Distribution limited SC-84/CONF. 001/9
Paris, 25 June 1984
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD
CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
Eighth session
Paris, 4-7 June 1984
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
I INTRODUCTION
1. The eighth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee was held at Unesco Headquarters in Paris from 4
to 7 June 1984 and was attended by Mme. L. Vlad-Borrelli
(Italy), Chairman; Mr. S. A. Kerzabi (Algeria), Mr. E.G. Whitlam
(Australia), Mr. Y. Diare (Guinea), Mr. Tschudi-Madsen (Norway),
Mr. B. de Silva (Sri Lanka), Vice-Chairmen and Mr. A. da Silva
Telles (Brazil) as Rapporteur. Four other States Parties to
the Convention were represented by observers. Representatives
of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS),
of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the International Centre
for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of
Cultural Property (ICCROM) attended the meeting in an advisory
capacity. The full list of participants is found in Annex
1 to this report.
2. Mme. Vlad-Borrelli, Chairman of the Committee, opened
the meeting and Mr. Makaminan Makagiansar, Assistant Director-
General for Culture, welcomed the participants on behalf of
the Director-General. He noted that there were now 82 States
Parties and that the Secretariat made every effort to encourage
*[2]
adhesion to the Convention and stimulate contributions to
the World Heritage Fund. He recalled the need for countries
to submit tentative lists of cultural and natural properties
in order to facilitate the technical evaluations by both ICOMOS
and IUCN. In this respect, he thanked ICOMOS for the progress
it had made, in developing such tentative lists, and also
congratulated Mr. M. Parent on his reelection as President
of ICOMOS.
3. The Bureau then adopted the agenda for the session.
4. Mr. Batisse, Assistant Director-General (Science Sector),
reported on the activities undertaken since the 7th session
of the Committee, held in December 1983 in Florence, Italy.
Since then, four more countries had ratified or accepted the
Convention, namely Mexico, Yemen, the United Kingdom and Zambia.
Although the total of 82 States Parties represented half the
States Members of Unesco, Mr. Batisse pointed out that the
geographical representation was still unbalanced,particularly
in Asia, and that the World Heritage Fund was far from able
to comply with the growing number of requests for assistance
from States Parties. In this connection, he drew attention
to the rather alarming state of the World Heritage Fund, which
was expected to be of the order of $330,000 for 1985, compared
to almost $2 million some two years previously. This situation
was due to an initial accumulation of capital at the beginning
of the operational phase of the Convention after which a number
of voluntary contributions had ceased, combined with an
increasing number of requests for international cooperation
under the Fund. He indicated the necessity of making the maximum
amount of savings in the budget approved by the Committee
for 1984. Finally, he emphasised the importance of promotional
activities destined to bring in other sources of income to
the World Heritage Fund.
5. Mr. Batisse briefly listed the small-scale technical
cooperation projects and training activities which had been
approved by the Chairman since December 1983. He finally noted
that with the increase in States Parties, the workload of
the Secretariat had also increased both for the cultural and
natural aspects of the Convention 's implementation.
II TENTATIVE LISTS
6. The Secretariat informed the Bureau of the progress made
in elaborating tentative lists of cultural properties. Lists
from the Hachemite Kingdom of Jordan and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
were added to those submitted as at the 7th session of the
World Heritage Committee (Brazil, Canada, France, Federal
Republic of Germany, India, Pakistan and United States of
America). Furthermore, seven States Parties were currently
revising their tentative lists of cultural properties, namely
Bulgaria, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Italy,
Spain and Turkey. Norway and Portugal had announced that the
*[3]
preparation of such lists was underway, and the Peruvian
authorities had informed the Secretariat that they were about
to do so. Finally, Switzerland had indicated, as had Yugoslavia
on a previous occasion, that the nominations submitted in
1983 were considered as the first, priority part of its
tentative list.
7. At the beginning of 1984, the Secretariat had informed
all States Parties that ICOMOS and the Committee urgently
needed tentative lists from all States Parties that had not
already prepared such list and that these should be sent to
the Secretariat during 1984. In spite of this reminder, only
16 States Parties out of 82 had as yet submitted or begun
to elaborate tentative lists. This indicates that this task
presents difficulties for many countries and that the granting
of preparatory assistance should be envisaged for this purpose.
8. The work begun in 1983 in order to harmonise the tentative
lists of some European countries has made good progress due
to a meeting organized by ICOMOS on 10 to 11 April 1984 in
Paris, attended by the following countries: Bulgaria, France,
Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain,
Switzerland and Turkey. M. Parent, President of ICOMOS, reported
on this meeting and its conclusions. This meeting made it
possible to replace the original approach, which differed
from one country to another and reflected a specifically
national vision of tentative lists, by a new method where
properties are selected according to their representativity
in relation to historic and thematic categories which transcend
national frontiers. This procedure implies that countries
would eventually desist from nominating certain cultural
properties when other countries have properties which represent
better the category concerned. The meeting also worked on
defining some of the themes or periods which are of relevance
to European countries and the tentative lists for the countries
present at this meeting were examined in this sense. Through
this work, the outline of a common list for part of Europe,
made up of complementary national tentative lists of the
countries concerned, was already taking shape. The participants
intend to complete the revision of the tentative lists for
their countries in time for the next session of the Committee.
9. Mr. Parent explained that the idea was to pursue this
work at "two paces", that is to draw up a common priority
list containing properties whose representativity is obvious
as well as additional national lists of properties which could
be eventually considered at a later stage. The properties
included in the priority list would be considered as being
recommended in principle by ICOMOS with the obvious condition
that, in the one hand, good nomination dossiers would be
presented by the countries concerned and, on the other hand,
that these properties were efficiently protected. An ICOMOS
*[4]
report on this meeting will be presented to the Committee
at its next session. The Secretariat emphasised that similar
efforts of harmonising tentative lists would also have to
be undertaken in other regions. For the two meetings of the
European countries, all the States Parties concerned had covered
the costs of the attendance of their representatives. Contacts
had already been made with the Arab Organization for Education,
Culture and Science (ALECSO) in order to organise jointly
a similar type of meeting for arab countries. In the subsequent
discussion, it was emphasised that it was in the interest
of all States Parties to rapidly present their tentative list
in order to ensure a balanced geographical distribution of
properties inscribed on the World Heritage List.
10. The Secretariat indicated that with respect to natural
properties, tentative lists had been submitted so far only
by Brazil, Canada, Italy (preliminary list) and the United
States. It was furthermore recalled that IUCN had prepared
a publication on the "World's Greatest Natural Areas" to
illustrate the types of properties that might be considered
to be of World Heritage quality. It was emphasised that this
international inventory was a preliminary list, that it was
by no means exhaustive nor did it anticipate any decision
of the Committee concerning natural nominations. The Bureau
recommended States Parties to consult this document to prepare
their tentative lists of natural properties. Attention was
drawn however to the need to also consider properties such
as rich fossil sites or harmonious man-made landscapes, as
well as mixed cultural-natural sites which were not included
in the IUCN World Inventory.
11. In referring to paragraph 18 of the report of the 7th
session of the Committee, Mr. Whitlam noted that although
the submission of tentative lists of cultural properties had
been requested before the end of 1984 in order to consider
new nominations in 1985,the report implied that this was not
the case for natural properties and he did not recall that
such a decision had been taken. Mr. Batisse pointed out that
the discussion on this point had initially concentrated on
cultural properties and that the final sentence in paragraph
18 had been added when finalising the report with the
Rapporteur, in order to reflect the discussion on this paragraph
at the time of the adoption of the draft report on the last
day of the session, when it was stressed that an effort should
also be made for natural properties.
*[5]
III NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
12. Thirty-nine nominations were examined by the Bureau, eleven
of which concerned essentially natural properties, and one a
mixed natural/cultural property. Twenty-seven properties were
recommended to the Committee for inscription on the World Heritage
List: these are listed in section A hereafter. The Bureau
recommended that a further five nominations be deferred: these
are listed in section B, and that another eight properties should
not be inscribed on the World Heritage List. Section D indicates
that two nominations are still to be examined by the Bureau
before the eighth session of the Committee. Finally, the Bureau
took note that nomination No. 305, Serra da Arrabida Natural
Park, had been withdrawn by the Portuguese authorities.
13. The Bureau made the following recommendations to the
Committee:
A. Properties recommended for inscription on the World Heritage
List
Name of property Ident. Contracting State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
The Castles of Augustusburg 288 Federal Republic C (ii)(iv)
and Falkenlust at Bruhl of Germany
The Bureau invited the
authorities of the Federal
Republic of Germany to study
ways of reducing the visual
impact of the railway line
which crosses this area.
*[6]
Name of property Ident. Contracting State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
Ruins of the Jesuit Missions 291 Argentina C (iv)
of the Guaranis
The Bureau recommended the
Committee to inscribe either
San Ignacio Mini alone or
the ruins of the four missions
described in the Argentinian
nomination as a group. The
Bureau stressed that this
nomination is part of the
series of the Jesuit Missions
of the Guaranis and might
be jointly inscribed along
with the Ruins of Sao Miguel
das Missoes in Brazil and
certain missions located
in Paraguay, once the latter
country had adhered to the
Convention.
Iguazu National Park 303 Argentina N(iii)(iv)
The Bureau noted the import-
ance of proposals to extend
the park boundaries
particularly to incorporate
the Iguazu National Reserve
and to complete the
comprehensive management
plan for the area. The Bureau
furthermore encouraged the
Brazilian authorities to
nominate the contiguous Iguaçu
National Park for a joint
inscription on the World
Heritage List.
*[7]
Name of property Ident. Contracting State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
The Historic Mosque City 321 Bangladesh C(iv)
of Bagerhat
The Bureau noticed that this
site was threatened by the
plan to widen the Khulna
highway which passes close
by the mosques of Shait-
Gumbad and Singar. It therefore
recommends that the Committee
requests the Government to:
(1) study the possibility
of altering the route of
this highway and (2) to
elaborate a conservation
and management plan along
the lines of the conclusions
of the Unesco mission which
took place in 1983.
Ruins of the Buddhist Vihara 322 Bangladesh C (i)(ii)
at Paharpur (vi)
The Bureau recommended that
the Government applies the
measures which were proposed
f`or this site by the same
Unesco mission, particularly
to avoid the installation
of industries in the proximity
of the monastery.
*[8]
Name of property Ident. Contracting State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
Canadian Rockies 304 Canada N (ii) (iii) )
The Bureau noted that this
nomination includes the Burgess
Shale site, inscribed on
the World Heritage List under
natural criterion (i). The
Bureau requested the Canadian
authorities to consider adding
Mt. Robson, Mt. Assimiboine,
Kananaskis, Fortress and
Cummins Lakes and a large
portion of the Columbia
icefield to the nominated
area. The Bureau furthermore
invited the Canadian
authorities to continue to
ensure that urbanization
and heavy tourism did not
jeopardise the natural
integrity of the site.
Port, fortresses and group 285 Colombia C (iv)(vi)
of monuments, Cartagena
The Mosque of Cordoba 313 Spain C (i)(ii)
(iii) (iv)
The Alhambra and the 314 Spain C (i)(iii)
Generalife, Granada (iv)
The Bureau wished to draw
the Spanish authorities'
attention to the importance
.of a perimeter of protection
which was wide enough to
prevent the surrounding area
from being degraded,
particularly by an increase
in the number of parking
lots.
*[9]
Name of property Ident. Contracting State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
The Cathedral, Burgos 316 Spain C (ii)(iv)(vi)
Monastery and site of the 318 Spain C (i)(ii)(vi)
Escurial, Madrid
The Bureau wished to draw
the Spanish authorities'
attention to the importance
of strictly protecting the
natural environment which
is indissociable from this
monument.
Architectural works of Gaudí 320 Spain C (i)(ii)(vi)
(Parque Guell, Palacio Guell,
Casa Milá), Barcelona
The Bureau furthermore felt
that the other works of Gaudê,
even though not inscribed
on the World Heritage List,
should receive the best
protection possible.
The Statue of Liberty 307 United States C (i)(vi)
of America
Yosemite National Park 308 United States N (i)(ii)
of America (iii)
The Bureau, in noting
outstanding natural features
of this site, also remarked
that it presented certain
important cultural features
which however were not specific
to this site and thereby
did not warrant recommendation
as a mixed "natural/cultural"
property. The Bureau expressed
its concern over the possible
impact of proposed dam sites
in the proximity of this
property and requested that
the Committee be kept informed
of any developments in this
respect.
*[10]
Name of property Ident. Contracting State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
The Sun Temple, Konarak 246 India C (i)(iii)(vi)
Group of monuments at 249 India C (i)(ii)
Mahabalipuram (iii)(vi)
Prehistoric Rock-Art Sites 287 Libyan Arab C (iii)
of Tadrart Acacus Jamahiriya
The Bureau recommended the
inscription on the World
Heritage List of the rock
art sites of Tadrart Acacus
situated approximately in
latitude between 24º 30'
and 27º North and, in
longitude, between the Algero-
Libyan border and 11º East.
The Bureau expressed the
wish that the protection
of this site be coordinated
with that of the analogous
site of Tassili N'Ajjer in
Algeria and that at a later
stage these two properties
be jointly inscribed on the
World Heritage List.
Anjar 293 Lebanon C (iii)(iv)
Baalbek 294 Lebanon C (i)(iv)
The Bureau recommended the
inscription of this property
on the condition that the
Government accepts the
perimeter of protection
proposed by ICOMOS. This
nomination could be extended
in the future so as to protect
a larger area in the Bekaa
Valley.
*[11]
Name of property Ident. Contractinq State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
Byblos 295 Lebanon C (iii)(iv)
(vi)
The Bureau recommended
inscription of this property
on the condition that the
Government defines a wide
area of protection,
encompassing, besides the
ancient habitat, the medieval
City within the walls and
the areas of the necropoles.
Sidon 297 Lebanon C (iii)
The Bureau recommended that
this nomination be modified
by the government in order
to restrict it to the sanctuary
of Echmun, which is recommended
for inscription.
Tyr 299 Lebanon C (iii)(vi)
The Bureau recommended
inscription of this property
on the condition that the
Government accepts the
perimeter of protection of
the two zones defined by
ICOMOS. In addition, the
Bureau suggested that the
committee invites the
Government to adopt the
measures proposed by ICOMOS
in order to better protect
the property.
*[12]
Name of property Ident. Contracting State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
Lake Malawi National Park 289 Malawi N (ii)(iii)
(iv)
The Bureau recommended that
the Malawi authorities take
the following measures to
enhance the integrity of
this property (a) officially
adopt and implement the
management plan that had
already been prepared for
the Park, taking the necessary
measures to provide alternative
sources of firewood outside
the National Park, (b) continue
research on the Park 's natural
resources, and (c) consider
extending the area of the
National Park and of other
protected parts of the lake.
Royal Chitwan National Park 284 Nepal N (ii)(iii)
(iv)
The Bureau noted and supported
the efforts of the Nepalese
authorities to extend this
Park to the west. The Bureau
also recommended that the
Committee be kept informed
on the possible construction
of pulp mills on the Narayani
River and their potential
impact on this property.
Vatican City 286 Holy See C (i)(ii)
(iv) (vi)
*[13]
Name of property Ident. Contracting State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
Salonga National Park 280 Zaire N (ii)(iii)
The Bureau noted with concern
that there is no management
plan for this property and
recommended that the
accompanying request for
technical cooperation be
examined by the Committee
in the light of the need
for the Zaire authorities
to prepare and implement
such a plan, with due regard
to the possibility of creating
a corridor linking the two
sectors of this National
Park.
Mana Pools National Park, Sapi 302 Zimbabwe N (ii)(iii)
and Chewore Safari Areas (iv)
The Bureau requested to be
kept informed by the Zimbabwian
authorities of the possible
construction of a new dam
on the Zambezi and Mapata
Gorge. The Bureau furthermore
welcomed the recent adhesion
of Zambia to the World Heritage
Convention and requested
the Zambian authorities to
consider nominating the
property contiguous to Mana
Pools National Park on the
Zambian side of the Zambezi
River in order to eventually
constitute a joint inscription
on the World Heritage List.
*[14]
B. Nominations to be deferred
Name of property Ident. Contracting State
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
Khajuraho group of monuments 241 India
The Bureau recommended that
this nomination be deferred
until the Government presents
a larger area for nomination
which encompasses the entire
property after effective
protective measures have
been adopted, in particular
after the definition of a
wide zone non aedificandi.
Group of monuments at Hampi 241 India
The Bureau recommended that
this nomination be deferred
until the Government defines
a perimeter which ensures
the protection of the whole
site and not only its western
part. The Government's
attention is drawn to the
dangers pointed out by ICOMOS.
Fatehpur Sikri Group of 255 India
Monuments
The Bureau recommended that
this nomination be deferred
until the Government presents
a larger area for nomination
comprising the whole area
intra muros of the ancient
city. This site should be
protected particularly from
the dangers of new quarrying.
*[15]
Name of property Ident. Contracting State
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
Upemba National Park 282 Zaire
The Bureau recommended that
this nomination be deferred
until IUCN had received more
information to re-evaluate
this site.
The Matobo Hills 306 Zimbabwe
The Bureau noted that the
nomination dossier lacked
justifications for inscription
on the World Heritage List,
but had been evaluated by
both ICOMOS and IUCN. In
the light of ICOMOS's positive
evaluation of the rock art
of this site, the Bureau
requested the Zimbabwian
authorities to re-submit
this nomination defining
the cultural and natural
criteria justifying this
nomination.
C. Nominations not to be considered for inclusion in the World
Heritage List
National Archaeological Park 106 Costa Rica
of Guayabo de Turrialba
In its current state, this
site did not meet the criteria
for inscription on the World
Heritage List. A new nomination
could be presented in the
event that the excavations
(which will no doubt need
to be continued for a
considerable time) produce
results of exceptional
universal interest.
*[16]
Name of property Ident. Contracting State
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
Archaeological Site of the 301 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
of Ptolemais (Tolmeita)
The Bureau, while taking
account of the great importance
of this site for the Libyan
national heritage, felt that
it did not fulfil the criteria
of "outstanding universal
value" as understood by the
World Heritage Committee.
Tripoli 298 Lebanon
The Bureau asked to draw
the Government's attention
to the fact that urbanisation
and factory pollution were
threatening this site which,
although it does not fulfil
the World Heritage criteria,
is of great value in the
Lebanese national Heritage.
Deir el-Qamar and Beit Ed-Dine 296 Lebanon
The Bureau, while taking
account of the great importance
of this site for the Lebanese
national heritage, felt that
it did not fulfil the criteria
of "outstanding universal
value" as understood by the
World Heritage Committee.
Nyika National Park 290 Malawi
Although this property does
not fulfil the World Heritage
criteria of out standing
universal value, the Bureau
however noted the importance
of this property on the
national and regional levels.
*[17]
Name of property Ident. Contracting State
No. having submitted
the nomination
of the property
in accordance
with the Convention
Rani Kot Fort (Kirthar 176 Pakistan
National Park
The Bureau, while taking
account of the great importance
of this site for the Pakistani
national heritage, felt that
it did not fulfil the criteria
of "outstanding universal
value" as understood by the
World Heritage Committee.
Maiko National Park 281 Zaire
The Bureau noted that the
natural features of this
property were well represented
in other World Heritage
properties and that the
criterion of integrity was
not fulfilled. Although this
property does not meet the
criteria for inscription
on the World Heritage List,
the Bureau recommended that
the Zaire authorities take
all the necessary steps to
safeguard this highly valuable
site which constitutes one
of the largest tracts of
primary forest remaining
in Africa.
Kundelungu National Park 283 Zaire
This park did not meet World
Heritage criteria and its
integrity was in doubt. The
Bureau however recommended
that the Zairois authorities
be encouraged to strengthen
the protection of this very
important park.
*[18]
D. Properties not examined by the Bureau
14. ICOMOS recalled that the Committee at its seventh session
had requested that it examine the general problem of inscribing
historic towns on the World Heritage List and propose
appropriate criteria. As ICOMOS was awaiting the conclusions
of a forthcoming experts meeting on this subject, it therefore
had not evaluated the nominations concerning the Historic
Center of the City of Salvador in Brazil (Id. nº 309) and
the Historic Area of the City of Quebec in Canada (Id. n
300). The Bureau proposed that ICOMOS should analyse these
two nominations after the meeting. The Bureau decided to meet
at the beginning of the 8th session of the World Heritage
Committee to examine the criteria presented by ICOMOS as well
as the two nominations in the event that ICOMOS had been able
to evaluate them. The Bureau would then be able to address
its recommendations thereon to the Committee.
IV NOMINATIONS TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
15. The Secretariat presented document SC/84/CONF.001/4
referring to three natural World Heritage properties for which
the Committee had requested the Secretariat to initiate the
procedure for inscription on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
16. The Bureau noted that the Zaire government had officially
requested that Garamba National Park (NºQ 136) be inscribed
on the List of World Heritage in Danger due to the critical
situation of the white rhinoceros population, considered to
amount to less than 20 individuals. It was recalled that the
Committee, at its 7th session, had granted $40,000 for emergency
assistance for this property. The Bureau took note of IUCN's
technical evaluation in which it was indicated that although
Garamba National Park still fulfilled criterion (ii) under
the Convention, it would no longer fulfill criterion (iv)
(constituting habitats of endangered species) in the event
that the rhinoceros population were completely exterminated.
Taking account of the IUCN recommendation and noting that
all the conditions set out in the Operational Guidelines
(paragraph 46) had been met, the Bureau recommended that the
Committee inscribe this property on the List of World Heritage
in Danger.
17. The Bureau noted that the Director-General of Unesco
had written to the Senegalese authorities in April 1984 to
initiate the procedure of nominating Djoudj National Bird
Sanctuary (Nº 25) for inscription on the List of World Heritage
in Danger but that at the present time, no reply had been
received. IUCN, reporting on the conservation status of this
site, indicated that if the proposed protective measures were
not taken soon, the ecological conditions would be irreversibly
changed and the site would no longer possess the natural
*[19]
characteristics which warranted its inscription on the World
Heritage List. The Bureau expressed its grave concern over
the future of this property and requested the Secretariat
to contact the Senegalese authorities again, not only concerning
its inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger but
also to explore possible sources of funding for the costly
protective measures required to safeguard this site.
18. The Director-General of Unesco had also written to the
Tanzanian authorities in April 1984 to initiate the procedure
for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger of
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Nº 39). No reply had yet been
received but the Bureau noted that IUCN confirmed the serious
management problems which faced the Ngorongoro Conservation
Area and its region. It was recalled that the World Heritage
Fund had contributed $31,950 towards the preparation of a
management plan for this property but that due to various
circumstances, including a change in the Conservator, this
draft management plan had not been adopted. However, the Bureau
noted that the assistance required for the safeguarding of
Ngorongoro Conservation Area was now far beyond the capacity
of the World Heritage Fund, and that it would be necessary
to launch an integrated rural development project for the
whole of the North Tanzanian region. In this respect, IUCN
indicated that discussions were in progress with the funding
agencies of the Nordic countries to elaborate a project of
this kind. The Bureau expressed the wish that the World Heritage
Fund be associated even in a very modest way with such a project
and requested the Secretariat to continue efforts to initiate
the procedure for nominating this property for inscription
on the List of World Heritage in Danger
19. Reference was made to ICOMOS' remarks on the status of
the Lebanese sites which have suffered and will perhaps again
be victim of the current armed conflict. ICOMOS felt that
after the Lebanese sites which had been recommended by the
Bureau had bean inscribed on the World Heritage List, they
might also be nominated for the List of World Heritage in
Danger, in accordance with the procedure set out to this effect.
20. IUCN recalled that it had been requested by the Committee
at its 7th session to keep the Bureau and the Committee informed
on the conservation status of natural World Heritage properties.
IUCN reported to the Bureau on the following three natural
properties under particular threat:
a) Simen National Park (Ethiopia)(No. 9)
IUCN reported that the National Park personnel had abandoned
this park due to civil unrest and that the area was now in
the hands of armed groups. IUCN expected to receive more
information in the near future but pointed out that this
property is extremely fragile and will probably be seriously
damaged. This was all the more regrettable as the management
*[20]
plan which was prepared with support from the World Heritage
Fund had been recently completed and adopted by the Ethiopian
authorities.
b) Mount Nimba (Guinea and Ivory Coast)(No. 155)
A workshop supported by the World Heritage Fund to establish
a research programme and an integrated management plan for
this property had taken place at Mount Nimba in December 1983.
No progress had been made on such a plan however, and the
report of the workshop indicated that the property is now
under severe pressure from poaching to the extent that almost
half the wildlife has diseappeared. This situation is
exacerbated by the lack of personnel and surveillance patrols.
c) Tai National Park (Ivory Coast)(No. 195)
IUCN recalled that the problems indicated in their evaluation
of 1982 had become worse. The site is continually invaded
for poaching of wildlife, gold prospection and tree-felling.
IUCN indicated that if these practices continued unchecked
,in the next 5 to 10 year period, Tai National Park would lose
its outstanding natural features and would have to be deleted
from the World Heritage List. The Secretariat recalled that
the Division of Ecological Sciences had excellent relations
with the Ivory Coast authorities under the Man and Biosphere
(MAB) Programme for which a meeting was to be held in
Yamoussoukro in August 1984, with a field trip to Tai National
Park. All efforts would be taken to explore the means of
safeguarding this property.
21. The Bureau noted with concern the threats facing these
three natural properties and the difficulty of drawing up
appropriate solutions. IUCN was requested to prepare a document
on the conservation status of these three sites for the
attention of the Committee at its next session.
22. The Chairman informed the Bureau of a letter which the
Permanent Delegate of Saudi Arabia had sent to her on behalf
of the Arab group of Unesco. This letter drew attention to
a recent attack on the Haram al-Sharif sanctuary and the threat
of such acts to the Old City of Jerusalem. It requested that
the Committee be informed of this situation. The Bureau decided
that this letter should be brought to-the attention of the
Committee, which, during its eighth session, would review
the protection of properties inscribed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
V SITUATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND
23. The Secretariat presented the Bureau with the financial
statements for contributions to the World Heritage Fund as
at 31 January 1984, the state of the Fund as at 1st May 1984
and the state of the budget adopted for 1984 by the Committee
*[21]
at its seventh session as at 11 May 1984. -
24. The Bureau expressed its concern over the budgetary
prevision for 1985 which, even if supplemented by the voluntary
contributions which were expected during the course of 1984,
would be considerably less than the amount considered in 1983.
25. Concerning these voluntary contributions, it was recalled
that Article 16, paragraph 4 of the Convention stipulates
that these contributions "...shall be paid on a regular basis,
at least every two years, and should not be less than the
contributions which they (States Parties having opted for
voluntary contributions) should have paid if they had been
bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article." (ie.
mandatory contributions amounting to 1% of the annual
contribution of States Parties to Unesco). The Bureau
recommended that the States Parties which had opted for
voluntary contributions be reminded of their moral obligation
to pay at least 1%, for in the spirit in which the Convention
had been drafted, it was the intention that such States Parties
pay more than this amount. It was suggested therefore that
the statement on voluntary contributions to the World Heritage
Fund to be presented to the Committee at its 8th session should
contain a column indicating the amount corresponding to the
1% contribution for the States Parties concerned.
26. In order to further reduce the difference between the
budget for 1984 and that envisaged for 1985, the Bureau
requested the Secretariat to make savings, wherever possible,
on the 1984 budget, amounting to some $50,000.
27. In the light of the considerations above, the Bureau
foresaw, at that stage, a budget amounting to $450,000 for
1985, and recommended that this be broken down as follows:
I Preparatory assistance and regional studies $30,000
II Technical cooperation 100,000
III Training 100,000
IV Emergency assistance 30,000
V Promotional activities and information 40,000
VI ICOMOS/IUCN advisory services 80,000
VII Temporary assistance to the Secretariat 70,000
450,000
*[22]
28. In the event that there were an increase in income which
would allow consideration of a higher figure for the budget,
the Bureau recommended that priority should be given to increase
the provisions for training activities and for the services
of IUCN and ICOMOS, which were highly appreciated.
29. The Bureau noted ICCROM's report on the provision of
small-scale equipment and conservation materials to States
Parties, for which $20,000 had been allocated from the World
Heritage Fund. This programme was considered very useful and
practical. The Bureau therefore recommended that a similar
sum be provided if possible for 1985 to enable ICCROM to
continue this programme.
VI REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL COOPERATION
30. The Secretariat presented the requests for technical
cooperation which had been received by the 1st March 1984
deadline for properties which were already inscribed on the
World Heritage List or had been recommended by the Bureau
for inscription thereon at its present session. It was noted
that the total of the amounts requested for technical
cooperation and of their training components were two to three
times greater than the expected budgetary provisions. It was
therefore necessary to contact the States Parties concerned
to request them to reduce their requests to a more modest
amount and to indicate their priority nceds. The Bureau also
recognised that it would be impossible to meet all requests
adequately. In this connection, the Bureau recalled that the
Committee had already drawn up an order of priorities for
the granting of international assistance, which was presented
in paragraph 80 of the Operational Guidelines (WHC/2 Revised
January 1984). Priority was given particularly to emergency
measures to save World Heritage properties and to projects
which were likely to have a "multiplier effect". The Bureau
recognised the need for equitably distributing the modest
World Heritage Fund and recommended that the Committee also
favourably consider requests from countries which had not
yet benefited from international assistance under the Fund.
31. The Bureau regretted the decrease in the amounts of the
World Heritage Fund which limited its impact, particularly
in the field. This would decrease the visibility of the
Convention and thereby the support from those involved in
the protection of the World Heritage properties themselves.
In this connection, the Bureau encouraged the Secretariat,
in cooperation with ICOMOS and IUCN, to seek where possible
other sources of funding to synergetically support World
Heritage technical cooperation projects. As regards training,
the Bureau recommended that maximum use be made of the
fellowship programmes and training facilities offered by many
States Parties.
*[23]
VII REVIEW OF PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
32. Document SC-84/CONF.001/7 was presented to the Bureau
by the Secretariat. It was recalled that these activities
were carried out in accordance with the Committee's decisions
at its 7th session and that priority was being given to public
information and activities designed to generate revenue to
the World Heritage Fund. The Secretariat drew particular
attention to the documents being prepared in cooperation with
the Spanish publishing house, INCAFO. The sales of the book
"El Patrimonio del Mundo", of which the first volume had been
presented to the Committee in 1983, had been successful and
the first payment of profits going to the World Heritage Fund,
amounting to $1200 had been made in March 1984. The mock-
up of the colour folding poster was presented to and approved
by the Bureau. This poster would be printed in English, French
and Spanish and would be available for wide distribution as
from November. As concerned the World Heritage Exhibit, the
Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Spanish authorities
had recently approved their support of this activity and it
was envisaged that the first of the three copies, consisting
of some 170 panels each in three languages, would be ready
for the IUCN General Assembly meeting in Madrid in November
1984. A second copy would be mounted in Buenos Aires during
the 8th session of the Committee, to be thereafter circulated
throughout Argentina. The third copy would be used by Unesco
in Paris and at its regional offices. Further progress had
been made with the World Heritage Guide and the periodicals
which were destined for sale in particular in European
countries.
33. The Bureau agreed that these activities were very useful,
particularly at a time when the Convention needed all possible
support at the governmental and private levels. Use should
be made of all media and in particular television which lends
itself admirably to presenting cultural and natural heritage
to the general public. In this respect, ICOMOS informed the
Bureau of the meeting on "Patrimoine et média" (Heritage and
the Media) organised by the French section of ICOMOS on 21-
22 June 1984 in Paris, at which specialists in audio-visual
programmes, and notably several television companies, would
be present.
34. The Bureau also underlined once more the importance of
private voluntary associations in heightening the public 's
awareness on the Convention and its activities, as well as
in generating income to the World Heritage Fund. Such
associations needed to be provided with high quality
documentation on the Convention and the properties on the
World Heritage List and in this connection, the Secretariat
recalled that States Parties were requested to provide all
possible photographic and audio-visual material on World
Heritage properties - with the appropriate copyright for
commercial and non-commercial use - for the preparation of
Unesco-supported documents on the Convention.
*[24]
35. ICOMOS informed the Bureau that a French World Heritage
Committee had just been established. This committee, which
grouped the mayors of all the localities at which World Heritage
properties were situated, intended to initiate a "twinning"
system between World Heritage sites in different countries.
The Bureau greatly welcomed the creation of this French
committee.
VIII PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR THE EIGHTH SESSION OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE
36. The Bureau noted that the dates for the eighth session
were now 29 October-2 November 1984 and adopted the following
provisional agenda:
1. Opening of the session
2. Adoption of the agenda
3. Election of Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and Rapporteur
4. Report of the representative of the Director-General on
activities undertaken since the seventh session of the
World Heritage Committee
5. Report on the eighth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee (Paris, 4-7 June 1984)
6. Tentative lists of cultural and natural properties received
since the seventh Ordinary Session of the Committee
7. Nominations to the World Heritage List and to the List of World
Heritage in Danger
8. Statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund and budget
for 1985
9. Requests for technical cooperation
10. Protection and management of properties included on the World
Heritage List.
11. Review of promotional activities and promotion of voluntary
associations.
12. Date and place of 9th ordinary session of the World Heritage
Committee
13. Other business
14. Closure of the session
*[25]
37. It was recalled that the Bureau had to meet prior to
the Committee session to examine the criteria concerning
historic cities and to make recommendations on nominations
Nos. 300 and 309. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to
organise, in cooperation with the Argentinian authorities,
such a meeting of the Bureau at an appropriate time in Buenos -
Aires.
IX OTHER BUSINESS
38. The Secretariat informed the Bureau of the forthcoming
First World Conference on Cultural Parks, organised by the
National Parks Service of the United States at Mesa Verde,
16-21 September 1984. About ten participants from developing
countries were to attend with support from the World Heritage
Fund and the Director of the National Parks Service had
requested whether mention could be made of the World Heritage
Committee as a sponsor of this Conference on the conference
documents. The Bureau welcomed this initiative to make the
Convention and Unesco's efforts in heritage conservation better
known and accepted that the Conference documents indicate
sponsorship by the Unesco World Heritage Committee.
39. The Bureau noted that the Australian authorities had
requested that the judgement of the High Court regarding Western
Tasmania National Parks be brought to the attention of the
Committee in order to inform interested State Parties having
a similar federal system of goverument and to help States
Parties in the implementation of conventions in general. The
Bureau invited the Australian authorities to prepare a brief,
clear commentary of this judgement which could be presented
to the Committee under item 10 of the provisional agenda.
40. The Secretariat informed the Bureau of invitations so
far received for holding the 9th session of the World Heritage
Committee from Cyprus and from Turkey. The Bureau recalled
that the decision on the venue of the 9th session would be
taken by the Committee at its forthcoming 8th session.
41. On behalf of the Bureau, the representative of Australia
thanked Mme Vlad-Borrelli for the elegance and skill with
which she had conducted the session of the Bureau. After
thanking all participants, the Chairman closed the meeting.
*[ANNEX I/1]
SC-84/CONF.001/9lAnnex I
CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION DU
PATRITRMOINE MONDIAL, CULTUREL ET NATUREL
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU DU COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL /
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Huitième session / Eighth session
Paris, 4-7 juin 1984
LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS / LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
I. ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU DU COMITE/STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE BUREAU
ALGERIE/ALGERIA
M. Sid Ahmed KERZABI
Directeur de l'Office du Parc National du Tassili
M. Sid Ahmed BAGHLI
Ministre plénipotentiaire, Conseiller
Délegation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
AUSTRALIE/AUSTRALIA
H.E. The Honourable E.G. WHITLAM
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. David MACINTYRE
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
BRESIL/BRAZIL
M. Augusto Carlos DA SILVA TELLES
Directeur au Sous-Secrétariat du Patrimoine Historique et Artistique national
M. Carlos Alberto LOPES ASFORA
Deuxième secrétaire d'Ambassade, membre de la Délégation
permanente auprès de l'Unesco
GUINEE/GUINEA
M. Youssouf DIARE
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
*[ANNEX I/2]
ITALIE/ITALY
Mme. Licia VLAD-BORRELLI
Inspecteur central pour l'archeologie
NORVEGE/NORWAY
Mr. Stephan TSCHUDI-MADSEN
Directeur des Monuments historiques
Ms. Oda Helen SLETNES
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
SRI LANKA
H. E. Mr. Bandu DE SILVA
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of Sri Lanka to France
II. ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF /
ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES/
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)
M. Michel PARENT
Président
M. Jorge GAZANEO
Délégué général aux finances
M. Léon PRESSOUYRE
Professeur à l'Université de Paris I
Mme. Delphine LAPEYRE
Directrice du secrétariat international
UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE ET DE SES RESSOURCES (UICN) /
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL SITES (IUCN)
Mr. James THORSELL
Executive Officer, CNPPA
CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS
CULTURELS (ICCROM) / INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND
THE RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY (ICCROM)
M. Jean TARALON
*[ANNEX I/3]
III. ETATS PARTIES PRESENTS EN TANT QU'OBSERVATEURS/STATES PARTIES
ATTENDING AS OBSERVER
CANADA
Mr. Bruce LEESON
Special Advisor, Parks Canada
CHYPRE/CYPRUS
H. E. Mr. Constantinos LEVENTIS
Ambassador. Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. Christos CASSIMATIS
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
INDE/INDIA
H. E. Mr. Inam RAHMAN
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Ms. Banashri BOSE
Deuxième Secrétaire
JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE/LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Mr. Abdul-Hamid ZOUBI
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
IV. SECRETARIAT DE L'UNESCO/UNESCO SECRETARIAT
M. Makaminan MAKAGIANSAR
Sous-Directeur général pour la Culture
M. Michel BATISSE
Sous-Directeur général
(Secteur des Sciences)
M. Bernd VON DROSTE
Directeur p.i.
Division des Sciences écologiques
Mme. Anne RAIDL
Chef, Section des Normes internationales
Division du Patrimoine culturel
Mme. Jane ROBERTSON-VERNHES
Division des Sciences écologiques
M. Richard BILL
Consultant
Division des Sciences écologiques
M. Francçois-Bernard HUGHES
Consultant
Division du Patrimoine culturel
*[EOF]