Distribution limited WHC-93/CONF.002/2
Paris, 9 August 1993
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION
OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
Seventeenth session
Paris, 21-26 June 1993
I. INTRODUCTION
I.1 The seventeenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee was held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 21 to 26
June 1993. The following members of the Bureau attended: Mr. Robert
Milne (United States of America), Chairperson, representatives of
Brazil, China, Colombia, Germany and Senegal as Vice-Presidents and
Mr. Azedine Beschaouch (Tunisia) as Rapporteur.
I.2 Representatives of the following States Parties to the
Convention attended the meeting as observers: Australia, Canada,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, El Salvador, France,
Greece, Guinea, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Oman, Paraguay,
Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, and Thailand.
I.3 Representatives of the 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 SESSION
II.1 The Representative of the Director-General, Mr. Henri Lopes,
Assistant Director-General for Culture, after welcoming the members
of the Bureau and the representatives of the advisory bodies,
informed the Bureau that since the last session of the Committee,
three more countries have adhered to the World Heritage Convention:
Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, bringing the total
number of States Parties to the Convention to 134.
II.2 Mr. Lopes emphasized that safeguarding of the World Heritage
sites for present and future generations is needed more than ever
and drew attention to a new departure to strengthen the links
between tangible and intangible cultural heritage in UNESCO' s
programme. The precious cultural and natural heritage is threatened
by ever increasing degradation caused by pollution, natural and
man-made disasters, armed conflicts and the double side of tourism.
He underlined the mobilization of support of the international
community and the role of the World Heritage Centre to bring the
Convention to a wider public.
II.3 Finally, he reminded the participants of the Bureau of the
important tasks outlined in the agenda and he wished the
seventeenth session of the World Heritage Bureau a successful
meeting.
*[2]
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
III.1 The Bureau decided to include an additional agenda item,
entitled "Management and staffing of the World Heritage Centre",
and suggested that the discussion of this topic item follow that
of item 3 of the provisional agenda as set out in document
WHC-93/CONF.001/1. With this amendment, the Bureau adopted the
agenda.
IV. REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT SINCE THE
SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE
IV.1 As Secretary of the World Heritage Convention, Mr. Bernd von
Droste, Director of the World Heritage Centre, reported on the
activities undertaken by the Secretariat since the last session of
the Committee, held in Santa Fe, New Mexico (USA), in December
1992. He drew attention to the fact that detailed information on
the activities was provided in working documents made available to
the members of the Bureau.
IV.2 He gave details of the follow-up given to the decisions and
recommendations of the sixteenth session of the World Heritage
Committee and highlighted the launching of the World Heritage
Newsletter and the work undertaken to revise the Operational
Guidelines.
IV.3 In particular, he mentioned the methodological aspects of
monitoring, to be elaborated with the partners in the World
Heritage system and more especially, informed the delegates about
the first meeting with the World Heritage advisory bodies on
monitoring, documentation and information which was held at the
World Heritage Centre, UNESCO Headquarters, on 19 April 1993.
IV.4 He continued by mentioning new nominations to the World
Heritage List and informed Bureau members that they would be
examining the nominations of 43 sites, 30 of which are nominated
under cultural criteria of the Convention, 10 under natural
heritage criteria (including one extension) and 3 mixed
nominations. Only a modest number of Indicative Lists had been sent
to the Secretariat during the previous years and in fact none since
the sixteenth session of the World Heritage Committee.
IV.5 He drew attention to the document on promotion (WHC-
93/CONF.001/INF.6) and to the multifaceted promotional activities,
besides the Newsletter, the production of World Heritage films and
other audio-visual materials and publications, and the CD-ROM
project. Links have also been fostered with the Patrimonio 2001
project.
IV.6 He finally informed the Bureau of forthcoming meetings,
including the General Assembly of States Parties to be held on 29
October 1993, at UNESCO Headquarters, and the seventeenth session
of the World Heritage Committee scheduled to be held in Carthagena,
Colombia, from 6 to 12 December 1993. He furthermore
*[3]
mentioned the International Symposium and Constitutive Assembly of
World Heritage Cities Organization to be held in Fez (Morocco) from
6 to 8 September 1993 as well as the expert meeting on Cultural
Landscapes at Schorfheide/Chorin (Germany) from 12 to 17 October
1993.
V. MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE
V.1 At the request of the Bureau, Mr. von Droste informed on the
budgetary and staffing situation of the World Heritage Centre,
which was established on 1 May 1992. He emphasized the four main
lines of the Centre's mission: cultural heritage and natural
heritage conservation; promotion; fund-raising and administration
of the World Heritage Fund.
V.2 A Steering Committee was established by the Director-General to
ensure internal coordination within UNESCO. With regard to the
staffing situation, he informed the Bureau that five professionals
and four general service staff are paid under the UNESCO Regular
Programme budget whereas three professionals are seconded by States
Parties, namely Canada/US, Germany and Italy. He particularly
thanked these States Parties for strengthening the Secretariat's
work. In addition, one senior professional is paid by the World
Heritage Fund, as well as one clerk and four general service staff.
V.3 Mr. Lopes added several points to outline the internal debate
and structure within UNESCO. He assured the delegates that all
recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee are
transmitted to the Director-General of UNESCO. For several years a
"cleaning up operation" to reduce the number of staff at UNESCO
Headquarters has been going on, as well as a concentration of
activities. He underlined the initial endeavor of the Director-
General in establishing the World Heritage Centre and he asked the
Bureau and the Committee to review its strategy in the light of
these findings.
V.4 As proposed by the Chairperson, the Bureau established an ad
hoc working group (composed of members from China, Colombia,
Germany and the United States of America) on the staffing and
management of the World Heritage Centre and requested this group to
report back to him.
V.5 Towards the end of the Bureau meeting, the working group
presented a draft resolution (see Annex II). In the ensuing
discussion the Rapporteur emphasized that the Bureau could not make
a resolution directly to the Director-General of UNESCO. He
explained the procedure which requires that the text be first
presented in the form of a recommendation to the Committee for its
approval before being addressed to the Executive Board and the
General Conference.
V.6 The Delegate from the United States of America reiterated his
wish to see this resolution reflected in the report and indicated
that his concerns about the present staffing situation of the
Centre will be communicated to the Director-
*[4]
General through diplomatic channels. The Bureau, evenly divided on
this issue, did not resch a consensus on either the form or on the
text of the draft resolution, but reached consensus on : (a) that
the Bureau congratulates the Director-General for establishing the
World Heritage Centre; (b) that the Bureau expressed to the
Director-General their wish to ensure a strong Centre and maximum
of staff and adequate financial means, and (c) that the World
Heritage Convention has the highest priority.
V.7 At the request of the Chairperson, the draft resolution, which
was not adopted by the Bureau, is annexed to the Report for
information (Annex II).
V.8 At the end of the debate, the Representative of the
Director-General made a statement on behalf of the Director-General,
which is reproduced as Annex III to this Report.
VI. EXAMINATION OF THE REVISED OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
REFLECTING DECISIONS TAKEN AT THE SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THE
COMMITTEE
VI.1 The Bureau examined in detail document WHC93/CONF.001/2 which
presented proposals for the revision of the Operational Guidelines,
taking account of the Strategic Orientations adopted by the
Committee at its sixteenth session. Proposals for revision also
included those submitted by Italy and the United States of America.
VI.2 The Bureau recommended that these proposals, amended in
accordance with its discussions, be included in the Guidelines. The
Bureau also requested the Secretariat to proceed with the
finalization of the complete text of the Orientations and to
present this text for adoption to the Committee at its seventeenth
session.
VII. METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF MONITORING WORLD HERITAGE
PROPERTIES
VII.1 The Bureau recalled that the World Heritage Committee, at its
sixteenth session, requested the World Heritage Centre to organize
in 1993 an expert meeting with the objective to establish a
framework for a systematic monitoring programme, taking into
account the experiences already at hand, in particular the
experimental regional monitoring programme undertaken in Latin
America through the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project for Cultural,
Urban and Environmental Heritage and monitoring reports prepared
by the World Heritage advisory bodies.
VII.2 The Bureau took note of document WHC-93/CONF.001/INF. 2
prepared by the Centre, of an ICOMOS memorandum dated 15 June 1993
proposing a possible agenda for the expert meeting, and document
WHC-93/CONF.001.3Add., prepared by the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project
as a progress report on the monitoring programme in Latin America,
including the methodology applied.
*[5]
VII.3 The ICOMOS Representative introduced his proposal to
organize the expert meeting around four main items: (a) defining
and clarifying the need for monitoring; (b) elements of a global
monitoring system; (c) elements of a site - specific monitoring
process, and (d) implementing the monitoring system.
VII.4 The Chief Technical Adviser of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional
Project recalled the origins of monitoring of World Heritage sites
and that the Committee, in its sessions held in Carthage and Santa
Fe, commissioned the Regional Project to undertake an experimental
monitoring programme in Latin America, the Caribbean and Lusophone
Africa. Based on the experience so far, he emphasized the need to
include the participation of local people and responsible national
agencies in a continuous monitoring process. He suggested that,
within the Centre, a monitoring unit be created that would initiate
and coordinate monitoring programmes on national and regional
levels. He also proposed that a small working group on monitoring
be established, in order to prepare in more detail the scope and
agenda of the expert meeting.
VII.5 The Bureau recommended that the expert meeting on the
methodology for a systematic monitoring programme be held in the
fall of 1993 so as to be able to report to the World Heritage
Committee at its seventeenth session.
VII.6 The Bureau established an ad-hoc working group
comprising the Delegates from Brazil, China, Colombia, Germany,
Tunisia and the United States of America and representatives of
ICOMOS, IUCN and the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project to propose the
framework, objectives, agenda, tentative list of participants and
timeframe for the expert meeting. The Bureau endorsed the
following conclusions and recommendations of the ad-hoc working
group:
a) An expert meeting on monitoring methodology will be held in
November 1993 with a view to establish the concept, framework,
methodology and implementation of systematic monitoring programmes.
The expert meeting will have to develop a flexible standardized
methodology which would be applicable to different regions and
which would meet the need of both the cultural and natural aspects
of the Convention. The World Heritage Centre will explore the venue
of the meeting.
b) Monitoring should not be understood as a periodical inspection of
World Heritage sites but as a continuous process which should lead
to concrete proposals for action on the levels of site-management,
national policies and regional activities as well as serve as a
framework and reference for decisions to be taken by the Committee.
c) For the expert meeting, approximately 20 - 25 participants will
be invited by the World Heritage Centre from different cultural and
geographical regions of the world, different
*[6]
managerial levels and from institutions and organizations involved in
monitoring and documentation programmes.
d) As a preparation for the expert meeting, the World Heritage Centre
will prepare a compilation of documents and historical background
materials relevant to the monitoring of world heritage.
e) The following structural elements for the agenda of the expert meeting
have been identified:
i) Review of existing procedures and past practices
ii) Information management and documentation
- Information management need
- Existing resources and data bases (WCMC, Getty Institute)
- Coordinated approach to information management
- Review of nomination forms
iii) Purpose and need for monitoring
- State responsibilities under the Convention
- Similarities and differences between cultural and
natural heritage monitoring
- Common monitoring goals for the partners in the World
Heritage system (States Parties, Committee/Bureau Secretariat,
advisory bodies and other such as, tourism development, aid
agencies and other interested parties)
- General considerations: definitions and principles
iv) Elements and organization of a global monitoring system
- objectives and expected outputs/result oriented
- standardized, but flexible framework for action on different levels
- coordination and implementation roles and responsibilities
v) Monitoring process for sites
- linking criteria and sites qualities to the monitoring
process
- universal standards and principles, flexibility to
adapt to cultural and natural sites
- methodological considerations
- case studies from different regions (local, regional,
national)
- involvement of experts
- local management involvement
- reporting formats and standards.
*[7]
VIII. EXAMINATION OF THE REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION
OF WORLD HERITAGE NATURAL AND CULTURAL PROPERTIES
VIII.1 The Bureau examined document WHC-93/CONF.001/3 and discussed
the state of conservation of several World Heritage properties
inscribed on the World Heritage List, including World Heritage
properties in Danger. The Bureau 's review of the state of
conservation of World Heritage properties took into consideration
information provided in other reports distributed by IUCN, ICOMOS,
the UNDP/UNESCO Project on Cultural Heritage in Latin America and
the Caribbean, and the UNESCO Office in Cambodia.
State of conservation of natural properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger
VIII.2 The Bureau noted that the recommendations and observations
made by the Committee at its sixteenth session, in Santa Fe, New
Mexico, in December 1992, had been transmitted by the Centre to the
States Parties concerned. The Bureau reviewed the state of
conservation of sites for which the States Parties, IUCN or the
World Heritage Centre had been able to obtain additional
information. Furthermore, the Bureau examined the state of
conservation of some other sites on the basis of reports submitted
by representatives of IUCN.
Natural World Heritage Properties in Danger
Srebarna Biosphere Reserve (Bulgaria): The Bureau recalled that the
Committee at its last session included this site in the List of
World Heritage in Danger. Prevention of seasonal flooding has led
to a decrease in the size and productivity of Srebarna and
agricultural and residential use of surrounding areas have led to
decline or disappearance of migratory and passerine bird
populations. The Bureau recalled that IUCN, on the basis of two
missions to the site in 1992, had concluded that Srebarna's World
Heritage status may no longer be justified because it has
deteriorated to a state where it may have irretrievably lost the
characteristics which merited its inclusion in the World Heritage
List.
The Bureau at its sixteenth session, held in Paris in July 1992, had
recommended that the Committee consider deleting this property from
the World Heritage List and had invited the Bulgarian authorities
to submit their observations and comments to the Committee. At its
last session, the Committee was informed by the Representative of
Bulgaria that the Bulgarian Government, in order to restore the
World Heritage values of Srebarna, was preparing a comprehensive
assessment of the state of conservation of Srebarna and an ecosystem
restoration plan. The Committee had indicated to the Bulgarian
authorities that available scientific evidence suggested that the
site may no longer possess the natural habitat values for which it
was inscribed. and that a
*[8]
full restoration of a naturally functioning ecosystem might be impossible.
However, the Committee invited the Bulgarian authorities to submit, before
1 May 1993, to the World Heritage Centre, the results of the on-going
project to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the state of conservation
of the site, including an analysis of available data to monitor biological
populations and environmental quality, and a plan for ecosystem
restoration.
The Bureau noted that the Bulgarian authorities have submitted to the
World Heritage Centre, a project document entitled 'Environmental Recovery
and Restoration of the Biosphere Reserve "Srebarna"'and had indicated that
a report on the comprehensive assessment of the state of conservation of
Srebarna will be sent to the Centre as soon as its translation into French
is finalized. A representative of IUCN made a detailed presentation on the
state of conservation of Srebarna and the Bulgarian plan for its restoration,
and emphasized the fact that most small wetlands like Srebarna (600 ha) are
inherently unstable and their ecological integrity is easily threatened by
changes occurring outside their boundaries. The Bureau noted that
the restoration plans currently being implemented by the Bulgarian authorities
could restore the hydraulic regime of Srebarna, and hence have the potential to
restore the ecosystem which existed at the time of Srebarna's inscription on the
World Heritage List. Furthermore, the Bureau learnt that the Bulgarian
authorities were introducing a system to issue permits to local people for
hunting wild boar and foxes which threaten the population of Dalmatian
Pelicans in Srebarna. The Bureau, however, noted that the Pelican
population of Srebarna comprised only about 10% of the global population
of the species, and continued to breed in sites outside of Srebarna,
including some sites in Romania, where they were hunted.
The Bureau recommended to the Committee to: (a) retain Srebarna on the
List of World Heritage in Danger; (b) defer its decision on whether or not to
delete Srebarna from the World Heritage List for a period of two years and (c)
request IUCN, in co-operation with the Ramsar Convention, to monitor the extent
to which the project(s) implemented by the Bulgarian authorities are restoring
the ecological integrity of Srebarna. Furthermore, the Bureau requested that the
proposal for the restoration of Srebarna, and the comprehensive assessment of
its state of conservation be made available to members of the Committee for
review, and that the Bulgarian and Romanian authorities co-operate in protecting
the populations of Dalmatian Pelicans in the region. The Bureau requested IUCN
and the Centre to co-operate with the Ramsar Convention and the Bulgarian
authorities and report to its eighteenth session on the extent to which
the restoration efforts implemented by the Bulgarian authorities are
helping to restore Srebarna.
Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia): The Bureau recalled that the
integrity of this site, which has been inaccessible since the onset of
armed conflict in the region in 1991, still remained intact. However,
recognizing that the potential for a resurgence
*[9]
of hostilities continued to threaten the integrity of this site,
the Committee, at its last session included the Plitvice Lakes
National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger and called
upon the Government of Croatia, UNPROFOR and the authorities in the
Krajina Region to co-operate to implement the Vance Plan and its
successor resolutions to stabilize the political situation in the
region. The Bureau learnt that as recommended by the Committee, at
its sixteenth session, UNPROFOR undertakes regular surveillance
patrols in the Park area, and is trying to bring together
authorities from the Croatian Government and the Krajina Region to
discuss the organization of a second international mission to the
site. The Bureau requested the Centre to continue its dialogue with
UNPROFOR to explore the possibilities for organizing such an
international mission and report on the outcome to the seventeenth
session of the Committee.
Natural Properties
Mt. Nimba Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire/Guinea): In 1981 the World
Heritage Committee inscribed Mt. Nimba on the World Heritage List.
In 1992 Mt Nimba was placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
by the Committee which requested the Centre to send an expert
mission to: (a) ascertain the boundaries of the site at the time of
inscription and recommend an appropriate boundary; (b) assess the
impact of the iron-ore mine and other threats to the integrity of
the site; (c) work towards an integrated rural development project.
The mission was carried out between 15 to 30 May 1993. It included
representatives from the Centre, UNDP, UNEP, the Government of
Guinea, NIMBA (the mining company), IUCN, CEDI (an international
NGO in France), Guinea Ecology (local NGO) and two consultants as
well as local specialists.
A comprehensive review of the part of Mt. Nimba situated in Guinea
was carried out with extensive site and village visits and reviews
of specific issues such as: the original nomination, the mineral
body, the boundaries, and the socio-economic situation relating to
local communities.
The major findings were as follows:
i) the site met World Heritage criteria at the time of the original
nomination in 1981. It continues to meet these criteria;
ii) the site should remain on the List of World Heritage in Danger
primarily because of the high risk of agricultural intrusions due
to the lack of an established administrative structure and
effective protection. At the present time, the Mt. Nimba Pilot
Project provides a management presence, but this is not assured;
iii) when the site was nominated in 1981, the Government of
*[10]
Guinea was fully aware of the mineral potential. Over $25 million had
been spent on prospecting and a potential ore body of 500 million tones
had been identified. As the Government has stated, it was not their
intention to include the mineral body in the World Heritage nomination.
It is recommended that this perspective be accepted;
iv) the revised nomination submitted in 1991 should be considered as
withdrawn, as it was not accepted by the Committee;
v) a revised nomination has been requested. It will include a revised area
of 17,740 ha. which is 610 ha larger than the 1981 nomination of
17,130 ha. It is, however, 1,550 ha less than the true size of the 1981
nomination which was 19,290 ha, including the Côte d'Ivoire section of
5,200 ha. The area required for mineral operations (1,500 ha.) is not
included in the World Heritage nomination;
vi) there are 18 recommendations in the mission report which is available
from the World Heritage Centre. The recommendations include a
commitment by the Government and the mining company to and
"Environmental Convention" in which NGOs will be invited to participate.
In addition, the mining company agrees, once the mine becomes operational,
to contribute $500,000 per year towards conservation projects;
vii) until the war and the political situation in Liberia stabilises, it is
unlikely that the mine will become operational;
viii)continued surveillance through a management presence is essential for
the conservation of the site - primarily to prevent agricultural
incursions into the World Heritage site.
The integrity of this site will require technical and financial support
from the Committee until an adequate on-site management regime is
established. It is recommended that $30,000 in emergency funds be
provided for the express purpose of maintaining a management presence on
the site.
The Bureau accepted the findings of the Task Force and concurred with the
revised boundaries and the retention of the site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
The Observer of Guinea expressed thanks for having organized this mission
and the Bureau emphasized that it accepted the new boundaries and would
pursue with vigor the implementation of the eighteen recommendations in
the report. The Observer added that he welcomed the recommendation of
Germany and the United States of America regarding the participation of
the Centre in future environmental studies. The Government of Guinea
submitted a request for $30,000 in emergency assistance to implement the
recommendations.
*[11]
Bureau members underlined their long-term concern for the
protection of the site, which would undoubtedly receive some impact
if the potential mine adjacent to the site became operational. The
Government of Guinea agreed to take all measures to ensure that any
impact of the mining operations would be subject to detailed
environmental assessment and all measures would be taken to
minimize potential damage.
IUCN again underlined its concern that potential repercussions of
the mine in 30 to 40 years could become a future problem for the
Committee. The Bureau was in agreement with the findings of the
mission and was pleased that the mission was able to respond to the
questions placed before them and to clarify the current status of
the site.
Sangay National Park (Ecuador): Noting that the Ecuadorean
authorities have not yet provided the information requested by the
Committee, the Bureau requested the Centre to contact them once
again and obtain information on the status of the road construction
project and on-going efforts to assess its impact on the integrity
of the site. In accordance with the recommendations of the
Committee, the Bureau also invited the Ecuadorean authorities to
consider (a) submitting a proposal to extend this World Heritage
site to include new areas that have been added to the Park, and (b)
inviting a mission comprising regional experts to assess the
severity of the threats faced by this site and plan remedial
action. The Bureau requested the Centre to report on the
implementation of the Committee's recommendation to the seventeenth
session of the Committee, scheduled to be convened during December
1993.
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India): The Bureau recalled that the
Committee, at its last session, was informed that the damage caused
by the invasion of this site by militants belonging to the Bodo
tribe in Assam was estimated to be about US$1.6 million and that
although the Park infrastructure had suffered considerable damage,
habitats in the inaccessible parts of the Sanctuary appeared to be
intact. Concerned by the information reported by the Representative
of IUCN that the area is still not completely free from
encroachments by militants belonging to the Bodo tribe, and that
illegal cultivation was spreading into parts of the Sanctuary, the
Committee at its last session, in accordance with Article 11,
paragraph (4), of the Convention, included the Manas Wildlife
Sanctuary in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau was
informed that the Centre had drawn the attention of the Indian
authorities to the fact that they have not yet provided a formal
written report on the state of conservation of Manas, despite
repeated requests from the Committee since 1989, and had reiterated
the Committee's request for a comprehensive report providing a full
assessment of the damage to the site and remedial measures that are
being taken. Noting that the Indian authorities have not yet
provided the report requested by the Committee, the Bureau asked
the Centre to continue its efforts to obtain such a report for
submission to the seventeenth session of the Committee.
*[12]
Aïr and Tenéré Nature Reserve (Niger): The Bureau recalled that the
Committee, at its last session, included this site in the List of World
Heritage in Danger because it was concerned that the region in which it
is situated has been affected by civil disturbance and that six members
of the Reserve staff were being held hostage since February 1992. The
Bureau deeply regretted that two of the six Reserve staff who had been
held hostage died during their captivity and the health of the other four
who were released in April 1993 was found to be poor. The Bureau
instructed the Centre to transmit the Committee's condolences to the
families of Messrs Mamadou Cheffou and Alassoum Oumarou who died whilst being
held captive. Furthermore, the Bureau also expressed the wish that the four
members of the Reserve staff who were released in April 1993
would soon regain their health. The Bureau noted that the Government of
Niger has initiated informal negotiations with armed opposition and
encouraged the authorities to continue the dialogue with a view to
finding an early solution to the conflict in the region.
Other Natural World Heritage Properties
Iguazu National Park (Argentina): The Bureau recalled that the
Committee,
at its fifteenth session held in Carthage, Tunisia, in December 1991,
noted that eight helicopters regularly overflew the waterfall area and
that local conservation groups opposed the use of the area by helicopters
since it contravened legal regulations for air traffic control over
protected areas. The Bureau was satisfied to note that the efforts of the
Argentine National Park Administration and the Air Force, to establish an
agreement to regulate the use of air space over the Iguazu National Park
by helicopters is proceeding. The Bureau urged the Argentine authorities
to expedite its finalization and until such time to enforce existing air
space regulations in that area.
Iguazu National Park (Brazil): The Bureau was satisfied to note
that the Brazilian authorities were in contact with their counterparts in
Argentina to study the possibilities for establishing common regulations
for helicopter traffic over the waterfalls area.
Wrangell-St. Elias-Kluane-Glacier Bay National Parks
(Canada/United States of America): The Bureau recalled that the
Committee, while approving the extension of this transfrontier site
to include the Glacier Bay National Park (USA), at its last session,
urged the American and the Canadian authorities to incorporate additional
areas to the World Heritage Property.
In this regard, the Bureau was pleased to be informed by the Observer for
Canada that the Provincial Government of British Columbia has decided to
propose to the World Heritage Centre to establish a new provincial park
in the Alsek Tatshenshini region and nominate this park as part of the
transfrontier World Heritage property. The Bureau commended the Canadian
authorities for having taken this initiative and urged them to proceed
according to the Operational Guidelines.
*[13]
Manovo-Gounda Saint Floris (Central African Republic): In response
to the December 1992 request of the World Heritage Committee, two
meetings were held with representatives of the Central African
Republic (CAR) to discuss: (a) the protection of the site; (b)
participation of local people, and (c) the social-economic
ramifications of a "privatized management regime". The first
meeting in April determined that the issues were of an
administrative and legal nature rather than ecological and thus it
was decided not to carry out a field mission.
On 10 May 1993 legal representatives of the Central African
Republic, UNESCO and IUCN met at the World Heritage Centre to
review the above-mentioned items (a), (b) and (c).
The following major findings were noted:
(i) the site and the surrounding region are currently socially,
politically and economically unstable. Poaching from neighboring
countries is serious and presents high risks to anyone trying to
Prevent it:
(ii) the Government of the Central African Republic does not have
the financial or staff resources to effectively manage the World
Heritage site. It is interested in some form of privatization,
leasing or franchising. This could involve an advisory body with
representation from international organizations as well as local
people. The body should have a fund-raising and management
capability;
(iii) there is not a consensus on whether privatization would be
appropriate. Technically and legally it is feasible, but further
clarification of the proposal is required and has been requested.
The Central African Republic was recommended to continue to
explore alternative management approaches and the Centre should
co-operate in seeking an effective management solution. The Bureau
agreed to the above recommendation and the Centre will report to
the Committee when new information becomes available. The Bureau
requested the Centre to ensure that the State Party respected all
obligations incurred by joining the Convention and ensure the
long-term conservation of the site.
Talamanca-La Amistad National Park (Costa Rica-Panama): The Bureau
took note of the fact that the proposal to construct a road through
the of Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves of Costa Rica is unlikely to
be implemented in the immediate future. The Bureau was informed
that the Costa Rican authorities were not in agreement with all the
boundary modifications recommended by the Committee, at its
fifteenth session. The Bureau noted that the Ministry of Natural
Resources, Energy and Mines, which is responsible for the
management of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves, and the general
public, as well as the indigenous people resident within the site,
were not in favour of all proposed modifications of the boundary
suggested by the Committee. The Bureau noted the interest of the
Costa Rican
*[14]
authorities to receive technical advice on measures to improve
living conditions of people resident in Indian Reserves within the
Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves. A representative of IUCN informed
the Bureau that specialists from IUCN's Regional Office in Costa
Rica are discussing the boundary modifications proposed by the
Committee with the Costa Rican authorities. These discussions have
taken into consideration the need to accommodate the socio-economic
aspirations of indigenous people in the Biosphere Reserve whilst
protecting the World Heritage values of the site. The Bureau
requested the World Heritage Centre to continue dialogue with the
Costa-Rican authorities in this important matter and report on the
outcome during the forthcoming session of the Committee in December
1993.
Tikal National Park (Guatemala): The Bureau noted with satisfaction
that the size of this mixed World Heritage property might be
enlarged by about 50% and that the new areas earmarked for
inclusion in the Park may contain natural and cultural heritage
values of universal significance. The Bureau was informed that an
IUCN project in the buffer zone of the Park is working with 26
villages to find alternative livelihood strategies which will
minimize the dependence of the indigenous people on resources
within the World Heritage site.
The Bureau commended the efforts of the Government of Denmark which
is supporting this project with a contribution of US$ 520,000 over
a two-year period. The Bureau requested the Centre to contact the
competent authorities in Guatemala and encourage them to extend the
boundaries of this mixed World Heritage property. Full use should
be made of the above-mentioned project.
Te Wahipounamu - Southwest New Zealand (New Zealand): The Bureau
recalled that at its last session the Committee was informed that
the Government of New Zealand had approved an application from a
private company for a licence to export water from this World
Heritage site. The exportation of freshwater would require the
construction of a dam, a buried pipeline and four large reservoirs
at Jackson 's Bay. The Committee noted that the visual and
ecological impacts of the proposed development project were not
clearly known and that the legal and economic considerations which
guided the decision to approve the project were being actively
debated in New Zealand.
The Bureau noted with satisfaction that the Minister of
Conservation has subsequently indicated to the private company
(Okuru Enterprises Ltd.) that he would not approve locating the
pipeline inside the Mt. Aspiring National Park located within this
World Heritage site. Authorities of the Okuru Enterprises Ltd. are
now modifying their application to obtain water from a creek
situated outside the boundaries of the National Park. The changes
which the Okuru Enterprises Ltd. will introduce to the original
proposal will be advertized for public comment and have to be
agreed upon on a consensual basis. Following this procedure, a new
report on the modified proposal will be submitted to the Minister
of Conservation so that all relevant
*[15]
information could be re-assessed. The Bureau concurred with the New
Zealand authorities that it will be some time before a final
decision at Ministerial level is taken on the acceptability of the
modified proposal. The Bureau noted that the New Zealand
authorities have assured the Centre that the environmental impact
of the modified proposal will be carefully considered and that
decisions will not be made in haste, and that the maintenance of
the values of the World Heritage area will be an important
consideration in reviewing any project for water export. The Bureau
requested the Centre and IUCN to remain regularly updated on the
the review of the water-export proposal to be carried out by New
Zealand's Department of Conservation.
Danube Delta (Romania): The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at
its last session, drew the attention of the Romanian authorities
to the fact that they were yet to complete the final stops to
establish a legislative framework for this site, despite the
assurances of the Representative of Romania to the fifteenth
session of the Committee in December 1991, when the Delta Danube
was inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Bureau was informed
that the Ministry of Waters, Forests and Environmental Protection
of Romania has prepared the draft of the law concerning the
establishment of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve and included
it as part of the working agenda of the Parliament and that this
draft will be considered soon.
The Bureau noted that the Danube Delta World Heritage site will
benefit from the Danube River Basin Environment Programme which
will be financed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD) and implemented with technical advice from IUCN.
The Representative of Romania informed the Bureau that a new
research institution for the Danube Delta has been established and
will undertake studies relevant to the conservation of the Danube
Delta. The Bureau requested the Romanian authorities to inform the
Centre when the Parliament has approved the draft law and
encouraged them to co-operate with the Centre to prepare a
technical assistance project for the conservation of the Danube
Delta. IUCN and other non-governmental organizations should be
involved to the extent possible.
Niokolo-Roba National Park (Senegal): The Bureau recalled that at
its last session in July 1992 it had requested IUCN to provide a
report on the progress in the implementation of measures to
mitigate environmental impacts of a road construction project in
this Park. The Representative of IUCN informed the Bureau that the
University of Dakar, Senegal, had undertaken an independent
assessment of the implementation of mitigation measures and that
the findings of this study had been validated by the Regional
Representative of IUCN for West Africa. The Bureau was pleased to
note that the study had found the implementation of mitigation
measures to be satisfactory and the impacts on the Park to be
minimal. However, the Bureau noted that the implementation of the
road construction project had caused a number of concerns,
particularly the wider impacts due to the presence of a new
*[16]
transportation corridor traversing the region, which were not
originally foreseen. The Bureau commended the Senegalese National
Park authorities who had co-operated with IUCN to prepare a "white
paper" addressing these unforeseen consequences and the long-term
future of the Park, and elaborated three strategies which would
become part of a major project for ensuring the longterm future of
the Park. The Committee noted that these strategies will be
discussed during a donors' meeting, cosponsored by the Senegalese
National Park authorities and IUCN's Regional Office for West
Africa and scheduled for 28 June 1993, and requested that the
outcome of the donors' meeting be made available to the Centre for
submission to the next session of the Committee. The Bureau
requested the Centre to make copies of the "white paper" available
for any interested States Party.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania): The Bureau recalled that
this site was removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger in
1988, and was deeply concerned to learn that the Prime Minister of
Tanzania had announced that the residents of the area will be
allowed to grow crops inside this World Heritage site, in
contradiction to the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Law. The
Representative of IUCN noted that although allowing small areas of
maize cultivation may help to ease conflicts between local people
and site-staff, the announcement appears to have encouraged people
to clear vegetation over extensive areas, including many slopes
unsuitable for agriculture, resulting in a nearly uninterrupted
belt of cultivation on the slopes of the Ngorongoro Crater, from
Endulen to north of Empakai. The Bureau requested IUCN to report
on the findings of a survey that is currently underway to assess
the impact of the newly cultivated areas to the Committee at its
next session. The Bureau recommended that the Committee, at its
seventeenth session in December 1993, include once again, the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area in the List of World Heritage in
Danger and requested the Centre to communicate its concerns to the
Minister of Tourism, Natural Resources and Environment of Tanzania.
Everglades National Park (United States of America): The Bureau
recalled that the Committee, at its last session, was informed of
the damage caused by Hurricane Andrew which affected extensive
areas of this World Heritage site on 24 August 1992. The Bureau
noted that the damage caused by Hurricane Andrew has had a wide
range of impacts on the ecology of Everglades and that the site has
been entered on the "Montreux Record", the equivalent of a 'danger
list' under the Ramsar Convention. The Representative of IUCN
informed the Bureau that conservation problems of the Everglades
have been covered extensively in the literature and that a
monitoring report on Everglades submitted at the Ramsar Conference
in Japan, from 9 to 16 June 1993, could be treated as the starting
point for preparing a state of conservation report on Everglades
for the forthcoming session of the Committee. The Bureau recognized
that due to the number of agencies at various levels of government
which are concerned with the conservation of Everglades, a state
of conservation report on this World Heritage site may consider its
inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger as one of its
recommendations. The Bureau
*[17]
requested IUCN to prepare a state of conservation report on
Everglades for submission to the seventeenth session of the
Committee and noted that a supplementary allocation to lower costs
was requested by IUCN. The Delegate of the United States of America
supported the preparation of such a report, since it would bring
an international and global dimension to the conservation of
Everglades and assured his Government's assistance for the
preparation of the report.
Virunga National Park (Zaire): The Bureau was deeply concerned to
learn that due to recent political uncertainties in the country all
donors, except WWF, have withdrawn their support to this Park. This
has resulted in destruction of vegetation, poaching, agricultural
encroachment and over-exploitation of fish populations in Lake Idi
Amin. Since November 1992, the Park staff has not received
salaries, and funds for operations and maintenance are not
available. Several new settlements have appeared in the Park,
particularly around Lake Idi Amin, and some gold mining and
livestock grazing have also been reported.
The Bureau was informed that an IUCN/WWF field visit to this World
Heritage site is being considered for October 1993 to assess
current damage and suggest long-term options for the conservation
of the site. The Bureau recommended that the Committee include the
Virunga National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger,
unless the proposed IUCN/WWF site visit to in October 1993 provides
sufficient evidence to the contrary. The Bureau agreed, in
principle, to provide emergency assistance of USt 20,000 for
Virunga National Park which does not constitute a precedent, and
subject to the receipt of a formal and acceptable request from the
competent national authorities responsible for the management of
this property.
Durmitor National Park (Montenegro): The Bureau recalled that the
Committee, at its last session, noted that the authorities
responsible for the management of this site are of the view that
the proposed construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Tara River
and the pollution of the River by an asphalt dam situated upstream
had minimal impacts on the conservation of Durmitor National Park.
The Bureau acknowledged the fact that the Montenegro authorities
had invited a UNESCO/IUCN mission to the site and that this mission
should be undertaken as early as possible in order to ensure the
conservation of this World Heritage site. However, the Bureau noted
that given the current situation of conflicts within the former
territory of Yugoslavia, and UNESCO' s obligation to conform to
Resolution 757 of the UN Security Council, the UNESCO World
Heritage Centre was unable to proceed with the organization of the
UNESCO/IUCN mission to Durmitor National Park. The Bureau therefore
expressed the hope that the situation will change soon and the
World Heritage Centre can proceed to organize this mission.
*[18]
Cultural Properties on the World Heritage List and of World Heritage in
Danger
VIII.3 The Bureau noted that the recommendations and observations
made by the Committee at its sixteenth session had been
transmitted by the Centre to the States Parties concerned. The
Bureau reviewed the state of conservation of sites for which the
States Parties, ICOMOS, the UNDP/UNESCO Cultural Heritage project
in Latin America, the UNESCO Office in Cambodia and the World
Heritage Centre reported on. The Bureau also examined the state of
conservation of some other sites on the basis of reports submitted
by representatives of ICOMOS.
Cultural properties on the List of World Meritage in Danger
Angkor (Cambodia)
The Committee, at its sixteenth session, inscribed the Angkor
site, together with its monuments and archaeological zones, as
described in the "Perimeter de Protection" accompanying the ICOMOS
report, on the World Heritage List. The Committee, however, noted
that Cambodia had been placed under the temporary administration
of the United Nations, in accordance with the Paris Accords, since
July 1991. In order to deal quickly and effectively with the
urgent problems of conservation facing this site, the Committee
decided to include Angkor in the List of World Heritage in Danger
and requested that the competent UN and Cambodian authorities take
the necessary steps to meet the following conditions:
i) enact adequate protective legislation;
ii) establish an adequately staffed national protection agency;
iii) establish permanent boundaries based on the UNDP project;
iv) define meaningful buffer zones, and
v) establish monitoring and co-ordination of the international
conservation effort.
At its present session, the Bureau was briefed by the UNESCO
Representative to Cambodia, on the state of implementation of the
Committee recommendation since its last session. A comprehensive
legislation, "Decision on the Protection of the National Cultural
Heritage", was adopted by the Supreme National Council at its
meeting of 10 February 1993 and took immediate effect.
The future challenge will be to ensure that the provisions of this
law be enabled by the constitution, which is currently being
drafted by the newly-elected constituent assembly.
A supra-ministerial agency, "The National Heritage Protection
Authority of Cambodia" (NHPAC), headed by HRH Prince Norodom
Sihanouk, was formally established on 10 February 1993 by a
decision of the Supreme Council of Cambodia.
The governing body of the agency has been nominated and the line-
functions will be filled in the near future. It is estimated that
they will be functional by September 1993.
*[19]
UNESCO has executed, with funds from UNDP and Sweden and with
technical assistance from the United States National Park Service,
the Angkor Foundation of Hungary, The Thailand Department of Fine
Arts, The Ecole Française d'Extreme Orient, and the World
Conservation Union (IUCN), a "Zoning end Environment Management
Plan" (ZEMP) for the Angkor Area. As a result of the analyzed data,
it was possible to define an "Angkor Cultural Area" corresponding
to the catchment area of the ancient Khmer capital. Within this
area two large "protected" or "restricted" areas have been
identified. One, tentatively called the "Angkor Archaeological
Park", is concentrated on the core monumental area. The other, the
"Phnom Kulen Park", comprises the environmentally important Kulen
Mountain together with more than 100 important monuments from the
earliest period of the Empire. In addition, within the Angkor
Cultural Area, smaller satellite parks have been defined around the
monumental complex of Banteay Srei and Phnom Krom. Also defined are
more than 500 "Special Areas of Archaeological Concern" (SAAC),
many of which have been newly discovered by the ZEMP project, ESZs
("Ecologically Sensitive Zones"), UCZs ("Urban Conservation
Zones"), and urban development zones.
In addition to defining protected/restricted areas and surrounding
buffer zones, the ZEMP project has developed zoning regulations and
management guidelines, not only for the World Heritage site, but
also for the larger surrounding area wherein development activities
may have adverse effects on conservation of the Angkor site itself.
The recommendations and policy options of the ZEMP study have
already been endorsed at the technical level by the Cambodian
authorities and are currently under discussion at the political
level. Formal adoption of the ZEMP recommendations may not be
possible before the formation of a new national government,
foreseen for September or October 1993.
A monitoring/co-ordinating unit for the international conservation
effort was established by UNESCO's Director-General within the
Physical Heritage Division. A consultative meeting of international
experts on Angkor was convened last April in Siem Reap. The Bureau
expressed full satisfaction of the work undertaken in such limited
time and in the present critical political situation.
Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia): At its fifteenth session held in
Carthage in December 1991, the Committee inscribed the Old City of
Dubrovnik on the List of World Heritage in Danger. At the sixteenth
session of the Bureau in July 1992, it was recommended that the
Croatian authorities create a buffer zone in order to ensure the
protection of the ancient fortress and the surrounding ar-Ac
Since the last session of the Committee, two brochures on Dubrovnik
have been published in order to publicize the plan to safeguard the
Fortress and the Old City, damaged by bombardment, and also with
the aim of raising funds. Specific projects have
*[20]
been implemented with funds from private and public associations
and some countries, such as Austria, France, Germany and Italy
At its present session, a UNESCO consultant informed the Bureau
that the Croatian local authorities had prepared and submitted to
the Government a plan for the buffer zone. The two fortifications
outside the border of the ramparts should be included in a future
extension of the boundaries of the site. However, this plan has not
yet received clearance from the Government.
ICOMOS called attention to the need to protect the two
fortifications outside the ancient town and requested that
construction of new buildings be avoided in the proximity. It was
also proposed that legislation be enforced in order to prevent the
construction of high buildings along and close to the coastline, which would
spoil the best view of the skyline of the old town of Dubrovnik, when
approached from the sea.
The Rapporteur expressed satisfaction with the worK undertaken to date,
in spite of the resent difficulties and dangerous conditions in the country.
Furthermore, he supported the ICOMOS propositions and
requested that measures be taken to limit the use of billboards and
neon signs in and around the old town.
The Bureau endorsed these recommendations and requested the World
Heritage Centre to contact the Croatian authorities in order to
obtain the approved extension of the boundaries of the site, for
which recommendations from the Bureau should be taken into
consideration.
State of conservation of World Heritage properties
Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur (Egypt): The Bureau took note
of the report on the poor state of conservation of the Kefren
Pyramid and endorsed the Centre's recommendation that the Egyptian
Antiquities Organization be approached with a view to convening a
meeting of specialists in-stone conservation in cooperation with ICRROM to
examine the state
of conservation of this and other pyramids at this World Heritage site.
Islamic Cairo (Egypt): The Bureau expressed its concern about the
deteriorating situation of the monuments of Islamic Cairo and took
note of UNDP's disposition to launch a technical assistance project
to be executed by UNESCO, and supported the World Heritage Centre's
participation in this project.
Old Rauma (Finland)
ICOMOS informed the Bureau of the conservation efforts at this site
that are linked to training activities for property owners.
One problem that still awaits solution is that of traffic through the
historic centre, which is a potential source of damage to ancient buildings
due to vibration and exhaust pollution. The
*[21]
Bureau requested the Secretariat to draw the attention of the
competent authorities in Finland to the desirability of reducing
the pressure of through traffic within the designated area.
Hanseatic City of Lübek (Germany)
The Delegate of Germany reported on the situation in the old city
of Lübeck, and more particularly on the demolition of certain
monuments situated in the protected zone and the discovery of mural
paintings which are presently being restored. At the invitation of
the Mayor of Lübeck, ICOMOS will visit the city and make an
evaluation of the situation and present a detailed report to the
next session of the World Heritage Committee at Carthagena.
Delphi (Greece): The Bureau learned of the possible threat to this
site through the construction of an olive-packing unit. A formal
request for additional information has been forwarded to the Greek
authorities who replied that permission would not be granted until
all prerequisite conditions had been satisfied.
The Greek Observer confirmed that the Greek authorities had already
been alerted and assured the Bureau that the Committee will be
informed on all further decisions taken by them. ICOMOS expressed
concern about the construction of the plant that could have a
negative impact.
Samos (Greece): The Bureau was informed that a road construction
project, in the immediate vicinity of the Acropolis of Samos, in
front of the Tunnel of Eupalinos, was submitted to the Ministry of
Culture. The Greek authorities reported that the project is
directly under the supervision of the Ministry of Culture, which
is of the view that the project will not endanger the site or the
Tunnel. The Greek Observer pointed out that the road construction
is still in the project stage and that the final decision has not
yet been taken.
The Rapporteur stressed that, for an archaeological site of such
importance, additional detailed information on the project should
be provided, and not merely simple assurances that the project will
not endanger the site. The Bureau endorsed this suggestion, and
requested the World Heritage Centre to act accordingly. Finally,
the Greek Observer stressed the point raised at the last Committee
session in Santa Fe regarding the verification of information
received by the Secretariat before presenting it to the Committee.
Florence (Italy): The Director of the World Heritage Centre
informed the Bureau on a joint mission with ICCROM to the site
damaged in the historic centre of Florence by a terrorist bomb
which exploded on 27 May 1993.
The explosion caused extensive damage to the "Galleria degli
Uffizi" and the "Accademia dei Georgofili". Due to the blast, the
building "Torre delle Pulci" collapsed, four people were killed and
a fifth victim died in the fire that subsequently broke out.
The Accademia dei Georgofili, housed in the 16th century Torre
delle Pulci, is the oldest Agricultural Society in the world and
has the largest collection of books, numbering 40,000 volumes, of
which only fifty are missing. The damage to the Torre delle Pulci
structure is extensive: the entire facade, the roof and 50 per cent
of the floors have collapsed. A project for its reconstruction has
already been prepared by the Italian authorities.
The Director also reported that five art works have been completely
destroyed, namely "l'Adorazione dei pastori" by Gerritt van
Honthorst (Gherardo delle Notti), two "scene di guerra" by
Manfredi, "Giocatori di carte" and "Tributo a Cesare" by Bartolomeo
Bindi, a follower of Caravaggio. Thirty-three other paintings were
also damaged, but it will be possible to restore them. The most
famous are "Morte di Adone" by Sebastiano del Piombo, "all'Ingresso
trionfale di Enrico IV a Parigi" and "Enrico IV alla battaglia di
Ivry" by Rubens, which was cut in two by glass chips. Minor damage
was also reported for the following paintings: "Carlo V a cavallo"
by van Dyck; "David vincitore" by Guido Reni; "Giuditta e Olofene"
by Artemisia Gentileschi and "Natura Morta" by Giovanni da Empoli.
Furthermore, the Director of the Centre informed of the prompt
actions taken by the Italian authorities. The Bureau took note of
the mission findings and expressed its solidarity to the Italian
authorities for this intolerable strike at the very heart of World
Heritage.
Considering the extremely successful emergency actions undertaken
by the Italian authorities, the Bureau requested the World Heritage
Centre and ICCROM to: (a) jointly convene a meeting in order to
recapitulate and evaluate the measures adopted by the Italian
authorities so that this experience can be used in future disaster
preparedness and (b) provide expertise, as requested by the Italian
authorities, for the restoration of the large painting by Rubens
(8 x 4 metres) "Enrico IV alla battaglia di Ivry".
The Bureau strongly condemned the criminal action carried out
against the Galerie des Offices, an unique historical and art
monument of Florence, a historic centre inscribed on the World
Heritage List. The Bureau congratulated the Italian authorities,
both national and local, for the highly competent and rapid
accomplishment of the rehabilitation and restoration work of the
damaged part of the Galerie.
Kathmandu Valley (Nepal): The World Heritage Committee, at its
sixteenth session, was informed of the alarming state of
conservation of historic buildings and monuments in the Kathmandu
Valley. UNESCO and ICOMOS were requested to undertake a global
review of the Kathmandu Valley and of the activities undertaken
over the past 20 years from the standpoint of safeguarding the
cultural heritage of Kathmandu. The objectives of the review were:
to draw up broad guidelines for the preservation of the
*[23]
whole valley and to re-examine the boundaries of the protected zone
under the Convention.
The UNESCO Division of Physical Heritage is presently executing a
Japanese Trust Fund project for Patan Durtar Square, one of the
seven sites in the Valley which is included in the ensemble
inscribed on the World Heritage List, aimed at establishing
scientific documentation of the historical building. For a
three-year period, the funds allocated for this project amount to
approximately US$ 375,000. Additional assistance is being sought
from UNDP to strengthen the institutional capacity of the national
and municipal agencies responsible for safeguarding monuments and
historical urban quarters in the Valley.
As a result of a UNESCO mission, fielded at the beginning of June,
it was reported that the Government of Nepal expressed its concern
about the rapid deterioration of the World Heritage site in the
Valley. As a remedial measure, the Government intends to reinforce
the existing Monuments Protection Act No. 2013, in order to
strengthen the protection of cultural heritage. As of 9 June, the
Mayors of Kathmandu, Patan and Bhakutapur decided that the
construction work, as a result of the demolition of historical
buildings, be banned for six months. Furthermore, the World
Heritage Centre was informed that the local news agency recently
reported that fast-growing construction is being carried out, not
only by locals but also by foreigners.
At present, the unauthorized demolition of ancient wooden buildings
and the reconstruction of new concrete fabrics is becoming the
norm. The World Heritage Centre recently received a report stating
that on 12 April 1993, two 14th century wooden buildings in Patan
(Tyagah Chapa and its adjoining Pati) were torn down by their
owner, the "Guthi", and replaced with a concrete structure housing
shops, assuring them of a steady income. The World Heritage Centre
promptly requested the Nepalese authorities to urgently look into
this matter and to provide further information. In addition, it was
also stressed that urgent action to prevent such practices be
sought immediately.
At the present session, ICOMOS envisaged the need to contact the
Nepalese authorities to express concern and deplore the ongoing
destruction of significant cultural heritage within the inscribed
Kathmandu Valley sites, and to undertake, along with the Centre and
the Physical Heritage Division, the planned 20-year review.
Furthermore, it was proposed that efforts be made to change and
improve existing legislation.
The Delegate of the United States of America, expressed deep
concern for the ongoing degradation and demolition of monuments
and historic buildings in the Kathmandu Valley due to weak
legislation and lack of adequate protective measures, as required
in the Convention, and suggested the inclusion of this site in the
List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Delegate of Germany supported the suggestion of the United
States Delegate and also stressed the need for substantive
*[24]
improvement in legislation for the protection of all historic monuments.
The Rapporteur also stressed the need for the Nepalese authorities to act
in accordance with the Convention and its guidelines. Furthermore, he
requested that the UNESCO Division of Physical Heritage play an active
role in the protection and safeguard of the Kathmandu Valley.
Following the request of the Chairperson, the Delegations of Germany, the
United States of America and representatives of ICOMOS met during the
Bureau meeting and agreed on the following recommendations concerning the
Valley of Kathmandu:
1. It is recommended that the Secretariat, on behalf of the Bureau, write
a letter to the Government of Nepal, expressing its deep concern on the
destruction of monuments in Patan, as well as in the other sectors of the
Kathmandu Valley, which are inscribed on the World Heritage List.
2. Furthermore, an expert mission, organized by WHC/ICOMOS, should be
announced to the Government of Nepal. This mission is expected to take
place during the second half of 1993. The expert mission will investigate
the technical problems of restoration, according to the order of the
Committee given in Santa Fe. Beyond this, the mission will tackle new
problems which turned out to be urgent in monitoring reports presented
during the current Bureau meeting. These are:
a) The revision of the Ancient Monument Preservation Act of 1956. At
present, this Act cannot prevent the destruction of monuments and it is
therefore inadequate to avert the extensive threats that the monuments
are increasingly exposed to.
b) The expert mission of WHC/ICOMOS intends to inspect and evaluate the
boundaries of the seven sectors of the valley belonging to the World
Heritage site and will, when necessary, propose an extension of the
boundaries to enclose further important monuments within the site.
c) The expert mission intends to make an on-the-spot check the inventory
of monuments which were listed together with the inscription of the site
in 1979, and which seem to contain a large number of monuments which have
been destroyed in the meantime.
d) The expert group would review the staffing of the Nepal Department of
Archaeology and of the administration of the three important towns which
are responsible for the protection of monuments, to assess the number of
additional expert staff necessary to prevent further destruction of
monuments.
*[25]
WHC/ICOMOS will report on the results of their actions during the
seventeenth session of the Committee in Carthagena to enable the
Committee to make substantive proposals to the Government of Nepal.
Shalimar Gardens (Pakistan): ICOMOS reported on the state of
conservation of the site which, despite one million visitors every
year, is maintaining an excellent general appearance. However,
urgent attention to the oldest trees is envisaged and a systematic
management and development plan should be set up to protect the
vegetation.
The buildings within the boundary walls of the "Gardens" were
reported to be in a good state of repair and well maintained.
However, the perimeter brick walls are in poor condition due, in
many cases, to improper use of the binder in the repair work, and
in others to the substitution of the original lime-mortar binders
with cement-mortar, which is posing problems of stability as well
as not blending with the original walls.
ICOMOS suggested that the competent authorities be informed of the
need for urgent restoration work to the perimeter walls, and for
the formulation and application of an overall management plan for
the site as a whole, using accepted techniques.
The Bureau accepted the recommendations and requested the Centre
to inform the Pakistani authorities accordingly.
Kizhi Pogost (Russia): ICOMOS reported on its continuous
involvement in the conservation efforts for this site. As a
follow-up to the decision of the World Heritage Committee at its
sixteenth session, to support the coordination effort undertaken
by ICOMOS, a technical study programme has been set up for 1993,
including a 5-6 week mission of 5 or 6 experts. These experts will
be supported by their respective governments so that no
professional fees will be paid from the Fund. The results of the
mission will be presented by ICOMOS to the World Heritage Committee
at its seventeenth session in December 1993.
The Bureau commended ICOMOS' approach in assistance to Kizhi
Pogost, using its professional network and obtaining substantial
contributions from the Governments of Canada, Norway and Finland.
Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg (Russia): ICOMOS reported on
various factors of a financial and socio-economic nature that
threaten the site and hinder its proper conservation. ICOMOS
reported however, that there is little need to send individual
experts or groups of experts on urban heritage, given the
comprehensive and carefully reasoned analysis and diagnosis on the
conservation problems prepared by the local authorities and group
of professionals.
ICOMOS suggested, given the analysis and diagnosis that is already
available in Saint Petersburg and other cities in the world, to
organize a symposium on heritage conservation in major
urban/metropolitan areas. The Rapporteur and the Delegate from
*[26]
Senegal supported the suggestion, indicating that the problems in
Saint Petersburg are in fact similar to those in the Medinas of Fez
and Tunis, which would call for a regional/inter-regional approach.
The Bureau recommended that the Centre and ICOMOS look into the
possibilities of organizing (a) small seminars) on urban heritage
conservation in urban/metropolitan areas.
Santiago de Compostela (Spain): ICOMOS reported on the extremely
negative visual impact of a new sports hall built on the western
slope of the hill that is crowned by the Cathedral and that affects
in particular the view of the Cathedral from the Alameda.
The Representative of ICOMOS informed the Bureau that only a few
days ago, agreement had been reached between the local and the
regional authorities to lower the already constructed building by
1.5 meters and to apply materials more suitable to the
surroundings. Several delegates emphasized that Operational
Guideline 47 invites the States Parties to inform the Committee of
their intention to undertake or to authorize in an area protected
under the Convention, major restoration or new constructions which
may affect the world heritage value of the property. The Bureau
expressed its disappointment that this was not done in the case of
Santiago and that the already inscribed World Heritage site of
Santiago is being affected by an extremely disharmonious
construction at the same time as the Route of Santiago is being
nominated for inscription.
One delegate pointed out that action could be taken only after
reports had been received on the construction already in progress
and that this case clearly shows the need of a continuous
monitoring process involving local communities and organizations.
The Bureau concluded that its concerns about the construction will
be communicated to the Spanish national and regional authorities
emphasizing the need for consultations with the Committee in the
case of important interventions at World Heritage sites.
Damascus (Syria): The Bureau recalled the Committee's request at
its sixteenth session that the Centre undertake a mission to review
the state of conservation of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus
following the information received on reconstruction works being
undertaken at the main entrance of the Mosque. It expressed its
regret that certain factors had precluded this mission from taking
place and requested that ICOMOS undertake a general monitoring
mission to Syria to review not only progress made in the works at
the Mosque, but also the state of conservation of the Old City of
Damascus.
Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)
The Office of the Director-General for Historic Monuments of Turkey
will collect all the technical documentation on Saint Sophie on the
basis of a synthesis elaborated by the Director-General of this
service. A group of Turkish and international experts will meet in
Istanbul in September 1993 to prepare a global action plan for the
safeguard of Saint Sophie.
*[28]
A preliminary report will be presented to the Committee in December
1993. Financial support from UNESCO 's Regular Programme will be
allocated for this action which will be implemented in the
framework of the International Safeguard Campaign for Istanbul
Pueblo de Taos (United States of America)
ICOMOS informed of a letter recently received from the Pueblo
Governing Council. ICOMOS reviewed the concerns of the Tribal
authorities over proposals to extend the runway of the Taos, New
Mexico, Airport and confirmed that such action could pose serious
problems for the protection of the site and its environment, as
well as traditional lifestyles of the Taos people. The Bureau
agreed with this assessment and requested the Secretariat to convey
its concerns to the U.S. authorities together with a request for
additional information.
Monitoring of cultural and mixed sites in Latin American the
Caribbean and Lusophone Africa
VIII.4 The Chief Technical Advisor of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional
Project for Culture Urban and Environmental Heritage for Latin
America and the Caribbean presented a progress report on the
experimental monitoring programme in execution since 1991 and to
be concluded in 1994. The Regional Project will present to the
Committee meeting in December 1993, a state of conservation report
that will include photographs, plans and maps of the 17 sites
monitored in 1993, folow-up given to the 12 sites monitored in
1991-92 and possibly, in collaboration with the Mexican
authorities, state of conservation reports on 8 World Heritage
sites in Mexico.
VIII.5 The CTA of the Regional Project emphasized the ongoing,
decentralized and regional character of the monitoring programme,
making use of the existing structure, staffing and network of a
UNDP-financed regional project. For the monitoring programme, use
is being made of national and regional experts which facilitates
a cyclical approach that includes follow-up to monitoring of
earlier years and the periodical revision of the applied
methodology. In this context, the Bureau was informed that an
expert meeting on monitoring methodology was held in Lima, Peru on
17-18 April, 1993 leading to a revised methodology and a conceptual
framework for monitoring as indicated in the progress report on
pages 8 and 9.
VIII.6 The CTA of the Regional Project informed the Bureau that the
monitoring report of December 1992 was sent to all States Parties
and local site managers and that in several cases the
recommendations presented in the report had led to concrete actions
and requests for technical assistance to the World Heritage Fund.
VIII.7 The Brazilian Delegate informed the Bureau that as a result
of the monitoring of the site of Ouro Preto undertaken in
*[28]
1991, agreement has been reached between the Ministry of Culture,
the local authorities and the UNESCO Office in Brazil, as to the
preparation of a management plan for the historical centre of the
city.
VIII.8 The Rapporteur and the Representative of ICOMOS commended
the progress report and the fact that through the monitoring
programme in the Latin American region an action-oriented and
pragmatic and flexible methodology is available. The Rapporteur
commended also the incorporation of a training element and the use
of ex-students of regional training courses in the monitoring
process. The Rapporteur suggested that the data-base now available
in the Regional Project be made available at the local level as
well as to the World Heritage Centre and other partners involved
in World Heritage conservation.
VIII.9 The Delegate from Senegal requested that a similar
monitoring programme be undertaken in the sub-region of West
Africa. The Bureau requested the Representative of Senegal to
submit a formal request to this effect.
IX. NOMINATION OF PROPERTIES FOR INCLUSION ON THE WORLD
HERITAGE LIST AND LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
IX.1 The Bureau examined the nominations of nine natural properties
and thirty cultural properties, recommended that two natural
properties and fifteen cultural properties be inscribed on the
World Heritage List. The Bureau did not recommend the inscription
of four natural properties on the World Heritage List. Furthermore,
the Bureau referred three natural and twelve cultural nominations
back to the States Parties concerned for further information to be
submitted to the Committee at its seventeenth session. In addition,
the Bureau deferred two natural and three cultural nominations and
approved the extension of one natural property.
IX.2 The Bureau did not examine three cultural nominations, the
Inca Temple of Huaytara (Peru), Coro and its Dunes (Venezuela) and
the Town of Sintra and its Serra (Portugal), as the properties in
question did not appear on the tentative lists of the States
Parties concerned. The Bureau invited these States Parties to
submit to the World Heritage Centre, before 1 October 1993, revised
tentative lists so the Bureau may examine the nominations during
its meeting in December 1993 and formulate recommendations to the
World Heritage Committee at its seventeenth session. In this
respect, the Bureau strongly recommended to the Committee to decide
that the World Heritage Centre should no longer accept nominations
for properties which do not appear on the tentative list submitted
by the State Party concerned.
*[29]
Natural properties
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on the
World Heritage List
Name of Property Identifi- State Party having Criteria
cation No. submitted the
nomination in accord-
ance with the
Convention
Yakushima 662 Japan (ii) (iii)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site
containing warm temperate evergreen forests of Yakushima.
Furthermore, it encouraged the Japanese Government to prepare a
management plan taking into consideration the high level of
visitation and to establish a coordinating system for the management
of the area. As some of the values still remain adjacent to the
site, the Bureau also noted that some extensions to the site would
also be encouraged.
Tubhataha Reef 65 Philippines (ii) (ii) (iv)
Marine Park
The Bureau recommended the inscription of Tubbataha Reef Marine Park
as one of the outstanding coral reefs in the region. The Bureau
showed concern that conservation management support under a
"Debt-swap" arrangement was coming to an end and strongly
recommended that the Government provides funds for the management
of the site. Eventual extension of the site to include the Bastera
and Jessie Beazly Reefs should also be considered by the Philippines
Governnent.
B. Properties which the Bureau did not recommend for inscription on
the World Heritage List
Fossil Findings 667 Hungary
of Ipolytarnoc
The Bureau reviewed the nomination and concluded that this site is
of national importance, however it did not meet criteria for
inscription on the World Heritage List.
Wild Ass 650 India
Sanctuary
The Bureau was of the view that this site, although important at a
national level, did not meet criteria for inclusion on the World
Heritage List.
*[30]
Cedars of 646 Lebanon
Lebanon
The Bureau recognized the sacred importance of the Cedars of Lebanon.
However, the nominated site is too small to retain its integrity and
therefore the Bureau was of the view that it did not meet natural World
Heritage criteria. However, the Bureau recommended that the State Party
should examine whether the Cedars could be incorporated in a future
nomination of a cultural landscape being considered for the Qadisha
Valley.
Cuc-Phong 673 Vietnam
National Park
The Bureau recognized the importance of the site as the first National
Park in Vietnam, however, the site does not meet the criteria of
outstanding universal value under either natural or cultural criteria,
and therefore was not recommended for inscription on the World Heritage
List.
C. Extension to World Heritage properties
Central Eastern 368bis Australia (i) (ii) (iv)
Australian Rainforests
of Australia (renomi-
nation the of the
Australian East Coast
Temperate and Sub-Tropi-
cal Rainforest Parks)
The Bureau noted the error made in the 1986 nomination which
resulted in the site being accepted under criterion (iii), whereas the
correct criterion was (iv). The Bureau recommended the acceptance of the
extension to the site. However, it recommends that the Australian authorities
review the inclusion of Iluka in the light of the inscription of Fraser Island
on the World Heritage List, and to make the site less complex. The Bureau
requested the Australian authorities to suggest a more explicit name of the site
and to provide by 1 October 1993 details of the new management committee and
define a final boundary limitation and other areas that could be added.
*[31]
D. Properties for which nominations were referred back to the national
authorities for further information
Shirakami-Sanchi 663 Japan (ii)
This beech forest of some 10,000 ha is buffered by a 7,000 ha virgin
forest and the Bureau recommended that the buffer should be
incorporated within the nomination. The Bureau further recommended
that the Japanese Government should upgrade the legal status and
complete the management plan improving the administrative structure
of the site. If action on these points is well advanced by 1 October
1993, it would recommend inscription of the site under criterion
(ii) at the seventeenth session of the Committee.
Jiddat-al- 654 Oman (i) (ii) (iii)
Harasis and (iv)
its adjoining
areas
The Bureau deferred the examination of the nomination to allow the
competent Omani authorities to complete the nomination with the
legal establishment of a protected area with an effective management
plan and administrative structure. The Bureau appreciated the
outstanding work carried out by the Government of Oman in the field
of nature conservation. At the same time, the Bureau recognized the
outstanding qualities of this site but was concerned about the
extent of the military training activity, the oil exploitation and
overgrazing in the Acacia woodlands.
The Bureau encouraged the authorities to resubmit their nomination
once legislation gave the area statutory protection and a management
regime has been put in place.
St. Paul 652 Philippines (iii) (iv)
Subterranean
National Park
The Bureau was of the view that an extended St. Paul nomination
would meet criteria (iii) and (iv). There was considerable
discussion about such a major expansion of the area to incorporate
more tropical forests and the headwaters of the underground river.
The Bureau recommended that the Philippines Government be encouraged
to submit a revised nomination with the new boundaries which, if
received by 1 October 1993, could then be considered by the
Committee at its seventeenth session.
*[32]
E. Deferred Nominations
Sierra de la 655 Guatemala
Biosfera de las
Minas
The Bureau deferred the examination of the nomination to allow the
competent Guatemalan authorities to reconsider the boundaries of
the nomination and to incorporate only the core zone for a future
nomination. However, even within the core zone, the Bureau
expressed its concern about the extent of privately-owned property
and the problems this poses for the future management of the site.
The Bureau further noted that while the site has been recently
established as a Biosphere Reserve, a better understanding of the
natural values is needed before its World Heritage values could be
properly assessed.
Ha-Long Bay 672 Vietnam
The Bureau recognized that the site does not have cultural values
of World Heritage significance, but does fulfil natural criterion
(iii), because of the outstanding scenic values of many of the
islands. There is, however, a need to defer a decision on the
natural value of the site until the boundaries can be defined,
excluding industrial areas, and an effective management structure
can be put in place. Particular stress should be placed on the
management of tourism in the region.
Mixed property
Property for which nomination was referred back to the national
authorities for further information
Reserva del Vizcaino 554bis Mexico C (i) (iii)
N (ii) (iii)
(iv)
The Bureau, recognizing the exceptional universal value of the
Laguna Ojo de Liebre and Laguna de San Ignacio (criterion (iv)),
recommended that the site be inscribed on the World Heritage List
and the management recommendation in IUCN's technical evaluation be
transmitted to the Mexican authorities. This site is a sanctuary
for grey whales and other important species. The Bureau further
recognized the Sierra de San Francisco area as meeting cultural
criteria (i) and (iii) for its outstanding rock art and to be
inscribed as a cultural site. It is further recommended that a
revised nomination be submitted: (a) for the natural components and
(b) for the cultural component. It is further recommended that a
new name be identified for each of these nominations.
*[33]
Cultural properties
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription of the
World Heritage List
Name of Property Identifi- State Party having Criteria
cation No. submitted the
nomination in accord-
ance with the
Convention
Joya de Ceren 675 El Salvador (iii) (iv)
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this site on the World
Heritage List, but drew the attention of the competent Salvadorean
authorities to the need to take into account in the management of
the site, the proximity of major roadways and the clear definition
of the boundaries of the site.
The Bureau requested the competent Russian authorities to urgently put
in place a new law for the protection of the site in order that its
future conservation may be assured.
Maulbronn 546rev Germany (ii) (iv)
Monastery
Boyne Valley 659 Ireland (i) (iii)
(iv)
The Bureau proposed that the competent Irish authorities modify the
name of the property as follows: "Archaeological ensemble of the
Bend of the Boyne". Furthermore, the Bureau also recommended that
in the event of further restoration work on the Megalithic
monuments, consultation with international expertise should be
sought to ensure that the best methods are employed for this work.
Matera 670 Italy (iii) (iv)
(v)
The Bureau reminded the competent Italian authorities that the
on-going restoration and rehabilitation work at Matera should be in
conformity with international standards of conservation (Venice
Charter) and requested them to propose a shorter and more explicit
name for this property.
Himeji-jo 661 Japan (i) (iii)
(iv)
(Castle)
*[34]
Buddhist ensembles 660 Japan (i) (ii) (iv)
of Horyu-ji (vi)
Historic 676 Mexico (ii) (iv)
Monuments of
Zacatecas
Sergiev Posad 657 Russian (ii) (iv)
Architectural Federation
ensemble of the
Laure of the
Trinity Saint Serge
Banská Stiavnica 618 Rev Slovak Republic (iv) (v)
Royal Monastery 665 Spain (iv) (vi)
of Saint Mary of
Guadalupe
Archaeolog- 664 Spain (iii) (iv)
ical Ensemble
of Merida
The Route of 669 Spain (ii) (iv) (vi)
Saint-Jacques
The Bureau requested the competent Spanish authorities to envisage the
possibility of combining under one nomination the two sites already on the
World Heritage List (e.g. Burgos Cathedral (316) and the Old Town of
Saint-Jacques-de-Compostelle (347)) and the site presently being proposed
(The Path of Saint Jacques-de-Compostelle).
Birka-Hovgarden 555 Sweden (iii) (iv)
Engelsberg 556 Rev Sweden (iv)
Ironworks
Boukhara 602 Rev Uzbekistan (ii) (iv) (vi)
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property on the World
Heritage List but drew attention to the fact that the site should be
regularly monitored in order to ensure its proper conservation.
*[35]
B. Properties for which nominations were referred back to
the national authorities for further information
Red Fort, 231 India (iii)
Delhi
Taking into account the ICOMOS evaluation, the Bureau requested the
competent Indian authorities to complete the nomination file with
precise information on the buffer zone surrounding the proposed
property defined by national legislation, as well as to provide
detailed explanations on the management plan for Red Fort. This
complementary information should be provided before 1 October, to
allow ICOMOS to carry out an evaluation which will then be
submitted to the Bureau at its next session in December 1993.
Humayun's Tomb 232 India (ii) (iii)
(iv)
Taking into account the ICOMOS evaluation, the Bureau requested the
competent Indian authorities to complete the nomination file with
precise information on the buffer zones around the proposed
property defined by national legislation, as well as detailed
explanations on the management plan for the Humayun Tomb and its
associated monuments. This complementary information should be
provided before 1 October, to allow ICOMOS to carry out an
evaluation which will be submitted to the Bureau at its next
session in December 1993.
Qutb Minar 233 India (iii) (iv)
and associated
monuments, Delhi
Taking into account the ICOMOS evaluation, the Bureau requested the
competent Indian authorities to complete the nomination file with
precise information on the buffer zones surrounding the proposed
property defined by national legislation, as well as provide a
detailed explanation of the management plan for the monumental
ensemble and archaeological ruins. This complementary information
should be provided before 1 October to allow ICOMOS to carry out an
evaluation which will be submitted to the Bureau at its next
session in December 1993.
Jesuit 648 Paraguay (iv)
Missions
Taking into account the ICOMOS evaluation, the Bureau requested the
competent Paraguayan authorities to complete the nomination file
with precise information on the buffer zones around the proposed
properties defined by national legislation, especially for the
Santisima Trinidad of Parana property. This complementary
information should be provided before 1 October to allow ICOMOS to
carry out an evaluation which will be submitted to the Bureau
*[36]
at its next session in December 1993. The Bureau also requested
that Paraguay consider this nomination as an addition to the
existing binational site of the same theme designated by
Argentina/Brazil.
Baroque 677 Philippines (iv)
Churches
Taking into account the ICOMOS evaluation, the Bureau requested the
competent Philippine authorities to complete the nomination file
with precise information regarding the buffer zones around the
proposed monuments defined by national legislation. This
complementary information should be provided before 1 October to
allow ICOMOS to carry out an evaluation which will be presented to
the Bureau as its next session in December 1993.
Biertan 596 Romania
Monastery of Horezu 597 Romania
Churches of Moldavia 598 Romania
The Observer for Romania informed the Bureau of the interest of the
national authorities in heritage conservation and expressed the
wish that the nominations for inscription proposed by his country
be re-examined. The Bureau recommended that the three nominations
deferred during the June 1991 Bureau session be examined at the
next session in December 1993 on the condition that the competent
authorities provide assurances that there exists in Romania a real
legal protection for monuments and cultural properties.
Spissky Hrad 620 Rev Slovak Republic (iv)
The Bureau requested the competent Slovak authorities to provide
detailed information on the management plan of the property. This
complementary information should be received before 1 October to
permit ICOMOS to carry out an evaluation which will be submitted to
the next session of the Bureau in December 1993.
Vlkolínec 522 Rev Slovak Republic (iv) (v)
The Bureau recommended that ICOMOS complete the on-going study on
Central European villages which is being carried out in
consultation with specialists from all the countries concerned. In
the light of the results of this study, which should be presented
at its next session in December 1993, the Bureau will take a
decision regarding the inscription of this property on the World
Heritage List.
Hué 678 Vietnam (iii) (iv)
Taking into account the ICOMOS evaluation, the Bureau requested the
competent Vietnam authorities to complete the nomination file with
precise information on the buffer zones of the property defined by
national legislation. The Bureau also recommended that the
periphery of the nomination be modified so that the area
*[37]
between the Thanh Binh and Dai Noi fortifications no longer be
included in the nomination. This complementary information and
documentation should be received before 1 October to allow ICOMOS
to make an evaluation which will be presented at the next Bureau
session in December 1993.
Historic 611 Yemen (ii) (iv) (vi)
Town of Zabid
The Bureau, recognizing the universal value of this property and
concerned by the problems raised for its conservation, requested
the Yemeni authorities to provide additional information and wished
to know the conclusions of ALECSO on this matter. The Bureau
returned the nomination file to ICOMOS so that they may gather more
information and make a report at its next session in December 1993.
C. Deferred nominations
Karlstejn 619 Czech Republic
Castle
The Bureau recommended that the inscription of this property be
deferred until the completion of a study of the philosophy of
restoration practices in the XIXth and XXth centuries is completed.
Lumbini and 666 Nepal
associated Sites
The Bureau recommended that the inscription of this property on the
World Heritage List be deferred until the Nepalese authorities
provide precise information on conservation measures and site
management which are in conformity with international standards.
Also, as a prerequisite for the future examination of the
nomination, the Bureau requested the competent authorities to
supply an Indicative List of properties that Nepal might wish to
propose for inscription in the future.
Skogskyrkogarden 558Rev Sweden
The Bureau recommended that the inscription of this property be
deferred until the results of a comparative study on cemeteries and
that of a study on XXth century architecture to be undertaken by
ICOMOS, are known. Furthermore, the Bureau considered that this
property should also be evaluated as a cultural landscape.
X. EXAMINATION OF REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
X.1 The Bureau examined documents WHC-93/CONF.001/5 and
WHC-93/CONF.001/5Add as well as requests for funding submitted by
ICOMOS and IUCN, and reviewed the following requests for
international assistance:
*[38]
A. Technical co-operation
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon): The Bureau recommended that the
Committee approve US$ 40,000 for the purchase of two vehicles for this site
subject to the Cameroon authorities paying their dues to the World Heritage
Fund, providing detailed information to the Centre on projects implemented in
this site with national funds and provide assurance to the Committee that
the maintenance of the vehicles will be supervised directly by the manager
of the Dja Reserve.
Co-operative Training Programmme (France-Montpellier/Mali): The
Bureau recommended that the Committee re-examine this request for US$ 43,367
for organizing a sub-regional seminar for protected area managers of
Francophone Africa in January-February 1994 in the light of information
on the proposed programme on the seminar, and a better justification of the
estimated expenses of items to be financed by a contribution from the World
Heritage Fund.
Comoe National Park (Côte d'Ivoire): The Bureau approved a sum of
US$ 30,000 for the purchase of an all-terrain vehicle, as requested by the
Director of the Institute of Tropical Ecology (ITE) in Abidjan, subject
to the Director of ITE providing information on the benefits which the
UNDP/UNESCO study on the Productivity of Savannahs has brought to the
management of this World Heritage site and on the organizational links
between the authorities responsible for the management of Comoe and ITE.
The Bureau also requested the Centre to contact the Director of ITE and
obtain a written commitment that the vehicle will be used for activities
directly linked to the protection of this World Heritage site.
Hal Saflieni (Malta): The Bureau approved a sum of US$ 30,000 as
a contribution to the installation of an air-conditioning system at the entrance
of this World Heritage property. The Bureau however, requested the Maltese
authorities to take all necessary precautions to minimize as far as possible
the negative impacts of the installation on the conservation of this property.
Vallée de Mai (Seychelles): The Bureau deferred taking a decision on
this request until the forthcoming session of the Committee and urged the
Seychelles authorities to: (a) pay their dues to the World Heritage Fund;
(b) provide their views on- the possibility for expanding this site to
include additional forests in adjacent areas, as requested by the
Committee at the time of inscription of this property on the World
Heritage List and (c) provide supplementary information on the
construction plan for the visitor information centre, particularly the
location of the centre vis-à-vis the boundaries of the site and measures
for mitigating any impacts of construction on this small (18 ha) World
Heritage site. The Bureau noted that IUCN will attend a meeting of the
Seychelles Island Foundation and discuss this matter in detail. The Bureau
urged IUCN to make a site visit to Vallée de Mai in order to assess the
state of conservation of the
*[39]
property, emphasizing the potential for increasing its size and
assessing the need for the visitor information centre.
B. Emergency assistance:
Mt. Nimba Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire/Guinea): The Bureau
approved a sum of US$ 30,000 for consultancies and other services
necessary for setting up a management regime in the Guinean part of
this World Heritage site in Danger.
C. Training
Mt. Huangshan (People's Republic of China) - Training in management
planning for protected area specialists in China: The Bureau
approved a sum of US$ 30,000 for organizing a training workshop in
Mt. Huangshan (US$ 20,000) and for supporting the participation of
protected area specialists from Asia-Pacific in the CNPPA/IUCN
Regional Conference on Protected Areas of East Asia (US$ 10,000) to
review the draft management plan of Huangshan prepared as a result
of the training workshop.
D. Advisory bodies
IUCN
The Bureau approved a sum of US$ 18,000 to IUCN for the following
purposes: (a) reimbursement of costs for implementing the Bureau's
request, made at its last session in July 1992, for assessing
measures taken to mitigate impacts of road construction in
Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal) US$ 12,000
Preparation of a state of conservation report on Sangay National
Park by IUCN's Regional Office for Latin America US$ 2,000
Contribution for the preparation, by the IUCN Office in Nepal, of
state of conservation reports on Sagarmatha and Royal Chitwan
National Parks of Nepal US$ 4,000
ICOMOS
The Bureau approved a sum of US$ 15,000 for the organization, by
ICOMOS in co-operation with the Centre, of an expert meeting on
global study.
The Bureau commended the Canadian Government for having provided a
total of US$ 60,000 to the World Heritage Centre, to support ICOMOS
investigations in Kizhi Pogost, Russian Federation (US$ 18,750), to
organize a meeting to review issues related to authenticity (US$
18,750) and for monitoring cultural heritage sites in the Asia
Pacific region (US$ 22,500)
XI. MEASURES TO IMPROVE WORLD HERITAGE ACCOUNTING AND
BUDGETING
XI.1 The Director of the Centre presented the financial documents
submitted to the Bureau and emphasized the importance
*[40]
of coordination between the Centre and the advisory bodies (ICCROM,
ICOMOS and IUCN) in the preparation of the financial statements submitted
to the Committee. He requested the two representatives of UNESCO' s
Bureau of the Comptroller to provide members of the Bureau with a clear
explanation on the functioning of the World Heritage Fund.
XI.2 The Representative of the Bureau of the Comptroller thanked the
States Parties which had paid their dues to the World Heritage Fund
(document WHC-93/CONF.001/INF.5) and informed the Bureau that UNESCO,
which manages a number of funds-in-trust, like the World Heritage Fund,
has an investment policy based with reputable banks in the financial
market. Investments are made in US dollars. The present amount of the
Fund which is invested totals 3.5 million US dollars. The interest rate
varies according to the market values from 3, 3.5 to 5%. The total
interest is paid into the World Heritage Fund.
XI.3 A Bureau member enquired why the Funds, which show an important
surplus according to the figures presented at Santa Fe, did not use more
fully these immobilized funds -for the conservation of World Heritage
properties.
XI.4 The Representative of the Bureau of the Comptroller explained that
this global amount also included funds previously engaged but not yet
liquidated.
XI.5 Another member of the Bureau also suggested that it would be
desirable to revise the policy of the Committee by increasing the amount
of financial support available from the Fund for international assistance
requests.
XI.6 In view of the backlog by certain States in paying their dues, it
would be useful to remind States Parties of the provisions of the
Financial Rules of the Fund which recall that States not having paid
their dues to the Fund for the current year and the previous year can neither
vote nor be elected to the Committee during the renewal of a third of the
Committee, which takes place every two years during the General Assembly of
States Parties. Furthermore, the States in arrears may not benefit from technical
assistance. To date arrears amount to approximately 3 million dollars.
XI.7 It was decided to set up an ad hoc working group composed of some
members of the Bureau, representatives of the advisory bodies and the
World Heritage Centre to work out budgetary proposals for 1994, examine
an improved accounting system and other financial matters. The World
Heritage Centre will bring forward the results of this working group to
the Committee at its seventeenth session.
XII. APPROVAL OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE TWENTY-
SEVENTH SESSION OF UNESCO'S GENERAL CONFERENCE
XII.1 Document WHC-93/CONF.001/6 was examined by the Bureau
and approved without change.
*[41]
XIII. PREPARATION OF THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE,
INCLUDING A DRAFT AGENDA
XIII.1 Bureau members endorsed the provisional agenda as presented
in document WHC-93/CONF.001.INF.4. Bureau members will meet before
the seventeenth session of the Committee at Carthagena on 4 and 5
December to examine nominations which were referred back to States
Parties, international assistance requests and results of meetings
on World Heritage which will be held in the coming months.
XIV. OTHER BUSINESS
XIV.1 The Representative of IUCN warmly thanked Mr. Ishwaran for
his services rendered in handling natural World Heritage matters
and wished him every success in his new functions with his transfer
to the UNESCO Regional Office for Science and Technology in
South-east Asia, located in Jakarta, Indonesia.
XV. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
XV.1 On behalf of the Bureau members, the Chairperson, Mr. Robert
Milne, thanked the Rapporteur and the Secretariat of the World
Heritage Centre for their efficiency in carrying out the work.
XV.2 The Chairperson then declared the session closed.
*[42]
ANNEX I
Distribution limited WHC-93/CONF.001/INF.7
contribution limitée Paris, 24 June 1993
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANIZATION/ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES POUR
L'EDUCATION, LA SCIENCE ET LA CULTURE
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD
CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE/CONVENTION CONCERNANT
LA PROTECTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL, CULTUREL ET NATUREL
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
BUREAU DU COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
Seventeenth session/dix-septième session
Paris, 21-26 June 1993
Paris, 21-26 juin 1993
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU/ETATS MEMBERS DU BUREAU
BRAZIL/BRESIL
Mr. Ricardo V. de CARVALHO
Minister
Permanent Delegation of Brazil to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mr. Marcus André ROUANET MACHADO de MELLO
Counsellor
Permanent Delegation of Brazil to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mrs Maria Dolores PENNA de ALMEIDA CUNHA
Third Secretary
Division of Intellectual Co-operation
Ministry of External Affairs
BRAZILIA
*[Annex I/1]
CHINA/CHINE
H.E. Mr. YU Fuzeng
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of the P.D.R. of China to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mr. LUO Zhewen
Architect of State Bureau of Cultural Relics
Chinese National Commission for UNESCO
P.O. Box 100009
BEIJING
Mr. QIU Xunyuan
Deputy Director
Chinese National Commission for UNESCO
P.O. Box 100816
BEIJING
Mr LI Jiangang
Third Secretary
Permanent Delegation of China to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
COLOMBIA/COLOMBIE
Dr. Gloria PACHON DE GALAN
Ambassadeur
Délégation permanente de la Colombie auprès de l'UNESCO
Maison de l'UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mme Olga PIZANO
Directeur adjoint
Patrimoine culturel
COLCULTURA
Calle 8a. No. 6-97
BOGOTA
Mme Martha ROJAS URREGO
Directeur
Département des Parcs nationaux
INDERENA
Apartado 13458
BOGOTA
Mme Isabel VERNAZA
Deuxième secrétaire
Délégation permanente de la Colombie auprès de l'UNESCO
Maison de l'UNESCO
*[Annex I/2]
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Mr. Christoph DERIX
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Embassy of Germany
13/15, avenue Franklin D. Roosevelt
75008 PARIS
Dr. Hans CASPARY
Conservator
Historic Monuments
Gottelmannstr 38
Landesamt fur Denkmalspflege Rheinland-Platz
D6500 MAINZ
Professor Dr. H. PLACHTER
University of Marburg
FB Biology
Lahnberge DW-3550
MARBURG
SENEGAL
M. M'Baye Bassine DIENG
Directeur
Culture historique et ethnographique
B.P. 4001
DAKAR
M. Cheikhna SANKHARE
Délégation permanente du Sénégal auprès de l' UNESCO
Maison de l'UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
M. Abdoulaye DIOP
Direction des Parcs nationaux
B.P. 5135
Point E
DAKAR
TUNISIA/TUNISIE
M. Abdelaziz DAOULATI
Directeur général
Institut du patrimoine national
4, place du Château
TUNIS
*[Annex I/3]
M. Azzedine BESCHAOUCH
Directeur
Recherche archéologique
Institut du patrimoine national
4, place du Château
TUNIS
Mlle Khereddine ANNABI
Institut du patrimoine national
10 bis, rue de Moscou
1008 TUNIS
Mlle Mounira BACCAR
Attachée culturelle
Délégation permanente de la Tunisie auprès de l'UNESCO
Maison de l'UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mr. Robert C. MILNE
Chief
Office of International Affairs
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON D.C. 20013
Mr. Richard J. COOK
Chief, Intergovernmental Affairs Branch
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON D.C. 20013
Ms Dennise MATHIEU
United States Observer to UNESCO
Observer Permanent Mission of the United States of
America to UNESCO
Embassy of the United States of America in France
2, avenue Gabriel
75383 PARIS cedex 08
*[Annex I/4]
II. ORGANISATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY
CAPACITY/ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES/
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS)
Mr. Herb STOVEL
Secretary General
301 Strathearn Avenue
MONTREAL
Quebec
Canada
Mr. Henry CLEERE
World Heritage Co-ordinator
75, rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
Ms. Carmen ANON
President, Consultative Committee
Ulises 114
MADRID
Spain
Ms Regina DURIGHELLO
Co-ordinator Assistant
75, rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
Ms Karen REIMANN
75, rue du Temple
75001 PARIS
France
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE
RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA
CONSERVATION ET LA RESTORATION DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM)
Mr. Jukka JOKILEHTO
Chief
Architectural Conservation Sector
Via di S. Michele 13
00153 ROME
Italy
*[Annex I/5]
THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION(IUCN)/UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE
(UICN)
Mr. James THORSELL
Senior Adviser Natural Heritage
rue Mauverney
28 CH-1196 GLAND
Switzerland
Mr. Percy H.G. LUCAS
Chair, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas
1/268 Main Road
TAWA
WELLINGTON
New Zealand
Mr. David SHEPPARD
Head
Protected Areas Programme
rue Mauverney
28 CH-1196 GLAND
Switzerland
OTHER NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION/AUTRE ORGANISATION NON
GOUVERNEMENTALE
WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE
Mr. Donald GORDON
Research Officer
219c Huntingdon Road
CAMBRIDGE CB3 ODL
United Kingdom
*[Annex I/6]
III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
Mr. David FORSYTH
Director
World Heritage Unit
Department of Environment, Sport and Territories
P.O. Box 787
CANBERRA
CANADA
Ms Gisèle CANTIN
Chief, International Affairs
Canadian Parks Service
15 rue Eddy
HULL, Quebec KIA OH3
COSTA RICA
Mme Iris LEIVA BILLAULT
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation permanente du Costa Rica auprès de l'UNESCO
Maison de l' UNESCO
l, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
CUBA
Mme Marta ARJONA
Directeur du patrimoine culturel
Calle 4 Y 11
Ministry of Culture
Vedado
LA HABANA
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Mr. Christos CASSIMATIS
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Cyprus to UNESCO
86, Avenue Foch
75116 PARIS
*[Annex I/7]
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Mr. Josef STULC
Director
State Institute for the Care of Historic Monuments
Amerika 2
PRAGUE 2
Mr. Michal BENES
Secretary for Cultural Affairs
Ministry of Culture
Valdstejnska 10
PRAGUE 1
EL SALVADOR
Mme Rosa LEMOINE
Conseiller Délégation permanente d'El Salvador auprès de l 'UNESCO
Maison de l 'UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
FRANCE
Mme Françoise BERCE
Conservation du patrimoine
Directeur Centre de recherche des Monuments historiques
12, rue du Parc Royal
75003 PARIS
M. Léon PRESSOUYRE
Vice-Président
Université Paris I
75005 PARIS
M. Jean-Pierre BOYER
Conseiller Commission nationale française pour l'UNESCO
42, avenue Raymond Poincaré
75116 PARIS
M. Thiery GUINARD
Chef du Bureau de l'UNESCO
Ministère des Affaires étrangéres
PARIS
*[Annex I/8]
GREECE/GRECE
Mrs. Karilena CASSIMATIS
Adviser for Cultural Affairs
Permanent Delegation of Greece to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
GUINEA/GUINEE
M. Amadou SYLLA
Délégation permanente de Guinée auprès de l'UNESCO
Ambassade de Guinée
51, rue de la Faisanderie
75016 PARIS
M. F. CISSE
Délégation permanente de Guinée auprès de l'UNESCO
Ambassade de Guinée
51, rue de la Faisanderie
75016 PARIS
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
M. Aniko NAGY BALOGH
Permanent Delegation of the Hungary to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mr. Zsolt JEKELY
Director-General
International Cultural Affairs
Ministry of Culture
P.O. Box 1.H-1884
Szalay u. 10-14 - BUDAPEST H-1055
ITALY/ITALIE
Ms Marina MISITANO
Permanent Delegation of Italy to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
JAPAN/JAPON
Mr. Kanefusa MASUDA
Agency for Cultural Affairs
3-2-2 Kasumigaseki Chiyodaku
TOKYO
*[Annex I/9]
Mr. Michiko KARA
Permanent Delegation of Japan to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
MEXICO/ MEXIQUE
Mr. Salvador DIAZ-BERRIO
Deputy Director
Technical Support and Training (INAH)
CORDOBA 45
MEXICO D.F. 06710
OMAN
Mr. Kamal Hassan MACKI
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Delegation of the Sultanate of Oman to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
PARAGUAY
Mr. Luis F. AVALOS-GIMENEZ
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Delegation of Paraguay to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
PHILIPPINES
Ms Deanna ONGPIN-RECTO
Attaché
Permanent Delegation of the Philippines to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mr. Augusto F. VILLALON
Commissioner for Cultural Heritage
Philippines National Commission for UNESCO
107 Wilson Circle
SAN JUAN
M. MANILA 1500
*[Annex I/10]
POLAND/POLOGNE
Mr. Krzysztof PAWLOWSKI
Advisor for the Ministry of Culture
201, avenue de la Justice
34090 MONTPELLIER
France
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
M. Ioan OPRIS
Directeur général
Direction générale du patrimoine national
Protection et développement de la culture
Piata Presei Libere 1
BUCAREST
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Mr. Jozef KLINDA
Director
Department of Geological Policy
Ministry of Environment
Hlboka'2
81235 BRATISLAVA
Ms Michaela JUROVSKA Permanent Delegate Permanent
Delegation of the Republic of Slovakia to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Ms Viera DVORAKOVA
Architect
Ministry of Culture
Hviezdoslavovo Nam.C.5
BRATISLAVIA
THAILAND/THAILANDE
Mr. Watana Kaeokamnerd
Director
National Resources Conservation Bureau
Royal forest Department
Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives
BANGKOK 10900
*[Annex I/11]
Mrs. Srinoi POVATONG
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Thailand to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mrs. Laddawan TADTHIEMROM
Budget Analyst 7
Bureau of the Budget
Office of the Prime Minister
BANGKOK
Mrs. Usa KIATCHAIPIPAT
Member and Assistant Secretary
National Committee on World Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
509/597 Jaransanithrongse Road
BANGKOK 10700
Mrs Somsuda LEYAVANIJA
Archaeologist
Archaeology Division
Fine Arts Department
Ministry of Education
BANGKOK
Miss Niramol MANEEKUM
Secretariat Office
National Committee on World Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
509/597 Jaransanithrongse Road
BANGKOK 10700
*[Annex I/12]
IV. SECRETARIAT
M. Henri Lopes Sous-Directeur général
Secteur de la culture.
M. Bernd von Droste
Directeur
Centre du patrimoine mondial
M. Saïd Zulficar
Directeur-adjoint
Centre du patrimoine mondial
M. Mounir Bouchenaki
Directeur
Division du patrimoine physique
UNESCO/UNDP
Mr. Sylvio MUTAL
Chief, UNDP/UNESCO Project
Casilla 4480
LIMA
Peru
UNESCO Office, Phnom Penh
Mr. Richard ENGELHARDT
Head of Office and Chargé de Mission
UNESCO Cambodia
B.P. 29
PHNOM PENH
Cambodia
*[Annex I/13]
ANNEX II
DRAFT RESOLUTION
The Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, at its Seventeenth Sesion,
June 21-26, 1993;
Expresses its unanimous position that the Convention Concerning Protection
of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage is dramatically increasing its
effectiveness in global conservation programmes, as reflected in the
continuing increases in its membership, and has become one of the most
visible and well regarded initiatives of UNESCO;
Agrees that the Convention's effectiveness will depend on the ability of
its Secretariat to faithfully implement its programs and work toward the
fulfillment of its important objectives;
Congratulates the Director General on his decision to establish the World
Heritage Center as the Secretariat of the Convention;
Refers to the management and staffing situation of the Center, and the
situation forseen for the Center's operations in the 1994-95 biennium;
Notes the resources provided to Secretariats of other related conservation
instruments, including a staff of twenty for the Ramsar Convention and
twenty two for CITES; and
Expresses its deep concern at the limited staffing and budgetary resources
made available to the Center by UNESCO.
Invites the Director General to take the following actions:
Make every effort to staff the Center with at least nine
permanent professional and eight general service posts funded
under the Regular Programme of UNESCO from the beginning of the
biennium 1994-1995 onwards;
Increase Regular Programme fonds of the Center for the execution of its
programme and activities at Headquarters by US$200,000 over those currently
proposed in order to reflect the increased responsibilities placed on the
Center by requests of the Committee and by the more active involvement of
the Convention in assuring the preservation of World Heritage Sites:
Facilitate co-ordination between the Center and other related sectoral
staff as a means of further increasing the organization's support of the
Center's mandated role;
Ease internal administrative and fiscal procedures in order to expedite
disbursement from the World Heritage Fund already approved by the
Chairman, the Bureau, and the Committee;
Prepare a Charter for the World Heritage Center, specifically
outlining its role and functions, and place the Charter before
the 142nd session of the Executive Board and the General
Assembly of States Parties to the Convention in October of this
year.
*[annex II/1]
ANNEX III
Statement by the Representative of the Director-General
during the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
Saturday, 26 June 1993
I wish to intervene, in the name of the Representative of the
Director-General, who left today on mission.
First of all, I have taken note of the draft resolution
presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee this
morning (Saturday, 26.6.93). However, I would like to draw the
attention of the Bureau members to the following points:
1. The Representative of the Director-General would have preferred
to receive this draft earlier in order to study it and submit his
comments.
2. The Director of the World Heritage Centre has certainly informed
you of the orientations that the Steering Committee elaborated
during its meeting on 18.6.93 with regard to staff questions.
3. In his opening speech, Mr. Lopes, Assistant Director-General for
Culture, Representative of the Director-General also recalled his
position with regard to the staffing situation of the Centre which,
as you know, is of particular concern to the Director-General.
4. Finally, it must be noted that the Director-General could not
consider a recommendation which would be contrary to the decisions
of the directive bodies of the Organization, that is the Executive
Board and the General Conference.
I hope that the comments I have just made in the name of the
Representative of the Director-General will be reflected in the
minutes of your meeting.
M. Bouchenaki
Director, CLT/CH 26
June 1993
*[EOF]