards implementation;

4. Also welcomes the contribution of the Steering Group comprised of States Parties representatives from the UNESCO Electoral Groups, the World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM), Switzerland and the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) in the elaboration of the Programme;

5.  Thanks the Government of Switzerland, the United Nations Foundation and the Nordic World Heritage Foundation for their technical and financial support to the elaboration of the Programme;

6.  Notes with appreciation the contribution provided by the States Parties and other consulted stakeholders during the consultation phase of the Programme;

7.  Takes note of the results of the Expert Meeting in Sils/Engadin (Switzerland), from 18 to 22 October 2011 contributing to the Programme, and further thanks the Government of Switzerland for hosting the Expert Meeting;

8.  Adopts the World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme;

9.  Requests the World Heritage Centre to refine the Draft Action Plan 2013-2015 in an Annex to the present document and to implement the Programme with a Steering  Group comprised of representatives of the UNESCO Electoral Groups, donor agencies, the Advisory Bodies, UNWTO and in collaboration with interested stakeholders;

10.  Notes that financial resources for the coordination and implementation of the Programme do not exist and also requests States Parties to support the implementation of the World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme;

11. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to report biennially on the progress of the implementation of the Programme;

12.  Notes with appreciation the launch of the Programme foreseen at the 40th Anniversary of the World Heritage Convention event in Kyoto, Japan, in November 2012

1.   Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7B.Add,

2.   Recalling Decision 35 COM 7B.118 adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3.   Acknowledges the information provided by the State Party in regard to the state of conservation of the property and welcomes the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations from the 2006 joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission;

4.   Notes the results of the November 2011 reactive monitoring mission, including the evaluation of the current conditions of the property, and encourages the State Party to implement its recommendations;

5.   Also notes that the Liverpool City Council is inclined to grant consent to the application submitted by the developer and expresses its serious concern at the potential threat of the proposed development of Liverpool Waters on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;

6.   Urges the State Party to reconsider the proposed development to ensure that the architectural and town-planning coherence, and the conditions of authenticity and integrity of the property are sustained;

7.   Considers that the proposed development of Liverpool Waters constitutes a potential danger to the World Heritage property and, therefore, decides to inscribe Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) on the List of World Heritage in Danger, with the possibility of deletion of the property from the World Heritage List, should the current project be approved and implemented;

8.   Requests the State Party to develop, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, a proposal for the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger and a set of corrective measures, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session in 2013;

9.   Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2013, a report on the state of conservation of the property and on the steps taken to implement the above-mentioned recommendations for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session in 2013.

1.   Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7B,

2.   Recalling Decision 35 COM 7B.129, adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2010),

3.   Notes the limited implementation of activities being carried out by the State Party with regards to the fragile state of conservation of the property;

4.   Reiterates its deep concern regarding the state of conservation of the property, in particular the significant and accelerated degradation of the historic fabric which directly impacts its Outstanding Universal Value, and the lack of significant progress made in addressing the decay conditions of the property;

5.   Urges the State Party to finalize the processes related to the establishment of boundaries, buffer zones and the related regulations of the two components of the inscribed property, and to submit them within the Retrospective Inventory process of the Periodic Reporting exercise in the Latin America and the Caribbean region;

6. Considers that the State Party has not complied with all the requests expressed by previous World Heritage Committee Decisions, and that therefore the property is in danger in conformity with Chapter IV.B of the Operational Guidelines and decides to inscribe the Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Panama) on the List of World Heritage in Danger;

7.   Adopts the following Desired state of conservation for the property, for its future removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger:

a)  The approval and full implementation of an emergency plan, a comprehensive assessment of structural and mechanical risks, preventative conservation strategy and maintenance measures at San Lorenzo and Portobelo,

b)  National laws and policies for the conservation of built heritage at San Lorenzo and Portobelo defined and in place,

c)  Long-term consolidation and conservation through annual plans for the components of the inscribed property ensured,

d)  The operational and participatory management system, including its related public use plan, approved and implemented,

e)  The Management Plan fully integrated within territorial and urban development plans,

f)   Encroachments and urban pressure adequately controlled,

g)  The boundaries and buffer zone of all component parts of the World Heritage property precisely clarified, 

h)  Budgets for the preparation, implementation and follow-up of the management structures and conservation measures secured;

8.   Also adopts the following corrective measures and the timeframe for their implementation:

a)  To be carried out immediately (by September 2012-March 2013)

(i)  Risk assessment completed for all structures and built materials, and an Emergency Plan for all the components of the property in coherence with the recommendations of the reactive monitoring mission and defined timeframe and phasing for their implementation finalized,

(ii)   Operational management arrangements and budgets for its implementation ensured,

(iii)  Budgets for the implementation of the Emergency Plan (first stage) secured,

(iv)   Encroachments and urban pressure adequately controlled and reforestation undertaken,

(v)   Technical Office in Portobelo to secure the implementation of the conservation measures and management arrangements set up and functioning,

b)  To be carried out within one year (by September 2013)

First phase of the Emergency Plan implemented:

          Protection

(i)  Boundaries and buffer zones for each of the component parts of the property defined,

(ii)  Regulatory measures for the established buffer zones for controlling development and addressing existing threats finalized and approved,

(iii) Monitoring indicators as a tool to assess the state of conservation of the fortified built heritage put in place,

          Management and Planning

(iv) Development of a Management Plan begun,

(v)  Awareness raising activities within the local communities to identify opportunities for eco and cultural tourism to contribute to the improvement of living conditions of the surrounding communities undertaken in full coherence with the conservation measures for the property,

c)  To be carried out within two years (by September 2014):

          Second Phase of the Emergency Plan implemented

Protection

(i)  National laws and policies for the conservation of built heritage at San Lorenzo and Portobelo developed,

          Management and planning

(i)  Management Plan for the property, including scheduled and costed provisions for conservation, preventative conservation and maintenance of built heritage, public use, and risk management finalized, approved and adopted,

(ii)  Management, territorial and urban development plans integrated,

(iii)  Annual conservation plans for each of the components of the inscribed property developed and in place,

d)  To be carried out within two-three years (by September 2015):

(i)   Implementation of the Emergency Plan completed,

(ii)  Operational management arrangements and budgets for the continued implementation of the approved Management Plan secured;

9.   Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre a financial estimation of the costs associated with the implementation of each of the corrective measures, and invites the State Party to consider a request for international assistance from the World Heritage Fund for technical support ;

10.  Also urges the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, as well as other relevant bodies, to cooperate with the State Party to implement the adopted corrective measures;

11.   Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2013, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session in 2013. 

1.Having examined document WHC-12/36.COM/7C,

2.Recalling Decisions 35 COM 7C and 35 COM 12E adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

Significant factors negatively impacting the Outstanding Universal Value

3.Takes note of the statistical analysis and encourages the World Heritage Centre to continue with the production of such informative data, including regional analyses;

Recurrent conservation issues

4.Also takes note of the completion of the independent review process on extractive industries and World Heritage properties as a contribution to the Policy Guidelines development and invites the World Heritage Centre to disseminate this review as widely as possible;

Disaster risk reduction

5.Requests States Parties to make every endeavor to take into consideration disaster risks, including from human-induced hazards, in the management plans and systems for the World Heritage properties located in their territories;  

6.Also requests the World Heritage Centre, with the support of the Advisory Bodies, to continue working with global and regional institutions involved in disaster risk management, with an aim to mainstream a concern for heritage within their policies and programmes as well as in UN-led processes such as the Post-Disaster-Needs-Assessment (PDNA);

Follow-up to decisions 35 COM 7C and 35 COM 12E

7.Further takes note of the information provided regarding the recognition for the protectors of World Heritage properties in conflict and post-conflict zones, including through the use of blue/green berets or other appropriate insignia;

8.Takes note furthermore of the correspondence process in place to increase dialogue between the States Parties, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies regarding conservation issues at World Heritage properties;

9.Thanks the Government of Flanders for its support to the establishment of a “state of conservation information system” hosted on the World Heritage Centre’s website and further requests the World Heritage Centre to present a progress report on the database and its access online, during the 37th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2013;

Other conservation issues not reported on at the 36th session under Items 7A and 7B

10.  Expresses its concern with regard to the state of conservation of World Heritage property of “Archaeological Areas of Pompei, Herculaneum and Torre Annuziata” and urges the State Party of Italy to intensify its efforts towards implementing the Committee’s decision taken at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011);

11.  Extends its sympathy to the victims of the earthquake in northern Italy; also encourages the State Party of Italy to continue its important efforts for the assessment of the damage occurred and for the planning and implementation of the necessary remedial measures, including with a view to strengthening the overall resilience of the three properties in the future against all possible hazards; and requests furthermore the State Party of Italy to provide to the World Heritage Centre updated information on the situation and to coordinate with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies possible initiatives for the recovery and restoration of the three affected properties;

12.   Finally requests the State Party of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to halt the proposed development of a golf resort at the World Heritage property “Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast” until its potential impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage property has been assessed.

1.   Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/8D,

2.   Recalling Decision 35 COM 8D adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3.   Acknowledges the excellent work accomplished by States Parties in the clarification of the delimitation of their World Heritage properties and thanks them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;

4.   Recalls that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will not be able to examine proposals for minor or significant modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties whenever the delimitation of such properties as inscribed is unclear;

5.   Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and areas provided by the following States Parties in response to the Retrospective Inventory, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-12/36.COM/8D:

• Algeria: M’Zab Valley;
• Argentina: Los Glaciares National Park;
• Australia: Lord Howe Island Group; Wet Tropics of Queensland; Shark Bay, Western Australia; Heard and McDonald Islands;
• Cambodia: Angkor;
• China: The Great Wall; Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian; Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area; Ancient City of Ping Yao; Summer Palace, an Imperial Garden in Beijing; Temple of Heaven: an Imperial Sacrificial Altar in Beijing;
• Colombia: Historic Centre of Santa Cruz de Mompox;
• Croatia: Plitvice Lakes National Park;
• Czech Republic: Historic Centre of Prague;
• Finland: Fortress of Suomenlinna;
• Georgia: Historic Monuments of Mtskheta;
• Germany: Aachen Cathedral; Collegiate Church, Castle and Old Town of Quedlinburg;
• Germany and the United Kingdom: Frontiers of the Roman Empire: Hadrian’s Wall;
• Honduras: Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve;
• India: Ajanta Caves; Kaziranga National Park;
• Indonesia: Borobudur Temple Compounds;
• Japan: Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area; Himeji-jo; Yakushima; Shirakami-Sanchi; Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama; Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome); Itsukushima Shinto Shrine; Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara;
• Nepal: Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha;
• Sri Lanka: Sinharaja Forest Reserve;
• Seychelles: Aldabra Atoll;
• Spain: Monastery and Site of the Escurial, Madrid; Works of Antoni Gaudí; Old Town of Segovia and its Aqueduct; Monuments of Oviedo and the Kingdom of the Asturias; Santiago de Compostela (Old Town); Old Town of Cáceres; Old City of Salamanca; Poblet Monastery; Archaeological Ensemble of Mérida; Royal Monastery of Santa María de Guadalupe;
• Syrian Arab Republic: Ancient City of Aleppo;
• Thailand: Historic Town of Sukhothai and Associated Historic Towns; Historic City of Ayutthaya; Ban Chiang Archaeological Site;
• Tunisia: Archaeological Site of Carthage;
• Turkey: Göreme National Park and the Rock Sites of Cappadocia;
• Uzbekistan: Itchan Kala; Historic Centre of Bukhara; Samarkand – Crossroad of Cultures;

6.   Requests the States Parties which have not yet answered the questions raised in the framework of the Retrospective Inventory to provide all clarifications and documentation as soon as possible and by 1 December 2012 at the latest.

1.   Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/9A,

2.   Recalling Decision 35 COM 9A adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011) and Resolution 18 GA 8 of the 18th session of the General Assembly (UNESCO, 2011),

3.   Notes that the World Heritage Centre in close collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, produceda working document on the recommendations of the independent evaluation by UNESCO’s external auditor with a prioritized list of recommendations in the framework of the objectives of the Strategic Action Plan, adopted in Resolution 18 GA 11, and considering Decisions 35 COM 12A to 35 COM 12E, which also indicated financial implications, and the allocation of responsibility between States Parties, the General Assembly, the World Heritage Committee, the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre;

4.   Also notes that the World Heritage Centre, provided the document to all States Parties through Circular Letters dated 1 February 2012 and 24 April 2012;

5.   Acknowledges with appreciation the financial support of the States Parties of Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands towards the travel support for experts and meeting other costs of the open-ended working group held at UNESCO 15-16 May 2012; 

6.   Takes note of the Implementation Plan concerning the Global Strategy prepared by the first meeting of the open-ended working group and that a second meeting on the PACT Initiative is scheduled to take place prior to the 37th session of the World Heritage Committee;

7.   Welcomes that implementation has commenced on a number of recommendations and reiterates its request to all States Parties to fully comply with the provisions of the World Heritage Convention;

8.   Decides to implement the recommendations within its mandate;

9.   Further notes that a number of recommendations concern revisions to the Operational Guidelines and to the Rules of Procedures of the World Heritage Committee;

10.  Also decides to include an item on Revisions to the Operational Guidelines and the Rules of Procedures on the agenda of its 37th session. 

1.   Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/12A,

2.   Recalling Decisions 32 COM 10, 33 COM 14A.2, 34 COM 12, and 35 COM 12A adopted at its 32nd (Quebec City, 2008), 33rd (Seville, 2009), 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively and Resolutions 17 GA 9 and 18 GA 11 adopted at the 17th (UNESCO, 2009) and 18th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions of the General Assembly of States Parties respectively,

3.   Acknowledges the adoption of the Strategic Action Plan and Vision by the 18th General Assembly of States Parties (UNESCO, 2011);

4.   Welcomes the progress made in drafting the Implementation Plan by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies including appropriate roles, responsibilities and accountabilities, an implementation schedule and a list of priority actions;

5.   Notes the close links between the Draft Implementation Plan and the work of the Open-ended Working Group established by Resolution 18 GA 8 of the General Assembly of States Parties (UNESCO, 2011);

6.   Requests the World Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, and with the support of interested States Parties to continue its efforts to further define various activities contained in the Draft Implementation Plan;

7.   Also requests that the outcomes and progress in the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan be presented to the General Assembly at its 19th session in 2013 for its consideration in line with Resolution 18 GA 11 point 8. 

1.   Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/12C,

2.   Recalling Decision 34 COM 12.III adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010) and Decision 35 COM 12.C at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011);

3.   Welcomes the actions undertaken to improve the processes and practices prior to consideration by the World Heritage Committee of a nomination (the ‘upstream processes’) and commends the States Parties, the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre for the pilot projects in which progress was made;

4.   Urges the States Parties concerned that have not yet done so, to fully collaborate providing technical and financial support to implement the required actions and encourages them to seek assistance from the World Heritage Fund, if necessary;

5.   Calls upon the international community to provide technical and financial support to assist the States Parties concerned in the implementation of their pilot projects which were not able to identify adequate resources;

6.   Requests the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre to report on the progress in implementing the pilot projects for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session, in 2013.

1.   Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/12D;

2.   Takes note of the progress made in the preparation of the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention under the theme “World Heritage and Sustainable Development: the Role of Local Communities”;

3.   Encourages States Parties to continue to develop, support and carry out activities to promote the anniversary;

4.   Invites the World Heritage Centre to continue implementing the programme of activities assisted by extrabudgetary funding available or to be identified;

5.   Requests the World Heritage Centre to report on the 40th anniversary celebrations to the 37th session of the World Heritage Committee (2013).

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decision 35 COM 8B.13 , adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3.  Expresses its concern about the level of threats which might be affecting the Outstanding Universal Value and integrity of the property and about the lack of adequate management response to address those pressures;

4.  Requests the State Party of Slovakia to ensure that a comprehensive vision for development around the Slovak component of the property and practical guidance for achieving an effective protection of its Outstanding Universal Value and in particular its integrity be included in the management plan requested by the Council of Europe, in order to ensure that both the requirements of the Convention and those of the Council of Europe can be met in one single management plan;

5.  Also requests the State Party of Slovakia to strengthen cooperation between different Ministries and Agencies relevant for the management of the property and to ensure that the World Heritage status of the property is recognized in their strategies and plans;

6.  Urges the State Party of Slovakia to halt unsustainable logging activities within component sites of the World Heritage property;

7.  Recalls that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should be conducted and submitted to the World Heritage Centre for all development projects within the property and its surroundings that could affect its Outstanding Universal Value, in line with paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines , and further requests the State Party of Slovakia to immediately halt all infrastructure development that could affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property until such EIAs are conducted ;

8.  Encourages the State Parties of Germany, Slovakia and Ukraine to enhance their transnational cooperation and to implement the recommendations adopted in its Decision 35 COM 8B.13 , in particular the establishment of an integrated management system for the trilateral property  to ensure the protection of the functional linkages between the component parts, as well as research and monitoring plans in order to monitor the property as a whole, and the development of capacity building to share best practices;

9.  Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014 , an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014. 

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B,

2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 8B.17 adopted at the 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012),

3.  Takes note of the information provided by the State Party, in particular the boundaries of the property and its buffer zone;

4.  Notes with satisfaction the inscription of all the outstanding monuments and sites of the property on the National Heritage List, the establishment of the local Management Committee, the institutionalisation of the Heritage Centre, an improved functioning of the Building Permits Commission and the implementation of different restoration programmes for the outstanding monuments and houses of the property;

5.  Encourages the State Party to pursue its efforts for the improved knowledge of the property (cadastral inventory) and further to continue its efforts to strengthen the protection of the property through the Building Permits Commission, the conservation of the property and its monitoring as concerns the privately owned buildings and tree-lined areas, daily management (illegal habitations, waste and pollution) and the surveillance of natural threats (closure of the lagoon and its consequences, coastal erosion);

6.  Requests the State Party to:

a)  Provide a global map showing the boundary of the property and its new buffer zone,

b)  Indicate the human resources of the local Management Committee and the Heritage Centre responsible for the management of the property,

c)  Confirm that the notifications of the Heritage Centre and/or the local Management Committee of the property, for the attention of the Building Permits Commission are, in fact, suspensive and not simply consultative, as indicated in some of the documents provided at the time of inscription,

d)  Implement a policy to assist in the conservation of private immovable property at both the technical level (practical conservation guide) and financial (combined public/private assistance),

e)  Implement a plantation and green spaces programme that respects the authenticity of the property in this domain, and carry out the necessary prior studies,

f)   Define more diversified and precise monitoring indicators for conservation, to be applied to both monuments and houses, public squares and plantations.  They must cover all the constitutive components of the property, both public and private;

7.  Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2015 , a report on the state of conservation of the property providing information on the implementation of the above-mentioned points, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015.

1. Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,
   
   
2. Recalling Decisions 33 COM 7B.141, 34 COM 7B.113, 35 COM 7B.130, 36 COM 7B.103 , adopted at its 33rd (Seville, 2009), 34th (Brasilia, 2010), 35th (UNESCO, 2011) and 36th (Saint Petersburg, 2012) sessions respectively, and its concern that the construction of the Cinta Costera Phase III (Maritime Viaduct) would irreversibly impact on the property,
   
   
3. Also recalling the state of conservation reports and reactive monitoring mission reports of March 2009, March 2010 and October 2010 that underscored the impacts of the Cinta Costera project, in particular the Maritime Viaduct, and the poor state of conservation of the property;
   
   
4. Notes the progress with developing a Management Plan, with quantifying the number of buildings at risk and with work on the streetscapes, and undergrounding networks, and reiterates its deep concern about the overall state of conservation of the property and regrets that no sufficient progress has been made in comprehensively and sustainably addressing issues, or in implementing the emergency Action Plan agreed in 2009;
   
   
5. Also regrets that the State Party decided to launch the construction of the Cinta Costera Phase III (Maritime Viaduct) that modifies in an irreversible manner the relation of the historic centre with its wider setting;
   
   
6. Requests the State Party to submit by 1 February 2015 a significant modification to the boundaries to allow it to justify a revision of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;
   
   
7. Also requests the State Party to invite as soon as possible a high-level World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission, guided by the World Heritage Centre, to discuss the different possibilities of this modification;
   
   
8. Considers that in the absence of the implementation of the request made in this decision, the property would be deleted from the World Heritage List at its 39th session in 2015 , in conformity with Chapter IV.C of the Operational Guidelines . 

1. Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/8D,

2. Recalling Decision 36 COM 8D, adopted at its 36th session (Saint Petersburg, 2012),

3. Acknowledges the excellent work accomplished by States Parties in the clarification of the delimitation of their World Heritage properties and thanks them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;

4. Recalls that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will not be able to examine proposals for minor or significant modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties whenever the delimitation of such properties as inscribed is unclear;

5. Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and areas provided by the following States Parties in response to the Retrospective Inventory, as presented in the Annexes of Document WHC-13/37.COM/8D:

• Algeria: Kasbah of Algiers;
• Brazil: Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Congonhas; Brasilia; Historic Centre of São Luís;
• Cuba: San Pedro de la Roca Castle, Santiago de Cuba;
• Dominican Republic: Colonial City of Santo Domingo;
• Germany: Hanseatic City of Lübeck; Völklingen Ironworks;
• Jordan: Petra;
• Mexico: Sian Ka’an; Pre-Hispanic City and National Park of Palenque; Historic Centre of Puebla; Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines; Historic Centre of Morelia; Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino; Historic Centre of Zacatecas; Rock Paintings of the Sierra de San Francisco; Archaeological Zone of Paquimé, Casas Grandes; Historic Monuments Zone of Tlacotalpan;
• Panama: Darien National Park;
• Paraguay: Jesuit Missions of La Santísima Trinidad de Paraná and Jesús de Tavarangue;
• Peru: City of Cuzco; Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu; Chavin (Archaeological Property); Chan Chan Archaeological Zone; Historic Centre of Lima; Río Abiseo National Park; Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana;
• Russian Federation: Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments; Kizhi Pogost;
• Spain: Old Town of Ávila with its Extra-Muros Churches; Historic City of Toledo; Historic Walled Town of Cuenca; Palau de la Música Catalana and Hospital de Sant Pau, Barcelona;
• Viet Nam: Complex of Hué Monuments;

6. Requests the States Parties which have not yet answered the questions raised in the framework of the Retrospective Inventory to provide all clarifications and documentation as soon as possible and by 1 December 2013 at the latest.

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/9,

2.  Recalling Decision 34 COM 13.III adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010), Decision 35 COM 12C adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011) and Decision 36 COM 12C adopted at its 36th session (Saint Petersburg, 2012),

3.  Requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to take into account the rich debate held at its 37th session, in particular  on capacity-building, methodology and processes for Tentative Lists and upstream nomination projects, in order to enhance dialogue and communication among all relevant parties including the World Heritage Centre, UNESCO field offices, IUCN regional offices, ICOMOS national committees, international scientific committees and ICCROM capacity-building programmes, as well as UNESCO Category 2 Centres related to world heritage and universities;

4.  Suggests to the States Parties to take into account the assessments of impact on natural and cultural heritage;

5.  Welcomes all the actions undertaken to improve the processes and practices prior to consideration by the World Heritage Committee of a nomination (the ‘upstream processes’) and commends the States Parties, the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre for the pilot projects in which progress was made;

6.  Also commends the State Party of Namibia for having successfully achieved the pilot project concerning the Namib Sand Sea;

7.  Urges the States Parties concerned that have not yet done so, to fully collaborate providing technical and financial support to implement the required actions to make progress with the pilot projects and encourages them to seek assistance from the World Heritage Centre to identify opportunities to secure resources to progress the project, if necessary;

8.  Calls upon the international community to provide technical and financial support to assist the States Parties concerned in the implementation of their pilot projects which were not able to identify adequate resources;

9.  Also requests the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre to report on the progress in implementing the pilot projects for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014.

1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/8D,
2. Recalling Decision 37 COM 8D, adopted at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),
3. Acknowledges the excellent work accomplished by States Parties in the clarification of the delimitations of their World Heritage properties and commends them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;
4. Recalls that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will not be able to examine proposals for minor or significant modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties whenever the delimitations of such properties as inscribed are unclear;
5. Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and areas provided by the States Parties in response to the Retrospective Inventory, as presented in the annexes of Document WHC-14/38.COM/8D:

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC:

• China: Mogao Caves; Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor; Lushan National Park; Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area; Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area;
• Japan: Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyotot, Uji and Otsu Cities);
• Thailand: Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries;

EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA:

• Canada: Miguasha National Park; Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks;
• Canada / United States of America: Kluane / Wrangell-St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek;
• France: Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley;
• Germany: Speyer Cathedral; Roman Monuments, Cathedral of St. Peter and Church of Our Lady in Trier; Abbey and Altenmünster of Lorsch;
• Russian Federation: Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments;
• Spain: Route of Santiago de Compostela;
• United States of America: Redwood National and State Parks; Mammoth Cave National Park; Statue of Liberty; Yosemite National Park; Taos Pueblo;

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARRIBBEAN:

• Argentina: Iguazu National Park;
• Argentina / Brazil: Jesuit Missions of the Guarani: San Ignacio Mini, Santa Ana, Nuestra Senora de Loreto, Santa Maria Mayor, Ruins of San Miguel das Missoes;
• Brazil: Historic Town of Ouro Preto; Serra da Capivara National Park; Historic Centre of the Town of Olinda; Historic Centre of Salvador de Bahia;
• Colombia: San Augustín Archeological Park; National Archeological Park of Tierradentro; Los Katíos National Park;
• Costa Rica / Panama : Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves / La Amistad National Park ;
• Guatemala: Archaeological Park and Ruins of Quirigua;
• Mexico: Historic Monuments Zone of Querétaro; Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the Slopes of Popocatepetl; Hospicio Cabañas, Guadalajara; Historic Centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco;
• Uruguay: Historic Quarter of the City of Colonia del Sacramento.

1. Having examined Document WHC-15/39.COM/9A,
2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 13.III adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010), Decision 35 COM 12C at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011), Decision 36 COM 12C at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012) and Decision 37 COM 9 at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),
3. Welcomes all the actions undertaken to improve the processes and practices prior to consideration by the World Heritage Committee of a nomination (the ‘Upstream Processes’) and commends the States Parties, the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre for the pilot projects in which progress was made;
4. Acknowledges that outside of the referenced pilot projects, in order to be effective, the upstream support should ideally intervene at an early stage, more precisely at the moment of the revision or preparation of States Parties Tentative Lists;
5. Also commends Saudi Arabia and Uruguay for submission of their nominations, the Rock Drawings in the Hail region and the Cultural and Industrial Landscape of Fray Bentos respectively;
6. Urges the States Parties concerned that have not yet done so, to fully collaborate providing technical and financial support to implement the required actions to make progress with the pilot projects, and encourages them to seek assistance, if necessary, from the World Heritage Centre to identify opportunities to secure resources to advance on the project;
7. Calls upon the international community to provide technical and financial support to assist the States Parties concerned in the implementation of their pilot projects, which were not able to identify and secure adequate resources;
8. Requests the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre to report on the progress in implementing the pilot projects for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 40th session in 2016.

1. Having examined Document WHC-15/39.COM/9B,
2. Recalling Decision 38 COM 9B adopted at its 38th session (Doha, 2014),
3. Welcomes the report of the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies on proposals to improve the preparation and evaluation of mixed World Heritage nominations;
4. Reiterates that due to the complexity of mixed site nominations, and their evaluation, States Parties should ideally seek prior advice from IUCN and ICOMOS if possible at least two years before a possible nomination is submitted, in compliance with Paragraph 122 of the Operational Guidelines;
5. Takes note of the proposals of IUCN and ICOMOS to improve evaluation processes for mixed sites presented in the above mentioned document, and requests IUCN and ICOMOS to continue to implement those proposals, subject to available time and resources and in coordination with the World Heritage Centre, and to report back on progress at the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee in 2017.

1. Having examined Documents WHC/16/40.COM/8B.Add, WHC/16/40.COM/INF.8B1.Add and WHC/16/40.COM/INF.8B2.Add,
2. Recalling Decision 38 COM 8B.14 adopted at its 38th session (Doha, 2014),
3. Approves the proposed minor boundary modification of Trang An Landscape Complex, Viet Nam;
4. Requests the State Party to ensure that any developments in the property, its buffer zone, or in any adjacent areas that might threaten the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, are subject to early notice to the World Heritage Centre, as per the requirements of the Operational Guidelines, and in line with the newly adopted Policy Document for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention;
5. Recommends that the State Party finalise the Management Plan and strengthen the management system;
6. Notes with appreciation the progress in enhancing the management of the property, including the further work to complete the management plan, and encourages the State Party and its property managers to continue this work, in close partnership with the local communities.

1. Having examined Document WHC/16/40.COM/8D,
2. Recalling Decision 39 COM 8D, adopted at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015),
3. Acknowledges the excellent work accomplished by States Parties in the clarification of the boundaries of their World Heritage properties and commends them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;
4. Recalls that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are not able to examine proposals for minor or significant modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties whenever the delimitations of such properties as inscribed remain unclear;
5. Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and areas provided by the States Parties as presented in the Annex of Document WHC/16/40.COM/8D:
   
   

   ARAB STATES

   • Syrian Arab Republic: Site of Palmyra;

   EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA

   • Canada: Dinosaur Provincial Park;
   • Croatia: Plitvice Lakes National Park;
   • Czech Republic: Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc; Litomyšl Castle;
   • France: Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France; Place Stanislas, Place de la Carrière and Place d'Alliance in Nancy;
   • Germany: Bauhaus and its Sites in Weimar and Dessau; Luther Memorials in Eisleben and Wittenberg;
   • Holy See: Vatican City;
   • Italy: City of Verona;
   • Russian Federation: Kremlin and Red Square, Moscow;
   • Spain: Cave of Altamira and Paleolithic Cave Art of Northern Spain; Las Médulas; La Lonja de la Seda de Valencia; San Millán Yuso and Suso Monasteries;
   • Sweden: Skogskyrkogården;
   • United States of America: La Fortaleza and San Juan National Historic Site in Puerto Rico; Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site; Chaco Culture;

   LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

   • Belize: Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System;
   • Cuba: Old Havana and its Fortification System;
   • Mexico: Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan;
   • Peru: Huascarán National Park;
   • Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of): Coro and its Port;
     
     
6. Requests the States Parties which have not yet answered the questions raised in the framework of the Retrospective Inventory to provide all clarifications and documentation as soon as possible, and by 1 December 2016 at the latest, for their subsequent examination, if the technical requirements are met, by the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee in 2017.

1. Having examined Document WHC/17/41.COM/9A,
2. Recalling Decisions 34 COM 13.III, 35 COM 12C, 36 COM 12C, 37 COM 9, 38 COM 9A, 39 COM 11 and 40 COM 9A, adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010), 35th (UNESCO, 2011), 36th (Saint-Petersburg, 2012), 37th (Phnom Penh, 2013), 38th (Doha, 2014), 39th (Bonn, 2015) and 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016) sessions respectively,
3. Also recalling the integration of the Upstream Processes in Paragraphs 71 and 122 of the Operational Guidelines,
4. Further recalls that, in order to be effective, the upstream support should ideally take place at an early stage, preferably at the moment of the preparation or revision of the States Parties’ Tentative Lists, and takes notes that this has also been reiterated by the outcomes of the online survey on the Upstream Process;
5. Welcomes all the actions undertaken to improve the processes and practices prior to the consideration of nominations by the World Heritage Committee, and commends the States Parties, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies for the pilot projects that registered progress;
6. Also welcomes the launch of the online survey on the Upstream Process and the in-depth reflection undertaken by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies; and warmly thanks the States Parties which have participated in the online survey, for their valuable input and comments;
7. Expresses its appreciation to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies for presenting proposals to ensure the effective and equitable implementation of the Upstream Process for its consideration;
8. In view of ensuring proper follow-up, greater efficiency, transparency and accountability as well as streamlining and improved coordination of the required actions following requests for upstream advice, approves with immediate effect the revised Upstream Process request format contained in Annex I to Document WHC/17/41.COM/9A and requests the Secretariat to include this item for examination and possible inclusion as a new annex to the Operational Guidelines during the next review of the Operational Guidelines at its 43rd session in 2019;
9. In view of the outcome of the online survey, also takes note of the proposed amendments to footnote of Paragraph 122 of the Operational Guidelines contained in Document WHC/17/41.COM/9A, which aims to provide useful and clear guidance to States Parties on questions relating to the implementation of the Upstream Process, and also requests the Secretariat to include this item for examination and possible inclusion in the Operational Guidelines during the next review of the Operational Guidelines at its 43rd session in 2019;
10. Recognizing the limited available capacity of the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies, and on the basis of the experience acquired so far in providing Upstream advice, further takes note that it is not feasible to process more than ten new Upstream Process requests per year and decides that this limit will be applied on a trial basis for 2 years starting in 2018;
11. Also decides that the Upstream Process requests will be reviewed and prioritized twice a year with deadlines for submission to the World Heritage Centre on 31 March and 31 October through giving priority for preparation or revision of Tentative Lists, to Least Developed Countries, Low-Income and Lower-Middle Income Countries and Small Island Developing States, followed by the mechanism of Paragraph 61.c) of the Operational Guidelines;
12. In order to ensure a fairer and more equitable use of the resources available, whether in terms of funding or in terms of staff, further decides to apply the prioritization system established by the mechanism of Paragraph 61.c) of the Operational Guidelines in conjunction with the criteria of eligibility for receiving financial support for the provision of upstream advice;
13. Requests that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to also give consideration to the thematic and regional imbalances highlighted by the gap analyses as well as innovative approaches to heritage in the prioritization of the upstream requests;
14. Decides furthermore that the States Parties who may benefit from the “Advisory Missions” budget line within the World Heritage Fund, including for upstream support, will be limited to those falling within the categories of Least Developed Countries, Low-Income and Lower-Middle Income Countries and Small Islands Developing States and others on a case by case as well as cost-sharing basis;
15. Decides moreover to establish a sub-account within the World Heritage Fund, to be used exclusively for funding requests for upstream support, and to be funded by voluntary contributions;
16. Also decides to include in the mandate of the extended Ad-Hoc Working Group an item on the definition of the upstream process and the effectiveness of the Global Strategy for a balanced and representative World Heritage List;
17. Encourages the World Heritage Centre to take the necessary and feasible measures in a way to better cope with upstream process;
18. Recommends that other Category 2 Centres consider integrating in their capacity-building initiatives the Nomination Upstream programme following the example of the African World Heritage Fund programme in Africa in partnership with the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre, which is considered a successful regional capacity-building model;
19. Further requests the World Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, to present a progress report on the ongoing pilot projects as well as on the implementation of Upstream Process requests received, for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 42nd session in 2018.

1. Having examined Document WHC/17/41.COM/9B,
2. Recalling Decisions 38 COM 9B and 39 COM 9B adopted respectively at its 38th (Doha, 2014) and 39th (Bonn, 2015) sessions,
3. Welcomes the report of the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies on proposals to improve the preparation and evaluation of mixed World Heritage nominations;
4. Reiterates that due to the complexity of mixed site nominations and their evaluation, States Parties should ideally seek prior advice from IUCN and ICOMOS, if possible at least two years before a potential nomination is submitted, in compliance with Paragraph 122 of the Operational Guidelines;
5. Recognizes the progress made by the Advisory Bodies over the past two years and encourages them to continue their efforts towards setting up a harmonized evaluation process for mixed nominations to include as far as is feasible:
   1. establishing a common approach for desk reviews,
   2. undertaking a joint IUCN/ICOMOS panel to either address the whole evaluation or to complete the evaluations after the first IUCN and ICOMOS panels in December,
   3. producing a single jointly agreed decision for mixed site evaluations;
6. Requests the Advisory Bodies to report back on the progress with regard to the above-mentioned paragraph to the 43rd session of the World Heritage Committee in 2019;
7. Calls upon States Parties to consider providing support to this initiative that requires additional resources;
8. Invites States Parties hosting potential mixed properties to reinforce their culture/nature interfaces in view of consolidating and sustaining the values of the properies.

1. Having examined document WHC/18/42.COM/12A,
2. Expresses its appreciation to the ad-hoc Working Group for its work and recommendations;
3. Takes note of the recommendations related to upstream, International Assistance and sustainability of the World Heritage Fund which have been included accordingly in the related Decisions (42 COM 9A, 42 COM 13 and 42 COM 14);
4. In relation to Recommendation n°3 of the IOS study, notes with concern the number of deviations of the decisions of the World Heritage Committee from the recommendations of the Advisory Bodies and considers that, in order to address them, it is necessary to review the nomination process, tentative lists and upstream process, bearing in mind the Global Strategy, and to consider other possible measures, such as a Code of conduct of the World Heritage Committee;
5. Decides to extend the mandate of the adhoc Working Group, to be composed of members of the Committee and up to two non-members per Electoral Group, to:
   • Examine different possibilities of reforming the nomination process and propose recommendations in view of increasing the balance and credibility of the World Heritage List;
   • Discuss the modalities for the possible use of advisory services of other entities with suitable experience and knowledge, in line with UNESCO’s rules and regulations, and in addition to the current three Advisory Bodies;
   
6. Noting that the ad-hoc Working Group identified the need for reform of the nomination and evaluation process, considers that this would benefit from further reflection from a representative panel of experts drawn from the ad-hoc Working Group, the World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies and other experts, to feed into the work of the ad-hoc Working Group;
7. Requests in this regard, the World Heritage Centre to organize, by March 2019, a reflection meeting to examine different possibilities for reforming the nomination and evaluation process and to propose recommendations for consideration by the World Heritage Committee in view of increasing the balance and credibility of the World Heritage List, as outlined in document WHC/18/42.COM/12A;
8. Calls upon interested States Parties to contribute extrabudgetary funds towards the organisation of the reflection meeting;
9. Requests the Secretariat to consult with States Parties and other relevant stakeholders of the Convention on the matters that should be addressed at the reflection meeting;
10. Further requests the ad-hoc Working Group to review the reflection meeting report and recommendations and to submit these together with the advice of the ad-hoc Working Group, to the 43rd session of the Committee with a view to revising the Operational Guidelines.
    

1. Having examined Document WHC/23/45.COM/8B,
2. Adopts the Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for the following World Heritage properties inscribed at previous sessions of the World Heritage Committee:

• Chile, Settlement and Artificial Mummification of the Chinchorro Culture in the Arica and Parinacota Region
• Côte d’Ivoire, Sudanese style mosques in northern Côte d’Ivoire
• France, Nice, Winter Resort Town of the Riviera
• Gabon, Ivindo National Park
• Germany, Mathildenhöhe Darmstadt
• India, Kakatiya Rudreshwara (Ramappa) Temple, Telangana
• Iran (Islamic Republic of), Trans-Iranian Railway
• Netherlands, Dutch Water Defence Lines
• Republic of Korea, Getbol, Korean Tidal Flats
• Russian Federation, Petroglyphs of Lake Onega and the White Sea
• Saudi Arabia, Ḥimā Cultural Area
• Spain, Paseo del Prado and Buen Retiro, a landscape of Arts and Sciences
• Thailand, Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex
• Türkiye, Arslantepe Mound.

1. Having examined Document WHC/23/45.COM/8D,
2. Recalling Decision 44 COM 8D adopted at its extended 44th session (Fuzhou/online 2021),
3. Acknowledges the excellent work accomplished by States Parties in the clarification of the boundaries of their World Heritage properties and commends them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;
4. Recalls that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are not able to examine proposals for minor or significant modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties whenever the delimitations of such properties as inscribed remain unclear;
5. Takes note of the clarifications of boundaries and areas provided by the States Parties for the following properties, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC/23/45.COM/8D:

AFRICA

• Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve
• Togo, Koutammakou, the Land of the Batammariba

ARAB STATES

• Oman, Bahla Fort

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

• China, Longmen Grottoes
• China, Old Town of Lijiang
• China, West Lake Cultural Landscape of Hangzhou
• Iran (Islamic Republic of), Bam and its Cultural Landscape
• Iran (Islamic Republic of), Meidan Emam, Esfahan
• Iran (Islamic Republic of), Pasargadae
• Iran (Islamic Republic of), Shahr-i Sokhta
• Iran (Islamic Republic of), Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System
• Japan, Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama
• Viet Nam, Ha Long Bay

EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA

• Armenia, Monastery of Geghard and the Upper Azat Valley
• Czechia, Historic Centre of Český Krumlov
• Czechia, Historic Centre of Telč
• Czechia, Kutná Hora: Historical Town Centre with the Church of St Barbara and the Cathedral of Our Lady at Sedlec
• Italy, Mantua and Sabbioneta
• Lithuania, Kernavė Archaeological Site (Cultural Reserve of Kernavė)
• Malta, City of Valletta
• Malta, Ħal Saflieni Hypogeum
• Norway, Bryggen
• Norway, West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord
• Sweden, Church Town of Gammelstad, Luleå
• Sweden, Engelsberg Ironworks
• Sweden, Hanseatic Town of Visby
• Sweden, Rock Carvings in Tanum
• Switzerland, Three Castles, Defensive Wall and Ramparts of the Market-Town of Bellinzona
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Blenheim Palace
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Saltaire
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

• Argentina, Península Valdés
• Chile, Sewell Mining Town;