Limited Distribution SC-87/CONF.004/11
Paris, 8 August 1987
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
Eleventh Session
(Unesco Headquarters, 23-26 June 1987)
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The eleventh ordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee was held at Unesco Headquarters in Paris from 23 to 26 June
1987, and was attended by Mr. J. D. Collinson (Canada), Chairman, Mr. L. F.
de Macedo Soares (Brazil), Rapporteur and representatives of Algeria, Bulgaria,
India, Mexico and Zaire, Vice-Chairmen. In addition, ten States Parties to the
Convention and one non-State Party were represented by observers.
Representatives of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation
and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Union for Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory
capacity. The full list of participants is found in Annex
I to this report.
2. Mr. Collinson, Chairman of the Committee, opened the meeting and Mr. M.
Ruivo, Secretary, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, welcomed the
participants on behalf of the Director-General of Unesco. Mr. Ruivo observed
that the` number of States Parties to the Convention was now 95 and the
Secretariat was making every effort to encourage new ratifications or
acceptances. He highlighted significant features in the implementation of the
Convention such as the receipt of 2 more tentative lists of cultural and natural
properties and 63 nominations from States Parties for inscription on the World
Heritage List and the preparation of the report of the Working Group on
monitoring the state of conservation of cultural properties. He noted the relative
improvement in the situation of the World Heritage Fund which resulted from
the facts that more States Parties had joined the Convention, that most
voluntary and mandatory contributions from States Parties had been paid in full
and in time and that certain non-States Parties such as Austria continued to
contribute to the Fund. This improved situation had made it possible for the
Committee to strengthen the capabilities of ICOMOS, IUCN and the Secretariat
in bearing their responsibilities for the Convention. He observed the possibilities
for further improving the situation of the Fund, particularly through the
promotional activities to be undertaken by the Secretariat in cooperation with
national associations in States Parties. He concluded his presentation by briefly
outlining the work which the Bureau was to undertake during the meeting.
3. At the request of the representative of ICOMOS, the Bureau agreed to
consider the nominations of cultural properties for inscription on the World
Heritage List before the natural properties. The agenda, after this change was
included, was adopted.
4. Mr. B. von Droste, Director, Division of Ecological Sciences, presented
activities undertaken since the tenth session of the World Heritage Committee
held in Paris, during 24-28 November 1986. He pointed out that the World
Heritage Convention now had 95 States Parties, and hence was among the
most successful standard-setting instruments in the field of conservation.
Several other countries, for example, Thailand, were in the process of
ratification of the Convention.
*[2]
Describing activities carried out to implement the Convention, he particularly
emphasized training which involved a large number of States Parties. He invited
States Parties to utilize, to a greater extent, facilities available under the World
Heritage Fund for technical cooperation and preparatory assistance. In briefly
outlining ongoing and planned promotional activities, he underlined the
importance of the establishment of national associations for promoting the
Convention. He also elaborated on the potentials of planned promotional
activities for generating income for the World Heritage Fund. He also informed
the Bureau that the Secretariat hoped for greater collaboration with the
Secretariats of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in
Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in
implementing the Convention.
II. TENTATIVE LISTS
5. The Secretariat reported on the progress made concerning the preparation
of tentative lists of cultural and natural properties. In addition the tentative lists
received before the tenth session of the World Heritage Committee (Benin,
Cyprus, Federal Republic of Germany, Guyana, Hungary, Jordan, Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Pakistan, Spain for cultural properties; Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada,
France, Greece, India, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Turkey, United
Kingdom, United States of America, Yugoslavia for cultural and natural
properties) tentative lists of cultural and natural properties had been received
from Bolivia and the People's Republic of China. These two lists were contained
in document SC-87/CONF.004/2. Furthermore, this document contained, for
ease of reference, three lists drawn up during meetings organized by ICOMOS
for the harmonization of tentative lists of cultural properties of certain regions,
namely: the list drawn up for North African countries, the list covering a number
of French-speaking African countries and an outline tentative list examined
during the meeting of North European countries. These lists were not to be
considered as the official tentative lists of the States concerned, but they could
provide useful indications on the content of possible future lists. The Bureau
requested the Chairman to address a letter to all those States Parties which had
not submitted their tentative lists asking them to do so as early as possible. It
was recalled that the Committee had decided that individual nominations of
cultural properties would not be examined unless a tentative list had been
presented by the state concerned.
III. NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
6. The Bureau examined sixty-three nominations, of which forty-six were
cultural nominations, fourteen natural, and three "mixed" cultural and natural
properties. Forty-three properties were recommended for inscription on the
World Heritage List by the Bureau and are listed under Section A below. Sites
for which the Bureau recommended that the examination be deferred are given
in Section B. The nominations which the Bureau did not recommend for
inscription on the World Heritage List are listed under Section C.
A. Properties recommended for inclusion in the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identification Contracting State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
Uluru National Park 447 Australia N (ii),(iii)
The Bureau suggested that the World Heritage Committee commend the
Australian authorities for their innovative management approach, blending
natural and cultural elements of the park, and suggested that the Australian*[2]
authorities authorities could consider (a) adding areas that would more
completely portray the arid landscape in the park, and (b) reintroducing native
species which previously occurred but are now extinct within the park.
City of Potosi 420 Bolivia C (ii),(iv),(vi)
Brasilia 445 Brazil C
The Bureau recommended that this property be inscribed on condition that the
Brazilian authorities adopt a legislation that would ensure the safeguarding of
the urban creation of Costa and Niemeyer. The Bureau noted with satisfaction
the declaration of the delegate of Brazil in which he stated that a working group
had been established for the purpose of drawing up such legislation, the
approved text of which should reach the Secretariat in the autumn.
Dja Faunal Reserve 407 Cameroon N (ii),(iv)
The Bureau recommended that the Cameroon authorities give priority to
upgrading the legal status of the Reserve to ensure better protection and take
necessary action in respect of the following: (a) completing construction of the
Park headquarters at Somalomo to establish an effective management presence
in accordance with the recommendations of the management plan of the
reserve (b) considering the potential negative impacts of the planning of the
trans-African highway on the reserve (c) ensuring that rural development
activities do not promote agriculture or settlements within or close to the
boundaries of the reserve and (d) carrying out detailed floral and faunal surveys.
Gros Morne National Park 418 Canada N (i),(iii)
The Bureau requested the Canadian authorities to provide further information
regarding the (a) expected date at which the area would be protected officially
under the provisions of the National Parks Act, and (b) the possible impacts of
the transmission lines of the Lower Churchill Power Scheme on the integrity of
the park. The representative of Canada assured the Bureau that both of these
points would be clarified in writing in the near future.
Mount Taishan 437 China C (i),(ii),(iii)
(People's (iv),(v),(vi)
Republic of) N (iii)
The Bureau noted that this site met both cultural and natural criteria. The
Bureau recommended that a management plan be drawn up for the site which
addressed the following questions:
- adoption of measures to limit the numbers of visitors to avoid over-crowding;
- progressive removal or appropriate replacement of buildings within the
property which are incompatible with the architectural style;
- control of the location, number and type of small-scale photographic and
refreshment booths which had an adverse impact on visitor appreciation;
*[4]
- consideration of re-routing the walking access above the Middle Gate to
reduce the view of cable-car and vehicle transport developments;
- undertaking a full inventory of the natural resources of the property;
- limitation of the construction of high-rise concrete buildings in the vicinity of
the nominated property which would not be compatible with its aesthetic,
historic and symbolic values.
The Great Wall 438 China C (i),(ii),(iii)
(People's Rep. of) (iv),(vi)
Imperial Palace of the 439 " C (iii),(iv)
Ming and Qing Dynasties
Mogao Caves 440 " C (iii),(ii),(iii)
(iv),(v),(vi)
The Bureau draws the attention of the Chinese authorities to the need to adopt
a very active policy for safeguarding and conserving not only the cliff itself but
also its environment.
Qin Shi Huang Mausoleum 441 " C (i),(iii),
(iv),(vi)
The Bureau was aware that the Qin Shi Huang Mausoleum constituted one of
the largest archaeological reserves in the world and asked to have a clear
definition of the archaeological and museological policy of the Chinese
authorities, before the next session of the Committee.
Peking Man Site
at Choukoutien 449 " C (iii),(vi)
Hanseatic City 272 Rev. Germany C (iv)
of Lübeck (Fed. Rep. of)
Archaeological Site 393 Greece C
of Delphi
The Bureau took note with satisfaction of a cable from the Greek Minister of
Cultural Affairs, announcing that the planned aluminium plant would not be built
at Aghia Euthimia, but 55 kms away from Delphi. Furthermore, the observer
from Greece specified that the aluminium would be transported towards Beotia
and that the servicing of the plant would be carried out from the same
direction, that is, to the North of Mt. Parnassus, thus not endangering Delphi.
The Acropolis, Athens 404 Greece C (i),(ii),(iii)
(iv),(vi)
Budapest, the banks of 400 Hungary C (ii),(iv)
the Danube with the
district of Buda Castle
The Bureau recommended that the Hungarian authorities adopt a policy for
safeguarding the whole built-up area, particularly with a view to stopping the
development of tower blacks built on a different scale to the old buildings.
Hollókö 401 Rev. Hungary C (v)
*[5]
Sundarbans (of India) 452 India N (ii) (iv)
The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee inscribe this site
on the World Heritage List under the title !'Sundarbans National Park". Pending
a field review by IUCN to be undertaken later this year, the Bureau also made
the following provisional suggestions to the Indian authorities: (a) revise the
management plan for the Tiger Reserve which was compiled in 1973, and (b)
monitor threats to the viability of the park due to the diversion of upstream
waters. The Bureau noted that these suggestions were not prerequisites for
inscription. The Bureau furthermore recommended that the Bangladesh
authorities be encouraged to nominate the Reserves of the Sundarbans in
Bangladesh to the World Heritage List.
Group of monuments 239 Rev. India C
at Pattadakal
Elephanta Caves 244 Rev. India C
The Bureau recommended inscription of this property on condition that the
Indian authorities provide indications on the exact boundaries of the site before
the next session of the Committee. Furthermore, the Bureau requested that a
management plan for this property, threatened by the industrial development
of Bombay, be adopted as soon as possible.
Brihadisvara Temple, 250 Rev. India C
Thanjavur
The Bureau recommended inscription of this property on condition that the
Indian authorities provide indications on the exact boundaries of the site
nominated before the next session of the Committee.
Venice and its lagoon 394 Italy C (i),(ii),(iii)
(iv),(v),(vi)
The Bureau noted that the inscription of Venice and its lagoon on the World
Heritage List could only reinforce the safeguarding activities already
implemented within the framework of the international campaign.
Piazza del Duomo, Pisa 395 Italy C (i),(ii)
(iv),(vi)
Archaeological Park 396 Italy C (i),(ii),(iv)
of Selinunte
The Bureau expressed the wish that the Italian authorities provide updated
development and management plans, before the next session of the Committee.
Castel del Monte 398 Italy C (i)
The Bureau drew the attention of the Italian authorities to the need to protect
the surrounding landscape in the same way as the castle.
*[6]
Sian Ka'an 410 Mexico N (iii),(iv)
Biosphere Reserve
The Bureau recommended the World Heritage Committee to suggest that (a) the
competent Me xi can authorities explore the possibilities of including private
lands in the north-east coastal littoral zone of the site, (b) that the
interdisciplinary research and management characteristic of the reserve be not
affected by any changes occurring in the financial/administrative aspects of
State and Federal institutions responsible for research in the reserve and (c) the
Mexican authorities consider the possibility of including Tulum in this World
Heritage site.
Pre-Hispanic City and 411 Mexico C (i),(ii),(iii),
National Park of Palenque
The Bureau recommended that the Mexican authorities ensure the protection
of the forest surrounding the site, which is of great interest, due to the fact that
it contains species carefully selected by ancient civilizations.
Historic Centre of Mexico 412 Mexico C (ii),(iii)
City and Xochimilco (iv),(v)
The Bureau recommended inscription of zone A of Mexico City, as defined in
the nomination, and of Xochimilco. The Bureau insisted on the need to
safeguard the traditional cultivation system which is characteristic of
Xochimilco.
Pre-Hispanic City of 414 Mexico C (i),(ii),(iii),
Teotihuacan
The Bureau took note with satisfaction of the extension of the protected zone
to the whole of the valley of Teotihuacan. The Bureau requested that the
written confirmation of the text pertaining to this measure reach the Secretariat
before the next session of the Committee.
Historic Centre 415 Mexico C (i),(ii),(iii),
of Oaxaca, and (iv)
archaeological site
of Monte Alban
The Bureau recommended inscription of this cultural property, to be restricted
to the two neighboring sites of Oaxaca and Monte Alban.
Puebla-Cholula 416 Mexico C
Monument area
The Bureau recommended inscription of the centre of Puebla alone, and
recommended that the inscription of Cholula be deferred.
Ksar of Aït-Ben-Haddou 444 Morocco C (iv),(v)
The Bureau recommended that protection measures, which should include strict
non aedificandi measures in the area surrounding the Ksar of
Aït-Ben-Haddou, should not be undertaken on a restricted basis, but should
also be applied ta the entire Valley of the Ounila, which formed a distinct,
coherent whole.
*[7]
Tongariro National Park 421 New Zealand N (ii),(iii)
The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee examine the
outcome of the IUCN meeting to be held at the site in August 1987 and make
suggestions relevant to its management.
Bahla Fort 433 Oman C
The Bureau declared that it was ready to recommend inscription of this site, if
the nomination was extended so as to include also the old mosque, the oasis
and the adobe walls. The Bureau requested that a revised nomination be
presented to ICOMOS for examination, before the next session of the
Committee.
Manu National Park 402 Peru N (ii),(iv)
The Bureau wished that the Peruvian authorities continue to involve assistance
agencies in supporting the management of the park. The Bureau also
emphasized the importance of the anthropology programme in studying and
monitoring the activities of the native population residing in the park, and
highlighted the need for a rural development project in the buffer zone of the
park.
The Cathedral, the Alcazar 383 Rev. Spain C (i),(ii),
and the Archivo de Indias (iii),(vi)
in Seville
Nemrut Dag 448 Turkey C (i),(iii),
(iv)
The Bureau requested that all restoration work be preceded by specific studies,
in order to avoid excessive anastylosis.
Blenheim Palace 425 United Kingdom C (ii),(iv)
City of Bath 428 " C
The Bureau recommended inscription of this site on condition that confirmation
is received, before the meeting of the Committee, that the Draft City Plan,
which is already being implemented, has been officially approved.
Hadrian's Wall 430 United Kingdom C (ii),(iii),
(iv)
Hawaii Volcanoes 409 United States N (ii)
National Park
The Bureau suggested that the Committee encourage the park authorities to
continue their commendable work on geological research and control of exotic
species.
Chaco Culture National 353 Rev. United States C (iii)
Historical Park
Monticello and 442 United States C (i),(iv),(vi)
University of Virginia
in Charlottesville
The Bureau recommended that the authorities of the United States ensure that
the architectural harmony achieved by Jefferson continue to be respected, and
that the University environment be protected.
*[8]
Kilimanjaro National Park 403 United Republic N (iii)
of Tanzania
The Bureau suggested that the World Heritage Committee strongly recommend
to the authorities of the United Republic of Tanzania to (a) pursue plans for
extending the park to include more montane forests, and (b) strengthen the
management of the park.
B. Nominations to be deferred
Panda Reserves 435 China
(People's Republic of)
The Bureau recommended that the Chinese authorities be consulted regarding
the inscription of only the core zone of the Wolong Nature Reserve, which
would be specifically defined during a management planning workshop
scheduled for October 1987 to be held in China. If the Chinese authorities agree
to this option, the Bureau recommended that the core area be inscribed when
a satisfactory management plan for the Wolong Reserve had been adopted. If
this were the case, the Bureau recommended that the Chinese authorities be
encouraged regarding: (a) adoption and implementation of the management plan
(b) restoration of construction sites and clear identification of an intensive use
zone along the Pitiao River corridor from the reserve entrance to its junction
with the Zhenghe River (c) strengthening of management capabilities through
training programmes (d) elimination of the traffic due to logging trucks within
the reserve. The Bureau also asked the Chinese authorities to register the
possibility that other panda reserves could be considered for later inscription on
the World Heritage List in light of the progress made in strengthening the
management and overall protection of the giant panda and its habitat.
Cathedral
"Unserer Lieben Frau" 418 Germany
in Freiburg (Fed. Rep. of)
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination be deferred
until a comparative typological study has been carried out by ICOMOS, on the
Gothic cathedrals in Europe. The Bureau noted that this study could provide the
elements for a methodology applicable to other large categories of properties.
The Gorge of Samaria 406 Greece
National Park
The Bureau recommended to defer a final decision on this nomination since the
State Party concerned offered more information on the value of this property,
and arrange for a more detailed site inspection by IUCN.
Ostia antica. Porto and 397 Italy
the Isola Sacra
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination be deferred
until the Italian authorities have formally adopted the safeguarding measures
which the development of the archaeological site entails. The Bureau expressed
its thanks to ICCROM for its offer to cooperate in order to facilitate the
procedures with the Italian authorities.
*[9]
Patzcuaro Lake 413 Mexico
Cultural Zone
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination be deferred
until the Mexican authorities have adopted measures for the protection of this
site and have provided a management plan for the whole of the region.
Bat Necropolis 434 Oman
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this property be deferred,
and suggested that the nomination be extended to include the site of Al Aïn.
The Bureau drew the attention of the authorities concerned to the absence of
protection measures for these sites.
Old City of Salamanca 381 Rev. Spain
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this property be deferred
until the nomination has been reformulated, and that there is evidence of a
commitment to an overall policy to safeguard the architectural heritage of
Salamanca. The Bureau requested that a comparative study be carried out on
the university towns of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (see also
paragraph 16).
Sinharaja Forest Reserve 182 Sri Lanka
The Bureau recognized that this site merited inscription, but the latter was
being delayed only by lack of adequate legislation. The Bureau recommended
the inscription of the site as soon as the legal basis for the protection of all
parts, including what is presently a proposed reserve, has been upgraded. The
Bureau suggested that in this regard the Sri Lankan authorities consider either
to amend the Draft National Wilderness Heritage Act to include suggestions
made by IUCN's Environmental Policy and Law Commission or to apply the
Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance of Sri Lanka.
Lake District 422 United Kingdom
National Park
The Bureau noted ICOMOS' evaluation indicating that this property met cultural
criteria (ii), (v) and (vi). On the other hand, IUCN had not been able to come to
a conclusion as to whether this nomination met the criteria for natural
properties since there was debate within IUCN as to whether this was truly a
"natural" site in the sense of Article 2 of the Convention (ie. nature not
modified by man). Also, the conditions of the integrity relating to the natural
values of the property were deemed to be inadequate, since the Lake District
Planning Board did not have full control over agricultural and forestry activities
which were of central importance in maintaining the natural beauty and
character of the Lake District. The representative of IUCN informed the Bureau
that an International Symposium on Protected Landscapes would be held in the
Lake District in October 1987, at which many IUCN members would be present
and
*[10]
able to examine the question of criteria for protected landscapes in more depth.
The Bureau asked IUCN to report on relevant results of this meeting to the
Committee and also to consult ICOMOS further on this nomination in the
context of the question of rural landscapes (see paragraph t R)
St. David's Close and 424 United Kingdom
Bishop's Palace
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this property be deferred,
since it considered that there exist a large number of cathedral and canon
closes, some of which would undoubtedly constitute better examples of this
type of property.
Palace of Westminster, 426 United Kingdom
London
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this property be deferred
until the nomination has been reformulated to include Westminster Abbey.
Ecclesiastical sites 427 United Kingdom
of Lough Erne
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this property be deferred,
since it noted the existence of other ecclesiastical sites, particularly in Ireland,
which would undoubtedly constitute better examples of this type of property.
New Lanark 429 United Kingdom
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this property be deferred,
since it considered that criterion (vi) under which New Lanark could qualify in
view of its association with the ideas of Robert Owen and their application, only
justified inscription on the World Heritage List when it was applied together
with other criteria.
Pu'uhonua o'Honaunau 443 United States of America
National Historical Park
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this site be deferred until
comparative studies concerning the whole of the Polynesian area have shown
more clearly the present state of conservation of the most outstanding sites in
the archipelagos of the Pacific Ocean.
C. Properties not recommended for inscription on the World Heritage List
Cerro Colorado 408 Argentina
The Bureau recognized that the cultural and natural values of this property
received strong national interest but did not meet the criteria for inscription on
the World Heritage List. The Bureau wished, however, to encourage the
Argentine authorities to strengthen the protection of this property.
*[11]
National Nature 436 China
Conservation Area (People's Republic of)
of the Middle and
Upper Proterozoic
Sequences, Jixian
While the Bureau recognized the geological importance of this site to China, it
considered that the site did not possess natural values of universal significance
meriting its inscription on the World Heritage List.
Port of Khor Rori 431 Oman
Although the Bureau noted the importance of this property for the national and
regional cultural heritage, it considered that the Port of Khor Rori did not fulfil
the criteria of exceptional universal value, as defined by the World Heritage
Committee.
Sur al-Luwatiya, 432 Oman
the Historic
Centre of Matrah
Although the Bureau noted the importance of this property for the national and
regional heritage, it considered that there exist more notable examples of this
type of property, which could qualify for inscription on the World Heritage List.
Dalt Vila (Ibiza) 417 Spain
Although the Bureau noted the importance of this property for the national and
regional heritage, it considered that Dalt Vila did not fulfil the criteria of
exceptional universal value, as defined by the World Heritage Committee.
Diana's Peak and 423 United Kingdom
High Peak, St. Helena
The Bureau suggested that the World Heritage Committee commend the
contribution of the United Kingdom authorities to plant genetic conservation
through its efforts to rehabilitate the native vegetation on this island.
IV. NUMBER AND TYPE OF NOMINATIONS
A. Number
7. The Chairman suggested that the Bureau examine the problems raised by the
high number of nominations submitted this year: 46 cultural properties, 14
natural properties and 3 mixed sites. This increase was particularly impressive
as concerns cultural properties (so far the average number of nominations of
cultural properties examined each year had been 21). Should this increase
continue during the next years. certain difficulties would arise, in particular as
to how such a high number of nominations could be examined thoroughly by
the Committee and the Bureau, and also by the Secretariat and the
Non-Governmental Organizations concerned.
8. During the debate which ensued a number of speakers recalled that in
preceding years the Committee and the Bureau had already expressed their
concern about this problem. A working group had even been constituted during
the ninth session of the Bureau in 1985 to study this matter. After examining
the findings of this group at its ninth session, the Committee had come to the
conclusion that it was preferable not to lay down strict rules concerning the
number of nominations to be processed
*[12]
each year, but rather to appeal to States that already had a large number of
properties on the List to restrict their nominations voluntarily. However, the
question of the ever-increasing number of World Heritage Sites, with all its
consequences for the coherence of the World Heritage List and the monitoring
of a great number of inscribed properties was no longer theoretical but had now
become a practical and urgent problem.
9. A member of the Bureau suggested that States Parties should present not
more than, for instance, six nominations the year they nominated sites for the
first time or not more than three per year in other cases, and that the
Committee make a recommendation on this matter. The speaker also indicated
that the Committee could decide to apply the criteria even more rigorously and
that a working group could work out more precise criteria.
10. The Chairman indicated that it would be desirable to provide the Committee
with several alternative suggestions aimed at reducing the number of
nominations to be examined each year. One possibility would be that States
Parties be more selective in deciding which nominations they would present;
another that their tentative lists be accompanied by a time-table indicating the
date of submission of future nominations. The Chairman also suggested other
possibilities: limiting nominations to 3 (for those States Parties which have
already submitted nominations) and to 6 (for States not having submitted any)
per period of three years, or limiting to 10 the nominations by each State over
a 10 Year period.
11. During the discussion, a member of the Secretariat pointed out that the
question of the increasing number of nominations mainly concerned cultural
properties. Another indicated that due to the great number of States Parties,
even a limit on the number of nominations per country would not necessarily
prevent an excessive number of submissions.
12. A member of the Bureau asked if ICOMOS had by now received a sufficient
number of tentative lists to enable it to undertake a synthesis which would
provide indications on a possible priority list of sites which it would be
particularly desirable to inscribe in the near future. The speaker also evoked the
possibility of analyzing the World Heritage List in order to establish priorities
among future nominations.
13. The representative of ICOMOS indicated that the organization was ready
to carry out these tasks but that the number of tentative Lists which had been
received was relatively insufficient and, in spite of the growing number of
meetings for the harmonization of lists, such a general list would be incomplete
particularly as concerns certain regions.
14. A member of the Bureau stated that rather than adopting a priority system
for the inscriptions, it would be better to adopt a solution allowing for
proportionally more nominations from States Parties submitting nominations for
the first time. The speaker added that the Committee could authorize its
Chairman to address a letter to all the States Parties setting out a system for
limiting the number of nominations.
15. The Bureau decided to inform the Committee of this debate and of the
different aspects of the problem and to inscribe this question under item 4 of
the provisional agenda of the forthcoming session of the Committee.
B. Type of Nominations
16. The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee
consider the studY of the following issues:
- Ways to ensure the rigorous application of existing criteria to nominations of
natural, cultural and mixed properties.
*[13]
- Comparative typology for properties which refer to the same theme or have
similar features, for example, Gothic Cathedrals or old university towns for
cultural properties, or volcanoes for natural properties.
- Human settlements in natural World Heritage sites and the participation of
local populations in the protection and management of those sites. The Bureau
proposed an intergovernmental expert group meeting be organized on this issue
to exchange experience and knowledge.
- The interactions between the protection of rural sites and economic and
touristic developments, both in developed and developing countries.
17. The Bureau also suggested that the World Heritage Committee discuss
problems pertaining to the nomination, inscription and management of
trans-frontier properties.
C. Rural Landscapes
18. The Bureau, when examining the nomination of the Lake District
National Park, recalled the report of the task force on rural landscapes which
had been submitted to the Bureau at its tenth session in 1986. At that time, the
Bureau had recognized the inconsistency between the Convention and the
existing criteria set out in the "Operational Guidelines", but had not wished to
recommend modifications to the Guidelines to take account of rural landscapes.
The case of the Lake District had shown, however, that there was a need to
reconsider the question of nominations to the World Heritage List which
contained a synergetic combination of cultural and natural elements. The
Bureau requested the Secretariat to consult with ICOMOS and IUCN to present
a list of questions to the Committee on such rural landscape properties, notably
regarding: the strict application of the definition of cultural and natural heritage
as set out in the Convention; the variety and distribution of rural landscapes
which might be considered as having outstanding universal value; and the
conditions which would have to be met to ensure long-term protection without
"fossilizing" a living rural landscape. The Committee could then decide on
appropriate follow-up measures, such as conducting of a comparative study, or
further work by another task force.
MONITORING THE STATUS OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES
INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
A. Natural Properties
19. The representative of IUCN reported on the status of conservation
in nine natural World Heritage sites. A summary of his presentation was
available as information document SC-87/CONF.004/INF.1.
20. The Bureau took note of the fact that in two of the sites in the List of
World Heritage in Danger, assistance provided under the World Heritage Fund
had helped either to improve the conservation status (Ngorongoro Conservation
Area in United Republic of Tanzania) or stabilize the situation (Garamba National
Park in Zaire). Although the respective national governments had not responded
positively to suggestions of the Secretariat and of IUCN to include Ichkeul
National Park (Tunisia), Selous Game Reserve (United Republic of Tanzania) and
Mana Pools Complex (Zimbabwe) in the List of World Heritage in Danger, the
Bureau, on the basis of information provided by IUCN for the three sites,
suggested that such efforts should continue.
21. The Bureau was informed by the representative of IUCN of a number of
threats to the Machu Picchu Historic Sanctuary in Peru. In this connection, the
Bureau expressed its hopes that the funds allocated for technical cooperation
and training for this site would help to improve the protection of the site.
*[14]
22. In discussing possible impacts of planned iron-ore exploration within the Mt.
Nimba area, the Bureau welcomed future close co-operation with the World
Bank and other donor agencies to avert dangers to World Heritage properties.
The Bureau underlined the importance of involving the State Party concerned
in discussions with donor agencies.
B. Cultural properties
23. The Chairman recalled that during its tenth session the Committee
had decided to set up a working group of the Bureau to study a system of
monitoring the state of conservation of cultural properties, which would be both
flexible and inexpensive and would be based upon the principle that the main
responsibility for monitoring lay with the States concerned. Such a system
should not only enable the Committee to be informed of the state of
conservation of the sites, but should also help the States concerned to be
better informed of the dangers threatening these sites and of the assistance
which the Committee could provide to help overcome them. The system
elaborated by the working group was set out in document SC-87/CONF.004/5.
24. The representative of India who had chaired this group, drew the attention
of the Bureau to certain points of the document. It foresaw two types of
questionnaires (one which would be sent systematically to the States
concerned for each site to be monitored, and a second one, more detailed,
which would be used only for properties whose state of conservation raised
questions, for instance in the light of the answers to the first questionnaire).
Moreover, the document indicated action which could be taken by the Bureau
and the Committee in the framework of the monitoring procedure. The Bureau
recommended that the Committee adopt the system drawn U`' by the working
group.
25. Furthermore, the Director of the Cultural Heritage Division pointed out that
whenever the Secretariat received information concerning dangers threatening
a cultural World Heritage site, it did its utmost to verify its authenticity, brought
the information to the attention of the authorities concerned and, in certain
cases provided those States with suggestions regarding measures to be taken.
The speaker cited examples of re cent interventions of the Secretariat in
connection with cultural properties.
VI. SITUATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND
26. The Bureau took note of document SC.87/CONF.004/6 indicating the
mandatory and voluntary contributions to the World Heritage Fund received as
at 31 May 1987 and the use made so far of the budget approved by the
Committee at its tenth session. The Bureau reminded States Parties to pay their
World Heritage contributions before the General Assembly of States Parties on
30 October 1987. The representative of Brazil indicated that his government
was envisaging to make a voluntary contribution to the World Heritage Fund in
1987, corresponding to at least 1% of its contribution to Unesco's Regular
Budget in 1987. The Bureau recognized that the stable situation of the Fund
would enable the Committee to approve a budget for 1988 of the same order
of magnitude as for 1987. The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last
session, decided that the Bureau should act as a finance committee during
forthcoming sessions of the Committee. In this connection, the Bureau
welcomed the new format for the presentation of activities supported under the
Fund.
VII. TECHNICAL COOPERATION
27. The Bureau reviewed document SC-87/CONF.004/7 on technical
cooperation requests submitted by States Parties and made the following
recommendations:
*[15]
- People's Republic of China
a) The Bureau noted that the Jixian/Tianjian Area, for which US$30,000 has
been requested for supporting geological research, has not been recommended
for inscription on the World Heritage List.
b) In relation to the requests for training of specialists in management of natural
heritage (US$80,000) and the research studies on the Imperial Palace
(US$35,000) and Caves of Mogao (US$52,000) the Bureau noted that the
Secretariat will be examining details with the Chinese authorities and report
back to the Committee.
- Yugoslavia
The Bureau recommended that the Committee approve the allocation of
US$50,000 for the purchase of field and laboratory equipment which would
help in ecosystem conservation work at Durmitor National Park.
- Ecuador
The Bureau recommended that the Committee approve an allocation of
US$70,000 for restoration of monuments in the Historic Centre of Quito,
Ecuador which were damaged by the recent earthquake. The Bureau approved
the release of US$30.000. immediately. under emergency assistance.
- Honduras
In considering the request for the US$114,576 for improving the protection of
the Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve, the Bureau decided to approve an initial
amount of US$30,000. As for the remaining amount (US$84,576), the Bureau
asked the Secretariat to contact the Honduran authorities to assess priorities
for international assistance projects for this natural property which had already
received considerable support from the World Heritage Fund.
- Madagascar
The Bureau approved US$25,000 for the organization of a workshop on the
conservation of tropical forests. In this connection, the Bureau expressed the
wish that the meeting would result in the drawing up of nominations to the
World Heritage List.
28. The Bureau noted that States Parties had submitted only a relatively small
number of technical cooperation requests. In this connection, the Bureau
recalled that States Parties could ask for preparatory assistance to draw up
such requests. addition, the Bureau asked the Secretariat to make every effort,
including missions to States Parties, to advise on the availability of international
assistance under the Fund and to assist in the preparation of receivable
requests. Particular attention should be given to designing technical cooperation
projects in which the contribution from the World Heritage Fund acted as a
catalyst for funding from other sources such as UNDP, the World Bank, WWF,
etc.
29. The Bureau felt that more background information should be given in the
presentation of technical cooperation requests for approval by the Bureau or the
Committee in order to allow a better appreciation of the context in which
requests were being made under the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau
recommended that the Secretariat in future present the following element~s
for each technical cooperation request:
- international assistance already provided for the property in question and
results obtained;
*[16]
- a brief description on the different components requested, for example,
laboratory equipment, vehicles, expert services, etc. and the respective
amounts requested under the Fund;
- the national counterpart contribution and the sources of other funding;
- additional information of relevance, for example whether the property in
question had been the subject of a monitoring report, had been suggested for
inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger, etc.
30. Finally, the Bureau considered that in very many cases, States Parties were
not sufficiently well informed about the possibilities for requesting international
assistance under the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau therefore recommended
that the Secretariat prepare an easily understood brochure on how to obtain
international assistance under the World Heritage Fund which would be widely
distributed to all States Parties.
VIII. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
31. The Bureau took note of the status of implementation of the promotional
plan which the Committee adopted during its tenth session, particularly the
production of the following materials providing general information on the
Convention: an exhibit, an updated version of the folding-poster, and the World
Heritage Guidebook, preparation of the 1988 Diary, a certificate for managers
of World Heritage sites, etc. The Secretariat recalled the importance of
decentralizing promotional activities by calling for national and local initiatives.
In this regard, the Bureau approved a questionnaire, to be sent to States
Parties, requesting information on the promotional activities undertaken by them
and the designation of a responsible person or organization. The Bureau
requested the Secretariat to report on the responses received at the next
session of the Committee.
32. In connection with the assistance requested by States Parties for carrying
out promotional activities, the Bureau recommended that such assistance
should be provided only for the production of general information material on
the Convention and not for the promotion of any particular World Heritage
property. Furthermore, considering the budgetary allocations set aside for
promotional activities, such assistance could only be of modest proportions,
complementing national investments. However, the Bureau noted that the
Secretariat should be flexible in judging each case accordingly. In particular, the
Bureau recommended to the Committee a detailed study, in collaboration with
the authorities of the People's Republic of China, on the request for the
production of a film on World Heritage properties, within and outside of China,
to improve the understanding of the Convention among the Chinese public.
IX. REPORT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE TO UNESCO'S
GENERAL CONFERENCE
33- The Bureau endorsed document 24 C/93 entitled "Report of the World
Heritage Committee to the General Conference (24th session)" presented by the
Chairman on behalf of the Committee.
X. DRAFT AGENDA FOR THE ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE
34. The Bureau established the draft agenda of the Committee for its eleventh
session which will be held 7-11 December 1987 at Unesco Headquarters.
*[17]
XI. OTHER MATTERS
35. The observer from Uruguay informed the Bureau that the Government of
her country was fully aware of the importance of the work of the Convention.
The Minister for Culture of Uruguay had recently visited Unesco Headquarters
and had informed the Secretariat that Uruguay was taking the necessary
measures to become party to the Convention. The Bureau thanked the observer
of Uruguay for these remarks and expressed the wish that Uruguay would very
soon become an active State Party.
36. The Bureau took note that the Brazilian Government was intending to invite
the World Heritage Committee to hold its twelfth session in Brasilia in 1988.
XII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
37. In thanking all those who had contributed to the success of the
session, the Chairman paid tribute to ICOMOS and IUCN for their evaluations
in, connection with the particularly high number of nominations to the World
Heritage List. The representative of India, on behalf of the other members of the
Bureau, thanked the Chairman for the wise and efficient manner in which he
had conducted the session. The session was then closed by the Chairman.
ANNEX I
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
Eleventh Session
(Unesco Headquarters, 23-26 June 1987)
PROVISIONAL LIST OF PARTICIPANTS /
LISTE PROVISOIRE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU / ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU
ALGERIA / ALGERIE
M. Sid-Ahmed BAGHLI Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Directeur du patrimoine culturel
Ministère de la Culture et du Tourisme
Mr. Noureddine GAOUAOU
Second Secretary
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
BRAZIL / BRESIL
Mr. Luis Felipe de Macedo SOARES Rapporteur
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Ms. Isis Martins Ribeiro de ANDRADE
First Secretary
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
BULGARIA / BULGARIE
Mr. Simeon Todorov NEDIALKOV Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Directeur, Institut d'écologie
Académie Bulgare de Science
Mr. Konstantin PACHEV
Attaché, Permanent Delegation to Unesco
CANADA
Mr. J. D. COLLINSON
Assistant Deputy Minister
Environment Canada
INDIA / INDE
H.E. Ms. Arundhati GHOSE Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Ambassador and Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. H. V. SHRINGLA
Second Secretary
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
*[annexI/2]
MEXICO / MEXIQUE
H. E. Mr. L. VILLORO Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Ambassador and Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. Salvador DIAZ-BERRIO
Chief, Technical Projects
Instituto Nacional
de Antropologia e Historia (INAH)
Mr, Luis ORTIZ-MACEDO
Director. Historical Centre of Mexico
Mrs. Sonia LOMBARDO
Director of Historic Monuments
Mrs. G. UGARTE de BERNARD
Second Secretary
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
ZAIRE
Mr. Ngobasu AKWESI Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
II. OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
A. STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION /
ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
AUSTRALIA / AUSTRALIE
H. E. Mr. Charles MOTT
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. David MACINTYRE
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
CHINA / CHINE
Mr. Jintao CAI
First Secretary
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
COLOMBIA / COLOMBIE
Mrs. Cecilia ZAMBRANO
First Secretary
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
Mrs. Carmenza JARAMILLO
Second Secretary
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
*[annexI/3]
CYPRUS / CHIPRE
Mr. Christos CASSIMATIS
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
ECUADOR / EQUATEUR
Mr. Miguel CARBO
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
GREECE / GRECE
Mr. Yannis TZEDAKIS
Director of Antiquities, Ministry of Culture
Mrs. Catherine STENOU
Counselor
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
HONGARY / HONGRIE
Mr. Béla KOVACSI
Counselor
Ministry of Construction
and Urban Development
Mr. József PAPP
Counselor
Ministry of Construction Urban Development
OMAN
H.E. Mr. Musa Bin HASSAN
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
TURKEY / TURQUIE
Mr. A. Engin OBA
Counselor,
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
UNITED KINGDOM / ROYAUME UNI
Mr. Peter DENTON
Principal,
Heritage Sponsorship Division
B. MEMBER STATES NOT PARTY TO THE CONVENTION / ETATS
MEMBRES NON-PARTIE A LA CONVENTION
URUGUAY
Mrs. Diana ESPINO de ORTEGA
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
*[annexI/4]
III. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY /
ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS) /
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
Mr. Michel PARENT
Président
Mr. Léon PRESSOUYRE
Professeur ë l'Université de Paris I
Mrs. Delphine LAPEYRE
Directrice du Secrétariat
Mrs. Florence PORTELETTE
Documentaliste
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND
NATURAL RESOURCES (IUCN) /
UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE ET DE
SES RESSOURCES (UICN)
Mr. James THORSELL
Executive Officer
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND
THE RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY (ICCROM) / CENTRE
INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION
DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM)
Mr. J. JOKILEHTO
Architect
Coordinator of Training in Architectural Conservation
IV. SECRETARIAT
Mr. Mario RUIVO
Secretary
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
Mr. Bernd VON DROSTE
Director, Division of Ecological Sciences
Mrs. Jane ROBERTSON
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mr. Natarajan ISHWARAN
Division of Ecological Sciences
Ms. Mireille JARDIN
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mrs. Anne RAIDL
Director, Division of Cultural Heritage
Mrs. Margaret VAN VLIET
International Standards Section
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mr. François-Bernard HUYGHE
International Standards Section
Division of Cultural Heritage
Ms. Chantal LYARD
Consultant
International Standards Section
Division of Cultural Heritage
Ms. Paule-Claude BENEDICT
International Standards Section
Division of Cultural Heritage
*[EOF]