Limited distribution
WHC-94/CONF.001/10
Paris, 19 August 1994
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD
CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Eighteenth session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 4-9 July 1994
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
*[i]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. OPENING SESSION 1-2
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2
IV. REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE
SECRETARIAT SINCE THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE
COMMITTEE 2-4
V. UNESCO'S MEDIUM-TERM PLAN FOR THE WORLD HERITAGE
CENTRE FOR 1996-2001 AND WORLD HERITAGE CONSERVATION:
ELEMENTS OF ORIENTATION 4-7
VI. THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED
ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST 7-31
VII. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR TRAINING PROVIDED
UNDER THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND: REVIEW, EVALUATION
AND STRATEGY 31-34
VIII. EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF PROPERTIES TO THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE
IN DANGER 34-45
IX. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE 45-50
X. MARKETING AND FUND-RAISING STRATEGY 50-51
XI. ORGANIZATION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES
PARTIES IN 1995 AND ELECTION OF SEVEN MEMBERS TO
THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 51-53
XII. GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR A REPRESENTATIVE WORLD
HERITAGE LIST 53-57
XIII. PREPARATION OF THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE, INCLUDING A DRAFT AGENDA 57
XIV. OTHER BUSINESS 57-58
XV. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION 58
(i)
*[ii]
ANNEXES
Annex I List of Participants
Annex II UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan for 1996-2001 and
World Heritage Conservation
Annex III Progress report on the implementation of the
decisions of the World Heritage Committee
regarding the methodology of systematic
monitoring
Annex IV Expert Meeting on the "Global Strategy" and
thematic studies for a representative World
Heritage List
Annex V Proposal by Thailand regarding General
Assembly election procedures
(ii)
*[1]
I. INTRODUCTION
I.1 The eighteenth session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee was held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from
4 to 9 July 1994. The following members of the Bureau attended:
Ms Olga Pizano (Colombia), Chairperson, representatives of China,
Oman, Senegal, Thailand and the United States of America as Vice-
Presidents and Mr D. José Guirao Cabrera (Spain) as Rapporteur.
I.2 Representatives of the following States Parties to the
Convention attended the meeting as observers: Argentina,
Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, El Salvador, France, Georgia,
Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Laos People's Democratic
Republic, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Niger, Norway,
Peru, Philippines, Slovak Republic and the Syrian Arab Republic.
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
I.
II. OPENING SESSION
II.1 The Representative of the Director-General, Mr Henri
Lopes, Assistant Director-General for External Relations, having
welcomed the members of the Bureau, the representatives of the
advisory bodies and the observers, began his statement by
underlining the recent threats to World Heritage sites which have
increased in the past period. He therefore congratulated the
Committee for having decided, at its seventeenth session, to
establish an emergency fund of one million dollars, which is an
important first step in responding rapidly to emergency
situations. This, however, needed to be complemented by the
efforts which each of the States Parties must undertake by
itself to implement the Convention on its own territory. The
World Heritage properties cannot be properly protected, he
emphasized, unless they are adequately staffed and financed. He
therefore urged the representatives of all 138 States Parties to
ensure that governments provide adequate financial resources for
the effective management of properties under their jurisdiction.
II.2 Having pointed out the rapid progress of the
implementation of the Convention, reflected in the fact that to
date 138 States Parties have signed the Convention and that there
are presently 411 sites on the World Heritage List (89 natural,
306 cultural and 16 properties which meet both cultural and
natural criteria), Mr Lopes further stressed that UNESCO will for
its part ensure, particularly through the work of the World
Heritage Centre, that the preservation of cultural and natural
properties of outstanding universal value remain among the
Organization's priority tasks by: ensuring prompt intervention
in the case of natural and man-made disasters; mobilizing
international support for safeguarding operations and by
strengthening training of specialists; enhancing preventive
*[2]
action by the Member States of the Organization and particularly
by States Parties to the Convention, for the protection of
cultural and natural properties, including sites of potential
World Heritage values; ensuring systematic and continuous
monitoring of the state of conservation of sites, and lastly, by
promoting the World Heritage Convention among Member States and
the general public.
II.3 Underlining the Convention's unique character as an
international instrument which links nature and culture in its
text and spirit, Mr Lopes recalled that the inscription of the
first cultural landscape on the List, at the seventeenth session
of the Committee, made the World Heritage Convention the first
important international instrument to recognize and protect
cultural landscapes. Finally, before concluding and wishing the
Bureau a successful meeting, the Representative of the Director-
General underlined the importance of bringing the World Heritage
Convention and its related concerns to the level of local
communities, as the World Heritage properties will be truly
protected only when the people who live on these sites or near
them become fullY involved in the conservation endeavours.
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
III.1 The Bureau adopted the agenda as proposed in document
WHC-94/CONF.001/1Rev. following the clarification given by the
Secretariat, in response to the intervention of the Delegate of
Oman, that two additional nominations had been added to the
proposed agenda item 6 (Examination of Nominations of Properties
to the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in
Danger).
IV. REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT SINCE
THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE
IV.1 As Secretary of the World Heritage Committee, 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 Cartagena, Colombia, in
December 1993. His presentation being just an outline of the key
points, Mr von Droste reminded the Bureau that more detailed
information was provided in the working documents prepared for
this session.
IV.2 He first delineated the areas in which the World
Heritage Centre has succeeded in breaking new ground in the past
six months. These are: (i) a further development of conceptual
approaches to systematic monitoring; (ii) development, in
cooperation with UNESCO' s Education Sector, of projects aiming
at introducing World Heritage awareness-building into school
curricula; (iii) the initiation of a World Heritage marketing and
fund-raising strategy; (iv) the progress achieved, through
cooperation with ICOMOS, in defining the global strategy on the
basis of which a more representative World Heritage List can be
*[3]
achieved and (v) the progress made in establishing links with
other international conventions such as the Convention on
Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl
Habitat (RAMSAR), Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), Convention on Biological
Diversity (RIO), Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer
("Vienna"), Framework Convention on Climate Change, Convention
on the Law of the Sea, Convention for the Protection of Cultural
Property in the Event of Armed Conflict ("The Hague Convention")
and the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the
Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural
Property. In this context, he thanked the Culture Sector for its
cooperation in inviting the States Parties which have adhered
to both the World Heritage Convention and the "The Hague"
Convention to consider placing their World Heritage properties
under strengthened protection.
IV.3 In this context, Mr von Droste informed the Bureau that
with four more States Parties having recently adhered to the
Convention - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Myanmar - there were now altogether 138 States Parties to the
Convention.
IV.4 Having presented the Centre's main publications of the
past six months, Mr von Droste drew the Bureau's attention to the
list of past and forthcoming meetings and special events among
which regional World Heritage meetings hold a prominent place.
He then focused on the results of the previous consultations
regarding the development of a monitoring methodology, pointing
out the three types of monitoring that have bean suggested so
far: (i) systematic monitoring (a continuous process of
monitoring the conditions of the World Heritage sites with
periodic reporting); (ii) ad-hoc monitoring (reporting on the
state of conservation of a site in case of need) and (iii)
administrative monitoring (follow-up to ensure the implementation
of the Convention by States Parties as well as recommendations
of the World Heritage Bureau and Committee). Finally, within this
context, he specified also the roles that each of the partners
are expected to play in monitoring, i.e., the site managers, the
States Parties, the World Heritage Committee and the World
Heritage Centre.
IV.5 Speaking of the forty-one properties that have been
presented for nomination to the World Heritage List in 1994, Mr
von Droste drew the Bureau 's attention to the continuing
imbalance in the nominations coming from different regions: 51%
of the newly proposed sites are situated in Europe, 22% are in
Asia and the Pacific, 12% are in Latin America, 12% are in Africa
and 3% are in the Arab States. It is therefore hoped that with
the work on the global strategy, the upcoming regional and sub-
regional meetings and the possible future development of regional
and sub-regional World Heritage focal points ("Centres") this
imbalance may finally be redressed.
IV.6 Sketching briefly the accomplishments in the area of
World Heritage training, Mr von Droste informed the Bureau that
*[4]
an analysis of the training carried out in the period from 1988
to 1992 shows that as regards the natural World Heritage sites,
altogether 61 group training courses and 37 individual
fellowships were financed by the World Heritage Fund (totaling
USS 1,274,000) and 56 fellowships and 10 courses in-situ
(totaling US$ 1,514,000) for the cultural heritage sites. This
training focused mainly on wildlife management, ecology and
conservation, protected areas management, conservation of stone,
wood, mural paintings and architecture and the conservation and
rehabilitation of historical cities. Mr von Droste seized this
opportunity to thank the Centre's main partners in the World
Heritage training programmes for their cooperation. These
include: ICCROM, the Brazilian Institute for Cultural Heritage
and the Federal University of Bahia, Brazil, and ICOMOS for the
cultural part, and IUCN, the Wildlife Colleges in Africa, CATIE
(Costa Rica) and Dehra Dun (India) for the natural sites.
IV.7 The Bureau was also informed of the marketing and fund-
raising study which had recently been undertaken, as requested
by the Director-General of UNESCO and in pursuance of the
decision of the World Heritage Committee at its sixteenth session
(Santa Fe, USA, 1992). This was entrusted to two internationally
known experts, Mr Charles de Haes, former Director-General of the
World Worldwide Fund for Nature, and his collaborator, Mr David
Mitchell. A summary of their findings was to be presented to the
Bureau before the end of the session (see Chapter X).
IV.8 The Chairperson thanked the Director of the World
Heritage Centre for the report and congratulated the Centre on
its work of the past six months.
V. UNESCO'S MEDIUM-TERM PLAN FOR THE WORLD HERITAGE
CENTRE FOR 1996-200' AND WORLD HERITAGE CONSERVATION:
ELEMENTS OF ORIENTATION
V.1 The Bureau studied document WHC-94/CONF.001/2 (see
Annex II of this report) regarding which the Director of the
Centre reminded that this was a preliminary reflection and an
intellectual framework for the Centre's contribution to UNESCO' s
Medium-Term Plan to be submitted for adoption by UNESCO's General
Conference in November 1995. The Bureau members were invited to
propose suggestions, on the basis of which the Centre would
prepare a more "operational" document for the Committee's
eighteenth session in December 1994.
V.2 The Director then briefly presented its main
components:
I. Future action of the Centre: to move from the quantitative
to the qualitative:
1) to ensure optimum representativeness of the List and thus
increase its credibility, as proposed by the meeting of experts
on global strategy whose recommendations are attachad in Annex
IV.
*[5]
2) to improve the methods of reporting on the state of
conservation of the sites, i. e. developing systematic
decentralized and preventive reporting at the regional and sub-
regional level, within the framework of a continuous dialogue
with the States Parties, and in consultation with NGOs and the
civil communities, as outlined in working document WHC-
94/CONF.001/3aAdd.1 (see Annex III).
3) to change the scale of international assistance, to seek
additional resources over and above those of the World Heritage
Fund by means of a fund-raising policy; to develop the
educational aspects and create awareness of the values inherent
in World Heritage and the necessity for its safeguard; to
establish intersectoral partnerships within UNESCO and with its
decentralized structures and especially with local populations,
local NGOs and experts in the field;
4) to define and implement an effective project policy:
establish technological partnerships and involve the local
populations;
5) to orient promotional activities towards education in
World Heritage and its values, the activities at individual
sites, concerted activities in forthcoming major international
events as well as the celebrations for the 50th anniversaries of
the United Nations and UNESCO, and further develop audiovisual
and multimedia projects.
II. Two major lines of action:
1) to broaden intellectual reflection on the content and the
present scope of the concept of the heritage of humanity, the
symbolic and ethical values of World Heritage, and new attitudes
to nature and its relationships with humankind;
2) to define a more decentralized approach, especially by
the progressive establishment of several "small world heritage
centres", in the regions or sub-regions.
III. To undertake action in three directions:
1) centrifugal, to bring us closer to the sites and
humankind;
2) centripetal, to increase our information and benefit
from the knowledge and intellectual collaboration of
professionals of the scientific international community and the
great variety of world cultures;
3) transversal and transectoral within UNESCO, to make the
concept of world heritage an activating and federative force.
*[6]
V.3 The Delegate of Thailand congratulated the Centre for
the quality and innovative nature of this approach. He asked if
UNESCO's Regular Programme budget would be able to provide
additional human and financial resources to implement this
project, especially for the increased activity foreseen from the
regional world heritage centres. He stressed that the sites of
South-East Asia were under-represented in the present List,
especially those of Hindu and Buddhist cultures. He also
enquired whether the fund-raising policy would be implemented by
a professional in this field on a permanent basis within the
World Heritage Centre or by other means, and whether, to improve
the living conditions of the people living near the sites and
associate them with the safeguard, the States Parties would be
involved with the management of the funds in question.
V.4 Concerning the first point, the Director of the Centre
replied that the plan must be realistic and provide the necessary
means to implement it. The Director-General of UNESCO has
already given substantial support to the World Heritage Centre
since the Committee's seventeenth session in Cartagena.
V.5 With regard to the two other points, the Director of
the Centre cited terse articles of the Convention (Arts. 17, 18
and 28) which indicate that the States Parties would encourage
the creation of fund-raising agencies. This was not yet the case
everywhere and should be encouraged, as it would permit the
decentralised management of the funds obtained to preserve the
monuments, create better living conditions for local populations,
and help them become more involved in conservation; at the same
time it would give a humanitarian dimension to our action,
especially in city centres, where the problems of poverty were
an obstacle to conservation. The problem of education and
schools in these areas would be especially important. Finally,
as a working hypothesis, if a marketing infrastructure closely
related to the Centre was to be envisaged, it would be essential
to respect the concerns and cultures of the State Party concerned
and work together.
V.6 The Representative of IUCN stressed that, in his
opinion, the document seemed to refer especially to the cultural
heritage in stating that the world heritage was already largely
identified, but this was not at all the case with the natural
heritage in many regions of the world. The Director replied that
in fact it was especially the European cultural heritage which
has bean largely identified, and that the select group of experts
on global strategy had indicated that much cultural property
situated outside of Europe or belonging to certain categories,
or dating from certain periods, had not yet been identified.
V.7 The Representative of ICOMOS also congratulated the
Centre for the document's intellectual quality and precision, and
endorsed the dynamic approach and intellectual development
towards greater anthropological and global understanding of the
heritage of humanity and the relationships between nature and
humankind.
*[7]
He made five observations:
1) the "quantitative" aspect of the work should not be
under-estimated, because many properties still remained to be
identified and inscribed:
2) the rhythm of implementation should be respected, because
the improvement of the procedure proposed by the document would
increase the complexity of the work and call for greater
reflection;
3) that which concerned the World Heritage in danger should
be developed in a specific manner;
4) promotion should be the responsibility of the Centre
together with the State Party concerned. But care must be taken
not to neglect States Parties' "national" heritage not inscribed
on the List:
5) if the heritage of the countries of the South was under-
represented, it was due also to the lack of human and financial
resources to identify this heritage, propose it for inscription,
and then protect it. This point, and the development of
international solidarity that it called for, must also be
highlighted in this document.
V.8 The Representative of Senegal also congratulated the
Centre for the quality of the document and made two remarks:
- the "quantitative" should not be neglected;
- a cost study should be made of the possibilities for
partnerships with States Parties which could provide facilities
and personnel for "Regional World Heritage Centres". The Centre
should also contact different bodies, such as the European
Development Bank which could help finance projects.
VI. THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST
VI.1 The Secretariat introduced the working documents that
were prepared for this Bureau session:
- working document WHC-94/CONF.001/3a on the methodology of
systematic monitoring with its Addendum 3a.Add.1 which
provided a progress report on the implementation of the
decisions of the World Heritage Committee regarding the
methodology of systematic monitoring;
- working document WHC-94/CONF.001/3b which included state
of conservation reports on specific natural and cultural
properties. Four addendums to this document were presented
to the Bureau as follows:
- 3b.Add.1: reports on the state of conservation of natural
properties prepared by IUCN
*[8]
- 3b.Add.2: reports on the state of conservation of
cultural properties prepared by ICOMOS
- 3b.Add.3: reports on six cultural properties prepared by
the Coordinator of the '100 historical sites'
Programme for the Mediterranean (MAP/UNEP)
- 3b.Add.4: report on safeguarding the three principal
mosques of Timbuktu, Mali.
A. THE METHODOLOGY OF SYSTEMATIC MONITORING
VI.2 The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its
seventeenth session in December 1993 reviewed the recommendations
made by an expert meeting that was held in November 1993 in
Cambridge in order to define the concept and framework of
systematic monitoring. At that occasion the Committee endorsed
the view that three types of monitoring can be distinguished:
- systematic monitoring: the continuous process of monitoring the
conditions of World Heritage sites with periodic reporting on its
state of conservation,
- ad-hoc or reactive monitoring: the reporting by the Centre,
other sectors of UNESCO and the advisory bodies to the Bureau and
the Committee on the state of conservation of specific World
Heritage sites that are under threat, and
- administrative monitoring: follow-up actions by the World
Heritage Centre to ensure the implementation of recommendations
and decisions of the World Heritage Committee and Bureau at the
time of inscription or at a later date.
VI.3 The Committee also endorsed the view that, in the
spirit of the Convention, it is the prime responsibility of the
States Parties to put in place on-site monitoring arrangements
as an integral component of day-to-day conservation and
management of the site, but that at the same time, it is
essential that external and independent professional advisers are
involved in a periodic reporting system.
VI.4 The Committee at its seventeenth session invited the
Secretariat to develop concrete proposals for systematic
monitoring, to report on the progress to the Bureau and to
present final proposals, including a draft text on monitoring for
inclusion in the Operational Guidelines, to the eighteenth
session of the Committee.
VI.5 The Secretariat introduced a detailed outline of
systematic monitoring (see Annex III) which had been developed
in collaboration with the advisory bodies and independent experts
and which incorporates two complementary elements, both of which
are thought to be indispensable for a credible and successful
monitoring and reporting system.
VI.6 The first is the systematic and repeated observation
of the conditions of a site and its periodic reporting - with
*[9]
external advice - to the World Heritage Committee. These
activities are generally being understood to be the prime
responsibility of the States Parties and the agency with
management authority and require the commitment of the States
Parties on all levels.
VI.7 The second element is the Committee's strategy towards
systematic monitoring which would be characterized by a regional
approach and the involvement of regional agencies and other
channels to provide external advice and assistance to the States
Parties in setting up appropriate management and monitoring
structures and in preparing the periodic state of conservation
reports.
VI.8 In order to create a practical system of monitoring,
it was proposed that a new nomination form be established which
would provide, at the time of nomination and inscription of a
property, a sound baseline information and at the same time would
serve as a model for the reporting, on the basis of a five-year
cycle, to the Committee.
VI.9 Such an integral monitoring system would involve the
following actions:
1) Monitoring, the continuous observation of the
conditions of the site, is (to be) incorporated
in the day-to-day management of the site,
resulting in annual reports to be prepared by the
site manager or management authority.
2) Parallel to inviting the States Parties to put
monitoring and reporting systems in place, the
Committee instructs the Secretariat to initiate
regional monitoring programmes.
3) The Secretariat establishes a workplan for
worldwide and regional monitoring programmes and
identifies the most appropriate partner(s) for
monitoring in each of the regions, who will serve
as the regional focal point for monitoring.
4) In the context of these regional programmes, the
Centre establishes contacts with States Parties,
site-managers and other possible participants and
defines jointly with them the most appropriate
regional monitoring strategy. If necessary,
regional seminars will be held to initiate the
monitoring process.
5) 5-year state of conservation reports will be
prepared by the States Parties with the
involvement of the site-manager/management
authority and an external partner, preferably in
the context of the regional monitoring programmes
that will be set up by the Secretariat.
*[10]
6) Upon request and in line with the decisions of
the World Heritage Committee, the Centre provides
assistance and external advice to the States
Parties and the site-manager on management
practices and collaborates in the preparation of
the 5-year state of conservation reports.
7) The State Party will present the 5-year reports
to the Secretariat.
8) The Secretariat will collect the 5-year reports,
verify their contents and prepare with the help
of its decentralized regional structure Regional
State of the World Heritage Reports for
presentation to the World Heritage Committee. The
first of these reports will be presented to the
World Heritage Committee at its eighteenth
session: the State of the cultural World Heritage
in Latin America and the Caribbean, which will be
the result of the UNDP / UNESCO Latin American
Monitoring Programme. Regional monitoring
programmes will be launched in the coming years
for Asia, Africa, Europe and the Arab States.
Once the monitoring system is properly launched,
the Committee would review every year the report
on one specific region.
9) On the basis of these reports, the World Heritage
Committee will, if appropriate, make specific
recommendations to the State Party on actions to
be taken. Decision-making regarding regional or
national World Heritage policies and activities
and regarding requests for technical cooperation
will equally be basad on those reports.
VI.10 The Delegates of Spain and Thailand as well as the
representatives of the advisory bodies expressed their
appreciation of the proposals made by the Centre and stressed the
need to put a monitoring system in place. The Delegate of
Thailand expressed two concerns: the system should be
sufficiently flexible, but at the same time allow for comparison
of the results of the monitoring and reporting system in
different countries and regions; and the processing of the great
number of site, country and regional reports should be secured
as well as making them accessible to the States Parties and other
World Heritage partners.
VI.11 The Delegate from China emphasized the important role
of the States Parties and national and local experts in the
monitoring process. The full involvement of these partners would
be a pre-requisite for communication and a better understanding
of local and national knowledge, practices and techniques and
establish a real dialogue between all World Heritage partners.
*[11]
VI.12 The Representative of ICOMOS confirmed that his
Organization is prepared to further collaborate with the
Secretariat in coordinating monitoring programmes and initiatives
and called for further discussion of the proposals with the
States Parties, site managers and other partners. He made
specific mention of ICOMOS' involvement in national and regional
monitoring programmes in the United Kingdom, Sri Lanka and Asia
and stressed that these should be seen as a contribution to the
development of the global monitoring strategy and that some of
the elements of the proposed systematic monitoring methodology
would be tested in the field.
VI.13 He also called for the need for a more global
assessment of the implementation of the World Heritage Convention
in the States Parties, e. g. national heritage legislation,
institutional structures, training facilities.
VI.14 The Representative of IUCN, while agreeing with the 5-
year reporting system and the revision of the nomination form,
emphasized the continued need for reactive monitoring and
referred particularly to the Operational Guidelines where a
particular role for IUCN is indicated. He also expressed his
disappointment that the twenty-year in-depth review, the so-
called 'sunset clause', which had been recommended on various
occasions, was not included in the proposals. The general feeling
of the delegates and the Secretariat was that this is a delicate
legal matter which should be looked at in the context of the
Convention, but that, in fact the proposed monitoring and
reporting system implies every five years an in-depth assessment
of the World Heritage values of the inscribed sites.
VI.15 A discussion developed on the most appropriate
terminology for monitoring and reporting. The Secretariat will
lock again into this matter in the context of the further
development of the proposals.
VI.16 The Director of the Centre confirmed the important role
of the advisory bodies in monitoring and reporting and in the
overall implementation of the Convention and thanked them for
their commitment and involvement in all aspects of World Heritage
work. He invited them to further collaborate in the refinement
of the proposals for monitoring and to coordinate monitoring
activities in the different regions of the world. The Director
also recognized that difficulties might arise in setting up the
regional monitoring programmes and in handling and processing the
continuous flow of information. He was confident, however, that
the regional approach would be an adequate response and proposed,
now that the pilot programme in Latin America is coming to an
end, to develop, for presentation to the eighteenth session of
the Committee, a regional monitoring plan for Asia, making full
use of the already existing and well-staffed UNESCO structure and
the specific capacities of the advisory bodies in that region.
VI.17 The Bureau requested the Centre, in collaboration with
other World Heritage partners, to consider the observations made
by the Bureau, to revise the proposals accordingly, to enter into
*[12]
consultation with States Parties and site-managers at the
occasion of regional and national World Heritage activities and
seminars, and to prepare final proposals, including a text for
inclusion in the Operational Guidelines for presentation to the
eighteenth session of the World Heritage Committee.
B. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
VI.18 The Bureau noted that the recommendations and
observations made by the Committee at its seventeenth session,
in Cartagena, Colombia, in December 1993, had been transmitted,
when appropriate, to the States Parties concerned and expressed
its satisfaction that, in many cases, a positive response was
received from the States Parties.
VI.19 The Bureau noted also with satisfaction that an
increased number of States Parties had taken the initiative to
present state of conservation reports on the World Heritage
properties on their territories. Reference was made particularly
to reports that had been presented or announced by Bulgaria,
Mexico, Norway and the Nordic Countries, Portugal and the United
Kingdom. The Bureau took note of these reports and commended the
States Parties' commitment to the preservation of the sites and
the reporting thereon to the Bureau and the Committee.
VI.20 As to (sub)regional monitoring programmes, the Bureau
noted that the Latin American pilot monitoring programme will be
concluded by the end of this year and that a Regional State of
the Cultural World Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean
will be presented to the eighteenth session of the World Heritage
Committee. The Bureau also took note of the UNEP Action Plan for
the Mediterranean which provides technical advice to a hundred
historical sites in the Mediterranean basin. The Coordinator of
this Action Plan provided the Bureau with detailed information
on six of these sites.
VI.21 The Bureau examined the working documents for this
agenda item, as well as additional information received from the
Secretariat, the advisory bodies and representatives of States
Parties to the Convention. The Bureau reviewed the state of
conservation of a great number of natural and cultural properties
on the World Heritage List and on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
Natural Properties
Natural Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed in 1983 and
placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992.
Furthermore, it noted that considerable discussion had taken
place both at the Committee and it's Bureau sessions regarding
the possible desisting of the site, and that IUCN reports on the
*[13]
status of the site indicating the degradation of its natural
values have been reviewed continuously since December 1991.
Furthermore, a report by wetland experts from the United States
National Park Service indicate that major effort is required to
restore the site. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the
Bulgarian Ministry for the Environment presented a report on
restoration efforts by the Bulgarian authorities from 1992 to
1994, including an extension from 600 to 902 ha, the elaboration
of an hydraulic system for Srebarna Lake and to review the re-
establishment of the links between the Lake and the Danube.
The Bureau took note of the report and commended the authorities
for their efforts. It decided, however, that the site should be
continuously monitored and that a detailed report on the site
should be given to the nineteenth session of the Bureau in 1995.
It was recommended that on behalf of the Bureau, the World
Heritage Centre should write to the appropriate authorities
stressing the need for maintaining a research/monitoring station
at Srebarna.
Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed in 1983 and added
to the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 due to threats
from poaching and a road construction. A field mission was
carried out in 1993 and a report was submitted to the seventeenth
session of the World Heritage Committee in December 1993. A
short up-date report has been provided by the IUCN Office in
Ecuador, indicating major restructuring of the park
administration and a reduction of personnel. Furthermore, the
Macas-Guamote road construction is progressing with no attention
being paid to the conditions of the inter-institutional
agreement. The Bureau decided to request the Centre to prepare
two letters, one to be signed by the Director-General of UNESCO
and the other by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee,
addressed to the Government of Ecuador, expressing the Bureau 's
above concerns.
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The Bureau took note that the Government of India finally
responded to the concerns of the World Heritage Committee and its
Bureau by letter dated 24 January 1994. However, the Bureau
showed continued concern with regard to the management of the
site, the increase in poaching and the continuous decline of this
World Heritage site in Danger. It therefore, endorsed
international assistance, if officially requested by the Indian
Government, and requested the Centre and IUCN to work closely
together with two non-governmental organizations, WWF-India and
the Swaminathan Foundation, to obtain a detailed monitoring
report on the state of conservation of the threatened site.
*[14]
Natural Properties on the World Heritage List
Shark Bay (Australia)
The Bureau was informed of a recent IUCN mission to the site
giving an account on (a) the implementation of the Commonwealth
and State Management Agreement which has been signed, but no
further action has been taken so far and (b) on the efforts to
achieve more effective conservation of the site, for which
improvements have been made.
The Bureau requested the Centre to write to the Australian
authorities informing them of its concerns and requesting that
an up-date on progress in implementing the Agreement be presented
to the next session of the Committee.
Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia)
The Bureau took note that several reports have been sent to the
Centre and Bureau members by the Wilderness Society concerning
Tasmania World Heritage site and the impact of logging operations
in areas adjacent to the current World Heritage area. By letter
of 22 March 1994, the Centre informed the Permanent Delegate of
Australia and requested a response from the Australian
authorities regarding this matter. The Observer from Australia
indicated that discussions between the Government and the State
of Tasmania are taking place at the moment. The Bureau requested
the Centre to follow-up and report back at its next session.
Willandra Lakes Region (Australia)
The Bureau was informed by IUCN of the first World Heritage
mission to this mixed site. The report indicated problems at the
site with landowner residents, aboriginal concerns as well as the
fact that no management plan has yet bean prepared. However, the
Commonwealth is taking up these issues and furthermore, a socio-
economic impact study is underway. IUCN suggested that all
authorities consider renominating the area under cultural
criteria and with a reduced boundary. The Observer of Australia
informed the Bureau that through the agreed management
arrangements for the site, a review of the boundaries is being
conducted by a Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee. The
results of this review will be conveyed to the World Heritage
Centre.
The Bureau took note of IUCN's suggestions that the Willandra
Lakes site be considered for a revised nomination based on
cultural criteria and that redefinition of the boundaries of the
site be considered. The World Heritage Centre was requested to
consult the Australian Government, ICOMOS, the International
Union of Geological Sciences and IUCN and to report back on the
findings to the Committee.
*[15]
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
The Bureau was informed that a fire broke out at Isabela Island
on 12 April 1994 and was discovered by a patrol boat of the
Galapagos National Park authorities. The fire combat was very
difficult, involving park personnel and both the army and the
navy. After one month the fire was under control, but 4,500 ha
were burnt. The giant tortoises are not at risk, but the
extinction danger remains. The authorities have received
emergency aid from the World Heritage Fund (US$ 50,000), UNESCO
(US$ 20,000) and several governments, NGOs and individual donors.
The Bureau took note of the report and recalled that the
extension of the marine reserve of the Galapagos Islands will be
discussed under the nomination section of this report.
Mount Athos (Greece)
The Bureau recalled that at its sixteenth session it noted
concern over increasing forestry activities at the site, however,
no mission was carried out. A recent report by WWF and the
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EPC) on the ecological
state of the site indicates serious threats, including
overgrazing, chemical pollution as well as a proposed hydrodam
construction. IUCN stressed the need for impact studies, a forest
management plan and a system of reserves. The Bureau took note
of the report and requested the Centre to write to the
appropriate authorities transmitting its concerns with regard to
the content of the afore-mentioned report. A report should be
requested from Greece for presentation to the eighteenth session
of the Committee.
Banc d'Arguin National Park (Mauritania)
The Bureau took note of the Centre's report on the Paris-Dakar
rally crossing the site, which had very little impact on the
ecological situation of the Park. IUCN reported on the plan to
capture six monk seals from the seal population of the park (100-
130) and move them to Antibes (Southern France) for captive
breeding. After some discussion on captive breeding experiences,
the Bureau requested that the propensity of the planned capture
operation be reported to the World Heritage Committee.
Te Wahipounamu (New Zealand)
The Bureau took note of the report by IUCN on the following
issues: (a) legal matters, in particular land claims and sacred
sites of the Maori people; (b) continued cattle grazing which has
an impact on the natural World Heritage values and should be
phased out, and (c) that the 1986 IUCN recommendation to include
the site of the coastal forest (Waitutu forest) in the World
Heritage area, was not taken up. Plans have been made by the
Maori owners to sell the land for logging operations.
*[16]
The Bureau requested the Centre to send a letter to the New
Zealand authorities transmitting the above concerns.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania)
The Bureau was again informed about the continuing illegal and
random cultivation at the site, and noted that no official
response had been received from the Tanzanian authorities,
although the Cultural Commissioner of Tanzania indicated that a
response would be sent to the Centre. The Bureau again expressed
its concern and asked the Centre to send a letter to the
authorities concerning the ongoing cultivation at site, and
requesting them to cooperate with the IUCN mission scheduled for
October 1994.
Thungyai Huai Eha Rhaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries (Thailand)
The Bureau was informed that a fire broke out at the site on 22
February 1994 in the buffer zone area and rapidly swept through
the site. A report by the Forest Fire Control and Rescue Division
of the Royal Forest Department in Bangkok indicated that fire
fighting was difficult, particularly in the mountain area of the
Sanctuary. It furthermore stated that the fire was completely
extinguished by 15 March 1994 and damage assessment revealed that
10,924 ha were burnt. The report noted that fire is a normal and
frequent occurrence at the site but generally it is not damaging.
The Bureau took note of the report and commended the Thai
authorities for submitting a detailed report which was
distributed at the Bureau session.
Yellowstone (United States of America)
The Delegate of the United States informed the Bureau about a
report concerning Yellowstone National Park, inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1978. The Park is faced with a proposed
mining project of a gold mine two miles north of the northeast
boundary of the site. The area concerned is both public and
private with 20% under the administration of the US Forest
Service. The mine would remove 56 acres of wetlands to build an
artificial lake and would call for construction of access roads
and housing for the workers. The economic value of the project
is estimated at US, 1 billion in recoverable gold, silver and
copper. The mine sits at the head of three drainages, one of
which, Soda Butte Creek, flows into the National Park. Thus,
potential threats would be the degradation of surface and ground
water, the changes in water quantity, as well as the displacement
of wildlife and other disturbances. The Delegate underlined that
the United States will keep the Committee and its Bureau informed
about further developments. The Observer from Canada stressed
that the Canadian Government will check about direct or indirect
Government-support for the parent company of the proposed mine.
*[17]
Mana Pools National Park, Sapi and Chowere Safari Areas
(Zimbabwe)
The Bureau was informed that the property was one of the most
important black rhino refuges at the date of inscription with a
population of 500. The ten remaining rhinos are being captured
and translocated for intensive protection. The site has never
received assistance from the World Heritage Fund to control
poaching.
The Bureau raised concern about this loss of one of the World
Heritage values of the site, and asked the Centre to work closely
together with CITES and IUCN to determine the lessons learned
from this unfortunate experience. This specific case could be
used to coordinate efforts by the World Heritage Convention and
the CITES Convention Secretariats.
Cultural Properties
Cultural Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Angkor (Cambodia)
Mr. Mounir Bouchenaki, Director of the Division of Physical
Heritage, recalled the recommendations made by the Committee at
the time of the inscription of the Angkor site on the World
Heritage List in December 1992, and informed the Bureau of the
latest action taken by the Director-General of UNESCO for the
safeguard of Angkor. The Director-General decided to give
additional support to the UNESCO Office in Cambodia, by assigning
Mr. Khamlične Nhouyvanisvong, former Acting Assistant Director-
General for External Relations, to the post of Director of this
Office, and also naming him Personal Representative of the
Director-General. Mr. Richard Engelhardt was called upon to
undertake new functions at UNESCO' s Regional Office for Asia and
the Pacific in Bangkok, as Regional Advisor for Culture. Mr.
Bouchenaki also informed the Bureau of the nomination of Mr.
Azedine Beschaouch to the post of Special Advisor to the
Assistant Director-General for Culture. However, Mr. Beschaouch
will continue to monitor the technical work for the safeguard of
Angkor in his capacity of Special Representative of the Director-
General.
Mrs. Minja Yang, who is responsible for the intersectoral
programmes for Cambodia and Chief of the Angkor Unit, was invited
to present the latest developments of the Zoning and
Environmental Management Plan (ZEMP). Mrs. Yang defined the
categories for the protection of the cultural sites which serve
as a basis for establishing the different zones at Angkor: i)
monumental sites; ii) protected archaeological reserves; iii)
protected cultural landscapes; iv) archaeological,
anthropological and historical points of interest. She stressed
the importance of taking into consideration the sociological,
touristic and economic aspects, with a view to integrated
sustainable develoPment in the region of Angkor.
*[18]
As complementary information on the zoning of the Angkor site,
Mr. Beschaouch presented the conclusions of his recent mission
to Cambodia. He stressed the fact that the International
Coordinating Committee for the Safeguarding and Development of
Angkor, which had been created during the Intergovernmental
Conference of Tokyo, and is co-chaired by France and Japan with
UNESCO ensuring the secretariat, had strictly observed the
recommendations of the World Heritage Committee. In this regard,
on the basis of proposals made by the "ZEMP", the Royal
Government of Cambodia, by a decree dated 4 June 1944 relating
especially to the zoning and management of the Angkor site,
defined a zone of safeguard, the total area of which (including
Angkor, Banteay Srei and Roluos) covers an area of 401 square
kilometers. Mr. Beschaouch added that, during the next
parliamentary session of the Kingdom of Cambodia, two legislative
texts relating to the protection of cultural property and the
administration of the Angkor site should be submitted for
examination to the National Assembly. He stressed the exemplary
effort of the Kingdom of Cambodia to set up a legal, legislative,
technical and administrative structure for the integrated
safeguarding of the site of Angkor.
Following this report, the Representative of ICOMOS expressed
satisfaction with the action undertaken during the last eighteen
months for the safeguarding of the site of Angkor and
congratulated the UNESCO Secretariat for its work. The Delegate
of Thailand proposed that a letter of congratulations be sent to
the Royal Government of Cambodia. The Delegate of Senegal, after
congratulating Mr. Beschaouch for his nomination at UNESCO,
endorsed that initiative.
The Bureau approved this proposal.
As complementary information, Mr. Beschaouch stressed the volume
and quality of the work undertaken by the French and Japanese
teams at Angkor. He indicated that the "WMF" had proposed, in
agreement with the Royal Government of Cambodia, to develop and
diversify its action. Finally, as concerns the database produced
with the "Integraph" software in the framework of the "GIS"
programme, he draw attention to the interest in converting this
data to the "SPANS" base, thanks especially to the collaboration
of "Parks Canada".
Timbuktu (Mali)
The three mosques of Djingareiber, Sankore and Sidi Yahia were
placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1990. These
properties are threatened by obvious, precise and imminent
dangers:
a) serious alteration of the mud construction materials
b) serious alteration of the structures
c) the climatic factor of desertification.
*[19]
The Bureau was informed of the content of the report, produced
in French, concerning the state of conservation of the three
mosques, by the UNESCO consultant. In 1990, this consultant
elaborated the proposal for the placing of the mosques on the
List of World Heritage in Danger, and in his present report he
noted that the situation was more or less the same as in 1990 and
that the mosques remained threatened by the dangers which were
identified at that time. The consultant also highlighted the
threats to the mosques during the annual maintenance work. This
work, which is coordinated by the religious authorities in
consultation with the management committees and the masons
attached to each mosque, is organized by means of an appeal for
donations of material and voluntary labour. The voluntary system
in force contributes to the rapid degradation of traditional
technology. The poor quality of the mud construction materials
("banco") prepared and applied each year by inexpert hands causes
water infiltration and attack by micro-organisms, and this
attempt at creating a protective coating for the building also
tends to weaken its structure.
The report recommends a method of intervention involving the
local population which, since the construction of the mosques,
has been responsible for their upkeep, thus perpetuating a living
religious culture. This method foresees the organization of a
pilot work site in a restricted zone of each mosque, to be
implemented in three stages:
1) preparation of a documented study recording all the stages
of the annual maintenance work, so as to clearly determine the
organization of the voluntary work sites;
2) identification, together with specialists, of the
appropriate additives and stabilisers for the "banco" of
Timbuktu:
3) organization of a pilot work site which should be entrusted
to a Mali architect assisted by municipal technicians. The
architect would also have the responsibility for defining a long-
term conservation programme taking account of the local
realities, whilst respecting and improving traditional
techniques.
The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to ask the Mali
authorities to prepare a report to be submitted to the eighteenth
session of the Committee, concerning follow-up action with regard
to the report of the UNESCO consultant. Considering the grave
situation of the city where insecurity abounds, and which is
threatened by the advance of the dunes, the World Heritage Centre
should define, together with the Mali authorities, appropriate
cooperative action to meet this situation.
Wieliczka Salt Mine (Poland)
During its present session, the Secretariat informed the Bureau
that this site, inscribed in 1978, continued to be threatened by
frequent floods. However, thanks to financial assistance from
*[20]
the European Union, the Polish authorities have at their disposal
the necessary pumping material to maintain a satisfactory level
of salubrity of the historic part of the mine.
Furthermore, Bureau members were informed that in 1991 the Polish
authorities prepared a humidity-level study, and that in 1993 the
data collected was examined during a seminar held in the United
States, which was attended by two Polish experts, thanks to
assistance from the World Heritage Fund. The seminar drew up
recommendations for the long-term conservation strategy of the
mine.
This strategy includes a project for ventilation and
dehumidification for which the purchase of equipment amounting
to US$ 156,000 is necessary. In the coming months, the Polish
authorities may present a request for technical cooperation from
the World Heritage Fund for partial financial support for the
purchase of this equipment.
The Bureau took note of this information with satisfaction, and
the World Heritage Centre will be kept informed of the different
stages of this project.
Cultural properties on the World Heritage List
Butrinti (Albania)
The Coordinator of the MAP/UNEP "100 historical sites" programme
presented this archaeological site inscribed in 1992, which is
immerged below 1.50m of water due to subsidence. However, the
maintenance work there is being carried out in a satisfactory
manner by the Archaeological Institute of the Department of
Antiquities, in spite of the lack of human and financial
resources. The Bureau was informed of the wish of the Albanian
authorities to create a natural and cultural archaeological park.
To accomplish this, the Hydrology Institute of Tirana has
prepared a study in order to identify the causes of subsidence.
Consequently, the Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to
write to the Albanian authorities requesting information on the
following:
- specific legislation for the site
- results of the study prepared by the Hydrology
Institute
- progress made in the programme for the protection and
management of the site;
- the advisability of setting up a committee of
international experts to work together with the
archaeological missions working at the site.
The World Heritage Centre will transmit this information, if
received, to the Committee.
*[21]
Great Wall; Imperial Palace of the Ming and Qing Dynasties;
Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor; Mogao Caves; Peking Man Site
at Zhoukoudian (China)
The Bureau was informed about the results of a World Heritage
Centre monitoring mission to the existing five cultural World
Heritage Sites in China, namely the Great Wall, the Imperial
Palace of the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the Mausoleum of the First
Qin Emperor, the Mogao Caves and the Peking Man Site at
Zhoukoudian. The mission had been generally impressed with the
standard of maintenance of Chinese World Heritage sites and the
professionalism of the staff responsible for them. Nevertheless,
the mission had been able to raise specific technical issues with
the State Bureau of Cultural Relics and other responsible
authorities in China, in particular the need for training in
techniques for the conservation of ruined stonework, the
conservation of earthen structures, the conservation of marble,
new jointing techniques for timber conservation, the conservation
of wall paintings, computer-assisted recording of standing
monuments and geophysical archaeological recording techniques.
The mission had pointed out that monitoring was a two-way process
and that the representatives of the state party whose sites were
being monitored could often provide invaluable technical
information which was relevant to World Heritage sites in other
countries. With regard to the management of World Heritage sites
in China, the report dealt with tourist facilities, visitor
pressures and intrusive structures in the World Heritage sites,
a number of them erected since inscription.
The Representative of China expressed his thanks for the work of
the mission and explained that a number of the technical points
raised by the mission had also bean matters of concern for
Chinese experts, about which the State Bureau of Cultural Relics
was already in contact with provincial and other responsible
authorities. China was attempting to ensure that conservation
work conformed to accepted international standards. He said that
cultural heritage was of increasing public interest in China,
which made the work of the mission particularly useful. He
welcomed the fact that the mission had been able to clear up a
number of misunderstandings about plans for the Mogao Caves, for
which there had bean concern both within and without China. He
locked forward to the results of the mission being made available
in the form of a written report.
In response to a request made by the Representative of Thailand,
the Director of the World Heritage Centre stated that he would
liaise with the Chinese authorities and the members of the
mission in the hope that its results could be made available in
time for the next meeting of the Bureau. He looked forward to
a follow up in the form of further liaison between the Centre and
the Chinese authorities and reported that he had already received
requests for technical assistance in connection with the training
needs identified by the mission.
*[22]
Roman and Romanesque Monuments of Arles (France)
The MAP/UNEP Coordinator of the "100 historical sites" Programme
emphasized the exemplary character of the conservation measures.
He reported on the considerable financial support from the
Municipality, and he briefly outlined the "Safeguard Plan for the
Enhancement of the Safeguarded Sector of Arles". He also
mentioned the plan for preventive action to combat atmospheric
pollution to conserve the Primatiale Saint-Trophime. This
project, partially financed by the World Monument Fund, has
elaborated a 24-hour surveillance system which can detect and
forecast atmospheric changes.
The Observer of Germany expressed his satisfaction with the work
accomplished, and suggested that the French and German
specialists involved in the conservation of the stone could
exchange their observations and experiences.
The Bureau noted with satisfaction of the considerable efforts
undertaken by the State and the Municipality, and reiterated
their exemplary character.
Hanseatic City of Lubeck (Germany)
The Bureau was informed of the outcome of an ICOMOS mission which
visited Lubeck in May 1994 to discuss problems arising from the
development plans for the city centre. The Bureau recommended
that the authorities in Lubeck be encouraged to revise its
heritage protection legislation so as to allow sufficient time
for the proper investigation of the city's rich archaeological
heritage and to implement measures to make the important
archaeological and artistic discoveries accessible to the general
public. It also recommended that the authorities should seek the
assistance of an experienced international planning consultancy
in the preparation of an integrated development strategy which
reconciles the competing objectives of heritage conservation,
tourism and economic growth.
Delos (Greece)
This archaeological site, inscribed in 1990 and excavated since
the 19th century, continues to suffer from violent winds, high
humidity and the sea. Conservation work has not bean carried out
systematically after each excavation campaign, and the site
museum is too small. Moreover, the personnel responsible for the
surveillance of the site appear to be insufficient. Furthermore,
it seems that pastures close to the archaeological site have bean
rented to the Municipality of Myknos for grazing land.
*[23]
The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to ask the Greek
authorities for precise information on the possibility of a
concession of grazing land close to the-archaeological site, and
the action they would be obliged to take to ensure the
conservation of Delos.
Pythagoreion and Heraion of Samos (Greece)
This site, which was inscribed in 1992, is threatened by the
expansion of activities linked with tourism. The avenues and
surrounding area of the archaeological site are threatened by
urbanism and the construction of hotel complexes. Moreover, the
archaeological site is subject to vibrations from the nearby
airport which now accommodates large carriers, and for which an
extension is planned.
The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to request the
Greek authorities to ensure that the Antiquities Law is strictly
observed, so as to limit threats weighing on the site due to
tourist development activities and notably the construction of
hotels in the zone of Pythagoreion. In view of the danger caused
by increased air traffic, the authorities should be requested to
halt possible plans to extend the airport and preferably to
identify a more appropriate site.
Piazza del Duomo, Pisa (Italy)
This site was inscribed in 1987. The MAP/UNEP Coordinator of the
100 historical sites" Programme informed the Bureau that the
Technical and Scientific Committee created in 1988 and which was
responsible for evaluating the security of the Tower of Pisa, did
remarkable work. A series of enquiries, measures and studies
were undertaken to obtain information on all the physico-
mechanical characteristics of the substratum, and to make various
hypotheses of structural evolution. The intervention approved
by the Technical Committee in the spring of 1992 necessitated the
development of a numerical model of finite elements of the
substratum and the structure. The Committee retained the
solution to reduce the inclination of the tower by 1/2 degree.
The Bureau noted with satisfaction this information.
Pétra (Jordan)
The Bureau expressed concern following the report presenting the
different threats to the integrity of the site of Pétra,
especially with regard to:
24
1) the serious impact of some ten new hotels planned or
under construction, both on the visitor capacity of the site,
their visibility from the site and the disproportion of several
of them in relation to the village habitations, the destruction
of archaeological vestiges which they cause, pollution and soil
erosion;
2) the negative impact of the pumping station planned for
Wadi Musa and its new hotels;
3) the risks caused to the site by projects for the
development of residential zones such as those included in the
master plan of Wadi Musa, as well as the absence of building
specifications and building height restrictions;
4) the necessity of applying existing legislation governing
businesses, especially in the proximity of the monuments of the site;
5) the necessity of ensuring proper conservation of the
vestiges of the Temple of the Lion and the sculptured blocks
scattered throughout the site.
The Bureau agreed to a contribution from the World Heritage Fund
to organize, together with the Jordanian authorities, a select
meeting of experts at the site to implement the master plan of
the site of Pétra as quickly as possible, and to take the
necessary measures to ensure by all possible means the
preservation of the values of the site.
Quseir Amra (Jordan)
The Bureau expressed concern with the lack of general maintenance
of the site, especially the lack of permanent and effective
surveillance. It requested the World Heritage Centre to request
the Jordanian authorities to take the necessary measures to
ensure the satisfactory maintenance and management of the site.
World Heritage sites in Mexico
The Observer of Mexico informed the Bureau that the Mexican
National Institute for Anthropology and History (INAH) prepared
state of conservation reports on the ten cultural and natural
sites that were inscribed on the World Heritage List until 1992.
He emphasized that Mexico has taken this initiative as it feels
that it is an integral element of the implementation of the World
Heritage Convention in the country and that it is one of the
obligations of the States Parties to the Convention to report on
the state of conservation of the sites and on the actions taken
by them to ensure their adequate protection and conservation. The
Observer announced that the report is now available in Spanish
and that a translation into English and/or French is forthcoming.
The Bureau thanked the Mexican authorities for this initiative
and requested the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to evaluate
the report for presentation to the eighteenth session of the
World Heritage Committee.
*[25]
Puebla (Mexico)
The Bureau recalled that the case of Puebla was briefly discussed
at the seventeenth session of the Committee. The Secretariat
informed the Bureau that since then, it continued to receive
letters and reports from individuals, associations and
organizations on the rehabilitation plan for Puebla, particularly
the so-called Rio San Francisco area.
A report was received on 28 March 1994 from the Mexican National
Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) that a regional
development programme called ANGELOPOLIS is in preparation for
an area of the State of Puebla including 14 municipalities and
35% of the population of the State of Puebla. It also reported
that in the context of this regional development plan an urban
rehabilitation project is planned for the Rio San Francisco area
in Puebla which would include the development of a pedestrian
area and the construction of hotels, a convention centre and
commercial areas. The report re-affirmed the statement made by
the Delegate of Mexico at the seventeenth session of the
Committee, namely that to date no concrete proposals exist for
the area concerned. It confirmed, however, that the proposal in
Puebla would concern 27 of the 391 building blocks within the
World Heritage site. The report stressed that the National
Institute would create a special commission to evaluate future
projects for this area.
The Bureau was also informed that the Director-General of UNESCO
decided, at the request of the Governor of Puebla, to send an
expert to Puebla to advise the municipal and state authorities
on the rehabilitation plans. This mission was undertaken in early
June by an architect/urbanist from the University of Venice.
The draft mission report, which was received only a few days
before the Bureau session and which includes an analysis of the
urban structure and morphology of the historic centre of Puebla,
concludes that the projected intervention would be valid in the
sense that it would upgrade an area now partially abandoned and
would re-establish the visual and functional links between the
eastern and the western parts of the centre, but that the
structure and morphology of the area should be maintained and
reinforced, and should form the basis for future plans.
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that as a follow-up to the
mission a request for technical assistance had been presented by
the Government of Mexico to obtain the services of the expert who
undertook the mission, for advice and guidance in the further
development of the plans.
The Representative of ICOMOS informed the Bureau that it also had
tried to examine the situation in Puebla through its national
committee, but that it had not succeeded. He offered, however,
ICOMOS' services and expertise in the evaluation of the expert
mission report and the information received from the Mexican
authorities.
*[26]
The Bureau decided that at this point it could not form a clear
opinion on the plans for Puebla and requested the World Heritage
Centre and ICOMOS to evaluate the reports and to report in more
detail to the eighteenth session of the Committee.
Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
The current state of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site had
been the cause of apprehension since 1992 and had already
appeared on the agenda of a number of meetings of the Bureau and
of the World Heritage Committee. The Bureau was informed of the
conclusions of the joint UNESCO/ICOMOS Review Mission of 14-30
November 1993, which had recommended that the site be placed on
the List of World Heritage in Danger and returned to the World
Heritage List within a period of one to three years, after
sixteen specific matters of concern had been met. It was
explained that the World Heritage site consists of seven distinct
monument zones, three of them urban, centered round the palaces
of the cities of Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur, and the
remainder, two Buddhist and two Hindu shrines, which had formerly
been in rural surroundings. The mission report had recommended
the effective desisting of parts of the Kathmandu Darbar Square
and Bauddhanath monument zones, following a general failure to
control development, but an extension of the monument zones of
Swayambunath, Patan and particularly Bhaktapur, which was now the
only Newari city to retain its overall traditional character.
It was pointed out that the Hindu shrine of Pashupati, although
part of the World Heritage site, had never been afforded the
protection of being gazetted as a protected monument area in
Nepalese law.
The mission report illustrated examples of demolition,
encroachment, traffic pressure, the unsympathetic introduction
of modern services and conservation practices which did not
conform to accepted international standards. UNESCO had
undertaken a number of initiatives, including plans for technical
training and an advisory mission on amendments to the Nepalese
Ancient Monuments Preservation Act. ICOMOS had plans for a
professional seminar in October 1994.
The Representative of Thailand stated that it was important to
judge the degree to which the site had deteriorated and whether
it was now worthy of being included in the World Heritage List.
The Nepalese State Party should be made aware of the Bureau' s
concerns and informed that, if the situation was not remedied,
steps to delist the site would be initiated. He suggested that,
rather than desisting part of the monument zones, that the State
Party should be asked to redefine the areas which constitute the
World Heritage site. The Representative of the United States
concurred in these sentiments. The German Observer highlighted
the importance of concentrating efforts on the core areas, where
the best results could be achieved, rather than on peripheral
areas which might still be part of the monument zones but in
which traditional buildings had since been demolished and
replaced with concrete-framed structures.
*[27]
ICOMOS argued that the matter was an extremely delicate one,
which could be approached from a number of standpoints. It would
be possible to suggest that in the spirit of the World Heritage
Convention, the site should be placed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger, but Nepalese opposition to such a move might
make it self-defeating. He emphasized that it was important to
do what was best for the site, which should be in cooperation
with the Nepalese authorities to try and resolve outstanding
difficulties. The Representative of Senegal also proposed a new
approach which would enable the Nepalese to be more protective
towards the World Heritage Site and argued that the State Party
should be made fully aware of the Bureau 's concerns with regard
to violations of the articles of the World Heritage Convention.
The Director of the Centre endorsed the idea of redefinition of
the monument zones but proposed that, rather than the site being
placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, it would be more
constructive if a package of assistance to the Nepalese could be
developed which would enable them to act as more effective
guardians of the World Heritage site in cooperation with UNESCO
and other relevant agencies. He would be contacting his
colleagues in the Division of Physical Heritage to develop more
concrete proposals.
The Chairperson summarized the discussion, to the effect that a
letter should be sent to the State Party expressing the Bureau' s
deep concern about the state of the Kathmandu Valley World
Heritage site. The Bureau recommends to the Committee to
envisage partial desisting and redefinition of the part still
intact and qualifying as World Heritage, which should be placed
on the List of World in Danger to bring particular attention to
the need to avoid further deterioration. At the same time,
UNESCO is asked to work out an international assistance project.
Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation)
The Bureau was informed of the considerable improvements for site
conservation and management in the two years since the initial
mission. These improvements were achieved with the support of
the Canadian Government. The Bureau noted with satisfaction that
ICOMOS will provide a detailed report to the Committee session
in December, including a long-term assessment of conservation
Problems at the site for the decade to come.
Island of Gorée (Senegal)
This property inscribed in 1978 was also the subject of an
International Campaign of UNESCO. The Coordinator of the
MAP/UNEP "100 historical sites" Programme presented the results
of the studies and restoration work carried out since 1965. The
evaluation would indicate that a number of buildings have been
preserved and conserved, however the island's problems of socio-
economic and development have yet to be resolved. Restoration
*[28]
work is no longer sufficient; the needs of the population struck
by unemployment must be considered. Actions to create employment
to allow the population to remain on the island need to be
promoted and coordinated with the National Committee for the
Safeguarding of Gorse. This action especially concerns:
- protection of the shores
- revision of the sanitation system
- improvement of the public lighting system
- development and repair of grounds and streets
- installation of an incinerator
- organization of a handicraft sector
- development of cultural activities, especially the possibility
of producing a "son et lumičre" show, a spectacle which would be
presented during the entire tourist season.
The Bureau took note of this information, and of the numerous
supporting agencies (European Union, World Bank, France, Germany,
UNESCO etc.) which finance projects on the island.
Burgos Cathedral (Spain)
In December 1993, on the occasion of the seventeenth session of
the World Heritage Committee in Cartagena, it was reported that
information from local and national authorities in Spain
confirmed the setting-up of a multidisciplinary advisory council
(Building Committee) which had drafted a Master Plan setting out
the priorities for restoration and all other work on Burgos
Cathedral.
ICOMOS confirmed to the Bureau that the issue of coordinating
actions and respective roles with regard to the Cathedral have
now been solved. The Ministry of Culture, the Regional
Government of Castille and Leon, and the Chapter of the Cathedral
have signed an agreement for the implementation of emergency
restoration measures. It provides for the restoration of the
towers, spires, ridges, part of the altars, and the stained glass
windows, as well as the solving of problems caused by humidity.
The Bureau congratulated the various Spanish organizations
involved on the actions taken in the conservation of Burgos
Cathedral. At the same time, however, it expressed a desire to
see those components of the total project which are still under
negotiation put into effect with the minimum delay.
For its part, ICOMOS informed the Bureau that it will
continue, through its National Committee, to monitor the progress
of the project and will report further to later meetings of the
World Heritage Committee and Bureau, if needed.
Old City of Damascus (Syrian Arab Republic)
The Bureau was informed that, in accordance with the
recommendations of UNESCO's expert mission carried out in
*[29]
December 1993, a working meeting was held at Headquarters on 31
May 1994, with the Delegate of the Syrian Arab Republic to UNESCO
and the national authorities in charge of the conservation of the
cultural heritage.
A work plan for this site was thus prepared which will be
financed through the US$ 19,500 accorded by the Chairperson of
the World Heritage Committee in 1992. A technological
partnership has been set up by UNESCO with the Electricity of
France which will provide one or two experts in hydrogeology, and
thus make substantial savings. A contract for the use of the
balance of the US$ 19,500 is being prepared with the Syrian
Ministry of Culture. The Bureau noted with satisfaction the
progress made on this project.
Site of Palmyra (Syrian Arab Republic)
The Bureau was informed that, in accordance with the
recommendations of UNESCO' s expert mission carried out in
December 1993, a working meeting was held at Headquarters on 31
May 1994, with the Delegate of the Syrian Arab Republic to UNESCO
and the national authorities in charge of the conservation of the
cultural heritage.
The World Heritage Centre was thus informed that the Syrian
authorities are currently preparing a global project to safeguard
and develop the city of Palmyra, for which a contribution to the
national financial efforts will be requested from the Committee
at its eighteenth session in December 1994, inasmuch as all the
components of this global plan will have been defined. The
Bureau noted with satisfaction the progress made on this project.
Göreme National Park and the rock sites of Cappadocia (Turkey)
The Bureau was informed that the Proceedings of the International
Seminar on the Preservation of the Rock Churches of Göreme, which
was held at the site from 5 to 11 September 1993 with the support
of the World Heritage Fund, are currently under publication at
ICCROM, in close collaboration with the Turkish authorities in
charge of conservation. The World Heritage Fund provided US$
10,000 to finance this publication. The Bureau took note of this
information
Pueblo de Taos (United States of America)
The Delegate of the United States of America recalled that the
Committee at its seventeenth session expressed its concern about
plans for the extension of the Taos Airport, as this would pose
a potential threat to this World Heritage site.
The Delegate informed the Bureau that the National Park Service
has been in close and continuous consultations with Pueblo's
Governing Council, attorneys representing the Pueblo interests
*[30]
and with the responsible federal agency, (Federal Aviation
Administration), and that it is of the opinion that full
consultation and assessment procedures to evaluate effects on
historic structures, as required by Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, apply to this case. The National Park
Service has requested the status of a cooperating agency in the
environmental impact assessment. This request is pending a
decision. The National Park Service believes that this airport
project may have significant effects of noise and vibrations on
the historic, archaeological and architectural features of
Pueblo, and that the traditional living culture of the Pueblo may
also be impacted by the increased air traffic and associated
transportation and community development projects.
The Delegate informed the Bureau that the United States of
America will provide a more complete report to the next Committee
meeting.
Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites (United Kingdom)
This site which was inscribed in 1986 is threatened by the path
of the A303 motorway through the southern part of the site. At
the request of the Observer of the United Kingdom, a
communication prepared by the concerned authorities was brought
to the attention of the Bureau. Two proposals for the
organization of the site will be discussed on 8 July 1994 at a
meeting organized by The English Heritage and the National Trust,
in which the representatives of the Ministry of Transportation
and international experts will participate. The first foresees
the construction of a tunnel which would be dug under the site.
The second foresees the creation of an access bridge for visitors
at the eastern end of the site which would be linked to an
observation station on the top of the hill dominating Stonehenge.
The first option is by far the most costly.
The Bureau took note of this information and expressed the wish
that a satisfactory project could be undertaken as soon as
possible.
VI.22 Concluding the examination of the proposals for
systematic monitoring and the great number of site specific state
of conservation reports, several delegates noted the increased
number of state of conservation reports, which, if a systematic
monitoring programme would be set up, would increase even further
and require more time for discussion at the Bureau and Committee
sessions. They also noted the different approaches applied by the
Secretariat and the advisory bodies and suggested an improved and
advanced planning of monitoring missions and reports.
VI.23 Both IUCN and ICOMOS made the suggestion that the
ordinary session of the Bureau in July of each year concentrates
on the examination of the nominations for inscription on the
World Heritage List, and that the extraordinary session in
December would be dedicated to monitoring the state of
*[31]
conservation of the already inscribed World Heritage sites. The
Delegates of the United States of America and Thailand, however,
pointed out that the Bureau 's recommendations on specific sites
may also be required at the July session and that these, in many
cases, have a decisive influence in the decision-making process.
It was concluded that those cases on which a recommendation from
the Bureau is required, would also be brought forward to the July
session, but that information and 'success stories' would be
presented to the December session of the Bureau and the
Committee.
VI.24 The Director of the World Heritage Centre stressed the
value of regular consultative meetings with the advisory bodies
for enhanced coordination of World Heritage work.
VII. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR TRAINING PROVIDED UNDER THE
WORLD HERITAGE FUND: REVIEW, EVALUATION AND STRATEGY
Introduction
VII.1 The Bureau recalled that during the seventeenth session
of the Committee there was considerable discussion regarding
several international assistance requests that had been submitted
for financing under the World Heritage Fund. The Committee
therefore asked the World Heritage Centre to prepare for the
eighteenth session of the Bureau a proposal on the evaluation of
international assistance projects which had received
contributions from the World Heritage Fund. The preparatory work
for such an evaluation, covering in particular the last five
years (1988-1992), has already begun.
VII.2 The Bureau, having recalled that training is a vital and
integral part of the World Heritage Convention (Articles 5, 22
and 23) and its Operational Guidelines (paragraphs 87 to 91),
welcomed the Centre's initiative to present a preliminary review
of the training activities undertaken within the framework of the
World Heritage Convention. In this context, the Bureau underlined
that training is primarily the obligation of the States Parties.
Their lack of commitment in this regard, however, manifests
itself through insufficient infrastructural investment,
institutional development and international assistance for
training in many developing countries.
VII.3 The Secretariat stressed its intention of undertaking an
in-depth evaluation of its training activities before defining,
with its partners, a strategic planning process in order to
encourage a pro-active attitude. The outline submitted to the
Bureau aimed at informing it of the most relevant facts
concerning training, which are:
- assessment of the funding disbursed to the Centre's
partners in the period from 1988 to 1992:
*[32]
- identification of the nature and the periodicity of
the courses;
- identification, by region, of the beneficiaries of
fellowships.
Review and assessment of natural heritage training activities
(1988-1992)
VII.4 It was underlined that training concepts have undergone
major changes in the last twenty years. This is particularly true
in the case of training of protected area managers, as the
objectives and principles of protected area management, and the
definitions of national parks and other reserves, have changed
considerably. There has been a shift to an interdisciplinary
approach rather than to traditional natural sciences. Moreover,
there has been a need to focus training courses more on the
conceptual approaches to management, biodiversity status of the
protected areas and the monitoring of the state of conservation.
VII.5 Training under the natural part of the Convention can
be distinguished thematically into three different groups:
(1) wildlands, wildlife and game management
(2) biology, ecology and conservation
(3) protected area management.
Two types of training courses have been supported under the Fund,
group training, which became the major part and individual
training as fellowships financed from the World Heritage Fund.
VII.6 The group training courses (461 courses from 1988 to 1992)
ranged from in situ training at natural World Heritage sites to
regional and sub-regional workshops on natural resources
conservation and management, as well as some specialized
workshops. The training workshops were held in practically all
regions of the world, however, cooperation developed over the
years with several specialized training institutes and
organizations, such as CATIE (Costa Rica), ENGREF (France),
Colorado State University, Smithsonian Institution (USA), Dehra
Dun (India). Protected area management courses included the
large majority of the short-term training courses over the last
five years.
VII.7 The main partners for training under the natural part
of the Convention providing long-term training courses
(fellowships) for 12 to 24 months for selected students are the
School for Training of Wildlife Specialists (Garoua, Cameroon)
and the Collage of African Wildlife Management (Mweka, Tanzania),
both of which focus mostly on wildlife and protected area
management. The discussion focused on the outcome of the
training courses for the protection of World Heritage sites and
that for an in-depth analysis the Schools (Garoua and Mweka)
should be involved, as well as other course organizers. In
total, 37 individual fellowships for short- or long-term training
were granted from 1988 to 1992.
*[33]
VII.8 The review by the Centre emphasized some shortcomings
in the selection of candidates, the outcome of the courses as
well as communication between the course organizers and the World
Heritage Centre concerning the content of the training activity.
Action by the Bureau
VII.9 The Bureau approved US$30,000 for a workshop to be held
in 1994-1995 with a selected number of experts, specialists and
key individuals, including agreement by the schools, to review
the curricula of the courses, management objectives as well as
the outcome of the courses. The Bureau asked that the Centre
submit the evaluation findings as well as recommendations by the
experts for a future training strategy for natural heritage to
the World Heritage Committee.
Review and assessment of cultural heritage training activities
(1988-1992)
VII.10 The outcome of the preliminary analysis for the
cultural part is still general but can be summarized as follows:
42 fellowships out of 56 were awarded to trainees who
attended ICOMOS and IBPC courses;
10 in-situ courses were organized at the request of States
Parties;
the total expenditure for training in the cultural domain
for the past five years amounts approximately to US$ 1
million;
all regional needs were far from being covered.
The Centre's partners are ICCROM and the Brazilian Institute for
Cultural Heritage in Bahia, Brazil (IBPC).
It was also stated that the World Heritage Centre not only needs
to refine its analysis but to discuss with its partners the
content and impact of each course and examine emerging needs in
that field. Greater diversity in courses is required and
training packages need to be renewed and strengthened. Curricula
and training modules will have, in certain instances, to be
redefined or adapted to cover specific regional needs. Reference
was also made to the more general question of monitoring and to
the twin issues of conservation and site management which need
to be addressed
VII.11 The Representative of ICCROM underlined that the
strategic planning process currently being undertaken by ICCROM
to understand current training needs at the international,
regional and national levels and in order to better redefine its
curricula, were in line with the World Heritage Centre's
objectives. ICCROM and the Centre have a common purpose and
share the same approach. The Bureau was informed of the
evaluation exercise being undertaken by ICCROM, which has sent
*[34]
questionnaires to all the participants of their courses in order
to assess their long-term benefits.
VII.12 The ICCROM Representative then briefly introduced the
regular ICCROM courses which take place in their premises, in
Rome, (architectural conservation, mural paintings, science and
technology of conservation) and referred to the "new" in situ
courses which will be organized in the coming months for the
Maghreb, the Baltic, and the Central Asian countries and focus
on the philosophy and ethic of conservation. He also referred
to the summer course on Conservation Management of World Heritage
Historic Ensembles which is taking place at Potsdam "Sans Souci"
which will cover the training needs of Eastern and Central
European site managers and address the issues of site management
and conservation. He stressed that these new training packages
were being defined after completing inventories of needs and
assessments of resources on a regional and sub-regional basis.
VII.13 The ICCROM Representative underlined the need for
different approaches for international courses which put the
emphasis on methodology and use of comparative analyses; while
regional courses promote the creation of professional networks
and the exchange of technical information. On the other hand,
national courses are usually meant to address specific
administrative questions and more detailed issues of
conservation.
VII.14 The Delegate of Thailand stressed the importance of
inviting foreign participants to in-situ courses in order to
enhance the learning process and better promote the exchange of
information.
Action by the Bureau
VII.15 The Bureau approved US$30,000 for the organization of
a workshop to be held in 1994-1995 with a selected number of the
Centre's training partners in the field of the conservation and
preservation of the cultural heritage, key individuals and
colleagues from UNESCO' s Secretariat to provide a sound basis for
a fresh strategy. The Bureau asked the Centre to submit the
overall evaluation findings as well as recommendations for a
future training strategy to the World Heritage Committee.
VIII. EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD
HERITAGE LIST AND THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
VIII.1 The Bureau examined the nominations of 11 natural
properties. of which two were extensions of already inscribed
sites). The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe six of
them, recommended not to inscribe one site, referred three
*[35]
nominations back to the States Parties concerned for further
information and deferred one nomination.
VIII.2 The Bureau also examined the nomination of 26 cultural
properties, of which two were extensions of already inscribed
sites. The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe 14
properties, not to inscribe two properties, referred four
nominations back to the States Parties concerned for further
information and deferred six nominations.
VIII.3 The Bureau did not examine the two natural sites
submitted by Congo, as an IUCN field inspection of the site had
been postponed due to circumstances beyond the control of IUCN.
VIII.4 Furthermore, the Secretariat provided information
received on four natural World Heritage sites, which were
deferred by previous sessions of the Bureau.
Natural Properties
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on
the World Heritage List
Name of Identifi- State Party Criteria
Property cation having submitted
No. the nomination in
accordance with
Article 11 of the
Convention
Australian 698 Australia N (i) (ii)
Fossil sites
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe a modified
version of the site as Riversleigh/Naracoorte Fossil site,
excluding the site of Murgon until its significance can be more
convincingly demonstrated. The Bureau noted that Riversleigh
provides outstanding examples of middle to late Tertiary mammal
assemblages and one of the world's richest Oligo-Miocene mammal
records in a continent whose mammalian history has been most
isolated and distinctive, whereas Naracoorte preserved
outstanding terrestrial vertebrates and illustrates faunal change
spanning two ice ages.
The Bureau furthermore underlined that the inscription of the
fossil sites is a new challenge, as there are only very few sites
with fossil values on the list and that this inscription is a
major precedent for the Committee.
*[36]
Tatshenshini- 72bis/rev. Canada/USA N (ii) (iii)
Alsek Provincial (iv)
Wilderness Park
(extension of the
Glacier Bay/Wrangell/
St. Elias/Kluane site)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this as an
extension to the Glacier Bay/Wrangell/St. Elias/Kluane World
Heritage site. The site comprises spectacular river and high
mountain scenery and a diversity of wildlife (genetically viable
population of grizzly bears) and fish, as well as outstanding
examples of geological and geomorphological processes.
The Bureau furthermore commended the Government of British
Columbia on the action taken to prevent mining in the area and
it complemented the government agencies involved in moving
towards the establishment of an International Advisory Council
and endorsed, in principle, the 19th IUCN General Assembly
Resolution concerning the area. The Bureau underlined that any
decision made by the Committee would not prejudice the land
claims over the area by the First Nation people (Champagne-
Aishihik). The Delegate of the United States emphasized that
proposals for a less cumbersome name for the expanded site such
as "St. Elias Mountain Parks" are the prerogative of the States
Parties. This statement was endorsed by the Observer of Canada
and concurred with by IUCN.
Los Katios 711 Colombia N (ii) (iv)
National Park
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this site,
which adjoins Darien World Heritage site in Panama, and which
represents a rich biota comprising elements of both the North and
the South American continent, embodying a centre of endemism for
flora and fauna. Los Katios displays exceptional biodiversity and
provides the habitat for a number of threatened animal and plant
species. The Bureau commended both the Colombian and the
Panamanian Governments for the bilateral cooperative management
agreement and recommended that the site be inscribed as a
transfrontier site with Darien National Park (Panama).
Donana National 685 Spain N (ii) (iii)
Park (iv)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site which
contains an exceptional example of a large Mediterranean wet land
site with diverse habitats of marshes, forests, pristine beaches,
dunes and lagoons which contain a high faunal diversity,
particularly for its ornithological values.
The Bureau furthermore complemented the Spanish authorities on
the improved protection of the site during the past two years and
their efforts to maintain the integrity of the site. It noted,
*[37]
however, continuing threats to the integrity of the hydrological
system and therefore encouraged the Spanish authorities in their
on-going efforts to restore disturbed parts of the park and to
report back on progress with the European Union project in 1998.
Bwindi 682 Uganda N (iii) (iv)
Impenetrable
National Park
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site which
has one of the richest faunal communities in East Africa,
including almost half of the world's mountain gorillas, and one
of the most important forests for mountain butterflies and birds.
It furthermore commended the Government of Uganda as well as the
donors on their efforts to obtain international funding for the
establishment of a model management regime.
Rwenzori 684 Uganda N (iii) (iv)
Mountains
National Park
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site,
which is also known as "Mountains of the Moon", for their
aesthetic and scenic values as well as for their significance as
the habitat of threatened species and the exceptional variety of
species within the extraordinary altitudal range of the Park.
B. Properties which the Bureau did not recommend for
inscription on the World Heritage List
Murchison Falls 683 Uganda
National Park
The Bureau recognized Murchison Falls as an important natural
phenomena and as a habitat of elephants, giraffes and Nile
crocodile. The Bureau felt, however, that it has been
significantly degraded and does not now meet World Heritage
criteria and therefore did not recommend the site for
inscription. It commended the Government of Uganda and the GTZ
for their efforts to restore the site.
C. Properties for which nominations were referred back to the
national authorities for further information
Galapagos Marine 1bis Ecuador
Resource Reserve
(extension of the
Galapagos Islands)
The Bureau recognized the outstanding universal significance of
the Galapagos Marine Reserve as an extension to the Galapagos
*[38]
Islands World Heritage site. Its marine environment has been
recognized as a distinct biotic province including 307 species
of fish (51 endemic) and large numbers of dolphins, whales, sea
lions and fur seals, sharks, rays and turtles.
The Bureau, however, noted that the management plan for the
marine part is not being implemented and requested the Centre to
prepare a letter to the national authorities under the
Chairperson's signature, requesting the confirmation of the
following commitments and evidence of progress concerning the
management of the marine reserve: (1) augment the management
capacity (2) encourage institutional cooperation (3) step up
enforcement activities to ensure the integrity of the marine
reserve and (4) conduct research on the sustainability levels of
fishing.
It took note of severe management problems of the area including
illegal sea cucumber fishing and other human-related stresses on
the marine resources. Discussion focused also on the possibility
by the Committee to nominate the site directly to the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
Glacier and 354rev. Canada/USA
Waterton National
Parks
The Bureau recalled that it referred the site back to the
authorities in 1986 and noted that the revised nomination
included, as requested, the Waterton National Park. However, it
did not provide any sufficient additional information which
distinguished it from other similar World Heritage sites in the
Western Cordillera. The Bureau noted that the site has important
values for threatened species, significant geological formations,
as well as spectacular mountain landscapes.
After considerable discussions and statements by the Delegate of
the United States and the Observer of Canada, the Bureau referred
the site back to the authorities to allow them to prepare a
revised nomination, with comparison to other World Heritage sites
in the surrounding regions.
Canaima National 701 Venezuela
Park
The Bureau recognized the outstanding universal value of the
site, in particular the unique table mountains (tepui), and
requested the Centre to inform the authorities of this. However,
it requested that the authorities proceed with the identification
of revised boundaries of the site, including the famous tepui
formations, but excluding the low elevation grasslands inhabited
by indigenous people who have not been involved in the nomination
process. Furthermore, a second phase to incorporate other tepuis
outside the nominated area was encouraged. The Bureau strongly
encouragad the Venezuelan authorities to proceed with the
revised boundaries so that the Committee could inscribe the site
in 1994.
*[39]
The Bureau furthermore asked the Centre to contact the Brazilian
authorities to express concern over the illegal occupation and
mining in the adjacent Monte Roraima National Park and to request
action to halt these threats.
D. Deferred nominations
Miguasha 686 Canada
Provincial Park
The Bureau recognized the importance of the fossil values of the
site, in particular the evolution of fish and amphibious species
moving from sea to land. It felt, however, that the context is
missing to judge on the universal importance of the site within
the Devonian fish sites and the wider context of fossil sites.
After considerable discussion, the Bureau asked the Centre to
organize a comparative global study of Earth's evolutionary
history together with IUCN and the relevant international
experts, including the International Union of Geological Sciences
(IUGS) and the International Geological Correlation Programme
(IGCP). Such a study would give a framework for consideration of
fossil sites meeting the criteria of the World Heritage
Convention.
However, the Observer of Canada whilst thanking the Bureau for
its debate, and recognizing the complexity of the issue,
underlined that the site is a significant one in relation to the
evolution of humankind and illustrates an unique ecosystem
existing 370 million years ago. The Observer of Canada offered
her country's full support for the study once its extent and
magnitude is determined, and in due course would re-submit the
nomination.
E. Information on previous nominations
Central Eastern 368bis Australia
Australian
Rainforest
(extension of the
Australian East Coast
Temperate & Sub-
tropical Rainforest
Park)
The Bureau recalled that the site was submitted as an extension
and a renomination of the Australian East Coast Temperate and
Sub-Tropical Rainforest Park. At its seventeenth session, the
Bureau recommended the acceptance of the extension of the site
and made several recommendations for final boundary limitations
(review of the inclusion of Iluka), details of a new management
committee and a more explicit name. The Minister for the
Environment, Arts and Territories informed the World Heritage
Centre on 21 October 1993 that negotiations will take more time
*[40]
and that advice will be given on the outcome in due course. The
Observer of Australia informed the Bureau that information will
be provided in time for the eighteenth session of the Committee
in December 1994.
Jiddat-al- 654 Oman
Harasis
The Bureau recalled that the site was reviewed at its seventeenth
session and was referred back to the authorities to complete the
nomination with an effective management regime and administrative
structure, as well as legislation. The Centre was informed by the
Ambassador and Permanent Delegate of Oman on 20 January 1994 that
His Majesty, the Sultan of Oman, Sultan Qaboos, has issued the
Royal Decree to demarcate the site as an area to be known as "The
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary". The administration statute will be laid
down by the Ministry of Regional Municipalities and Environment.
Concerning a management plan, a preparatory assistance request
was submitted to the Centre and approved by the Chairperson. The
Ambassador of Oman informed the Bureau that information will be
provided in time for the eighteenth session of the Committee. The
Bureau took note of this information.
St. Paul's 652 Philippines
Subterranean
National Park
At its seventeenth session, in June 1993, the Bureau reviewed the
site and was of the view that an extended nomination may meet
criteria (iii) and (iv). The Philippine authorities informed the
World Heritage Centre on 12 May 1994 that appropriate legislation
expanding the area of the Park from 5,753 ha to 86,000 ha is
expected to be officially approved by the Philippine Government.
The Observer of the Philippines informed the Bureau that
information will be provided in time for the eighteenth session
of the Committee.
Ha-Long Bay 672 Vietnam.
The Bureau recalled that at its seventeenth session it recognized
that the site would fulfil natural criterion (iii) because of its
outstanding scenic values. However, a clear definition of the
boundaries and an effective management regime and legislation was
requested. On 27 June 1994 the Centre was informed by the
Ambassador of Vietnam to UNESCO, that additional documents and
mans have been provided which the Centre has transmitted to IUCN.
*[41]
Cultural Properties
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on
the World Heritage List
Name of Identifi- State Party Criteria
Property cation having submitted
No. the nomination in
accordance with
Article 11 of the
Convention
The Mountain 703 China C (ii) (iv)
Resort and its
Outlying Temples
The Potala 707 China C (i) (iv) (vi)
Palace, Lhasa
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this site on the World
Heritage List and requested the Chinese authorities to envisage
the possibility in the future of extending the first site to
include the historic village of Shol, the Temple of Lukhang and
its willow parks, as well as the Chakpori Hill.
Jelling Mounds, 697 Denmark C (iii)
Runic Stones and
Church
The City-Museum 708 Georgia C (iii) (i)
Reserve of
Mtskheta
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property on the
World Heritage List and suggested to the State Party to change
the name to "Historic Churches of Mtskheta".
Bagrati Cathedral 710 Georgia C (iv)
and Gelati
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property on the
World Heritage List and recommended the ICOMOS mission evaluation
report to be transmitted to the State Party.
*[42]
The Collegiate 535rev Germany C (iv)
Church, Castle,
and old town of
Quedlinburg
Völklingen 687 Germany C (ii) (iv)
Ironwerks
Vicenza 712 Italy C (i) (ii)
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property on the
World Heritage List and that the ICCROM/ICOMOS mission evaluation
report be transmitted to the State Party. Moreover, it was
suggested to change the name of the property by adding the words
"The City of Palladio".
Historic monu- 688 Japan C (ii) (iv)
ments of Ancient
Kyoto (Kyoto,
Uji and Otsu Cities)
The City of 699 Luxembourg C (iv)
Luxembourg: its
old quarters and
fortifications
The Church of 634rev. Russian C (ii)
the Ascension, Federation
KolomensKoye
The Rock Carvings 557rev. Sweden C (i) (iii) (iv)
in Tanum
EXTENSIONS
Surroundings 331bis Spain C (i) (ii)
of the Mosque *[correct number=313] (iii) (iv)
of Cordoba
(extension
of the Mosque of
Cordoba)
The Bureau recommended that the nomination of the surroundings
of the Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba be considered as an extension
of the existing World Heritage site of the Mosque of Cordoba.
The Bureau endorsed the suggestion made by the Delegate of Spain
to adopt the name "The Historic Centre of Cordoba".
*[43]
Historic Centre 314bis Spain C (i) (iii)
of Granada (iv)
(extension of the
Alhambra and the
Generalife, Granada,
to include the
Albayzin quarter)
The Bureau endorsed the suggestion made by the Delegate of Spain
to adopt the following name: Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzin,
Grenada.
B. Properties which the Bureau did not recommend for
inscription on the World Heritage List
The Monastery 691 Czech Republic
Church of the
Ascension of the
Virgin Mary at
Kladruby
The Cathedral of 681 Slovak Republic
St. Elizabeth,
the Chapel of St.
Michael and Urban's
Tower, Kosice
C. Properties for which nominations were referred back to the
national authorities for further information
The Temple of 704 China C (i) (iv)
Confucius, the (vi)
Cemetery of Confucius,
and the Kong Family
Mansion in Qufu
The Bureau took note of the ICOMOS evaluation and referred this
nomination to the Chinese authorities requesting them to provide
precise information on the buffer zone of the site. This
information should be communicated before 1 October 1994, to
allow ICOMOS to complete its evaluation which will be submitted
to the next session of the Bureau in December 1994.
The ancient 705 China C (i) (ii)
building complex (vi)
in the Wudang
Mountains
The Bureau took note of the ICOMOS evaluation and referred this
nomination to the Chinese authorities requesting them to provide
precise information on the management plan for the site and give
*[44]
assurances concerning the implementation of conservation measures
for its more distant monuments. This information should be
communicated before 1 October 1994 to allow ICOMOS to complete
its evaluation which will be submitted to the next session of the
Bureau in December 1994.
The Pilgrimage 690 Czech Republic
Church of St.
John of Nepomuk
at Zelena Hora
The Bureau took note of the ICOMOS evaluation and referred this
nomination to the State Party concerned for additional
information concerning the effect of the new legislation on the
protection of ecclesiastical monuments and on the on-going
restoration project. This information should be communicated
before 1 October 1994 to allow ICOMOS to complete its evaluation
which will be submitted to the next session of the Bureau in
December 1994.
The Lines and 700 Peru C (i) (iii)
Geoglyphs of (iv)
Nasca and
Pampas de Jumana
The Bureau referred this nomination to the State Party to define
the boundaries of this cultural property. If this information
is communicated before 1 October 1994 and ICOMOS makes a positive
evaluation, the property may be inscribed on the World Heritage
List under criteria (i), (iii) and (iv).
D. Deferred nominations
The Ruins of 706 China
Jiaohe City
The Bureau deferred the examination of the nomination until
precise information is provided by the Chinese authorities on the
existence and effective application of a management plan for the
site, including the conservation, restoration, control of tourist
visitation, and protection against archaeological looting, and
which would also apply to the other visible archaeological sites
in the area.
Roskilde 695 Denmark
Cathedral
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination until a
comparative study on religious brick Gothic architecture is
completed.
*[45]
Kronborg Castle 696 Denmark
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination until a
satisfactory programme has been adopted by the State Party for
the removal of the major part of the disused shipyard and the
landscaping of the area.
Upper Svaneti 709 Georgia
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination to enable
the State Party to give a clearer indication of the area
proposed, and provide more information on the conservation and
management plan which is under preparation.
The Old City 689 Jordan
of salt
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination until the
Jordanian authorities have confirmed that the Action Plan ("Salt:
A Plan for Action"), 1990, had bean finally adopted and that its
implementation has become effective.
The earliest 16th 702 Mexico
Century Monasteries
on the slopes of
Popocatepetl
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination and
requested the World Heritage Centre to transmit to the State
Party a copy of the ICOMOS mission evaluation report. However,
if the requested information concerning a conservation and
management plan and information about buffer zones is received
by 1 October 1994, the nomination could be re-examined at the
eighteenth session of the Bureau of the Committee in December
1994.
ICOMOS informed the Bureau that it would present to the next
session of the Bureau in December 1994, a favourable report on
the proposed extension of the zone of protection surrounding the
ramparts of Dubrovnik (Croatia).
IX. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
IX.1 The Bureau examined the following documents WHC-
94/CONF.001/5, WHC-94/CONF.001/5Corr., WHC-94/CONF.001/5Add1,
Add2 and Add3 and approved 18 requests for international
assistance.
*[46]
IX.2 Requests approved
A. NATURAL HERITAGE
A.1 Training
Training in the Conservation and Management of Natural Heritage
in the Arab Region
The Bureau reviewed a request for USS 30,000 for a two-week
regional training seminar submitted by the Egyptian authorities
to be held in Egypt in April 1995 on conservation and management
of natural heritage. The Bureau approved the requested sum of US$
30,000 for the course and asked the Centre to proceed with an
agreement on the course programme with the national authorities.
B. CULTURAL HERITAGE
B.1 Technical Cooperation
Historic Centre of the Town of Olinda (Brazil) - US$ 19,000: for
a tourist study which would form part of the Urban Development
Plan.
Rock-hewn Churches of Ivanovo Monastery and Monastery of Rila
(Bulgaria) - US$ 21,000: of which US$ 16,000 will be earmarked
for the purchase of equipment and US$ 5,000 for advisory services
on the nature conservation measure to be undertaken.
Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia) - US$ 8,000: for the restoration
of mural paintings in the 18th century Baroque Festival Palace,
which was severely damaged in 1991. ICCROM will supervise the
project in collaboration with the Croatian Institute for
Restoration. However, Croatia should first pay its outstanding
dues to the World Heritage Fund.
Joya de Ceren (El Salvador) - US$ 25,000: to define an integral
development for the site of Joya de Ceren in the context of a
wider area of archaeological importance (including sites such as
San Andres, El Cambio, etc). Participants attending the workshop
would be representatives of all national institutions involved,
with a limited number of external experts.
Antigua Guatemala (Guatemala) - US$ 20,000: for the purchase of
equipment.
National History Park Citadel, Sans Souci, Ramiers (Haiti) -
US$ 17,510: for the purchase of exhibition panels, climate
control equipment and other allied costs.
*[47]
Given the international embargo and the socio-economic situation,
the UNDP Resident Representative in Haiti is requested to
cooperate in the implementation and supervision of this
assistance.
Authenticity Conference (Japan) - US$ 30,000: to cover the
travel costs of participants from Africa and Latin America
attending the Conference, which will propose a draft text on the
"test of authenticity" to the World Heritage Committee for World
Heritage nominations, revising and enlarging the definition of
the different aspects and criteria of authenticity as contained
in the Operational Guidelines.
Medina of Marrakesh, Morocco (Restoration of the Medersa Ben
Youssef) - US$ 30,000: to contribute to the restoration of the
monument (rehabilitation, water-proofing, floor coverage,
decoration and in particular the sculptured plaster and "zellij"
tiles as well as the protective mortar).
Historic Zones of Istanbul (Turkey) (Restoration of the Mosaics
of Hagia-Sophia) - US$ 30,000: to continue the restoration work
of the mosaics of the dome (purchase of materials and equipment
and travel, per diem and remuneration of restoration experts).
B.2 Training
Argentina - US$ 20,000: for a series of seminars which will be
held at different sites in Argentina and on different subject
matters:
1) Posadas, 5-8 September 1994: Safeguarding the Jesuit
Missions.
2) Mar del Plata, 30-31 August 1994: Tourism and cultural
heritage.
3) Salta, 5-8 September 1994: Preservation of historic
centres.
4) Cordoba, 5-8 September 1994: Interventions in the
archaeological heritage.
5) Buenos Aires, 5-8 September 1994: Recycling versus
restoration.
6) Trelew-Chubut, 5-8 September 1994: Natural heritage, its
relevance in the development process.
Brazil (Historic Town of Ouro Preto) - US$ 19,250: to organize
a training seminar for site managers of Historical Cities (eight
from Brazil and seven from other Latin American countries).
*[48]
China (National training course on "Conservation of Timber
Buildings") - US$30,000: for a two-week training course, with
the objectives to improve trainees' theoretical and technical
knowledge in restoration work and to introduce new methodology
of intervention and to promote the development of conservation
and restoration of ancient building structures to the public at
large.
Germany - Training course "Conservation and management of the
World Heritage sites" (Palaces and Parks of Potsdam) - US$
20,000: to cover the travel costs of participants from Central
and East Europe.
Haiti (National History Park - Citadelle, Sans Souci, Ramiers) -
US$4,100: to organize a one-month on-site training workshop for
five architectural students. Technical expertise will be
provided by ISPAN for training in inventory and documentation of
architectural structures as well as for the preparation of state
of conservation reports.
Given the international embargo and the socio-economic situation,
the UNDP Resident Representative in Haiti is requested to
cooperate in the implementation and supervision of this
assistance.
Italy (International training course on "Information,
documentation and use of UNESCO publications regarding Cultural
and Natural World Heritage") - US$ 20,000: a one-week training
course for 20 participants: participants from 15 countries from
Eastern Europe and 5 countries from Africa.
B.3 Emergency assistance
Archaeological Park of Tierradentro (Colombia) - US$ 69,500: in
accordance with paragraph 85 of the Operational Guidelines which
indicate that emergency assistance may be approved "for work in
connection with cultural and natural properties included or
suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List and which have
suffered severe damage due to sudden, unexpected phenomena" to
undertake the following actions as a first phase of an overall
conservation plan:
1) Field an expert mission (4 Colombians and 2 international
experts) to draw up an action plan for the safeguarding of
the site.
2) Take measures to evacuate the rainwater, particularly in
the tombs in the Alto de Segovia area.
3) Emergency scaffolding in tombs that are in danger of
collapse.
4) Consolidation of the mural paintings.
*[49]
National History Park Citadel, Sans Souci, Ramiers (Haiti) - US$
73,000: for emergency measures to be undertaken for the
structural consolidation of the entire roof construction of the
Royal Battery of the Citadel.
Given the international embargo and the socio-economic situation,
the UNDP Resident Representative in Haiti is requested to
cooperate in the implementation and supervision of this
assistance .
IX.3 Requests were deferred by the Bureau:
Establishment of an itinerant conservation laboratory which would
service the seven sites inscribed on the World Heritage List
(Bulgaria) - US$ 39,000: The Bureau recommended that this request
be re-examined by the Secretariat and ICCROM before being
submitted to its next session in December 1994.
Historic Centre of Puebla (Mexico) US$ 18,000 - to elaborate a
rehabilitation plan to secure the safeguarding of the remaining
historical buildings in the area, the introduction of new
functions and structures compatible with the urban architecture
and a maintenance programme to keep the locality in good
condition.
The Bureau recommended that this request be re-examined by the
Secretariat and ICOMOS before it is re-submitted to the
Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee.
Historic Town of Zabid (Yemen) - Taking into account the present
situation in the country and the particular menace of rapid
degradation which threaten the Historic Town of Zabid, the Bureau
requested the Centre to request the Yemeni authorities to
reformulate their request in the form of emergency assistance.
The request shall be submitted as soon as possible to the World
Heritage Centre for approval by the Chairperson.
IX.4 Requests not approved by the Bureau:
China (Biodiversity Measuring and Monitoring Course): The Bureau
reviewed a request for US$ 19,000 for a biodiversity measuring
and monitoring course to be held in Guangdong Province in China
in November/December 1994. It felt however, that two Chinese
participants had already been financed from the World Heritage
Fund for a similar course in the United States in 1994 and,
moreover, that the course did not involve World Her