Distribution limited CC-79/CONF.005/6
Paris, 20 July 1979
Original : English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
ON THE SECOND MEETING OF THE BUREAU OF THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL
AND NATURAL HERITAGE
(Unesco, Paris, 28-30 May l979)
*[1]
I INTRODUCTION
1. The second meeting of the Bureau of the Intergovernmental
Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (later referred to as "the Committee") was held in Paris on
May 28 to 30. It was attended by all members : the chairman : Mr. David
Hales (U.S.A.) and the five Vice-Chairmen : Mr. Rodrigo Pallares
(Ecuador), Dr. Shehata Adams (Arab Republic of Egypt), Mr. Michel
Parent (France) accompanied by Mr. J.P. Bady, Mr. Charyar Adle (Islamic
Republic of Iran), Mr. Ekpo Eyo (Nigeria).
2. Representatives of the International Centre for Conservation
(ICCROM), the International Council of Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (IUCN) attended in an advisory capacity.
3. A full list of participants is given in Annex I.
4. Hr. Michel Parent (France) was elected as rapporteur.
5. The provisional agenda was adopted.
II. OPENING OF THE MEETING
6. Mr. M. Batisse, Deputy Assistant Director General (Science
Sector) welcomed the members of the Bureau on behalf of the
Director-General and reported on the present position with respect-
to the World Heritage Convention. Forty six States had now adhered to
the Convention and the Committee had been enlarged to 21 members at
the last General Assembly of States Parties This was a crucial meeting
of the Bureau ;n determining the standards that would govern admissions
to the World Heritage List. Seventy-four nominations had been received,
which, with the fifteen previously deferred, amounted to eight,-nine
to be considered at this meeting of the Bureau.But of these, only 17
concerned natural properties, raising once again the question of balance
between cultural and natural properties. The Fund now stood at more
than 1 million dollars; most States had paid their contributions,
and Austria and the Netherlands which are not yet parties to the
Convention had made voluntary contributions. Expenditure had been well
within the limits set by the Committee. Preparatory assistance had
been given to five countries, and had been approved for three others.
Emergency assistance had been given to Nepal and applications from
four other countries for emergency assistance or fellowships were
being considered or had been approved. Dr. Batisse stressed that the
Convention had now entered its operational phase. Working relations
with ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN had been tested and were excellent,
as were those between the two divisions of Unesco involved. A critical
feature was however the lack of staff to deal with the growing work
associated with the implementation of the Convention.
7. In reply to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Batisse said that
emergency measures had been taken to provide help to the Secretariat,
but that he could not foresee a rapid resolution of the problem because
of the timetable imposed by the preparation of the draft budget of
Unesco.
*[2]
III REVIEW OF NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
8. The Bureau reviewed all the nominations of natural and cultural
properties received by the Secretariat. Its recommendations to
the Committee on each property are presented in Annex 2.
9. The Bureau recognized the great importance of the meeting in
establishing the standards that would be applied in future for
determining the properties to be admitted to the World Heritage List.
After some initial discussion about the general philosophy of selection
and about the procedures for dealing with nominations, it was decided
to examine the files for each property with the comments of ICOMOS and
IUCN thereon, in order to develop principles and precedents based on
the consideration of individual cases. Natural properties were to be
examined first, as it was thought that they posed simpler issues.
1O. Rather than recording the discussion chronologically, this report
draws together in paragraphs 11 to 23 the principal points that
emerged.
11. It was suggested that a small standing committee, or other
suitable mechanism, might be set up to define more precisely
the criteria in the light of the nominations presented and of the
decisions taken by the Committee thereon. It was agreed that Mr. Parent
would prepare a paper on this question which would be considered by
the Bureau and Committee in October. Another paper would be prepared
by ICOMOS and IUCN on the procedures used by these organizations in
evaluating nominations, since these questions were in fact closely
linked.
Principles and Criteria
Imbalance between cultural and natural properties
12. The imbalance in this year' 6 submissions was marked. This
appeared to be due in part to publicity and information, in part
to institutional factors in States parties, and in part to the much
greater variety of cultural properties. However, the natural properties
proposed were generally of vast size. IUCN was not unduly concerned at
this stage but the position should be watched and States should be
encouraged to nominate natura~1 properties.
Universal value
13. The "universal value" criterion- in spite of the difficulty
of defining it rationally - greatly influenced the evaluation
of properties within a same category, such as wetlands, historic
centres of cities, cathedrals, etc ... IUCN had interpreted it strictly
deeming that only the best property of its kind should be included in
the List. This implied a comparative survey. Such a selection was
much more difficult in the cultural field where several properties
of the same family might have intrinsic universal value. The represen-
tative of France also stressed the need for coherence in the nominations
from each country. Furthermore, the fact that a property was not
included in the List did not at all mean that it was not considered to
be an important property and that it should not be preserved.
[3]
Moreover property of equal value to those nominated may exist within
the territory of States but its inscription may not be proposed and
the World Heritage List must by that very fact remain open. In this-
respect, IUCN drew attention to the terms of the Convention which-
foresee that each State Party should submit to the Committee an
inventory of properties situated in its territory which it considers
as having outstanding universal value in terms of the criteria
established by the Committee.
Criterion (vi) -(Cultural properties)
14. The consideration of Edison National Historic Site (N° 77)
drew attention to the difficulties of using criterion (vi).
As worded now it could lead to an unreasonably large number of -
nominations. It was therefore recommended that the formulation of this
criterion and of (i) should be critically re-examined.
Cultural natural sites
15. As far as sites of combined cultural and natural interest
(N° 39, 64, 80, 99, 120) were concerned, it was proposed that
these should be evaluated first in terms of their principal interest
and that their secondary interest should be considered on a comple-
mentary basis. Some future proposals might, of course, be of equal
interest for bath their natural and cultural features.
Nominations compromising a series of properties of the same kind
16. Examples of such nominations are the Decorated Caves in the
Vezère Valley (N° 85) and Forts and Castles in Ghana (N~ 34).
In both cases, the whole series represents more than the sum of its
parts. These can be dealt with in a number of ways :
a) Selecting the best example, a procedure favored by IUCN
in dealing with wetlands;
b) Selecting a few good examples; it was considered that this
might be the right course for Ghana to take in relation to the Forts
and Castles;
c) Treating as one property a number of spatially separate
elements; examples are the Decorated Caves in the Vezère Valley and
the Rock Art of Valcamonica (N° 94); in this case each element must
be precisely identified in the nomination and the measures for
safeguarding each must be specified;
d) Protecting the zone in which they all occur; again each
element must be separately identified.
17. The case of the Open Air Museum of Nubia and Aswan (N° 88),
was recognized as being exceptional because the sites are so
widely separated. The decision made was on the basis of the very high
quality of the properties concerned and the important international
support that had been given for the preservation of the series as
a whole.
*[4]
Later extension of a site
18. This principle was discussed in relation to the National Park
of Bialowieza (N° 33) and Chartres Cathedral (N° 81). It was
considered that in certain instances it would be desirable to add
adjoining areas of great value to a site that had already been included
in the List.
Procedures
19. A number of issues were raised :
a) How rigidly should deadlines be insisted upon ?
It was considered essential that the Secretariat, ICOMOS and
IUCN, stick to agreed deadlines. Only in this way could the workload
be met.
b) How far could, or should, ICOMOS and IUCN themselves
supplement nominations that were deficient ?
If the information were available, this could be done and
considered as a form of preparatory assistance. It should, however,
be done before the nomination was officially submitted, otherwise it
would be placing on the NGO responsibility for the nomination that
ought to rest with the State concerned
c) Should the nomination submitted be sufficiently self-contained
and persuasive to make the case without any additional advocacy, even
in cases where the merits of the site were self-evident ?
Yes, even if the site was of very high quality, this should be
reflected in the completeness and excellence of the nomination.
d) Should States be required to specify in the nomination form
the precise criteria on which their c&se was based ?
States should present a carefully argued case for a property,
itemising where possible the criteria on which they were basing their
arguments, but this was not essential. It was for ICOMOS and IUCN to
assess the arguments against the criteria.
Threatened properties and conditional acceptanCe
20. This question arose in the case of certain proposed properties that
were threatened. It was thought that ~conditional acceptance'
would cast doubt on the good faith of a State in making the nomination.
Acceptance of a site for the World Heritage List should be based on its
inherent quality at the time. If it was damaged later, the site should
be deleted from the List.
IV - EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE
Action taken by the Bureau
Guatemala ( request N° 65-3)
21. The Government of Guatemala has requested emergency assistance
for the town of "Antigua Guatemala" which has been damaged by an
earthquake and torrential rains. This assistance amounting to US $ 50.000
and intended for the purchase of equipment was granted by the Bureau.
*[5]
V - TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION REQUESTS
22. After it had examined the requests for technical co-operation
received from States Parties, the List of which was given in
document CC-79/CONF/005/2, the Bureau formulated the following
recommendations to the Committee.
Ecuador (request N° 1.1.)
23. The Government of Ecuador has requested US $ 50.000 for the
purchase of the necessary equipment to eliminate animals which
are foreign to the Galapagos Islands and which are destroying the
local flora. The Bureau recommended that the Committee should grant
this technical co-operation for the site which is included in the List.
Tanzania (request N° 39.1)
24. The Tanzanian Government has requested the services of an
architect-museologist for three weeks in order to draw up a
project for the conservation and presentation of the prehistoric
sites of Olduvai and Laetolil. The Bureau recommended that the
Committee grant this technical Co-operation if the property is
inscribed on the List.
Egypt (request N° 89.1)
25. The Egyptian Government has requested the services of specialists
in cultural heritage (6 m/m) as well as equipment (amounting
to a total cost of US $ 30.000) to draw up a project for the resto-
ration and development of the old Islamic Centre of Cairo. The Bureau
recommends that the Committee accept this request if the property
is entered on the List.
Ethiopia (request N° 18.1)
26. The Ethiopian Government has requested technical co-operation
for the purpose of carrying out a photogrammetric survey of
the monuments of Lalibela (at an estimated cost of US $ 144.500).
The representative of ICCROM recognized that a photogrammetric survey
would be useful but considered that such a project should not be
afforded priority over other conservation measures or the training
of Ethiopian technicians and, in particular, over the preparation
of a long-term maintenance plan for the monuments. In view of this
opinion, the Bureau - while generally in favour of technical
co-operation for the preservation of the Lalibela monuments -
considered it advisable to defer its decision.
Ethiopia (requests N° 111.1 and 112.1)
27. The Ethiopian Government has requested the services of two
experts (36 m/m) and equipment for two natural sites in order
to systematically investigate these parks and to consider the
possibility of reinstalling elsewhere the population living there.
The Bureau decided to defer its decision until the nominations to
the World Heritage List, which had been received too late, could
be examined.
*[6]
Syrian Arab Republic (requests N° 20.1, 21.1, 22.1, 23.1)
28. The Syrian Government has requested equipment (cranes, lorries,
jeeps, etc ...) for the restoration of Damascus (20.1), Aleppo
(21.1), Bosra (22.1) and Palmyre (23.1). However, since the additional
information requested had not been received and only the site of
Damascus had bean recommended for inscription on the List, the Bureau
preferred to defer its decision until the information required had
been received.
VI - DRAFT TEXT OF STANDARD AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE AND STATES RECEIVING TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
29. The revised text of the standard agreement was being elaborated
by the Secretariat and would be submitted to the next Bureau
meeting.
VII- PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE THIRD SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE
30. The provisional agenda (ref. document CC-79/CONF.005/I) was
approved with the following additions :
a) study of a new procedure for the replacement of the rapporteur;
b) elaboration of guidelines for ICOMOS and IUCN on the
procedures to be followed in evaluating nominations to the World
Heritage List;
c) development of a procedure for the deletion of sites from
the World Heritage List (Secretariat was entrusted with the task of
preparing a draft text);
d) study of possibilities of strengthening the Secretariat of
the World Heritage Committee;
e) revision of the nomination form.
VIII- DRAFT FORMS-FOR REQUESTING PREPARATORY AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE
AND FELLOWSHIPS
31. The draft forms could not be examined for lack of time; they will
be re-submitted to the next Bureau meeting.
IX - OTHER BUSINESS
32. It was decided that the Bureau would meet again in Cairo on
21 October, prior to the meeting. of the Committee; urgent and
outstanding business could be dealt with on this occasion.
33. It was agreed that the Secretariat could transfer funds between
heads of expenditure foreseen for work undertaken by IUCN and
ICOMOS in evaluating nominations.
*[7]
34. The Chairman expressed his concern at the setting up of a World
Heritage Trust which was using the title of the Convention
but had no connection with it. This would certainly cause confusion
and might do damage to the objectives of the Convention because of
the similarity of the names and due to the fact that the Foundation
W&S only concerned with cultural property. The Bureau shared the
concern of the Chairman and it was decided to invite the Director
General to study the matter, to take whatever measures proved necessary
and to inform the Bureau at its next session on the action taken.
35. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that measures had been
taken to register the world heritage emblem.
36. The Secretariat also acquainted the Bureau with the proposal
received from a Swedish firm concerning the production of
silverware, glassware and porcelaine commemorating world heritage
sites. It was decided that the Secretariat would examine the different
issues involved, ethical, legal and promotional and report to the
Committee on the question.
X - CLOSING OF THE BUREAU MEETING
37. In closing the meeting, the Chairman thanked all the members
of the Bureau, the members of the Secretariat and the interpreters
for their effective participation in ensuring the successful outcome
of the meeting. Mr. Parent paid tribute to the Chairman for his
firmness, patience and good humour in guiding the long and complex
deliberations.
*[ANNEX I/1]
Annexe I / Annex I
LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS / LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Représentants des Etats parties à la Convention /
Representatives of States Parties to the Convention
EGYPTE/EGYPT
Dr. Shehata Adams .
President of the Egyptian Organization of Antiquities
EQUATEUR/ECUADOR
M. Rodrigo Pallares
Directeur
Direction nationale du patrimoine artistique
ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE / UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
M. David Hales
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks
United States Department of the Interior
FRANCE
M. Michel Parent
Inspecteur général des Monuments historiques
H. Jean-Pierre Bady.
Directeur de la Caisse nationale des Monuments historiques
REPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE D'IRAN / ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
M. Charyar Adle
Chercheur au C.N.R.S.
NIGERIA
M. Ekpo Eyo
Director, Federal Department of Antiquities
*[ANNEX I/2]
Organisations ayant un statut consultatif auprès du Comité du
patrimoine mondial /
Organization with an advisory status to the World Heritage Committee
Centre international pour la Conservation /
International Centre for Conservation (ICCROM)
M. Louis-Jacques Rollet-Andriane
Special representative of the Dire ct or
Conseil international des Monuments et des Sites (ICOMOS)
International Council of Monuments and Sites
M. Raymond Lemaire
Président
M. Ernest A. Connally
Secrétaire général
Mme Anne Webster-Smith
Adjointe au Secrétaire général
M. Krzyeztof Pawlowski
Vice-Président
M. François Leblanc
Directeur du Secrétariat
Union internationale pour la Conservation de la Nature et de ses
Ressources (UICN) /
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
M. Harold Eidsvik
Secrétariat de l'Unesco f Secretariat of Unesco
M. M. Batisse
Deputy Assistant Director General,
Science Sector
M. G. Bolla
Deputy Assistant Director General,
Sector of Culture and Communication
M. P. Stulz
Director,
Division of Cultural Heritage
M. B. von Droste
Division of Ecological Sciences
M. D. Poore
Consultant,
Division of Ecological Sciences
*[ANNEX I/3]
Secrétariat de l'Unesco / Secretariat of Unesco
Mme A. Raidl
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mme A. Saurat
Consultant,
Division of Cultural Heritage
*[ANNEX II/1]
CC-79/CONF.005/6
Annex II - p. 1
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED
The following properties have been recommended to the Committee
for inscription on the World Heritage List
N° Name of property State Party N C
8 Ichkeul National Park Tunisia N
19 Fasil Ghebbi, Gondar region Ethiopia C
20 Ancien city of Damascus Syrian Arab C
republic
31 Auschwitz concentration camp Poland C
33 National park of Bialowieza Poland N
36 Medina of Tunis Tunisia C
37 Site of Carthage Tunisia C
38 Amphitheatre of El Jem Tunisia C
39 Ngorongoro conservation area Tanzania N-C
42 Church of Boyana Bulgaria C
44 Thracian tomb of Kazanlak Bulgaria C
45 Rock-hewn churches of Ivanovo Bulgaria C
58 Urnes Stave Church Norway C
59 Bryggen, Bergen town Norway C
64 Tikal national park Guatemala C-N
65 Antigua Guatemala Guatemala C
71 Dinosaur provincial park Alberta Canada N
72 Kluane national park, Canada and U.S.A N
Wrangell-St Elias
National monument
75 Grand Canyon national park U.S.A. N
76 Everglades national park U.S.A. N
78 Independence hall U.S.A. C
80 Mont St.-Michel and its Bay France C-N
81 Chartres cathedral France C
83 National domain of Versailles France C
N : natural : Cultural
*[ANNEX II/2]
N° Name of property State Party N C
84 Vezelay, the Basilica and the Hill France C
85 The decorated caves in the France C
Vezere valley
86 Memphis and its Necropolis Egypt C
87 Ancient Thebes with its, Egypt C
Necropolis
88 Open air museum of Nubia Egypt C
and Aswan
89 Islamic Cairo; the historic Egypt C
center of the City
90 Abu Mena Ethiopia C
92 St. Guilia /St. Salvator's Italy C
Monastery
94 The Valcamonica rock art Italy C
95 The Old City of Dubrovnik Yugoslavia C
96 The Old Ras with Sopocani Yugoslavia C
97 Split historical centre with Yugoslavia C
Diocletian's Palace
98 Plitvicka Jezera national park Yugoslavia N
113 Tchogha Zanbil Iran C
114 Persepolis Iran C
115 Meidan-e Shah, Esfahan Iran C
120 Sagarmatha national park Nepal N
121 Kathmandu valley Nepal C
N= Natural C= Cultural
*[Annex II/3]
NOMINATIONS DEFERRED
For the following sites, the Bureau considered either
(i) that the documentation was inadequate ; or
(ii) that a sufficiently persuasive case had not been made.
It was recommended to the Committee that consideration be deferred.
Specific questions on certain properties would be formulated to be
addressed to the State concerned. Notes on these follow the Table.
The nominations for any of these properties could be considered
at a Bureau meeting immediately preceding the third session of the
World Heritage Committee, if documentation were received in time for
adequate processing by the Secretariat, ICOMOS and IUCN.
N° Name State Party N C
10 Lower Valley of the Awash Ethiopia C
11 Adulis Ethiopia C
12 Tiya Ethiopia C
13 Melka-Kontoure Ethiopia C
14 Matara Ethiopia C
15 Aksum Ethiopia C
16 Yeha Ethiopia C
17 Lower Valley of the Omo Ethiopia C
21 Ancient City of Aleppo Syrian Arab Republic C
22 Ancient City of Bosra Syrian Arab Republic C
23 Site of Palmyre Syrian Arab Republic C
25 Djoudj National Bird
Sanctuary Senegal N
30 Historic Centre of Warsaw Poland C
34 Forts and Castles, Volta
Greater Accra, Central and Ghana C
Western Regions
35 Asante traditional building Ghana C
N = Natural C= Cultural
*[ANNEX II/4]
N° Name State Party N C
43 Horseman of Madara Bulgaria C
55 Røros Norway C
56 Valley of Heidal Norway C
57 Kjerringøy Norway C
60 Eidsvoll Building Norway C
61 Vingen Norway C
62 Møllen Norway C
63 Virunga National Park Zaire N
77 Edison National Historic Site U.S.A. C
79 Paphos, Birthplace of
Aphrodite Cyprus C
91 The Historic Centre of Rome Italy C
93 Wall Painting representing
"The Last Supper" by da Italy C
Vinci
99 Natural and Culturo-Historical
Area of Ohrid Yugoslavia C (N)
100 Durmitor National Park Yugoslavia N
111 Bale Mountain National Park Ethiopia N
112 Abijatta Shalla Lakes
National Park Ethiopia N
The Bureau recommended to the Committee that the following
properties should not be considered further for the World Heritage List :
N° Name State Party N C
5 Zembra and Zembretta Islands
National Park Tunisia N
73 National Park of the Madeleine Senegal N (C)
Island
N = Natural C=Cultural
*[ANNEX II/5]
NOMINATIONS DEFERRED
Lower Valley of the Awash - n° 10 - Ethiopia
Adulis - n° 11 - "
Tiya - n° 12 - "
Melka Kontoure - n° 13 - "
Matara - n° 14 - "
Aksum - n° 15 - "
Yeha - n° 16 - "
Lower Valley of the Omo - n° 17 - "
These nominations had already been examined by the Bureau at its
first meeting in 1978 ; the necessary complementary documentation
has not been received. For this reason, consideration thereof was
once more deferred.
Ancient City of Aleppo - n° 21 - Syrian Arab Republic
Ancient City of Bosra - n° 22 - " " "
Site of Palmyre - n° 23 - " " "
ICOMOS felt that some additional information and documentation was
necessary in support of these nominations and the Bureau consequently
decided to re-examine them once they have been completed.
Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary - n° 25 - Senegal
The Bureau decided to defer its decision with respect to this site.
In making this decision, the Bureau was influenced by two factors :
the quality and the threats hanging over the site. According to IUCN,
other wetlands exist in the same region which surpass Djoudj in
universal importance. Furthermore,there is an additional serious
threat of damage to the site from the development works on the delta
of the River Senegal.
Historic Centre of Warsaw - n° 30 - Poland
The inscription of this site on the List was supported by ICOMOS. The
documentation is excellent and the centre of Warsaw is an exceptional
example of reconstruction. Furthermore, it has been made into a
symbol by the patriotic feeling of the Polish people. However, opinion
was divided in the Bureau, since the site did not meet the criteria
of authenticity, and the Bureau deferred its decision so that the
questions raised in this respect could be thoroughly studied.
*[ANNEX II/6]
Forts and castles, Volta Greater
Accra, Central and Western Regions - n° 34 - Ghana
ICOMOS had expressed a favourable opinion with respect to the inscription
of the Forts and Castles proposed by Ghana on the World Heritage List
because they represent unique artistic or esthetic achievements and
constitute characteristic examples of architectural styles. However,
the Bureau considered it necessary to have further details on this
nomination. Since it concerns a series of thirty-six forts and
castles which do not have the same legal status and of which the
state of conservation varies considerably, the nomination should
include a complete inventory of all the monuments and a map showing
their geographical location as well as the protection zone
around the buildings. The Bureau was of the opinion that in view of
the bad state of conservation of some of the monuments, it would be
preferable to enter in the List only those which are the most repre-
sentative of the series and it felt that the Government of Ghana should
be invited to reconsider the nomination in the light of these comments.
The Bureau considered that it would be desirable to obtain a complete
proposal in time to enable the Bureau and the Committee to discuss
the matter next October. In this connection, preparatory assistance
for the elaboration of the nomination could be provided to the
Government of Ghana if it so wished.
Asante traditional buildings - n° 35 - Ghana
The Bureau wished to receive more information on these buildings ;
a map of the region, a list of the buildings and photographs would
be welcome.
Horseman of Madara - n° 43 - Bulgaria
The decision on this nomination was deterred at the suggestion of
ICOMOS which considered that a comparative study was necessary in
order to evaluate this property.
Røros - n° 55 - Norway
Valley of Heidal - n° 56 - "
Kjerringøy - n° 57 - "
Eidsvoll Building - n° 60 - "
Vingen - n° 61 - "
Mølen - n° 62 - "
*[ANNEX II/7]
Following the report of ICOMOS, the Bureau deferred examination of
these nominations for which complementary information should be
obtained. A site such as the Eidsvoll Building, n° 60, was
undoubtedly of national importance but the justification of the
universal value of all these sites should be further developped.
Virunga National Park - n° 63 - Zaire
Virunga National Park was recognized as worthy of inscription on the
List, but the nomination is incomplete. Supplementary information and
documentation should be made available to the Bureau to enable it
to re-examine the dossier at its meeting in October.
Edison National Historic Site - n° 77 - U.S.A.:
Although inscription of this property on the List had been recommended
by ICOMOS under criterion(vi) relating to cultural property,
examination of this nomination had brought to light the difficulty
of applying that criterion. In fact, the Bureau considered that its
present wording could lead to an inordinate number of nominations.
The decision on this nomination was consequently deterred pending
revision of criterion (vi) which seemed necessary. It was moreover
suggested that the Government of the United States of America reconsider
which criteria the proposal is based on.
Paphos, Birthplace of Aphrodite - n° 79 - Cyprus
In view of ICOMOS' opinion that more precise information should be
made available on the delimitation of the sites and on their unique
character, the Bureau deferred its recommendation until supplementary
information had been provided.
The Historic Centre of Rome - n° 91 - Italy
There was no doubt that the historic centre of Rome was of outstanding
universal value. But the Bureau, in agreement with ICOMOS, considered
that the documentation was insufficient. A precise inventory of what
should be preserved and a description of the safeguarding measures
foreseen for the centre should be provided. It was considered that
the nomination of a site of such importance should be accompanied
by very precise documentation.and the hope was expressed that a more
detailed proposal would be available for the next Bureau meeting.
Wall Painting representing "The Last - n° 93 - Italy
Supper" by da Vinci
The inscription of this property on the World Heritage List was
recommended by ICOMOS. However, the Bureau felt that complementary
information was necessary with respect to preservation and restoration
plans, and indeed on any plans to transfer the painting. The
recommendation on this nomination was deferred until such information
has been received. If the property came to be considered as "movable
property" it could not be considered to fall within the terms of
Article 1 of the Convention.
*[ANNEX II/8]
Natural and Culturo-Historical - n° 99 - Yugoslavia
Area of Ohrid
IUCN was of the opinion that as the natural features were concerned,
the site could not be recommended for inscription on the World
Heritage List because it did not possess the necessary integrity,
since only half of the lake and a small part of the basin are in
Yugoslav territory. ICOMOS, on its side, felt that the cultural
elements in the proposal should be examined more thoroughly before
a recommendation on their universal value could be formulated. Given
these viewpoints, the Bureau decided to defer its decision to enable
ICOMOS to complete its study of the proposal.
Durmitor National Park - n° 100 - Yugoslavia
The Bureau deferred its recommended ion on the advice of IUCN which
would like a more precise technical report on the different zones of
the Park.
Bale Mountain National Park - n° 111 - Ethiopia
The Bureau deferred its recommendation in view of the lack of
documentation and since IUCN considered it necessary to undertake
a more thorough evaluation of the site.
Abijatta Shalla Lakes National Park - n° 112 - Ethiopia
The Bureau deferred its recommendation at the request of IUCN
which would like further information to enable it formulate its
recommendation.
*[ANNEX II/9]
NOMINATIONS RECEIVED TOO LATE
Nominations for the following properties were received too
late to be considered by the Bureau :
N° Name Country N C
101 The Dey's Palace at Alger Algeria C
102 Kalaa Beni Hammad Algeria C
103 Setif Citadel Algeria C
104 Iglesia de Orosi Costa Rica C
105 Monumento Nacional de
San José Costa Rica C
106 Parque Nacional arqueológico
de Guayabo de Turrialba Costa Rica C
107 Casona Histórica de Santa Rosa Costa Rica C
108 Teatro Nacional de San José Costa Rica C
109 Ruinas de Ujarras Costa Rica C
110 Iglesia de Nicoya Costa Rica C
116 Town of Djenne Mali C
117 National Park of the Baoulé
Loop Mali N
118 Dogon Land Mali N/C
119 Tombouctou Mali C
122 Birni Gazargamu and Gambaru Nigeria C
123 Kainji Lake National Park Nigeria N
124 The Town of Ouro Preto Brazil C
N= Natural C= Cultural
*[EOF]