Distribution limited SC-85/CONF.007/9
Paris, 12 August 1985
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND
CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
Ninth Session
Paris, June 3-5, 1985
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
I INTRODUCTION
1. The ninth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
was held at Unesco headquarters in Paris from June 3 to 5, 1985,
and was attended by Mr. J. Gazaneo (Argentina), Chairman, Mr. L.
Chabason (France), rapporteur, and the representatives of Algeria,
Australia, Norway, Pakistan and Senegal, vice-Chairmen. Seven other
States Parties to the Convention were represented by observers.
Representatives of IUCN, ICOMOS, and of ICCROM attended the meeting
in an advisory capacity. The full list of participants is found in
Annex 1 to this report.
2. Mr. J. Gazaneo, Chairman of the Committee opened the session and
Mr. M. Makagiansar, Assistant Director-General for Culture welcomed
the participants on behalf of the Director-General. After briefly
indicating the progress made in the implementation of the
Convention and the efforts made by the Secretariat to make the
World Heritage List as representative as possible of the world's
cultural and natural heritage, Mr. Makagiansar referred to the
important task awaiting the Bureau, which in particular had to
examine 36 new nominations and 2 nominations which had been
deferred by the Committee and for which additional information was
available. He finally drew the Bureau' s attention to the situation
of the World Heritage Fund which despite the announcement of the
United States' contribution and the payment of a certain number of
arrears, remained at a level insufficient to meet the conservation
requirements of a great number of world heritage sites.
*[2]
3. The Bureau then adopted the agenda for the session.
4. Mr. B. von Droste, Director of the Division of Ecological
Sciences, reported on the activities undertaken since the 8th
session of the Committee held in Buenos-Aires from 29th October to
2nd November, 1984. He first made a general assessment of the
implementation of the Convention and announced that 3 new States,
i.e. the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Sweden had ratified
the Convention since that date, bringing to 86 the number of States
Parties to the Convention. Furthermore, the procedure for adhering
to the Convention was underway in Uganda, Kenya and the Congo, as
well as in China. The Convention thus continued to arouse the
growing interest of States. It was necessary to note, however, that
the geographical representation was still very uneven, parts of
Asia and Eastern Europe being scarcely represented. He also made
the remark that whilst the number of nominations to the World
Heritage List increased regularly, there were still too few States
who had furnished the tentative lists necessary for the evaluation
of nominations. It was equally advisable to maintain a certain
balance between cultural properties and natural properties, so as
to respect the spirit of the Convention; he indicated that the
present proportion was two thirds to one third. The state of the
World Heritage Fund remained a major preoccupation despite the
announcement of the payment in 1985 of the voluntary contribution
of the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. The
fund's resources had remained nearly stationary while the number of
States Parties and of inscriptions on the World Heritage List had
greatly increased. This situation was partly due to delays in the
payment of contributions.
5. Mr. von Droste then reviewed the activities conducted since the
8th session of the Committee, including projects for preparatory
assistance, technical cooperation, training and emergency
assistance. On the subject of promotional activities, Mr. von
Droste announced a World Heritage exhibit had been produced with
the support of the Spanish Ministry of Cultural Properties. This
exhibit was being shown in Madrid, would soon be shown in Toronto,
and a duplicate had been acquired by Unesco for wide distribution.
6. Finally, Mr. von Droste stressed the fact that the Secretariat's
work had increased considerably while the number of personnel
working for the implementation of the Convention had remained the
same since it had become operational.
II REPORT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE TO THE 123rd SESSION
OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE
7. A draft of the World Heritage Committee's report to the
General Conference (Document SC-85/CONF.007/02) was presented to
the Bureau for examination and approval. The Bureau was of the
opinion that the General Conference should be informed of the
situation of the World Heritage Fund and of the Secretariat's
difficulties. In particular, the Bureau recalled the moral
obligation of the States which had opted for voluntary
contributions to pay at least that which they should have paid in
mandatory contributions i.e. 1 % of their annual contribution to
the Unesco budget. The draft report thus modified to take into
account these considerations was approved by the Bureau.
*[3]
III TENTATIVE LISTS
8. The Secretariat informed the Bureau of the progress made in the
elaboration of tentative lists; to those lists submitted before the
8th session of the World Heritage Committee were added new or
revised lists from Algeria, Cyprus, France, the Federal Republic of
Germany, Guyana, Morocco, Norvay, Peru, Portugal and Tunisia. Benin
indicated that it would not present any properties in the coming
years other than the Royal Palaces of Abomey, at present nominated
for inscription. The number of States which have provided tentative
lists or equivalent information is therefore 23.
9. The Secretariat indicated that a meeting had been organised by
ICOMOS bringing together Algeria, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Morocco and Tunisia, to harmonize their respective tentative lists;
these countries were to hold a second meeting in September 1985,
before submitting subsequently revised tentative lists.
IV ELABORATION OF GUIDELINES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION AND
EVALUATION OF MIXED CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES AND
OF RURAL LANDSCAPES
10. The Secretariat recalled that, at the 8th session of the
Committee, the question arose concerning mixed cultural/natural
sites and particularly rural landscapes which meet criterion (iii)
for natural properties as "exceptional combinations of natural and
cultural elements". The Committee had requested IUCN to consult
with ICOMOS and the International Federation of Landscape Archi-
tects (IFLA) to elaborate guidelines for the identification and
nomination of mixed cultural/natural properties or rural landscapes
to be presented to the Bureau and the Committee. IUCN reported that
correspondance on this subject had already been exchanged between
the relevant non-governmental organizations and interested
specialists. Due to the heavy workload of all concerned however, it
had not yet been possible to arrange a meeting, which was now
planned for 11 October 1985. The representative of ICOMOS added the
clarification that the "mixed" sites to be considered were
specifically natural areas modified to a greater or lesser degree
by human activities. They did not include the properties where
intrinsic cultural World Heritage values were enhanced by their
natural surroundings, such as Mont St. Michel (France) within the
natural setting of its bay. The Bureau thanked IUCN and ICOMOS for
their preliminary work on this question and hoped that draft
guidelines would be prepared in time for the next session of the
Committee.
V NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
A. Analysis of the evolution of nominations
11. The Bureau of the World Heritage Committee constituted a
working group made up of Mr. J. Gazaneo (Argentina), Mr. L.
Chabason (France), Mr. S. Baghli (Algeria), and Mr. S.
Tschudi-Madsen (Norway) to look into the problem raised by the
ever-increasing number of nominations for inscriptions submitted to
the *[4] Committee and its consequences for the implementation of
the Convention. At the stage reached in the application of the
Convention, it was essential to ensure on the one hand the
coherence of actions to be undertaken with respect to inscriptions
secured and on the other hand the effective protection and manage-
ment of properties inscribed. It is indispensable that henceforth
the Committee spend a substantial part of its time in ensuring that
the inscribed properties are effectively protected and managed.
12. At this stage, the Secretariat and the NGOs concerned should
concentrate their efforts on regularly monitoring the conservation
status of properties already inscribed. Priority would be given to
those properties inscribed longest on the List as well as to those
whose inscription was accompanied by specific recommendations for
protection and management.
13. As to the coherence of cultural properties inscribed on the
World Heritage List, a suggestion was made that ICOMOS should make
a systematic study by categories of properties already inscribed on
the list or appearing on the tentative lists available at present.
Such a study would determine which category of property, which
cultures, which major currents of civilization were well
represented and which on the contrary were under-represented. By
means of such a study, a dialogue with the States Parties could be
established, in order to advise them on future nominations and if
necessary to stimulate nominations from under-represented
categories of properties. With this in mind, it was suggested that
ICOMOS pursue its thematic studies. For each of these categories
ICOMOS could eventually draw up prospective lists of sites (even
those absent from the tentative lists or situated in the territory
of States not yet parties to the Convention) to be used as an
ordinary means for reflection and comparison.
14. As for natural properties, the problem arises in a rather
different fashion, considering that there are fever sites inscribed
or nominated; IUCN, nevertheless, also should try to maintain the
necessary coherence.
15. Moreover, the NGOs concerned should communicate to the
Secretariat their opinions and comments on the tentative lists
already received; this could help States Parties to concentrate
their efforts on the elaboration of those nominations which would
appear to be the most admissible. Finally, it is advisable to take
into account the actual means of the Secretariat and the NGOs who
cannot deal simultaneously with the follow-up of sites already
inscribed and the preliminary study of an important number of new
nominations.
16. If these considerations are taken into account, it would be
advisable in consequence to reduce the number of nominations
examined each year, according to the following suggestions :
(i) a limitation by the Bureau of the overall number of
properties examined each year (a maximum figure of 20 or
25 was put forward during the discussion)
(ii) a limitation of the number of properties that each State
Party would be authorised to present (2 properties for
example)
*[5]
(iii) a temporary and a voluntarily agreed halt in presenting
new nominations by countries already having a high number
of properties inscribed on the list.
B. Examination of nominations for inscription presented to
the Bureau
17. The Bureau examined 38 nominations, of which 7 concerned
natural properties and another a mixed natural/cultural property.
Twenty-nine were recommended to the Committee for inscription on
the World Heritage List : the properties concerned are listed in
Section A below; the Bureau recommended that the decision
concerning 6 other nominations be deterred (they are listed in
Section B) and that 4 other properties should not be inscribed on
the world Heritage List (they are listed in Section C). Moreover,
the Bureau was requested to re-examine a nomination from the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya; this matter is considered in paragraphs 30
onwards.
18. The Bureau made the following recommendations to the Committee:
A. Properties recommended for inscription on the World Heritage
List
Name of Property Identification Contracting State Criteria
N° having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with the
Convention
Cathedral and Church of 187 Rev. Germany (Federal C (i)(ii)(iii)
Saint Michael of Hidelsheim Republic of
Rock Drawings of Tadrart 287 Libyan Arab C (iii)
Acacus Jamahiriya
The Bureau noted the declarations
of the representative of Algeria who
indicated that the Algerian and
Libyan authorities were coordinating
their efforts to protect Tassili
N'Ajjer and Tadrart Acacus.
Royal Palaces of Abomey 323 Benin C (iii)(v)
The Bureau brought the Beninese
authorities' attention to the need
for a careful and strict restoration
and for taking account of the
considerable damage caused by the 1984
tornado. The Bureau recommended that
Benin present a request for inscription
of this property on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
*[6]
Name of Property Identification Contracting State Criteria
N° having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with the
Convention
Salvador de Bahia 309 Brazil C (iv)(vi)
(Historic Centre)
Sanctuary of Bom Jesus 334 Brazil C (i)(iv)
do Congonhas
Iguaçu National Park 355 Brazil N (iii)(iv)
(1) The Bureau expressed
satisfaction that a study
of regional repercussions
of deforestation and other
developments on the natural
integrity of the park was
envisaged. (2) The Bureau
asked the Secretariat to
obtain more details about
the possibility mentioned
by IUCN of a hydro-electric
project inside or near the
park. (3) The Bureau recom-
mended the Secretariat to
seek an agreement between
the Brazilian and Argentine
authorities to envisage consid-
ering the National Parks
of Iguazu and Iguaçu (situated
respectively in Argentina
and Brazil) as a single trans-
frontier World Heritage site
in order to encourage cooper-
ative efforts in the management
of these two contiguous parks.
Thracian Tomb of Svetchari 359 Bulgaria C (i)(iii)
Quebec 300 Canada C (iv)(vi)
(Historic Area)
Painted Churches in the
Trados Region 351 Cyprus C (ii)(iii)(iv)
*[7]
Name of Property Identification Contracting State Criteria
N° having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with the
Convention
Pont du Gard (Roman
Aqueduct) 344 France C (i)(iii)(iv)
The Bureau drew the attention
of the French authorities
to the importance of strictly
protecting the site's surroundings.
Kaziranga National Park 337 India N (ii)(iv)
The Bureau encouraged the
Indian authorities to provide
the legal basis to protect
the buffer zone south of
the park (Mikir Hills and
the Karbi Plateau). The Bureau
also expressed concern over
with the impact of the planned
construction of a railway
line along the southern
boundary of the Park and
asked the Secretariat to
obtain more information about
this from the Indian
authorities.
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary 338 India N (ii)(iii)(iv)
The Bureau noted with
satisfaction the plans for
extending the Sanctuary's
northwest boundary and to
strengthen protection by
upgrading the area to national
park status. The Bureau also
expressed its concern at
the possibility of a
hydro-electric dam being
constructed in the Manas
Wildlife Sanctuary in Bhutan.
Keoladeo National Park 340 India N (iv)
The Bureau commended the
Indian authorities on their
recent efforts to strengthen
the protection of this park
and encouraged them to finish
the Park Management plan
which is currently being
drawn up.
*[8]
Name of Property Identification Contracting State Criteria
N° having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with the
Convention
Jerash 324 Jordan C
The Bureau recommended the
property for inscription
on condition that the Jordanian
government states precisely
what its boundaries are,
provides a management plan
for the sites, and gives
assurances that future restora-
tion would be conducted with
the strictest respect for
the authenticity of the
property.
Petra (Archaeological
site) 326 Jordan C
The Bureau recommended the
property for inscription
on condition that the Jordanian
government states precisely
what its boundaries are.
Qusair Amra 327 Jordan C (i)(iii)(iv)
The Medina of Marrakesh 331 Morocco C (i)(ii)(iv)(v
The Bureau called the attention
of the Moroccan authorities
to the need to ensure that
Marrakesh conserve its excep-
tional character of a
completely preserved historic
town; in this connection
it would be advisable to
avoid any breaching of the
ramparts, to protect carefully
the Medina and in particular
its gardens, and also to-
ensure the protection of
the surroundings of Marrakesh,
in particular the palm grove,
the Menara, and the gardens
of Bab Djedid, by strictly
enforcing the management
plan adopted in 1981.
*[9]
Name of Property Identification Contracting State Criteria
N° having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with the
Convention
Rock Drawings of Alta 352 Norway C (iii)
Chavin (Archaeological
Site) 330 Peru C (iii)
Huascaran National Park 333 Peru N (ii)(iii)
The Bureau asked the
Secretariat to inform the
Peruvian authorities that
the recommendation for
inscription concerned only
the Huascaran National Park
(and not the Callejon de
Huaylas and the Cordillera
Blanca). Moreover, the
Bureau encouraged the Peruvian
authorities to intensity
their efforts in the management
of the Park.
Altamira Cave 310 Spain C (i)(iii)
Roman Aqueduct, Segovia 311 Spain C
The Bureau recommended the
property for inscription
on condition that it be
redefined so as to include
at the same time the old
town which forms with the
acqueduct an inseparable
whole.
Churches of the Kingdom
of the Asturias 312 Spain C (i)(ii)(iv)
(Sta. Maria del Naranco,
San Miguel de Lillo,
Sta. Cristina de Lena)
Santiago de Compostela 347 Spain C (i)(ii)(vi)
(Old town)
*[10]
Name of Property Identification Contracting State Criteria
N° having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with the
Convention
The Walls of Avila 348 Spain C
The Bureau recommended the
property for inscription
on condition that it be
redefined so as to include
at the same time the old
town intra-muros, and the
extra-muros Romanesque churches
of San Segundo, San Vicente,
San Andres and San Pedro.
Punic Town of Kerkouane 332 Tunisia C (iii)
Historic zones of Istanbul 356 Turkey C (i)(ii)
(iii)(iv)
Göreme Valley 357 Turkey C(i)(iii)(v)
N (iii)
In the light of the evaluations
by IUCN and ICOMOS, the Bureau
was of the opinion that the
outstanding universal value
of this property justified
without a doubt its inscription
on the World Heritage List.
However, the present
delimitation of the site
nominated appeared to be
rather restricted since it
encompassed neither the
National park in its entirety
(which would be desirable
according to IUCN), nor the
sites of Karain, Karlik-
Yesilcz and Soganli, and
the subterranean cities of
Kaymakli and Derinhuyu (which
ICOMOS recommends for
inclusion). The Bureau
therefore decided that
* additional information should
be requested of the Turkish
government before the 9th
session of the World Heritage
Committee, to permit the
latter to make a decision
about the inscription of
this site on the World Heritage
List.
*[11]
Name of Property Identification Contracting State Criteria
N° having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with the
Convention
Great Mosque and Hospital
of Divrigi 358 Turkey C (i)(iv)
B. Nominations to be deferred
Two Neolithic Dwellings in
Stara Zagora 360 Bulgaria
The Bureau recommended that
this nomination be deferred
until the site was excavated
to a greater extent and until
a comparative study of the
numerous known neolithic
sites worldwide had been
carried out.
Archaeological site of
Kourion 350 Cyprus
The Bureau recommended that
this nomination be deferred
given that the World Heritage
List already comprises numerous
archaeological sites of the
Mediterranean Basin and that
new inscriptions of properties
of this category were less
urgent than those of properties
that reflected other cultures
less well represented on
the list.
The Town of Carcassonne 345 France
The Bureau recommended that
this inscription be deferred,
because first the World
Heritage List already comprises
other examples of fortified
towns of the Middle Ages,
and secondly the ramparts
of Carcassonne have undergone
important modifications in
the 19th Century which impinge
upon the authenticity of
the site. This nomination
nevertheless could be reviewed
by the Committee at a later
stage if a request for the
examination of Viollet-le-
Duc's restoration work was
submitted to the Committee.
*[12]
Name of Property Identification Contracting State
N° having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with the
Convention
Chaco Canyon Historic
National Park 353 United States of America
The Bureau examined this
nomination in the light of
the ICOMOS evaluation. The
originality of the Chaco
group with regard to the
Anasazi culture (already
represented on the World
Heritage List by the site
of Mesa Verde) resides mainly
in the importance given to
the road system. The Bureau
regretted that the present
boundaries of the site
nominated for inscription
did not include the major
roadways and therefore was
of the opinion that it would
be premature to take a decision
on the inscription of this
site, before having received
from the American government
precise details about the
possibility of enlarging
the area to be inscribed.
Glacier National Park 354 United States of America
The Bureau noted that this
national park possessed a
certain number of important
natural features but that
similar features were already
well represented in other
parks already inscribed on
the list. The Bureau felt,
however, that joint nomination
with the contiguous Waterton
Lakes National Park in Canada
would give an added dimension
to this nomination, on the
precedent set by the Kluane
National Park and Wrangell/St.
Elias National Monument.
This park does not appear
on Canada's tentative list,
but the Canadian authorities
informed the Secretariat
that they would be prepared
to add it to the list with
a view to a joint nomination.
*[13]
Name of Property Identification Contracting State
N° having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with the
Convention
The Bureau recommended that
the nomination be re-examined
in the framework of a possible
common nomination.
C. Properties not to be considered for inscription on the List
Coco Island National Park 329 Costa Rica
The Bureau recognized the
interest of this property
for its flora, and its
importance in the Costa Rican
context, but felt that it
did not fulfill the criterion
of 'outstanding universal
value'.
Abbey of St. Nicolas de
Tolentin 346 France
While recognizing the great
importance of this site for
the French national heritage,
the Bureau was of the opinion
that it did not fulfill the
criterion of 'outstanding
universal value' as understood
by the World Heritage
Committee, considering the
existence in Europe of other
more representative examples
of late Gothic architecture.
Karak Castle 325 Jordan
While recognising the value
of this site, the Bureau
was of the opinion that it
did not constitute the most
representative example of
Frankish fortifications.
Tabaqat Fahl (Pella) 328 Jordan
While recognizing the great
interest of this site, the
Bureau was of the opinion
that it did not fulfill the
criterion of 'outstanding
universal value' as understood
by the World Heritage
Committee.
*[14]
VI. REPORT ON THE CONSERVATION STATUS OF NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE
PROPERTIES
19. In accordance with paragraph 34 of the Operational Guidelines,
IUCN is requested to report on the preservation of natural heritage
properties. This was further endorsed at the 7th session of the
Committee. IUCN reported to the Bureau on the following properties.
a) Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary, Senegal, inscribed on the List
of World Heritage in Danger, November 1984
Longer term solutions are currently being investigated by IUCN,
Unesco, the Senegalese and Mauritanian authorities as well as the
OMVS (Organisation de Mise en Valeur du fleuve Sénagal/River
Senegal Development Organization) at a special workshop held in
late June 1985.
b) Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania: inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger, November 1984
A commission of inquiry on the management of wildlife and protected
areas in Tanzania has been concluded but formal results have yet to
be communicated.
c) Garamba National Park, Zaire: inscribed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger, November 1984
The Bureau was informed that an IUCN/WWF mission to Kinshasa in
January 1985 brought the issue to the personal attention of
President Mobutu. A press release on the outcome of this meeting
was being forwarded to the Secretariat. According to field reports
from project staff no further rhinos have been poached, although
the situation is still critical. Another mission to Zaire will take
place in August 1985 by IUCN's Tropical Forest Officer (who will
also review the situation in Salonga National Park, inscribed on
the World Heritage List in 1984).
d) Tai Rational Park, Ivory Coast
The Bureau was informed that the situation previously described in
1982 and 1984 has continued to deteriorate and recommended that the
Secretariat should initiate the process for inscription on the List
of World Heritage in Danger.
e) Ichkeul National Park, Tunisia
The Bureau was informed that this internationally important wetland
site is subject to a number of threats, including air and water
pollution, grazing by domestic stock and hunting, but a large water
resource development project may result in very significant impacts
on the integrity of the area. The scheme calls for the construction
of dams on all six rivers that feed the Ichkeul wetland. The plan
is now underway with one dam completed and another in the process
of filling. This diversion of freshwater will take about 75% of the
inflow to the park which will lose its ability to support the vast
numbers of wintering waterfowl for which it is now famous.
Compensatory management schemes include *[15] a sluice but costs
are very high and no formal decisions have been made. To exacerbate
the problem, it has been reported that the budget for the park has
been reduced from $18,000 in 1984 to $ 7,000 in 1985. The Bureau
requested the Secretariat to contact the Tunisian authorities to
initiate the process for inscription on the list of World Heritage
in Danger.
f) Galapagos National Park, Ecuador
The Bureau was informed that a man-caused fire on Isabella Island
resulted in an international appeal to aid the efforts of the
Ecuador Government in extinguishing the blaze which burnt over
30,000 ha. The fire began in early March and was still burning in
late May, though under control at the time of the Bureau meeting.
No serious species losses had occurred though the subspecies of
tortoise endemic to Isabella has been threatened at one stage. A
contribution from the World Heritage Fund of $ 10,500 has acted to
mobilize other support from WWF-FRG ($ 52,000) and the United
Kingdom through the Disaster Relief Fund ($ 13,000).
g) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia
The Bureau was informed by IUCN of new reports on the effects of
road construction and a subsequent siltation on the fringing reef
of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park adjacent to Cape Tribulation
National Park. The Bureau furthermore noted that the severity of
the problem is a matter of some debate within Australia and that a
scientific evaluation of the impacts was required. The
representative of Australia confirmed these reports and indicated
that the problem also concerned areas of tropical rainforest in
Queensland. The Bureau asked the Secretariat to request more
information on the impact of the contribution of the road in Cape
Tribulation National Park on the fringing reef of the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park.
VII. SITUATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND
20. The Secretariat presented the Bureau with financial statements
for mandatory and voluntary contributions to the World Heritage
Fund as at 31 January 1985, a list of contributions received
between 1 February and 30 May 1985 and the state of the budget
adopted for 1985 by the Committee at its eighth session as at 30
May 1985. The Secretariat furthermore indicated that the expected
budget for 1986 would probably be of the order of $ 1,200,000
considering that a few States Parties who make significant
contributions to the Fund (e.g. Federal Republic of Germany for
approximately $ 145,000 for 1985; United States of America for
$ 248,000 for 1985) had indicated that their payments would be made
in the very near future. The Secretariat nevertheless advised that
the Committee should be prudent and should consider a budget for
1986 which was of the same order of magnitude as for that of 1985.
In the event that States Parties paid up in full their
contributions for 1985 and thereby augmented the budget
possibilities for 1986, the Bureau recommended that an increase be
made in the allocations for technical cooperation and training.
21. In this respect, the Bureau appealed to all States Parties
which had not already done so to make their 1985 contributions to
the World Heritage Fund and pay up any amounts in arrears from
previous years.
*[16]
VIII. REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL COOPERATION
22. The Secretariat presented the requests for technical
cooperation which had been received for two natural properties,
Talamanca-La Amistad (Costa Rica) for $ 20,000 and Darien National
Park (Panama) for $ 40,000. IUCN confirmed that these were both
excellent projects for which the contribution from the World
Heritage Fund would be used in a catalytic manner to draw in other
international or bi-lateral support. The Bureau recommended that
the Committee approve these two requests, respectively n°s.
205.1(3) for Costa Rica and 159.1(3) for Panama.
23. The Bureau further noted that, since a total amount of
$ 200,000 was envisaged for technical cooperation for 1986, a
certain number of "small" requests not exceeding $ 20,000 could be
developed and submitted to the Committee at its next session.
Particular attention should be made to develop such "small"
projects for properties already inscribed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger which, according to Operational Guidelines, have
priority over other properties as concerns the allocation of
technical cooperation. The representative of IUCN indicated that
efforts would be made to elaborate appropriate World Heritage
requests for Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal), Ngorongoro
Conservation Area (Tanzania) and Garamba National Park (Zaire).
IX REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
24. Document SC-85/CONF.007/07 was presented to the Bureau by the
Secretariat which underlined the fact that material usable for
promotion was now available, namely the World Heritage Exhibit and
the folding poster, both of which are in three languages (English,
French and Spanish) as well as the pocket guide only available in
Spanish for the time being, but the copyright of which had been
acquired by Unesco. The Bureau congratulated the Secretariat on
these tangible achievements and expressed the wish that the folding
poster on World Heritage be widely disseminated.
25. In regard to more general information activities, it was
emphasized that it was necessary to work towards self-financing
which implied a more comprehensive policy using the audio-visual
media and which would require the intervention of specialists on
promotional activities. The Bureau expressed the wish that this
question be discussed at the Committee meeting which should
consider the different means possible to develop a veritable
promotion strategy. Another check to the implementation of
promotional activities was recalled; namely the absence in most
countries of a national structure responsible for coordinating the
implementation of the Convention, which constitutes an
indispensable link and which should have at its disposal sufficient
means to launch national activities concerning the Convention. The
representative of Malawi announced to the Bureau the creation in
his country of a committee entrusted with the implementation of the
Convention and among whose members were the representatives of the
protection services of natural and cultural heritage.
26. The Bureau also examined the annex to document
SC-85/CONF.007/07 which, in accordance with the Committee's wishes
at its 8th session, presented a draft of guidelines for the
realisation of plaques intended to commemorate the inscription of
properties on the World Heritage List. The Bureau accepted the
draft and recommended to the Committee the adoption of these
guidelines with a slight modification of the proposed French text,
which should read "Au titre ... afin qu'il soit protégé au
benefice de toute l'humanité". Once approved by the
Committee, these guidelines will be added to the "Operational
Guidelines *[17] for the implementation of the Convention."
X. DATE AND PLACE OF THE 9TH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE
27. The Bureau decided that, taking into account the budgetary
difficulties now facing Unesco, it would be preferable that the
next session of the Committee take place at Headquarters, rather
than in one of the countries that had offered to host the meeting.
The Bureau then expressed its warmest thanks to the Cypriot
authorities who had on several occasions since 1982 indicated their
wish to host a session of the Committee. It also wished to thank
the other countries which had shown interest in this respect or had
submitted invitations. The dates of the meeting were fixed from 2nd
to 6th December. The rapporteur, Mr. Chabason announced to the
Bureau that his country would organise on that occasion a visit to
one or two French sites inscribed on the World Heritage List.
28. The agenda of the Committee's session, as presented in document
SC-85/CONF.007/08 was slightly modified to take into account the
disucssions at the Bureau; in particular an item had been added in
order to allow the Committee to discuss the proposals elaborated by
the working group, and item 11 on promotional activities was
completed by "means to strengthen these activities on a national
level".
XI. OTHER BUSINESS
a) India
29. The Secretariat brought to the attention of the Bureau the
letter from the Permanent Delegation of India, dated 13th May 1985,
and which is reproduced in Annex 2, giving additional information
about the sites of Khajuraho, Hampi and Fatehpur Sikri. It was
recalled that during its 8th session, the Bureau decided to defer
the study of the nominations of these properties pending the
re-definition of their limits and/or assurances as to their
protection. These three nominations will be re-examined by the
Bureau during the 10th session in 1986, in the light of this
additional information and ensuing evaluation by ICOMOS.
b) Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
30. The Secretariat distributed to the Bureau copies of a letter
from the Permanent Delegation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, dated
April 29, 1985, addressed to the Chairman of the Committee. In it
the Libyan authorities referred to the additional documentation on
the archaeological site of the city of Ptolemais furnished since
the 8th session of the Committee and underlined in particular the
importance of this city's water reservoir dating from the 3rd
century B.C. and hoped that the nomination of this property would
be re-examined. It will be recalled that during the 8th session,
the Committee had decided not to inscribe the archaeological site
of Ptolemais on the World Heritage List, with the following
comment:
"The Committee, while taking account of the great importance
of this site for the Libyan national heritage, felt that it
did not fulfill the criteria of 'outstanding universal value'
as understood by the World Heritage Committee".
*[18]
31. The Secretariat called attention to the fact that Article 11,
paragraph 6, of the Convention stipulates with regard to the World
Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger, that
"before refusing a request for inclusion in one of two lists ...
the Committee shall consult the State Party in whose territory the
cultural or natural property in question is situated".
32. The Secretariat was of the opinion that the request for
re-examination of the nomination of Ptolemais could be considered
to be the Libyan authorites' reply to the report of the 8th session
of the Committee within the framework of the 'consultation'
referred to in the article quoted above. As the Bureau considered
that the request was receivable, it could therefore re-examine this
nomination and then submit its recommendation to the Committee.
33. The Bureau, having concluded in favour of the receivability of
the request for re-examination, took note of the comments made by
the ICOMOS representative who proposed drafting a complete
evaluation and sending it to the Secretariat for presentation to
the Committee. He underlined the fact that ICOMOS had studied the
new documents and information provided by the Libyan authorities
and, moreover, had already taken into account in 1984 the presence
of the ancient reservoir in question. No additional information was
furnished that would be likely to alter the judgement of ICOMOS on
the intrinsic qualities of this site. It was indeed of very great
archaeological interest. However, the cities founded by Alexander
or his Generals, called Alexandria or Pella, the numerous cities
founded by Ptolomies or Seleucids, called Ptolemais or Seleucia,
all testify equally to an important historical phenomenon: the new
organization of the Hellenistic World subsequent to Alexander's
conquests. Furthermore, many sites around the Mediterranean (around
50, perhaps) can be considered to be of equal worth to Ptolemais
and the Committee had already considered that some of these should
not be inscribed. Unles the Committee changed its policy, the 1984
evaluation of Ptolemais by ICOMOS was still valid. If, on the
contrary, the Bureau decided to re-interpret the criteria in such
a way as to allow the inscription of Ptolemais, as of other
properties of equal worth, the ICOMOS could take into account this
new orientation and revise its evaluation at the Bureau's request.
34. After a debate on the question, the Bureau unanimously decided
to recommend to the World Heritage Committee to uphold its decision
and therefore not to inscribe the archaeological site of the city
of Ptolemais on the World Heritage List.
c) Peru
35. The Secretariat brought to the attention of the Bureau a letter
from the Peruvian House of Representatives, dated 25th April 1985,
which reproduced a declaration voted by this assembly subsequent to
the inscription of the town of Cuzco and the historic sanctuary of
Machu-Picchu on the World Heritage List. The Bureau requested that
the Committee be informed of the contents of this letter at its
next session.
d) United States of America
36. The Chairman informed the Bureau that he had received a letter
dated 22nd May 1985 from the American authorities regarding
Yosemite National Park which was inscribed on the World Heritage
List by the Committee at its eighth *[19] session in 1984. This
letter was pursuant to the Committee's request to be kept informed
of any developments regarding possible dam construction in
proximity of this property. The Bureau took note of the recent
legislation which had the effect of enhancing the protection of the
property and precluding the possibility of dam construction. The
Bureau requested that the contents of this letter be brought to the
attention of the Committee at its next session.
37. After having thanked all participants, the Chairman closed the
meeting.
Annexe 1/Annex 1
Paris, le 12 juin 1985
CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION DU
PATRIMOINE 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
Neuvième session / Ninth session
Paris, 3-6 juin 1985
LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS / LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
I. ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU DU COMITE/ STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE BUREAU
ALGERIE/ALGERIA
M. Sid Ahmed BAGHLI
Ministre plénipotentiaire, Conseiller
Délagation permanente auprès de lrUnesco
ARGENTINE/ARGENTINA
Mr. Jorge GAZANEO Président/President
Director, Conservation of Urban and Rural
Heritage Center, University of Buenos Aires
AUSTILALIE /AUSTRALIA
H. E. The Honourable E.G. WHITLAM
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. David MACINTYRE
Deputy Permanent DeIegate to Unesco
FRANCE/FRANCE
M. Lucien CHABASON Rapporteur
Chef du service de la recherche
Ministère de l 'Environnement
*[ANNEX I/2]
NORVEGE / NORWAY
Mr. Stephan TSCHUDI-MADSEN
Director General, Historic Monuments
Mrs. Oda SLETNES
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
PAKISTAN/PAKISTAN
Mr. Mustafa Kamal KAZI
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
SENEGAL/ SENEGAL
M. Henri MENDY
Conseiller
Délegation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
II. ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF/
ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUNENTS ET DES SITES/
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)
M. Michel PARENT
Président
M. Léan PRESSOUYRE
Professeur à l'Université de Paris I
Mme. Delphine LAPEYRE
Directrice du Secrétariat international
Mme. Florence PORTELETTE
Documentaliste
UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE ET DE SES
RESSOURCES (UICN)/ INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE
AND NATUREL RESOURCES (IUCN)
Mr. James THORSELL
Executive Officer, CNPPA
Mr. Daniel NAVID
Head, International Relations
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)
Mr. Bernard FEILDEN
Director Emeritus
*[ANNEX I/3]
III. ETATS PARTIES PRESENTS EN TANT QU'OBSERVATEURS/STATES PARTIES ATTENDING
AS OBSERVERS
BENIN/ BENIN
Mme. Paulette AGBOTON
Premier Conseiller
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
M. S. Edouard KOUTINHOUIN
Directeur des Musoes, Monuments et Sites
BRESIL/BRAZIL
M. Carlos ASFORA
Premier secrétaire d'Ambassade
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
BULGARIE/BULGARIA
Mme. Magdalina STANTSCHEVA
Professeur à l'Université de Sofia
M. Ivo VLADIMIROV
Comité de la Culture
CHYPRE/CYPRUS
H.E. Mr. Constantinos LEVENTIS
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to Unesco
M. Christos CASSIMATIS
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
INDE/INDIA
Ms. Banashri BOSE
Second Secretary
Permanent Delagation to Unesco
MALAWI/MALAWI
M. Gadi G.Y. MGOMEZULU
Principal Conservator of Antiquities
TURQUIE/TURKEY
M. Ali Engin OBA
Chargé d'affaires a.i.
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
Mme. Asli UGDUL
Deuxième Secrétaire
Délégation permanante auprès de l'Unesco
*[ANNEX I/4]
IV. SECRETARIAT DE L'UNESCO/UNESCO SECRETARIAT
M. Makaminan MAKAGIANSAR
Sous-Directeur général pour la Culture
M. Bernd VON DROSTE
Directeur
Division des Sciences écologiques
M. S. NAQVI
Directeur
Division du Patrimoine culturel
Mme. Anne RAIDL
Chef, Section des Normes internationales
Division du Patrimoine culturel
Mme. Jane ROBERTSON-VERNHES
Division des Sciences écologiques
M. François-Bernard HUYGHES
Division du Patrimoine culturel
M. Michel BATISSE
Conseiller en Sciences de lrenvironnement
Annex 2
Délégation Permanente de l'Inde
auprès de l'UNESCO
1, RUE MIOLLIS
75015 PARIS
No.PDI/CLT/WHC 13 May 1985
Dear Mrs. Raidl,
I am writing to you to give some additional
information regarding the cultural properties of Khajuraho,
Hampi and Fatehpur Sikri, which my Government has
nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List.
Khajuraho: Archaeological Survey of India is arranging
to have prepared a compherensive plan covering all the monuments.
It may be mentioned that the Government of Madhya Pradesh has
already prepared a Development Plan of Khajuraho which guarantee
the effective control of the entire area of Khajuraho as such.
Hampi: The site plan of Hampi Complex already furnished
by Archaeological Survey of India includes the protected area
of the Complex under the Survey which is cover ed by the Ancient
Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains Act, 1958 and
Rules 1969. To ensure planned development in the interest
of the ancient site, Master Plan of Hampi has been prepared.
Under this plan both natural and archaeological resources of
the site have been duly taken into account.
Fatehpur Sikri: The principal group of monuments at
Fatehpuri Sikri is under Central protection and a site plan of
this group indicating the limits of protection has already
been furnished. It may not be possible to include larger areas
under protection for various reasons. However, to ensure that the
interest of this important group of monuments is safeguarded
a Master Plan of Fatehpur Sikri has been prepared which
adequately takes into account the need of protecting and
preserving environments of these monuments. To check the mining
and quarring operations the entire area comprising Mauzas Sikri I
hissa, Sikri II Hissa, Sikri IV Hissa, Arezi Imlak, Randau Barau,
Dadu Pura and Gurh Ri Mandi have been declared prohibited under
the A.M.A.S.R. Rules, 1959. The quarrying and mining operations
which were previously going on in the area have since been
completely stopped.
I hope this supplementary clarification will answer some
of the queries raised by the ICOMOS at the last bureau meeting of the
WHC and that these monuments will soon be given their rightful place
on the World Heritage List.
Please accept, Madam, the assurance' of my highest
consideration.
*[signed]
(Miss B. Bose)
Second Secretary
Mme A. Raidl,
CLT/CH
Bureau B 12.26, Unesco
*[EOF]