Distribution: limited                             CC-90/CONF.003/12
                                            PARIS, 7 September 1990


                       UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
                  SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

          CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD
                    CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE


               BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

                          Fourteenth Session

                          Unesco Headquarters
                        (Paris, 11-14 June 1990)


                        REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
                                


I. INTRODUCTION

1. The fourteenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee was held at Unesco Headquarters in Paris from 11 to 14
June 1990. The following Bureau members attended: Mr A. Beschaouch
(Tunisia), Chairman; Ms C. Cameron (Canada), Rapporteur; and
representatives of Bulgaria, Colombia, Greece, Senegal and
Thailand, Vice-Chairmen.

2. Representatives of the following States Parties to the
Convention attended the meeting of the Bureau as observers:
Bolivia, Dominican Republic, France, German Democratic Republic,
Federal Republic of Germany, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Panama,
Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

3. Representatives of the International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the
International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) also attended the meeting in an advisory
capacity. The full list of participants appears in Annex I.

II. OPENING MEETING

4. The representative of the Director-General, Mr Henri Lopes,
Assistant Director-General for Culture and Communication, welcomed
the members of the Bureau, the observers and the representatives of
international organizations, pointing out the important role which
those organizations played in the application of the Convention. He
reported that the Mongolian People's Republic had become one of the
111 States that had signed the Convention and welcomed that new
State Party. He went on to say that if the world's natural and
cultural heritage was to be safeguarded, people had to be mobilized
in thought and deed along the lines traced out by the Convention.
At a time when measures to safeguard the monuments of humanity were
on the increase and when the major 1992 United Nations Conference
on the Environment and Development was under preparation, the World
Heritage Convention was bound to assume growing importance as it
linked closely together two fields to which the ethics of
conservation were equally applicable. Mr Lopes also mentioned the
need to monitor the state of conservation of the properties on the
World Heritage List, stressing both the importance and the
difficulty of the World Heritage Committee's task in that regard.
He urged the members of the Bureau to look into the serious
questions to do with cultural pluralism, reconciling the
requirements of growth and conservation in historic centres, and
respect for the environment. He also noted that the twentieth
anniversary of the Convention, in 1992, would be celebrated against
the backdrop of an extraordinary series of events - Year I for
Europe, the United Nations Conference on the Environment and
Development, the Universal Exhibition, the Five-Hundredth
Anniversary of the Encounter between Two Worlds and the fourth
World Congress on National Parks - to which the Convention was
related not only through its philosophy but also through the spirit
of international solidarity which it embodied and the ethical
concerns to which it afforded a means of practical expression. In
conclusion, Mr Lopes hoped that by 1992 many other States would
have swelled the ranks of States Parties to the Convention and
wished the members of the Bureau a successful meeting.

5. The Bureau adopted its agenda with two amendments.


*[2]

III. REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE THIRTEENTH SESSION
     OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

6. The Secretary for the fourteenth ordinary session of the Bureau,
Ms J. Robertson Vernhes, reported on the activities undertaken by
the Secretariat since the last session of the Committee held at
Unesco from 11 to 15 December 1989 and briefly introduced some of
the items on the agenda of the Bureau' s meeting. She pointed out
that though the Republic of Mongolia had become the 112th country
to ratify the Convention, the total number of States Parties to the
Convention remained at 111 because of the recent unification of two
States Parties (Yemen and Democratic Yemen). She then highlighted
the fact that monitoring the state of conservation of world
heritage properties was becoming an increasingly important concern
for the Bureau and the Committee and briefly introduced the
documents on this topic prepared for the Bureau. For the global
study the Bureau noted that this item would be presented orally.

7. Ms Robertson reported to the Bureau that a small expert group
meeting would be needed to revise the global indicative list of
potential geological world heritage sites (including fossil sites)
already compiled in consultation with the International Union of
Geological Sciences. However, she remarked that this meeting could
only be organized early next year since the experts were not
available at an earlier date. The Bureau noted that all
international assistance proJects approved by the Committee at its
last session were now being implemented. Examples were given of
proJects approved by the Chairman of the Committee since the last
session and whose implementation were also nov in progress. The
Bureau noted that the revisions of all the application forms for
requesting international assistance, and for nominating properties
to the World Heritage List had been completed and that the forms
were now being circulated to States Parties. The attention of the
Bureau was drawn to the fact that several promotional activities
undertaken since the last session of the Committee, as well as
preparatory work undertaken in relation to the commemoration of the
twentieth anniversary of the Convention in 1992 were to be
addressed under separate items of the provisional agenda.

8. Ms Robertson reported to the Bureau that the Permanent Delegate
of Australia had requested the Secretariat, via his letter of 26
March 1989, to make an amendment to the text describing the
decision of the Committee to inscribe the Tasmanian Wilderness on
the World Heritage List, aa lt had appeared in the report of the
last session of the Committee. This amendment would appear in the
report of the Rapporteur of this present session of the Bureau.

9. Finally, the Secretary informed the Bureau that it had been
necessary to change the dates decided for the fourteenth session of
the World Heritage Committee, which had been proposed for 26-30
November 1990 in Banff (Canada) at the generous invitation of the
Canadian authorities. These dates clashed with the dates of the
IUCN General Assembly in Perth (Australia) and other dates
convenient for all participants needed to be found.

10. The Bureau thanked the Secretary for this report. It regretted,
however, that the senior staff members responsible for the
implementation of the cultural and natural parts of the Convention
had been called away from Headquarters on mission at the time of
the opening of the session and hoped that they would join the
Bureau in its work as soon as possible.


*[3]

IV. MONITORING THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL
    WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES AND RELATED TECHNICAL PROBLEMS

A. Natural sites

11. The Bureau examined document CC-90/CONF.003/3 and noted
specific actions taken by the Secretariat and progress achieved in
respect of 13 natural or mixed sites examined by the Committee at
its last session. The Bureau was satisfied to note that some States
Parties (e.g. Tunisia in the case of Ichkeul National Park) had
taken the necessary steps to mitigate threats faced by natural
heritage properties within their territories. In other cases the
Bureau reconsidered the state of conservation of the properties in
the light of further information provided by the Secretariat as
well as the representatives of IUCN and States Parties.

12. A representative of IUCN highlighted the increasing time and
resources allocated by IUCN in monitoring the state of conservation
of natural and mixed world heritage sites during the last few
years. He informed the Bureau that the Protected Area Data Unit
(PADU) at the World Conservation Monitoring Centres, Cambridge,
United Kingdom, had updated files of all but 13 of the natural and
mixed properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. This
directory of data files, a copy of which was available for
consultation by the Bureau, would be an important reference
document for the Committee, the Secretariat and IUCN and would
provide a valuable basis for monitoring the conservation state of
natural and mixed properties included in the World Heritage List.

13. The representatives of IUCN circulated an information document
on the state of conservation of 11 sites, including four on which
the Secretariat had also submitted brief progress reports as part
of document CC-90/CONF.003/3. The Bureau discussed problems facing
the conservation of the following sites, requesting the Secretariat
to take a series of follow-up actions in each case.

Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia)

14. The Bureau noted that, following the distribution of the report
of the thirteenth session of the Committee, the Secretariat had
received advice by the Australian authorities that, although it was
not strictly correct to say that legislation had been passed to
revoke all mining rights within the World Heritage site, they
guaranteed that no activity would take place which might threaten
the world heritage values of the Tasmanian Wilderness.

La Amistad/Talamanca (Costa Rica)

15. The Bureau noted the need to review the original boundaries of
this site. Several Indian Reserves, included in the original
nomination had since then been degraded by coal mining and road
construction projects and were not being managed for conservation
objectives. The lack of definition of conservation areas had
resulted in a native resident, who attempted to prevent illegal
hunting, being recently shot and killed. The Bureau recommended
that the Chairman contact the Costa Rican authorities to express
condolences to the affected family on behalf of the Committee. The
Bureau also requested the Costa Rican authorities to contact IUCN
to define the boundaries of the World Heritage portion of the site
excluding areas which were not of outstanding universal value.
Furthermore, the Bureau suggested that if the La Amistad National
Park of Panama, nominated by Panama in 1989, is inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1990, then the Costa Rican authorities
co-operate with their counterparts in Panama in proposing the
listing of this transborder park as a single site.


*[4]

Tai National Park (Côte d'Ivoire)

16. The Bureau noted that the Chairman had approved US $7,500 under
preparatory assistance for drawing up a technical co-operation
project for buffer zone development which could benefit local
people resident around this park. In the meantime, however, the
Bureau was concerned about reports of heavy commercial poaching in
the area, particularly on Maxwell's duikers. The Bureau was
informed that a meeting is scheduled to be held in Abidjan, Côte
d'Ivoire, on 27 June 1990, with Unesco, UNDP and several national
agencies, at which proposals for launching a pilot project for the
conservation of this site would be discussed. Depending on the
outcome of this meeting the Bureau requested that the Secretariat
contact the Ivoirian authorities to encourage them to nominate this
site for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Galapagos (Ecuador)

17. The Bureau was specifically concerned with the capturing of
about 40,000 sharks, using locally captured sea-lions as baits, in
the marine waters surrounding the Galapagos world heritage site.
Although the capture of sharks had been temporarily halted
following protests from international agencies, the effectiveness
of the ban was uncertain. The Bureau recalled that preparatory
assistance from the World Heritage Fund had been provided in 1987
for nominating the marine areas surrounding the Galapagos National
Park for inclusion as part of the world heritage site but noted
that no such nomination has thus far been received by the
Committee. The Bureau was also concerned that the number of
tourists using the area is 100 per cent greater than the estimated
carrying capacity for the area and is likely to continue to
increase. The Bureau noted that the Chairman of the Committee had
approved US $14,000 during April 1990 for a technical co-operation
project to study the problem of excessive frequentation of this
site by tourists. The Bureau recommended that the Secretariat
request the Ecuadorian authorities to (a) extend the boundaries of
the world heritage site to include the surrounding marine areas;
and (b) submit a technical report on the study of over-visiting of
the site for the consideration of the Committee at its fourteenth
session in December 1990

Olympic National Park (United States)

18. The Bureau noted with satisfaction that, as requested by the
Committee at the time of the inscription of this site in 1981, the
American authorities had completed amendments to the legislation
and added a coastal strip and a number of offshore rocks and
islands to the park. The Bureau commended the American authorities
for their effective implementation of the recommendations of the
Committee and requested that the extensions to the park be formally
proposed for inclusion in the World Heritage List. The Bureau,
however, noted with concern the negative impacts of the "Nestucca
Oil Spill" which had occurred 90 km from the park's coastal zone
and expressed the wish that the American authorities be prepared
for similar events in the future with contingency plans to mitigate
their negative impacts.

Mont Saint Michel and its Bay (France)

19. The IUCN Regional Councillor for Europe informed the Bureau
that the series of measures to prevent the increasing siltation of
the Bay, as announced by President Mitterrand in 1983, had not yet
been taken. The salt marshes were currently encroaching upon the
Bay at a rate of 30 ha per year which, according to previous
studies, could mean that Mont Saint Michel would no longer be an
island by the end of 1991, thereby degrading the natural setting of
the cultural monuments of Mont Saint Michel. In addition, the
authorities responsible for the development of the region, namely
the two departments and the townships on the coastline, which were
not all included in *[5] the area included in the List, did not
always perceive the natural and cultural values of this site. In
consequence, there were increasing threats of activities which were
incompatible with the maintenance of its integrity such as the
construction of pig farms and large-scale amusement parks.

20. The Bureau accordingly requested the Secretariat to contact the
French authorities in order to remind them of their national
obligation under the Convention to ensure the protection of the
natural and cultural values of the site, which included not only
the Mount but also the Bay.

21. In particular, the Bureau expressed the wish that the necessary
technical measures to halt siltation be taken to maintain the
insularity of the site and furthermore recommended that the
boundaries of the inscribed area be re-examined to include the
townships along the coastline in order to create a peripheral area
where only activities compatible with the world heritage state of
the site would be permitted. Finally, the Bureau noted with
satisfaction the invitation extended to Unesco, ICOMOS and IUCN by
the observer from France to participate in a round-table meeting on
26 June 1990 at which all the partners concerned with the
conservation of Mont Saint Michel and its Bay would be present to
study the various technical operations required to safeguard the
site. The Bureau expressed the wish that this complex matter be
also studied by international experts and requested the French
authorities to report back to the Committee on the results of that
meeting and on all the measures that had bean planned to meet its
concerns.

Mount Nimba (Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire)

22. The Bureau recalled that at the time of the inscription of this
site on the World Heritage List in 1981, the Committee was aware of
the pending threat to exploit the rich iron ore deposit situated in
the northern part of the Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve in
Guinea. A project now existed which was of great interest to the
steel industry for Europe, Japan and the United States, and which
was to be financed essentially by mining consortia from France,
Japan and the United States. It would involve the extension of an
existing railway from the Liberian side of Mount Nimba, the
construction of a moving pavement to transport the ore from the
summits of the northern part of Mount Nimba and an open cast mine
with a surface area of some 200 ha. The World Bank, which was also
involved in the financial support of the project, was conscious of
the world heritage status of the site and had drawn up terms of
reference for an environmental impact assessment. IUCN, on its
part, had refused to take the leadership of this assessment since
the mining activity would obviously seriously jeopardize the
integrity of the natural ecosystems for which this site was
included in the World Heritage List. The Bureau was further
informed of the recent launching, at the request of the Guinean
Government, of a Unesco/UNDP project aimed at studying the
ecosystems of the site in view of improving protection and
management. It was certain that the data collected from this study
could provide a basis for an environmental impact assessment.

23. The Bureau was informed that following a private visit of the
French mining company concerned, the Secretariat had addressed a
letter dated 8 June 1990 to the Permanent Delegate of France to
Unesco informing him of the situation and recalling France 's
obligation under Article 6.3 of the Convention to avoid taking any
measures which would damage a world heritage site located in
another State Party. A similar letter had been addressed on 8 June
1990 to the Permanent Delegate for Guinea, recalling the
responsibility of Guinea to protect its world heritage site.

24. The observer from France informed the Committee that he would
take up this matter with the competent authorities in his country.
The Bureau expressed its concern over this threat which clearly
highlighted the economic factors involved in safeguarding world
heritage properties. The Bureau,

*[6]

conscious of the fact that the Guinean Government would in fact
receive relatively little income from the exploitation of the iron
ore of Mount Nimba (as had been indicated by the World Bank at the
time of the last Committee session), requested the Secretariat to
contact the Guinean authorities as well as the other States Parties
concerned, to ask them to forgo this project in the light of their
obligations under the World Heritage Convention, and to review the
economic consequences.

Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)

25. The Bureau recalled that this site had been invaded by people
belonging to the Bodo tribe about a year ago and was concerned to
note that the reserve was still occupied and that illegal removal
of vegetation and poaching of animals continued. The local staff
also seemed to have abandoned the park. The Bureau requested the
Secretariat to continue its efforts to obtain a report on the state
of conservation of this site from the Indian authorities before the
forthcoming session of the World Heritage Committee. On the basis
of the information received the Committee may wish to recommend
that the Indian authorities nominate this site for inclusion in the
List of World Heritage in Danger.

Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)

26. The Bureau was informed that a US $30 million irrigation
project, to be implemented with the assistance of a Japanese
company and the Asian Development Bank, could divert about 75 per
cent of the waters of the Rapti River which forms the northern
boundary of the park and that no study on the environmental impact
of this irrigation proJect had so far been undertaken. The Bureau
recalled that a sum of US $80,000 had been provided during
1988-1989 from the World Heritage Fund for this site and was
concerned whether the implementation of these projects was
effectively ensuring the conservation of this national park. The
Bureau requested the Secretariat to (a) contact the Nepalese
authorities as well as the Asian Development Bank to express its
concerns regarding the negative impacts which the proposed
irrigation project could have on the integrity of this site; (b)
seek necessary clarifications about the implementation of world
heritage technical co-operation projects; and (c) encourage the
State Party to nominate this site for inclusion in the List of
World Heritage in Danger.

Manovo-Gounda Saint Floris National Park (Central African
Republic)

27. The Bureau recalled that when this site was entered on the
World Heritage List at the twelfth session of the Committee, in
Brasilia (Brazil), in December 1988, the Committee had noted that
the integrity of the site was under serious threat but had definite
prospects of rapid amelioration through the implementation of a
10-year project costing US $27 million to be financed by EEC.
Hence, the Committee, at its twelfth session requested IUCN to
monitor progress in the implementation of the EEC project and
report on the extent to which the protection of the integrity of
this site had improved. The Bureau was deeply concerned to note
that despite the availability of EEC funds and the expressed
commitment of the Ministry of Water, Forests, Hunting, Fishing and
Tourism to improve the state of conservation of this site, project
implementation had been very slow and heavy commercial poaching and
conflicts between local people and a commercial hunting operator
continued to threaten the park. The Bureau requested the
Secretariat to contact the Ministry of Water, Forests, Hunting,
Fishing and Tourism to register its concern and encourage it to
explore ways and means of accelerating the implementation of a
management scheme for the park and arrest any further decline in
the values for which this park had been included in the World
Heritage List.

*[7]

Niokola Koba National Park (Senegal)

28. The Bureau recalled that during 1989, both the Bureau and the
Committee had expressed concern regarding the proposed construction
of a major highway, based on an existing track, across the park,
which could greatly jeopardize its natural values. Following the
Committee session in December, President Diouf of Senegal had
written to the Director-General of Unesco assuring Senegal's
commitment to safeguarding the natural heritage of this site. The
representative of Senegal informed the Bureau that since President
Diouf's letter, a decree had been promulgated creating a technical
committee which would undertake a comparative ecological and
socio-economic study of the proposed route across the park and of
the alternative route to the north outside the park boundaries
(which had been recently marked out by the national park service).
The terms of reference and the list of members of this technical
committee had been drawn up. The Bureau welcomed the invitation of
the representative of Senegal that Unesco and IUCN should send
representatives to a meeting in July 1990 in Dakar to launch the
comparative study. The Bureau requested that the Unesco and IUCN
representatives at this meeting ensure that the Committee's
concerns were taken into account and eventually help identify
potential funding sources for the additional costs of the route
outside the park.

Hierapolis-Pamukkale (Turkey)

29. The Bureau was concerned that the site was being degraded by
unregulated tourism and water pollution and hence requested the
Secretariat to contact the Turkish authorities and request them to
(a) declare this site a national park as soon as possible, as the
Committee had recommended at the time of its being listed in 1988;
and (b) host a national workshop for discussing the various threats
faced by this site in order to develop a management plan for the
site.

30. The Bureau also noted information pertaining to the state of
conservation of Hawaiian Volcanoes National Park (United States),
Canadian Rockies National Park (Canada), Keoladeo National Park
(India), Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia), Rio Platano Biosphere
Reserve (Honduras) and Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada).

31. The Bureau noted that for most of the sites, the reported
threats to integrity originated from national agencies with
interests other than conservation. The Bureau therefore encouraged
States Parties to ensure greater inter-agency co-ordination to
ensure the conservation of sites. The Bureau stressed that the
impacts of tourism, particularly nature-tourism, needed special
attention. The Bureau also requested that the Secretariat and IUCN
should continuously monitor international assistance provided from
the World Heritage Fund to ensure that funds are used for the most
urgent conservation needs of world heritage sites.

B. Cultural Properties 

32. After considering document CC-90/CONF.003/2, which had been
prepared for it, the Bureau, endorsing the Secretariat's views,
noted that the system of sending information update forms on the
state of conservation of cultural properties entered on the World
Heritage List did not allow the Committee to perform its monitoring
role to the full, that is, to see to it that the integrity of sites
included in the List was respected. Several members of the Bureau
and some observers believed, however, that such monitoring was one
of the Committee's most important tasks, failing which the mere
inclusion of properties in the World Heritage List would cease to
have any Point.

33. It was acknowledged that replies to the questionnaires
sometimes provided valuable information - for example on recent
archaeological finds, the completion of restoration operations, new
publications on sites or the

*[8]

extension of buffer zones through government acquisition of land.
However, most of the replies received, which were often elliptical
in nature, provided no information on vital questions such as the
difficulties encountered in maintaining the integrity of the envi-
ronment or a change in the use to which a site was being put, as in
the establishment of site museums which tended to supplant the site
itself, or the problems created by tourism and over-frequented
sites, which led to the development of hotel facilities, parking
lots, etc.

34. In an effort to clarify the objectives of monitoring, one
member of the Bureau said that monitoring was by no means an
inspection activity but a form of basic assistance whose purpose
was to detect site problems in time or prevent them from happening.
The co-ordinator of the regional project for the preservation of
the cultural heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean said that
monitoring should be made an integral part of international
assistance, especially through the use of pre-project assistance to
make diagnostic studies of sites and to prepare such technical
co-operation projects as might prove necessary. Emergency
assistance procedures could also be used; for example, experts
could be sent to a site to identify hazards and to propose
safeguarding measures. The co-ordinator for Latin America said that
he was prepared to co-operate in whatever way was best in the
implementation of such a site monitoring system in Latin America
and the Caribbean.

35. Several delegates stressed the need to define the basic
principles which should govern the effective implementation of the
system for monitoring cultural properties. The representative of
ICCROM said that there was an urgent ne ed to clarify the concepts
of conservation and monitoring. He said that theory and practice in
the field of conservation should be more closely matched, pointing
out that there were 'operational guidelines' for the management of
cultural properties, including the conservation of ruins, which had
been drawn up at a joint ICOMOS-ICCROM-Unesco meeting. He believed
that those guidelines, which were close to being finalized, could
serve as a good starting-point for a practical line of approach to
the monitoring system. He also stressed that training programmes in
conservation were important as they could be instrumental in the
development of a highly useful common language.

36. The special problem of urban centres was raised and the point
was made that basic problems such as urban poverty were responsible
for the degeneration of urban centres. The seminar on the
conservation of historic centres scheduled to take place in Quito
in November 1990 and the conference on world heritage cities
planned in Quebec in July 1991 would no doubt be occasions for the
formulation of guidelines for the conservation of this type of
property.

37. Lastly, several members suggested that provision might be made
for striking a property off the World Heritage List if it were
found that there were changes in its state of conservation and that
the cultural values and authentic qualities on the basis of which
it had been included in the List had not been maintained.

CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE MONITORING OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES

38. First of all, the Bureau recommended that the Committee send
out a third series of questionnaires in 1991, as it considered that
the information contained in the replies to the first two series
had been useful in the updating of technical files on cultural
sites.

39. The Bureau also recommended that two measures be taken on an
experimental basis in order to keep the Committee better informed
of the state of conservation of sites. Firstly, it asked ICOMOS to
submit to the Committee at

*[9]

its next session a report on the lines of the IUCN reports on
natural sites, describing the state of conservation of sites where
problems had come to its attention. Secondly, it requested the
Secretariat to report to the Committee at its next session on the
missions that were to be carried out during the coming months by
experts sent by Unesco to endangered sites.

40. The Bureau also asked ICCROM to provide its members with copies
of the operational guidelines for the management of cultural
properties as soon as the guidelines were finalized. At its
fifteenth session in 1991 the Bureau might wish to recommend that
those guidelines be adopted by the World Heritage Committee so that
they could be used by States Parties to the Convention in their
conservation work.

41. Lastly, the Bureau recommended that the Committee encourage
States Parties to the Convention to establish in all countries
national committees for the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. Such national committees, made up of both
representatives of government agencies and independent experts
specializing in the protection of the heritage, would no doubt
prove very useful in the development of the monitoring system.

42. At its thirteenth session, in December 1989, the Committee had
expressed concern regarding the felling of trees in the park of
Versailles Palace. The French observer informed the Bureau that,
since that time, violent storms had devastated the park, bringing
down more than 1,200 trees which, most fortunately, had not damaged
in their fall any of the sculptures or buildings. The French
observer added that the administration of both the park and the
buildings at Versailles was now under the responsibility of a
single department, which, together with all the other parties
concerned, was giving serious thought to ways of repairing the
damage and restoring the estate without spoiling the historical and
aesthetic character of Versailles; the aim was to devise a
management plan that would be satisfactory to all those concerned.

43. In the course of its fourteenth session the Bureau was informed
of the Italian authorities' decision not to confirm the proposal to
have Venice selected as the site of the Universal Exhibition for
the year 2000. The members of the Bureau welcomed the news and
expressed great satisfaction at the decisive role Played by the
Committee in that regard.

44. One member of the Bureau expressed concern about the state of
conservation of the Kathmandu Valley monuments. The Secretariat
informed the Bureau that assistance had been granted as a matter of
urgency to the Nepalese authorities so that they could carry out
the necessary conservation works, which had already been started.
The Bureau asked for a report to be made to it on that site in
December, in the context of the monitoring report.

45. One member of the Bureau expressed concern regarding the
project for the development of the Pyramids Plateau in Egypt, which
included the building of a great wall between the archaeological
area and a village settlement and the fitting out of an open-air
'Son et Lumière' theatre. The Bureau shared the concern expressed
that the construction works might endanger that unique site; it
therefore asked the Secretary to send a letter to the Egyptian
Minister of Culture drawing his attention to the need to preserve
the integrity of that site, which had been included in the World
Heritage List. The Bureau also recommended that the Committee keep
itself informed of developments and take a firm stand against any
project that might be detrimental to the site. Finally, the Bureau
asked that all relevant reports received by the Secretariat should
be brought to the attention of the Committee in December.

*[10]

V. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

46. The Bureau examined document CC-90/CONF.003/5 containing
requests for technical co-operation to be financed from the World
Heritage Fund.

47. The Bureau recommended that the Committee approve a request for
technical assistance submitted by Yugoslavia for the purchase of
computer and photographic equipment and equipment for the
restoration of the mural paintings of the Monastery of Studenica,
at a total cost of US $51,000. Concerning that same site, the
Bureau asked the Yugoslav authorities to give it their formal
assurance that the project to build a dam near the monastery had
been abandoned.

48. The Bureau considered a request by the United Republic of
Tanzania for the purchase of a Land Rover and radio equipment at a
cost of US $49,782 for use at the archaeological and
palaeontological site of Olduvai in the Ngorongoro conservation
area. The Bureau agreed in principle to make a favourable
recommendation to the Committee concerning that request. However,
before finalizing its recommendation, the Bureau asked the
Tanzanian authorities to provide it with information, in time for
it to be considered before the next session of the Committee,
concerning the comprehensive plan to safeguard and develop the
palaeontological site of Olduvai and concerning the purposes for
which the requested vehicle would be used in the context of the
comprehensive development plan. In addition, the Bureau asked that
it be informed of any funds that might be granted by other
international institutions or organizations specifically for the
conservation of the Olduvai site.


VI. SITUATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND

49. The Secretary introduced document CC-90/CONF.003/6 giving the
status of the mandatory and voluntary contributions to the World
Heritage Fund and of the budget approved by the Committee at its
thirteenth session for 1990, as at 15 May 1990.

50. As concerns mandatory contributions for the previous financial
periods, the Bureau noted that the amounts outstanding were about
the same as at the time of the last Committee session, with, for
example, some $200,000 still to be paid by States Parties for the
period 1988-1989. As was often the case at the beginning of a
biennium, very few mandatory contributions had yet been made for
the period 1990-1991. The Bureau noted also that as at 15 May 1990,
no voluntary contributions had yet been made to the Fund. The
United States, by letter dated 18 December 1989, had informed the
Secretariat of its pledge to pay the sum of $200,000 as its
voluntary contribution to the Fund for 1990.

51. The Bureau was informed that a non-State Party, Austria, had
paid the sum of 204,000 Austrian schillings to the Fund, i.e. about
$17,000.

52. The Secretary reported on the use of the budget approved by the
Committee at its last session and updated the figures for the
amounts approved or already spent for international assistance
projects and promotion, for which approximately 50 per cent of the
allocations approved by the Committee had been used up. The Bureau
noted that the budget also included the provisions made by the
Committee for the global study ($50,000) and for the travel of
experts from less developed countries which were members of the
Committee (Tanzania and Yemen).

53. The Bureau thanked the Secretariat for this information. It
requested that in future, if at all possible, the document on the
World Heritage Fund be

*[11]

distributed to the Bureau before the meeting to allow Bureau
members to study it in detail. Also, the Bureau suggested that the
Secretariat send out another series of reminder letters to States
Parties urging them to pay their contributions regularly and in
full in order for the Committee to be able to plan its operations
effectively, in accordance with Article 16.4 of the Convention.


VII. NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

54. The Bureau considered 33 proposals for the inclusion of
cultural properties and natural sites in the World Heritage List.
It recommended that 11 properties be included and that one property
not be considered for the List; it referred seven files back to the
nominating States Parties pending receipt of further
information/documentation and deferred consideration of 12
nominations. Furthermore, evaluations were not available with
respect to two properties.

A.  Properties recommended for inclusion in the World Heritage
List

Name of property   Identification   Contracting        Criteria
                         No.        State
                                    having submitted
                                    the nomination of
                                    the property in
                                    accordance with
                                    the Convention


Mount Huangshan          547        People's Republic  N (iii) (iv) 
                                    of China           C (ii)


The Bureau recommended that this site be included in the List and
wished to commend the three levels of government responsible for
the management of the site for their co-operative efforts in
addressing the problems caused by intense recreational use. The
Bureau encouraged the Chinese authorities to implement the
management plan which had been drawn up and which aims at reducing
excessive human impacts on the natural scenery. As concerns the
cultural heritage, the Bureau requested the Chinese authorities to
provide, if possible in time for the fourteenth session of the
Committee, a list of the cultural monuments within this site.

Delos                   530         Greece             C (ii) (iii)
                                                         (iv) (vi)

Monasteries Daphni,     537         Greece             C (i) (iv)
Hossios Luckas 
and Nea Moni of Chios

The Bureau recommended that these properties be included in the
List and that the Greek authorities continue to take all necessary
measures to ensure the safeguarding of these properties and their
environment.

Tsingy de Bemaraha      494 Rev      Madagascar        N (iii) (iv)
Strict Nature Reserve

The Bureau recommended that this site be listed. It noted IUCN's
report on the current lack of infrastructure to properly manage and
protect the integrity of this site and was glad to learn of the
recent launching of a three-year Unesco/UNDP project aimed at
preparing a management plan and building up the capacity of the
Malagasy authorities to safeguard this site. The funds

*[12]

$1.2 million - were being provided by another State Party, the
Federal Republic of Germany, which thereby was fulfilling its
responsibility under the Convention to protect the heritage of
another State Party. The project aimed also at making Tsingy de
Bemahara part of a larger biosphere reserve which would address the
needs of local populations, and which came within the framework of
an overall Unesco/UNDP project on biosphere reserves in Madagascar,
supported by the Federal Republic of Germany with assistance from
Canada and France. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to prepare
a progress report with the Malagasy authorities on this project,
with particular attention to the measures taken to ensure the
integrity of the site, to be submitted to the Committee for its
next session.

South-west New Zealand  551          New Zealand       N (i) (ii)
(Te Wahiponamu)                                          (iii) (iv)

The Bureau recommended that this property be entered on the List.
It noted that the nomination included two existing world heritage
sites, i.e. Westland/Mount Cook National Parks and the Fiordland
National Park, both listed in 1986. The New Zealand authorities had
nominated an additional 1.2 million ha of land between the two
sites, thereby doubling the size of the listed area. The Bureau
also noted the strong protective measures taken by the New Zealand
authorities, particularly the cancellation of all logging and
mining rights in the entire nominated area. The Bureau recommended
that the area to be entered exclude the seven small outliers in the
vicinity of the town of Te Anau. It also suggested that the New
Zealand authorities undertake a public awareness campaign for local
people in the area on the meaning of the world heritage and propose
a more descriptive name for this site.

La Amistad              552          Panama            N (ii) (iv)

The Bureau recalled that when the Talamanca Range-La Amistad
Reserves of Costa Rica were included in the World Heritage List in
1983 the Committee expressed the wish that the contiguous La
Amistad National Park of Panama be also nominated and hence was
satisfied to note that the Panamanian authorities had taken
necessary action to implement the decision of tho Committee.

The Bureau recommended that the Committee enter La Amistad National
Park of Panama on the World Heritage List and request the
Panamanian authorities to redefine the boundaries of the nomination
to exclude the Volcan Baru National Park. The Bureau suggested that
the Committee request the Panamanian authorities to allocate
significantly more resources to the management authority (RENARE)
and to adopt the 'Regional Strategy for Sustainable Development for
Bocas del Toro' as a general framework to guide international
support for the park. The Bureau also recommended that the
Committee encourage the Costa Rican and Panamanian authorities to
take necessary action so that it may be included as a single site
in the World Heritage List. In this regard, the Bureau noted that
in 1979 the Presidents of Costa Rica and Panama had already signed
an agreement to recognize this site as an international friendshiP
park.

La Amistad              552          Panama            N (ii) (iv)

Palaces and Gardens     532          German            C (i) (ii)
of Potsdam                           Democratic          (iv)     
                                     Republic

The Bureau recommended that this property be included in the List
and noted with satisfaction the intention expressed by the
Governments of the Federal

*[13]

Republic of Germany and of the German Democratic Republic to submit
a joint nomination concerning the entire site of Potsdam-Sanssouci

Leningrad               540          USSR               C (i) (ii)
                                                          (iv) (vi)

The Bureau recommended that this property be included in the List
and that the Soviet authorities reinforce control over the
development of polluting industries and ensure a better balance
between industrial and listed areas.

Itchan Kala             543          USSR               C (iii)   
                                                          (iv) (v)

The Bureau recommended that this property be included in the List
and that the Soviet authorities safeguard a large buffer-zone
corresponding to the area of Dichan-Kala, and respect very strict
urban standards to the north of Itchan-Kala, in the area
corresponding to the new urban centre of Khiva, where buildings of
an excessive height have already been constructed.

Kizhi Pogost            544          USSR               C (i) (iv)
                                                          (v)

The Bureau recommended that this property be included in the List
and that the responsible authorities maintain the present balance
between the natural and built environment. Adding homes or wooden
churches to the southern end of the island of Kizhi would alter the
historical and visual characteristics of the site.

Moscow Kremlin ensemble 545          USSR               C (i) (ii) 
and Red Square                                            (iii)   
                                                          (iv) (vi)

The Bureau recommended that this property be included in the List
and expressed the wish to receive from the Soviet authorities
further details on alterations, either completed or planned, to the
interiors of palaces not open to the public.

B. Property which the Bureau did not recommend for inclusion 
  in the World Heritage List

Dresden                 533          German Democratic Republic
(Baroque ensemble)

Although the Bureau recognized the importance of this property for
the cultural heritage of the German Democratic Republic, it
considered that this site did not meet the criteria for entry on
the World Heritage List, as defined for the purpose of implementing
the Convention.

C. Properties for which nominations have been referred back 
   to the nominating States for furthe
information/documentation

Jesuit Missions         529           Bolivia 
of the Chiquitos

The Bureau recommended that this property be included in the List
on condition that the Bolivian authorities provide assurances as to
the adequate protection of the environment of the six properties
nominated, before the next session of the Committee.

*[14]

Historic Centre of      550           Italy
San Gimignano

The Bureau recommended that this property be included in the List
and requested the Italian authorities to provide, before the next
session of the Committee, assurances concerning the global
conservation plan of the city and the safeguarding of the
surrounding landscape. Furthermore, the Bureau recommended that the
Italian authorities continue to combat the effects of increased
tourism.

Rio Abiseo              548            Peru
National Park

The Bureau recommended that this property be entered under natural
criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv) and under cultural criterion (iii),
and requested the Peruvian authorities to provide, before the next
session of the Committee, additional information concerning the
archaeological sites included in the nominated area. Furthermore,
the Bureau expressed the wish that the representative of IUCN visit
the site in the near future to monitor its development and to
report thereon to the Committee.

Saint Sophia            527              Ukrainian SSR
Cathedral of Kiev

The Bureau recommended that this property be included in the World
Heritage List. It suggested, however, that the Ukrainian
authorities draw up a nomination concerning not only Cathedral
Saint Sophia, but also the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, and submit this
overall file, showing the complementarity of the two properties,
before the next session of the Committee.

State Reserve of         528              Ukrainian SSR
Kievo Pechersk in Kiev
(see Saint Sophia
Cathedral of Kiev)

Vilnius                  541              USSR

The Bureau referred this file back to the Soviet authorities to
provide, before the next session of the Committee, additional
information on the town planning schemes which exist in the
immediate vicinity of the historic centre, until such time as
ICOMOS has provided an additional evaluation of this propertY.

Old Nissa                542              USSR


The Bureau referred this file back to the Soviet authorities with
the request that they provide, before the next session of the
Committee, additional information on the archaeological and
historical data concerning Nissa, and indicate clearly, with the
support of maps, the boundaries of the area nominated to the World
Heritage List as well as the measures for its protection.

D. Deferred nominations

Maulbronn Monastery      546              Federal Republic of     
                                          Germany

The Bureau recommended that examination of this nomination be de-
ferred until the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany
have included in the present nomination all the parts outside the
enclosure that are representative of the activities engaged in on
the estate and, in particular, the fisheries and hydraulic works.
The Bureau also expressed the wish that a global study highlight
the most significant monuments of Cistercian architecture.

*[15]

Lorsch Monastery         515 Rev.         Federal Republic of     
                                          Germany

The Bureau noted the progress made in examining this file as a
result of the latest information provided by the authorities of the
Federal Republic of Germany. However, it wished to obtain
additional information on the protection extended to the area
situated to the north of the Nibelungenstrasse, and confirmation of
the exact boundaries of the site nominated to the World Heritage
List, with accompanying maps. The Bureau thus recommended that the
examination of this nomination be deferred.

Tonglushan               531               People's Republic of   
                                           China

Although it recognized the outstanding historical importance of
Tonglushan, the Bureau recommended that the examination of this
file be deferred and invited the Chinese authorities to submit a
revised nomination, taking into account the recommendations made by
ICOMOS. Furthermore, the Bureau expressed the wish that the
Secretariat and ICOMOS continue to show interest to this site and
its complex situation. Finally, the Bureau suggested that the
Chinese authorities request preparatory assistance under the World
Heritage Fund in order to draw up a revised nomination and a
request for emergency assistance so that this property may be
considered for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Habitats of the          435 Rev            People's Republic of  
Giant Panda (Wolong,                        China
Wanglang and Tangjiahe
Nature Reserves)


The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination
again be deferred. Indeed, while the Bureau expressed the desire to
include the Giant Panda Habitat in the World Heritage List, due to
the fact that the giant panda is a highly endangered species and a
symbol of nature protection throughout the world, the nomination
dossier in its current form was still lacking certain elements. The
Bureau recommended that the Chinese authorities (a) define the core
area of the Wolong Nature Reserve; (b) formally adopt the
management plan for the giant panda which had already been
prepared; and (c) revise the nomination taking account of the
recent publication on an optimal network of panda reserves in China
prepared jointly by the Ministry of Forestry of China and the World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). In the meantime, the Bureau wished to
encourage the Chinese authorities to take all possible measures to
ensure the survival of the giant panda.

Royal Palace of Caserta   549               Italy

The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination be
deferred, and invited the Italian authorities to submit a fully
revised nomination that would answer ICOMOS queries regarding the
boundaries and protection measures.

El Vizcaino Biosphere     554               Mexico
Reserve

The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination be
deferred. It noted that the nominated site as a whole corresponded
well to the biosphere reserve concept of Unesco's Man and the
Biosphere (MAB) programme and encouraged the Mexican authorities to
propose it for official inclusion in the international biosphere
reserve network.

As concerns world heritage values, the Bureau noted that only the
two major coastal lagoons and their associated shorelines were of
outstanding universal

*[16]
value as breeding and parturition areas for grey whales under
criterion (iv). The Bureau therefore requested the Mexican
authorities to revise the boundaries of the nominated area to
include only these areas and to provide information on the
management measures that would be implemented in the future to
ensure the protection of the whale populations. As the whales are
migratory, the Bureau recalled that the condition of integrity in
paragraph 36(v) of the 'Operational Guidelines' concerning
arrangements for the protection of areas used by the grey whales
for the rest of their life cycle needed to be met as much as
possible. The Bureau furthermore requested ICOMOS to evaluate the
cultural values of the important rock art sites at El Vizcaino.


Wöerlitz Park             534               German Democratic     
                                            Republic

The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination be
deferred until the authorities of the German Democratic Republic
have provided it with a completed file including precise
indications (accompanied by maps and slides) concerning the
restoration work carried out in Wörlitz, in particular at the
Georgium and the Luisium, as well as a map clearly indicating the
boundaries of the area proposed for protection under the World
Heritage Convention. In the light of this completed file and on the
basis of the results of a comparative study to be carried out on
this type of domain, the nomination concerning the cultural
landscape of Dessau-Wörlitz will be re-examined.

Quedlingburg               535                German Democratic   
                                              Republic

The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination be
deferred until the authorities of the German Democratic Republic
have decided to nominate either the Collegial Church and the whole
of the Burgberg, or the whole town (within the 1,330 enclosure,
including the Burgberg and the Münzenberg). In the latter case, it
would be necessary to have elements of comparison, in the light of
the results of the global study.

Magdeburg Cathedral        536                German Democratic   
                                              Republic

The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination be
deferred, pending receipt of the necessary elements of comparison,
so that it may be considered in the light of the global studY.

Santo Domingo              526                Dominican Republic

The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination be
deferred until the Dominican authorities have provided it with a
revised nomination concerning the site of Santo Domingo alone~ The
new file should include the necessary information concerning the
state of the restoration, with mention of the reconstruction
operations carried out and the proportion they represent compared
with the original construction, as well as indications on the
management and protection of the urban fabric and on the protection
extended to the environment.

Lake District              422 Rev             United Kingdom

The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination be
deferred pending the results of further reflection and of a
comparative study on the question of rural landscapes, which the
Bureau requested the Secretariat to carry out in co-operation with
ICOMOS and IUCN.

*[17]
Orkney Islands              514 Rev             United Kingdom

The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination be
deferred until the authorities of the United Kingdom have nominated
to the World Heritage List an area defined by less restrictive
boundaries.

E. Nominations for which evaluations were not available 

Tongariro National          421                  New Zealand
Park

The Bureau recalled that the inclusion of this property in the List
had been deferred pending the availability of a revisal management
plan. The New Zealand authorities had informed the Secretariat and
IUCN that such a plan had been prepared and requested the
re-examination of this nomination in 1990. The documents had been
transmitted only recently and hence IUCN was not in a position to
provide an evaluation. The Bureau therefore requested IUCN to
prepare its evaluation for submission to the Bureau during the
fourteenth session of the Committee in December 1990.

Sjaunia                      533                 Sweden
                             *[correct number=553]
The Bureau noted that there were a number of issues with respect to
this nomination which required clarification and that IUCN would
not be able to undertake a field visit to the site until the latter
part of June 1990. The Bureau requested IUCN to submit a complete
evaluation and recommendations in the light of the additional
information that would be gathered during IUCN's field visit at the
forthcoming session of the Committee in December 1990.

VIII. GLOBAL STUDY

55. The Bureau, after expressing deep regret that the Secretariat
had not prepared a working document on the global study and
considering it imperative for a document to be prepared in time to
be submitted to the Committee at its fourteenth session, decided to
convene a Steering Committee on 12 and 13 October 1990 in Paris to
consider a basic document prepared by the Secretariat in the
meantime. The Bureau decided that experts not only from States
represented on the World Heritage Committee but also from other
States Parties to the Convention that had declared an interest in
taking part in the preparation of the global study, could
participate in the meeting.

IX. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES

56. The Bureau took note of the short report on promotional
activities (CC-90/CONF.003/9) and of the further information
presented orally by the Secretariat. It noted in particular that
the study on the production and distribution of video cassettes
through private channels was under way and that the Secretariat had
consulted in that connection two private companies which produced
television series on the world heritage. It was also noted that
each issue of the Unesco Courier would carry a regular
column on the Convention. Lastly, the Bureau was informed of the
various promotional activities (exhibition, television competition)
which would be organized, in co-operation with the Secretariat, by
Quebec City, the Museum of Civilization and Radio Canada on the
occasion of the Conference on World Heritage Cities (1991).

*[18]

57. The delegation of Greece lodged a protest concerning the
children's book on Ancient Greece co-published by Unesco, INCAFO
and Bordas: not only did the map on page 15 reveal serious
inaccuracies but the text itself was totally unacceptable to its
country on account of both the errors it contained and the
offensive image that it presented of Greek civilization.
Consequently, the delegation requested that the distribution of the
copies currently in stock be suspended and that a new text be
prepared to replace the present text in future editions of the
book.

58. The Bureau endorsed that request and recommended that the
distribution and production of the book entitled La Grèce
Antique in French and La Antigua Grecia in Spanish with
the present text (which the Secretariat had not had the opportunity
to go over) should be halted immediately and that another text
should be prepared in its place, instructing the Secretariat to see
to it with the Director-General that that recommendation was put
into effect.

59. At a more general level, the Bureau expressed deep concern at
the uneven quality of the whole series, as other major errors had
also been pointed out by the Chairman. It declared that the
situation was detrimental to Unesco's image as well and noted that
most of the texts had not been submitted to the Committee's
Secretariat. The Bureau therefore recommended that the other titles
already issued should be carefully reviewed and that, for future
publications, whether in this series or any other co-published work
on the cultural heritage, the Secretariat of the Committee should
receive the texts and illustrations in sufficient time to have them
reviewed by a specialist and to consult the State Party concerned;
failing which, the Bureau believed that the series in question
should be discontinued. It also requested the Secretariat to inform
the Director-General of that recommendation.

X.  PREPARATIONS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY 
    OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONVENTION

60. The Bureau took note of the preliminary proposals contained in
document CC-90/CONF.003/10 on the evaluation proposed with a view
to an expanded session of the Committee in 1992 and on the various
promotional events which could be organized in the States Parties
and at Unesco Headquarters. The Bureau did not have time to discuss
that item, but noted that the States Parties would very shortly be
asked in writing to say what their intentions were concerning the
evaluation and the promotional activities. At the next session of
the Committee, the Secretariat should thus be in a position to
specify how the review concerning the application of the Convention
would be prepared (national reviews, case-studies, external
opinions, study by the Secretariat) and what promotional activities
could be launched.

XI. DATES AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR THE FOURTEENTH SESSION OF THE 
    WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

61. The Bureau recalled that at its last session, the Committee had
decided to hold its fourteenth session in the Banff National Park
in the Canadian Rockies. In order to fit in with the schedules of
IUCN and ICOMOS, it was decided to hold the session between 7 and
12 December 1990 (Sunday, 9 December being a free day).

62. The Bureau considered the matter of the provisional agenda of
the fourteenth session of the Committee and decided that, as an
exceptional measure and for logistic reasons, examination of
nominations of cultural properties would take place at the
beginning of the session.

*[19]

XII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

63. The Chairman thanked the members of the Bureau and all those
who had contributed to the success of the session and declared the
session closed.



                            ANNEXE I
*[Annex I/1]
               
                LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS/LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

I. ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU/STATES MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU

Bulgarie/Bulgarià

Mme Magdalina STANTSCHEVA
Professeur à l'Université de Sofia
Sofia


Canada/ Canada

Mr. James COLLINSON
Assistant Deputy Minister
Canadian Parks Service
Environment Canada

Mme Christina CAMERON
Rapporteur
Directeur général
Canadian Parks Service
Environment Canada


Colombie/Colombia

Mme Liliana BONILLA
Directeur de l'Institut COLCULTURA


Grèce/Greece

M. Isidoros KAKOURIS
Chef de section
Ministère de la culture

Mme Androniki MILTIADOU
Conseiller aux affaires de la culture
Délégation permanente de la Grèce auprès de l'Unesco


Sénégal/Senegal

M. Seydina Issa SYLLA
Directeur des Parcs nationaux
Dakar

*[Annex I/2]


Thaïlande/Thailand

Dr. Adul WICHIENCHAROEN 
Chairman 
National Committee for the Protection of Cultural 
and Natural Heritage 
Bangkok
M. Chalermsak WANICHSOMBAT
National Environment Board
Bangkok

M. Suvat SINGHAPANT
National Park Division
Royal Forest Department
Bangkok

Mme Srinoi POVATONG
Délégué permanent adjoint de la Thaïlande auprès de l'Unesco


Tunisie/Tunisia

M. Azedine BESCHAOUCH
Président/Chairman
Président
Fondation de Carthage
Carthage

M. Béchir MAHJOUB
Délégué permanent adjoint de la Tunisie auprès de l'Unesco

Mlle Mounira BACCAR
Conseiller culturel
Délégation permanente de la Tunisie auprès de l'Unesco


II. ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF/
    ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY

Alliance mondiale pour la nature (UICN)/
World Conservation Union (IUCN)

M. Jim THORSELL
Senior Advisor

M. Jean-Claude LEFEUVRE
Conseiller pour l'Europe

M. James Robert PAINE
World Conservation Monitoring Centre

*[Annex I/3]

Centre international d'études pour la conservation et la
restauration des biens culturels (ICCROM)/
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the
Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

M. Jukka JOKILEHTO
Assistant to the Director
Rome
Conseil international des monuments et des sites (ICOMOS)/
International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)

M. Helmut STELZER
Secrétaire général

M. Léon PRESSOUYRE
Coordonnateur pour la Convention du patrimoine mondial

Mme Régina DURIGHELLO
Documentaliste
Chargé de mission



III. OBERVATEURS/OBSERVERS

A. ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOIRE MONDIAL/
   STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION

Allemagne (République fédérale d')/Federal Republic of Germany

M. Wolfgang LERKE
Conseiller
Délégation permanente de la République fédérale d'Allemagne auprès
de l'Unesco


Bolivie/Bolivia
M. Salvador ROMERO
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent de la Bolivie auprès de l'Unesco


France/France

M. François ENAUD
Inspecteur général honoraire des monuments historiques
Ministère de la culture et de la communication

M. Jean-Pierre BOYER
Conseiller technique
Commission nationale française pour l'Unesco

*[Annex I/4]

M. Marcel JOUVE
Chargé de la mission internationale
Secrétariat d'Etat à l'environnement D.P.N.

Mme Muriel de RAISSAC
Chargé de mission
Direction du patrimoine
Ministère de la culture et de la communication

Hongrie/Hungary

M. Béla KOVACSI 
Conseiller 
Ministère des transports, des télécommunications et de la
construction


Italie/Italy

Mme Brunella BORZI
Délégué permanent adjoint de l'Italie auprès de l'Unesco

Mme Marina MISITANO
Délégation permanente de l'Italie auprès de l'Unesco


Mexique/Mexico

M. Alonso GOMEZ-ROBLEDO
Chargé des affaires culturelles
Délégation permanente du Mexique auprès de l'Unesco


Panama/Panama

M. Jorge PATINO
Chargé d'affaires a.i.
Délégation permanente de Panama auprès de l'Unesco


République arabe syrienne/Syrian Arab Republic

M. Abd Elkarim M'SAOUD
Ministre plénipotentiaire
Délégué permanent de la Syrie auprès de l'Unesco


République démocratique allemande/German Democratic Republic

M. Martin MUSCHTER
Conservateur
Institut pour la préservation des monuments historiques
Berlin

M. Andreas GREIM 
Deuxième Secrétaire 
Délégation permanente de la République démocratique allemande
auprès de l'Unesco

*[Annex I/5]


République dominicaine/Dominican Republic

M. Ivan BAEZ Délégué permanent adjoint de la République dominicaine
auprès de l'Unesco

M. Esteban PRIETO.
Directeur du patrimoine culturel
Saint-Domingue 


République socialiste soviétique d'Ukraine/Ukrainian SSR

M. Vladimir SKOFENKO
Ministre plénipotentiaire
Délégué permanent de la RSS d'Ukraine auprès de l'Unesco


Suisse/Switzerland

M. Daniel AVIOLAT
Délégué permanent adjoint de la Suisse auprès de l'Unesco


Turquie/Turkey

M. Engin TURKER
Conseiller
Délégation permanente de la Turquie auprès de l'Unesco


Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques/USSR

M. Igor DANILOV
Conseiller
Commission nationale de l'URSS pour l'Unesco

M. Evgueni IAGODKINE
Premier Secrétaire
Délégation permanente de l'URSS auprès de l'Unesco


B. ORGANISATION DU SYSTEME DES NATIONS UNIES/UNITED NATIONS
AGENCY

ONU/PNUD

Mr. Sylvio MUTAL
Chief Technical Adviser 
and Regional Coordinator
UNDP/Unesco Regional Project on Cultural 
Heritage and Development
Lima

*[Annex I/6]

IV. SECRETARIAT/SECRETARIAT

M. Henri LOPES
Sous-Directeur général pour la culture et la communication

M. Berndt von DROSTE
Directeur
Division des sciences écologiques

Mme Anne RAIDL
Directeur
Division du patrimoine culturel

M. Mounir BOUCHENAKI
Division du patrimoine culturel

M. Daniel de SAN 
Chef, Division des normes internationales 
Office des normes internationales 
et des affaires juridiques

M. M. SKOURI
Division des sciences écologiques

M. Hector ARENA
Division du patrimoine culturel

M. David KABALA
Division des sciences écologiques

Mme Jane ROBERTSON
Division des sciences écologiques

M. Natarajan ISHWARAN
Division des sciences écologiques

Mlle Mireille JARDIN
Division des sciences écologiques

Mlle Chantal LYARD
Division du patrimoine culturel



*[EOF]