Limited distribution WHC-97/CONF.204/11
Paris, 3 September 1997
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-first session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room X (Fontenoy)
23 - 28 June 1997
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. OPENING SESSION 1
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2
III. REPORT OF THE SECRETARIAT ON ACTIVITIES
UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF
THE COMMITTEE 3
IV. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES
INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST 7
V. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND
EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND
NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
AND THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER 38
VI. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE 56
VII. PROGRESS REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE'S
CONSULTATIVE BODY ON THE OVERALL MANAGEMENT
AND FINANCIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 60
VIII. EXAMINATION OF THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON ITS
ACTIVITIES FOR 1996-1997 TO BE SUBMITTED TO
THE 29TH SESSION OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF
UNESCO 71
IX. INFORMATION ON THE PREPARATION OF THE ELEVENTH
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES
(October 1997) 72
X. PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIRST
EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE BUREAU (28-29
NOVEMBER 1997) 72
XI. PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIRST
SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (1-6
DECEMBER 1997) 72
XII. OTHER BUSINESS 73
XIII. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT AND CLOSING OF THE
SESSION 73
(i)
LIST OF ANNEXES
(Statements are reproduced in the original language)
ANNEX I List of Participants
ANNEX II Opening Speech by the Chairperson of the World
Heritage Committee
ANNEX III Opening Speech by the Representative of
the Director-General
ANNEX IV Statement by the Representative of Pakistan
ANNEX V 1. Statement by the Delegate of Germany
2. Statement by the Observer of Poland
ANNEX VI Statement by the Delegate of Italy
ANNEX VII Proposal of Agreement presented by the Consultative
Body - Management Review
ANNEX VIII
ANNEX VIII.1 Report of the External Auditors
ANNEX VIII.2 Director-General's comments
ANNEX VIII.3 Report of the Consultative Body of the
World Heritage Committee (1 and 2 April
1997)
ANNEX VIII.4 Report of the Consultative Body of the
World Heritage Committee (20 June 1997)
ANNEX IX Provisional Agenda of the twenty-first
extraordinary session of the Bureau of the
World Heritage Committee
ANNEX X Provisional Agenda of the twenty-first
session of the World Heritage Committee
ANNEX XI Report on the Nature-Culture Meeting
(Paris, HQ)(28 June 1997)
(ii)
*[1]
I. OPENING SESSION
I.1 The twenty-first session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee was held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris
from 23 to 28 June 1997. The following members of the Bureau
attended: Ms. Maria-Teresa Franco (Mexico), Chairperson,
Representatives of Australia, Germany, Italy, Japan and
Morocco as Vice-Presidents and H.E. Ambassador Lambert Messan
(Niger) as Rapporteur.
I.2 Representatives of the following States Parties
attended as observers: Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh,
Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France,
Greece, Honduras, Hungary, India, Korea, Laos, Lebanon, Malta,
Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, Panama, Peru, Philippines,
Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Slovak
Republic, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United
States of America, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. A representative
of South Africa also attended the Bureau session.
I.3 Representatives of the International Centre for the
Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
(ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended the
meeting in an advisory capacity.
I.4 The World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) was
represented. The full list of participants is given in Annex
I.
I.5 The Chairperson warmly welcomed the members of the
Bureau, representatives of States Parties who were observing
the meeting, and the advisory bodies (Annex II). She stressed
that the best expertise, organization and management were
necessary to strengthen the implementation of the Convention.
She emphasized that loyalty to the principles of the
Convention and innovative approaches to ensure the protection
of cultural and natural World Heritage sites in all regions
were both needed. The Chairperson commented that recognition
should be given to the Director-General's and UNESCO's
contribution to peace and to the expansion of UNESCO's
activities. However, she called for a strengthening of World
Heritage conservation through a multicultural approach and the
recognition of biodiversity to be supported by sufficient
financial resources and new, well administered, strategies.
The Chairperson then invited the Representative of the
Director-General to address the meeting.
I.6 Mr Bernd von Droste, Director of the World Heritage
Centre, speaking on behalf of the Director-General, welcomed
the members of the Bureau, the observers, and the
representatives of the advisory bodies (see Annex III). He
noted that 1997 marks the 25th anniversary of the adoption of
*[2]
the Convention by the UNESCO General Conference on 16 November
1972 and the fifth anniversary of the establishment of the
World Heritage Centre by the Director-General on 30 April
1992. He noted that the Convention at present has 149 States
Parties and that the World Heritage List includes 506
cultural, natural and mixed World Heritage properties
throughout the world. The Centre, since its establishment in
1992, has aimed to promote all aspects of the implementation
of the Convention and has given particular focus to work on
the interface between nature and culture, developing a rapid
reaction capability to address emergencies in the conservation
of cultural and natural heritage, training and capacity
building and educating young people on the importance of
heritage preservation.
I.7 Mr von Droste conveyed the Director-General's
satisfaction that the External Auditor's report on the
financial statements of the World Heritage Fund for 1996 had
been completed. Referring to the report of the External
Auditors, he quoted the following conclusion of the External
Auditor: "...the transactions of the [World Heritage] Fund
that have come to my notice during my audit of the financial
statements have, in all significant respects, been in
accordance with the Fund's and UNESCO's Financial Regulations
and legislative authorities." He assured the Bureau that all
necessary follow-up actions to implement the recommendations
of the Auditors would be carried out.
I.8 He informed the Bureau that several proposals to
improve the regional representation of sites inscribed on the
World Heritage List, build national and local capacity,
expedite the implementation of the Training Strategies for
natural and cultural heritage as adopted by the Committee,
launch special projects for young people and strengthen
protection of cultural and natural heritage sites would be
submitted, in the Draft 29 C/5 (Draft Programme and Budget for
1998-1999), to the UNESCO General Conference to be convened
during October-November 1997. He concluded his remarks by
wishing, on behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO, all
those present a successful Bureau session.
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II.1 The Chairperson suggested that the Bureau consider
amending the Draft Agenda so as to enable the consideration of
Item 7 (Progress report by the Committee's Consultative Body
on the Management and Financial Review of the Administration
of the World Heritage Convention) after Agenda Item 3 (Report
of the Secretariat on Activities undertaken since the
twentieth session of the Committee). The Chairperson
explained that she suggested this change to provide the Bureau
members with the opportunity to hear the report of the
financial audit to be presented by the Auditors attending the
Bureau meeting on 23 and 24 June 1997. The Delegate of Germany
*[3]
pointed out that Working and Information Documents on Agenda
Item 7 had been circulated only shortly before the beginning
of the Bureau meeting and he required time to read those
documents before entering into discussions on this Agenda
Item. Hence, the Chairperson decided to request the Auditors
to present their report immediately after the conclusion of
Agenda Item 3 and answer questions from the floor. The
Bureau would then take up discussion on Agenda Item 7 on the
morning of 24 June 1997. With this change, the Bureau adopted
the revised Timetable for the meeting, (Information Document
WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.2Rev.1).
III. REPORT OF THE SECRETARIAT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN
SINCE THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE
III.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre, reported
in his capacity as Secretary of the World Heritage Committee
on the activities undertaken by the Secretariat since the
twentieth session, in an audio-visual presentation (see
Information Document WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.4).
III.2 The Director began by welcoming two new signatories
to the World Heritage Convention, namely Papua New Guinea and
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, bringing the total
number of States Parties to 149. He noted, furthermore, that
the Centre has been informed that South Africa has decided to
accede to the Convention and is expected to deposit an
instrument of accession to UNESCO in the very near future. In
referring to the universal importance and application of the
Convention, the Director noted the constant increase in States
Parties to the Convention and presented information on the
accession rate of UNESCO Member States to the World Heritage
Convention.
III.3 The Director stated that only half of the 149 States
Parties to the Convention had submitted tentative lists
despite the fact that this is a compulsory requirement if
nominations of cultural properties are to be considered by the
World Heritage Committee and its Bureau. The Director
reported that a computerised database on tentative lists had
been prepared and further analysis of the content of the
tentative lists was now required.
III.4 The Director noted the constant increase in the
number of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List. He
presented an analysis of the World Heritage List by region.
III.5 The Director reported that the current session of
the Bureau will review a total of fifty-eight new
nominations. A regional analysis of these new nominations
indicates that, more than ever, new cultural nominations have
been received from States Parties in Europe. The Director
noted, with concern, that there is still an absence of new
*[4]
cultural nominations from Africa and new natural nominations
from the Arab States. For the first time, natural property
nominations from Cuba, Dominica and Italy, cultural property
nominations from Estonia and Myanmar, and a mixed property
from Kenya will be reviewed by the Bureau. The Director of
the World Heritage Centre reported on several forthcoming
initiatives to promote the Global Strategy for a balanced and
representative World Heritage List.
III.6 The Director recalled that the question of
monitoring and reporting procedures had been discussed at the
tenth General Assembly of States Parties in November 1995 and
the nineteenth and twentieth sessions of the Committee in 1995
and 1996 respectively. The question will again be examined by
the forthcoming General Assembly of States Parties at its
eleventh session in October 1997. A Draft Resolution to be
examined by the General Conference in October and November
entrusts the definition, periodicity, form, nature and extent
of reporting to the World Heritage Committee. Working
Document WHC-97/CONF.204/6 presents the Draft Resolution as
adopted by the Committee at its twentieth session.
III.7 In noting that more than fifty state of conservation
reports from World Heritage properties in all regions of the
world would be presented to this session of the Bureau, the
Director presented an overview of some particular issues of
concern relating to some of these properties. In the first
instance, he reported on the serious situation that exists
concerning the state of conservation of the World Heritage
sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
III.8 In referring to the Galapagos National Park,
Ecuador, he recalled that the Committee had, for the first
time in the history of the Convention, delegated its
responsibility to the Bureau to decide on whether the site
should be included on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
He noted that a detailed report on the state of conservation
of the site has been submitted to the Bureau as Information
Document WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.9.
III.9 The Director then reported briefly on the state of
conservation of the following World Heritage properties -
Manas National Park, India; Ichkeul National Park, Tunisia;
the Elephanta Caves, India; Butrinti, Albania; Teotihuacan,
Mexico; the Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin, Germany;
and, Tyre, Lebanon. He also mentioned the state of
conservation of the Buddhas of the Bamiyan Valley,
Afghanistan. The Director reported on a project concerning
the decentralised co-operation between local authorities in
World Heritage cities in Asia and cities in Europe and the
United Kingdom.
III.10 The Director reported that a number of natural and
cultural heritage training seminars approved by the Committee
*[5]
at its twentieth session have taken place. Furthermore, he
noted that, Mr Laenen, the Director-General of ICCROM had
recently addressed the Executive Board of UNESCO. Mr Laenen
had commended the substantial support provided by the World
Heritage Committee, in the form of financial support from the
World Heritage Fund for training activities.
III.11 With the help of UNESCO National Commissions and
Associations, the World Heritage Centre has identified and
expanded its co-operation with film and publishing companies
to ensure that the importance of World Heritage properties and
their conservation is communicated to the public at large.
The World Heritage Review launched one year ago now has about
5,000 subscribers. The Director called on the help of members
of the Bureau to increase subscriptions to the Review. The
World Heritage Newsletter and folding World Heritage Map have
been recently updated, an improved World Heritage Kit for the
press is in preparation, as is the 1998 World Heritage Diary.
The World Heritage Internet site is now available in English
and French and is receiving more than 10,000 requests per
week. The World Heritage Web usage statistics have shown a
sharp increase since December, and is the most popular of
UNESCO's web sites.
III.12 A World Heritage Education Kit is being prepared as
part of the six-year UNESCO Special Project "Young People's
Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion"
conducted by the World Heritage Centre and the Education
Sector. The Kit will be made available to schools that are
part of the Associated Schools Project Network (ASPNet) in
early 1998. World Heritage Youth Fora will be held in China in
September 1997, and Japan in 1998.
III.13 The Director noted that the staffing table of the
Centre, as had previously been requested by the twentieth
session of the World Heritage Committee, will be distributed
as Information Document WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.10. He noted that
of the eleven professional posts foreseen in the Regular
Programme eight have been provided, including that of the
Director and Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre.
However, in the last 12 months three senior professional staff
at the level of P5 have left the Centre. A professional
administrator at the P3 level is under recruitment. The
Director recorded his deep thanks to the Governments of
Austria, Denmark, Japan and Sweden for having provided
Associate Experts to the Centre. In addition, he gratefully
acknowledged the secondment of a press specialist by the
Government of France. Furthermore, a Young Professional of
Afghan nationality has recently been assigned to the Centre.
The Director also noted that a consultant Media Adviser in the
Centre backstops media contracts and is paid from servicing
income generated from media and publishing contracts. Another
consultant is working on World Heritage Education. The
Director gratefully acknowledged the financial support of
*[6]
NORAD, Rhône-Poulenc and the Osaka Junior Chamber of Commerce
in Japan for the World Heritage Education Project. Another
consultant in the Centre is working on developing a strong
World Heritage web site. The Director warmly thanked the
Republic of Korea for their generous contribution to the
development of the World Heritage presence on the Internet.
III.14 Finally, the Director noted the challenges for the
year to come - the eleventh session of the General Assembly in
October; an agenda item on monitoring and reporting of World
Heritage sites to be debated at the twenty-ninth UNESCO
General Conference; the World Heritage Bureau at the end of
November; another meeting of the Consultative Body; and the
twenty-first session of the World Heritage Bureau in Naples,
Italy (as decided by the Committee at its last session). The
Director concluded his presentation by noting that he would be
pleased to reply to any questions on his presentation.
III.15 The Chairperson thanked the Director and staff of
the World Heritage Centre for their work in favour of World
Heritage conservation.
III.16 The Delegate of Germany noted his great surprise
that three P5 posts in the Centre were vacant and asked the
Director, World Heritage Centre for clarification. The
Director noted that one former Centre staff member has been
appointed as the Director of the Unit for the Status of Women
and Gender Equality. Another former staff member of the
Centre has been appointed as the representative of UNESCO in
Gabon and the third former staff member of the Centre has been
appointed as Secretary of the Dayton Commission. The Delegate
of Germany asked whether these three professionals would be
replaced by other persons. The Director expressed his hope
that the three professional posts would be filled in the
future. The Delegate of Germany asked whether the three
professional posts in question were still included in the
Regular Programme budget of the Centre. The Director of the
World Heritage Centre commented that it was not yet certain
whether these posts would be filled through recruitment or
transfer. He again noted that the staffing situation within
the Centre is critical with three P-5 posts vacant whereas a
year ago five P-5 posts were occupied.
III.17 The Delegate of Germany questioned whether the
Bureau should make a recommendation to the Director-General of
UNESCO drawing this issue to his attention. The Chairperson
noted that the forthcoming management review of the World
Heritage Centre will reveal the situation.
*[7]
IV. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST
IV.1 The Bureau examined Working Documents WHC-
97/CONF.204/2A and WHC-97/CONF.204/2B, Information Documents
WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.8 (Potsdam, Germany) and WHC-
97/CONF.204/INF.9 (Galapagos Islands, Ecuador), as well as
additional information provided by the Secretariat and the
Advisory Bodies during the session.
A. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES
INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
NATURAL HERITAGE
IV.2 The Bureau examined reports on the state of
conservation of eleven of the thirteen natural properties
included in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau
noted that in the case of Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
and Everglades National Park (United States of America) no new
information had been received, since the conclusions of the
twentieth session of the Committee.
IV.3 Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its twentieth
session, had determined that the World Heritage values of
Plitvice Lakes National Park had not been adversely impacted by
the armed conflict of the early 1990s, and concluded that the
natural systems of the site were recovering from pre-war over-
development and over-use. The Committee decided to retain
Plitvice Lakes National Park on the List of World Heritage in
Danger, because it recognized potential post-war threats due to
rising visitor impacts, and the damaged condition of the Park's
infrastructure.
The Bureau was informed that the Croatian authorities had
revised the boundaries of the Park to increase its total area
to include the entire underground basin which supplies water to
lakes and streams of Plitvice and had trained Park employees. A
road outside the northeast boundary of the Park to re-direct
traffic currently passing through the Park is under
construction and, a state of conservation report on the Park,
including the experience gained from the management of visitors
during the summer of 1997, is expected to be submitted to the
Centre by 15 September 1997.
The Bureau commended the Croatian authorities for increasing
the total area of the Park to include the entire underground
basin supplying Plitvice's lakes and streams and constructing a
road outside of the Park's northeast boundary in order to
redirect truck-traffic currently flowing through the Park. The
Bureau requested the Centre to contact the Croatian authorities
to obtain a map of the new boundaries of the Park and to find out
*[8]
whether they intend to enlarge the World Heritage area to
conform with the Park's new boundaries. The Bureau recommended
that the Committee, after reviewing the state of conservation
report due by 15 September 1997, decide whether or not to
remove Plitvice Lakes National Park from the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
IV.4 Virunga National Park (Democratic Republic of
the Congo)
Garamba National Park (Democratic Republic of
the Congo)
Since the twentieth session of the Committee, the eastern part
Democratic Republic of the Congo has become further
destabilized and military action has spread to other parts of
the country. Reports received indicate that in both these
sites, infrastructure had been destroyed and wildlife
populations decimated. The Bureau noted that IUCN and the
Centre will continue to maintain contacts with UNHCR and
conservation NGOs and provide up-to-date reports on both
Virunga and Garamba, at the time of the twenty-first session
of the Committee.
The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to contact relevant
authorities of the new Government of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo in order to arrange for a high-level mission to
meet with senior officials to remind them of their
responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention and to
discuss restoration and rehabilitation of the country's five
World Heritage sites. This mission should initiate project
proposals in consultation with the authorities of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Implementation of some of
the projects may be financed by emergency assistance from the
World Heritage Fund. A long-term policy and strategic vision
for World Heritage conservation in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo is the main need at the moment. The Centre should
co-ordinate its activities with those of other UN agencies and
conservation NGOs active in the country. The Bureau requested
the Centre and IUCN to provide detailed reports on both sites,
at the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau to be
held on 28 and 29 November 1997, in Naples, Italy.
IV.5 Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its twentieth
session, commended the Park administration's (Instituto
Ecuadoriano Forestal y de Areas Naturales y Vida Silvestre,
(INEFAN)) actions and reports, but reiterated its serious
concerns about road construction activities, poaching and
colonization, and recalled its request for an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA). The Bureau noted that INEFAN has
submitted a report to the Centre that identifies the Guamote
Macas road construction to be the main problem and that
colonisation in the Guamboya valley and along the River
*[9]
Palora, and small-scale mining activities have been stopped.
The new management plan is close to finalization and
government institutions and NGOs have expressed interest in
participating in its implementation.
IUCN informed the Bureau that the implementation of a number
of conservation projects at Sangay, including several funded
by WWF and the European Union have begun.
The Bureau commended INEFAN for its report and action, but
reiterated it's calls for an Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) of the Guamote Macas road construction project. The
Bureau recommended that the Committee retain the site on the
List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.6 Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its last session
noted the report of the technical mission to the site, (2-9
November 1996), which identified the deterioration of the
Walia ibex population, loss of biodiversity, encroachment at
the borders of the site and impacts of the construction of a
road through the Park, and, as stipulated in Paragraph 79 of
the Operational Guidelines, included Simen National Park in
the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Bureau was informed that the Head of the Bureau of
Agriculture of the Bahir Dar Region, where Simen National Park
is located, informed the Centre of his Regional Government's
disagreement with the Committee's decision to include Simen in
the List of World Heritage in Danger. He drew the Centre's
attention to the fact that although Simen was neglected in the
past, currently Simen receives high attention and effective
protection. The number of Walia Ibex has increased as a result
of proper protection of the Park and the Central and the
Regional Governments are implementing a rehabilitation
programme to restore the Park's infrastructure to its previous
state. Furthermore, he indicated that the Regional Authorities
do not accept the statement in the report of the technical
mission to Simen, undertaken in November, 1996: i.e. "A
majority of participants endorsed the recommendation that
Simen Mountain National Park should be listed as World
Heritage site in Danger". Following the Committee's decision
to include Simen National Park on the List of World Heritage
in Danger, the Regional Authorities in Bahir Dar have decided
not to convene the technical workshop, originally scheduled
for 10-18 April, 1997, and for which the Committee approved a
sum of US$ 30,000 at its last session. They have called upon
the Central Government of Ethiopia to co-operate with
concerned national and regional institutions to organize a
discussion forum with UNESCO in order to reverse the decision
taken by the Committee.
*[10]
The Bureau noted that a mission to Simen National Park had
been undertaken by the United Nations Capital Development Fund
(UNCDF) from 10 to 25 April 1997 and that a buffer zone
development project for the site is under consideration.
The Bureau acknowledged the possibility that the views of the
Regional Government in Bahir Dar may not have been accurately
reflected when the Committee decided to include Simen in the
List of World Heritage in Danger. Nevertheless, the Bureau
called upon the Ethiopian authorities in Addis Ababa and Bahir
Dar to view the Committee's decision in a positive light and
to proceed with convening the stakeholders meeting. The Bureau
in particular requested the Director of the Centre to meet
with the Permanent Delegate of Ethiopia to UNESCO to resolve
the problem and to explain the Committee's decision.
Furthermore, the Bureau recommended that the Centre and IUCN
take actions to assist the Ethiopian authorities to convene
the stakeholder's meeting and to submit a report to the
twenty-first session of the Committee in December 1997 so as
to enable the Committee to review Simen National Park's status
as a World Heritage site in Danger.
IV.7 Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte
d'Ivoire)
The Bureau recalled that at its twentieth session, the
Committee noted the fact that UNESCO's Legal Affairs Office
was considering the proposals made by a working group for
setting up an "International Foundation for Mt. Nimba". The
Bureau was informed that the Legal Affairs Office of UNESCO
has advised the Centre that UNESCO cannot create an
International Foundation but that such a Foundation may be
established under the national legislation of a suitable State
Party. The Swiss Foundation established for the conservation
of Banc d'Arguin National Park, a World Heritage site in
Mauritania, was considered a good example. Contributions
earmarked for Mt. Nimba may also be set aside under a special
account of the World Heritage Fund (as per paragraph 118 of
the Operational Guidelines), or set up as a separate 'Funds-
in-Trust', similar to the World Heritage Fund, within UNESCO.
The Bureau, while recognizing these options for setting up a
Foundation or a Special Fund for Mt. Nimba, noted that the
mining companies are not yet ready to contribute funds to
launch the initiative. Furthermore, the Bureau took note of
the fact that the Minister of Environment of Guinea
acknowledged the threats to Mount Nimba, reiterated the
commitment of his Government to the protection of the site and
requested that the site be retained on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
The Bureau requested the Centre to transmit information
concerning the options for setting up a Foundation or a
Special Fund for Mt. Nimba to the authorities of Guinea and
*[11]
recommended that the Committee retain Mt. Nimba on the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
IV.8 Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its twentieth
session included Rio Platano in the List of World Heritage in
Danger and urged the Honduran authorities to implement the
eleven-point corrective action plan, endorsed by the Honduran
Minister for the Environment, and keep it informed, on a
regular basis, of measures taken to safeguard this property.
The Bureau noted that a revised budget breakdown requested
from the Honduran authorities for a US$ 30,000 project,
approved by the Bureau at its twentieth session for preparing
a management plan for Rio Platano, has not yet been received.
The Bureau was informed that major changes in the staff of the
Ministry of Environment of Honduras had occurred and that a
number of projects have been initiated in cooperation with
Nature Conservancy, WWF and KFW (Germany). The Bureau noted
that IUCN will provide a report on Rio Platano at the
forthcoming session of the Committee.
The Bureau requested that the Centre contact the Honduran
authorities to obtain the necessary information for the
implementation of the management planning project and
recommended that the Committee retain the site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
IV.9 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The Bureau noted that the Ministry for Environment and Forests
(MOEF) of India, hosted a World Natural Heritage Site
Managers' Meeting for South Asia, from 16 to 19 January 1997.
The Director of Manas Wildlife Sanctuary presented a report on
the state of conservation of Manas at that meeting. A staff
member of the World Heritage Centre accompanied the Deputy
Inspector General for Wildlife in India on a mission to Manas
Wildlife Sanctuary from 20 to 23 January 1997. The mission
concluded that:
(i) Militancy of the Bodo people in the early 1990s had
damaged the infrastructure for the protection of Manas and
demoralized staff, resulting in poachers taking a heavy toll
of wildlife populations within Manas Wildlife Santuary. (ii)
Since 1993, militant activity has diminished and Manas
authorities have been able to improve relationships with
surrounding villagers and seek their support for conservation.
Peace and order in and around Manas have been re-established
and an estimated 8,000 tourists visited Manas in 1996. (iii)
Damaged ranger and guard units are in urgent need of repair
and/or reconstruction. The poaching threat continues to
prevail as the mobility and the communications capability of
Manas staff remain limited.
*[12]
The Bureau was informed of a report on Manas Wildlife
Sanctuary from the MOEF transmitted via the Permanent
Delegation of India, which notes that "Manas deserves to
continue to be in the World Heritage in Danger List", as it
helps to draw international attention to the site. The MOEF
has also submitted an emergency assistance request for a
contribution from the Fund for US$ 235,000 to implement a
three-year rehabilitation plan estimated to cost a total sum
of US$ 2,135,000.
The Bureau commended the Indian authorities for the report
provided and their support for organizing the mission to the
site. The Bureau noted that the emergency assistance request
in support of the rehabilitation of the site will be discussed
under Agenda Item 6 "Requests for international assistance"
and recommended that the Committee retain the site on the List
of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.10 Air-and-Ténéré Reserve (Niger)
The Bureau recalled that a peace agreement, signed on 20 April
1995, had started a dialogue between the conflicting parties
and set in motion the process for a return to a normal
management regime and that the Committee at its twentieth
session had noted that a detailed site evaluation and the
development of an action programme for site recovery may
become feasible in the near future. The IUCN/WWF project, with
funding from DANIDA, for re-establishing a normal management
regime for the site is soon to be resumed.
By letter of 20 March 1997, the Permanent Delegation of Niger
has provided the terms of reference for a monitoring mission
to the site, expected to be carried out in the autumn of 1997.
The Bureau heard a presentation by Mr. André Bourgeot
(CNRS/EHESS, France) who had carried out a mission to the site
in April 1997 together with local IUCN staff. He indicated
that: (a) there were no security problems in the area; (b)
the vegetation is less impacted than the wildlife populations,
whose decline was noticeable; and (c) an analysis of the
Reserve's situation should be undertaken by a team including a
competent specialist in ecology. The Bureau noted that the
proposal to establish an Air-and-Ténéré Biosphere Reserve
covering 24 million hectares was favourably recommended to the
MAB Bureau for inscription on the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves. The Delegate of Niger informed the Bureau that this
Biosphere Reserve would reach as far as the Algerian border
and constitute a huge wildlife reserve with the World Heritage
site as core area and buffer zone. The Delegate of Niger
thanked Mr. Bourgeot for his report and commended IUCN for
their efforts to support the conservation of the site.
Furthermore, he was of the view that the state of conservation
of the site has improved considerably and the site might be
removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
*[13]
The Bureau recommended that the Committee at its forthcoming
session review the status of Air-and-Ténéré, future plans for
its continuing recovery and decide whether or not it should be
removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.11 Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its twentieth
session noted that the construction of two dams had limited
freshwater flow and devastated the wetland values of Ichkeul
National Park, leading to dramatic increases in the salinity
of the lake and marshes and sharp reductions in migratory bird
populations. Hence, the Committee included Ichkeul in the List
of World Heritage in Danger and requested the Tunisian
authorities to provide a programme of corrective measures to
reverse the degradation of the site, and alerted them to the
possibility of the deletion of Ichkeul from the World Heritage
List if rehabilitation of the site is not possible.
IUCN informed the Bureau that the report of an official
mission to the site by the Ramsar Convention Secretariat had
suggested that the Tunisian authorities give a clear
indication of the measures they plan to take based on a number
of studies already carried out and which have identified
conservation actions. Furthermore, an agreement on the release
of water from the dams should be reached and a central
management authority addressing all management issues in the
site, including the long-term management of the Tindja sluice
needs to be established. The Ramsar mission recommended the
repair of the sluices, the filling of the Joumine Canal to
restore the Joumine Marsh, and continuous scientific
monitoring of the Park's ecology.
In its discussions on the potential delisting of Ichkeul, the
Bureau recalled the Committee's discussions with regard to
another wetland, i.e. Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria) and
that the Committee had given the Bulgarian authorities a
three-year time frame to restore the site.
The Bureau requested the Centre to transmit the recommendations
made by the mission of the Ramsar Secretariat to the Tunisian
authorities and invite them to provide their views with regard
to the implementation of the recommendations, by 15 October
1997. The Bureau also recommended that the Committee set up a
three-year time table to review the outcome of efforts to
restore Ichkeul National Park and in the meantime retain the
site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.12 Yellowstone National Park (United States of
America)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its twentieth
session noted several remedial actions taken by the State
Party to minimize potential and ascertained threats to this
*[14]
site, and commended the President of the country for his
efforts to fully remove the potential mining threat to the
integrity of the site with a mutually, to-be-agreed upon trade
of land, valued at US$ 65 million. Since then, the Montana
State Office of the Bureau of Land Management of the United
States Department of the Interior, and the Northern Region
Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture
have published a summary, and the full Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed Cooke City Area
Mineral Withdrawal and have circulated it inviting any person
or group to comment on the Draft EIS.
The Bureau recommended that the Committee in consultation with
IUCN and the State Party and based on its review of the state
of conservation report due from the State Party by 15
September 1997, determine whether actions taken to mitigate
potential and ascertained threats to Yellowstone are adequate
and whether or not Yellowstone should be removed from the List
of World Heritage in Danger.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
IV.13 The Bureau examined reports on the state of
conservation of two of the nine cultural properties inscribed
on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.14 Angkor (Cambodia)
The Bureau, while commending the efforts of the Royal
Government of Cambodia and UNESCO, expressed deep concern over
the looting and illegal excavation of cultural properties from
Angkor, notably over the organized trade in antiquities,
including the dismantling of monuments. The Bureau invited the
Royal Government of Cambodia to submit a report to the twenty-
first session of the Committee on administrative mechanisms
and regulations put into place for the enforcement of the law
on cultural heritage including measures adopted for the
prevention of illicit traffic in cultural property. Finally,
the Bureau took note with satisfaction of the decision taken
by the Royal Government of Cambodia to forbid any hotel
construction within the Zones 1 and 2 of the site of Angkor.
Furthermore, the Bureau ardently wished that in conformity
with the studies carried out for the enforcement of the zoning
plans, hotels be built within the hotel zone.
IV.15 Fort Bahla (Oman)
After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat
concerning the situation at Fort Bahla, the Bureau thanked the
Omani authorities for their communications of 12 and 24 March
1997 by which they confirmed their intent to carry out the
recommendations of the UNESCO experts. However, it expressed
its serious concern following the collapse of the Fort's
*[15]
north-west Tower and requested them to make every effort to
consolidate the monument. It approved the dispatch of a new
expert mission next October, on a cost-sharing basis, as
previously.
B. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES
INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
NATURAL HERITAGE
IV.16 The Bureau examined document WHC-97/CONF.204/2B, and
a selected number of state of conservation reports of other
natural properties, submitted by the Centre and the
representatives of IUCN, and made specific recommendations for
the consideration of the Committee.
IV.17 Australian World Heritage Sites:
Introducing its written report on the state of conservation of
natural World Heritage properties, IUCN supplemented this with
a verbal report on more recent developments in Australia. IUCN
recalled previous discussions of the Bureau and the Committee
on the future of forested public lands adjoining the Tasmanian
Wilderness World Heritage Area and the response at that time
by the State Party that World Heritage issues would be taken
into account in the negotiation of a Regional Forest Agreement
between the Governments of Australia and the State of
Tasmania. The IUCN Representative said that a World Heritage
Expert Panel had reported in June 1997 to the two Governments
to facilitate consideration of World Heritage issues. This
report and extensive data bases should ensure that information
on World Heritage potential would be available when decisions
are made in finalizing the Regional Forest Agreement due to be
completed by 30 June 1997.
The Bureau decided to commend the State Party on the
comprehensive approach adopted and to invite the State Party
to report to the Centre on the outcome relevant to World
Heritage by 15 October 1997.
IUCN also commented favourably on the manner in which World
Heritage cultural and natural values are being taken into
account in the preparation of a new management plan for the
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, including a workshop held on
16 June 1997 with the Anangu people (traditional and legal
owners of the Park) and Park staff on the implications of
World Heritage status on visitor management. Issues raised in
the IUCN report on other sites, i.e. Great Barrier Reef,
Kakadu National Park and Shark Bay, noted a number of positive
decisions taken, particularly those aimed at conserving dugong
habitats in the Great Barrier Reef.
*[16]
The Delegate of Australia commented in detail on all the
issues raised in the IUCN report about Australia and suggested
that IUCN seek official comment from the Australian government
as the next step. She also expressed concern at the lack of
time to consider and respond to the report and requested more
advanced consultations with the State Party to permit dialogue
on the issues raised. Concern at the late tabling of the
report was also expressed by the Delegate of Germany. The
Delegate of Australia assured the Bureau that the State Party
would continue to maintain its commitment to respect the
integrity of its World Heritage sites.
The Chairperson ruled that the issues raised in the IUCN
report should not be further considered at this meeting,
because in many cases the States Parties had not been given
the opportunity to examine the issues raised, to verify their
accuracy and to respond.
IV.18 Iguacu National Park (Brazil)
The Bureau noted that an alarming situation has recently
developed in this Park which required urgent attention. A
local organization is campaigning for the reopening of an 18
km road which was closed in 1986 to strengthen protection of
the site. In early May, 800 people invaded the Park and set up
camp to begin unauthorized work to re-open the road. The
responsible conservation authorities have been unable to
resist political pressures associated with this development
and have not acted to contain the damage.
The Bureau requested the Centre to urgently contact Brazilian
authorities to encourage them to re-establish control over the
section of the Park to close the road and to rehabilitate the
damaged areas within the Park. The Bureau observed the fact
that Iguacu (Brazil) and Iguazu (Argentina) National Parks
continue to remain as two separate World Heritage sites,
despite the prevailing opportunity to link them into a single
transborder World Heritage area for purposes of the World
Heritage List.
IV.19 Democratic Republic of the Congo
a) Okapi Faunal Reserve
The Bureau was deeply concerned to learn that the armed
conflict which spread, during early 1997, to the whole of the
region has led to the looting of all facilities and killing of
several elephants in this site, inscribed on the World
Heritage List in Mexico (December, 1996). Most of the
expatriate and research staff have fled the Park and those
remaining in the site receive only minimum salaries. There
are reports of gold mining within the Park and the new
Government's policy with regard to respecting the boundaries
of the World Heritage area remain unclear.
*[17]
b) Kahuzi Biega National Park
The Bureau noted with grave concern that portions of this Park
had been deforested and considerable hunting of wildlife had
been reported. Park facilities have been looted and destroyed
and most of the Park staff have left the area. The Park may
also be serving as a hide-out for militant groups and
conflicts between tribal populations in the area have also
been reported. Although UNHCR and GTZ (Germany) are
considering to provide support for the Park projects cannot be
started until the security situation in the area returns to
normal.
The Bureau expressed its serious concerns regarding the
integrity of Okapi Faunal Reserve and the Kahuzi Biega
National Park and recommended that the Committee, at its next
session, include these two sites in the List of World Heritage
in Danger. The Bureau recalled its recommendation of a high
level mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, made
with regard to the two sites in this State Party already
recognized as World Heritage Sites in Danger (i.e. Garamba and
Virunga National Parks) and suggested that such a mission
include discussions on the state of conservation of Okapi
Faunal Reserve and the Kahuzi Biega National Park as well with
a view to initiating projects for their rehabilitation.
IV.20 Galapagos National Park (Ecuador)
The Bureau thanked IUCN, and the Observer of Ecuador for their
reports. It noted that there was a major effort in Ecuador to
take steps to conserve the World Heritage values of the
islands.
The Bureau recalled that, at its twentieth session in Merida,
the World Heritage Committee decided "to include the Galapagos
National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger,
effective 15 November 1997, unless a substantive written reply
by Ecuador is received by 1st of May 1997, and the Bureau, at
its twenty first session determine that effective actions have
been taken".
Having studied both the report of the State Party and the
report of IUCN, the Bureau came to the conviction that such
effective actions have been taken that the efforts of the
Ecuadorean authorities should be honoured. The Bureau
therefore decided that it would not be appropriate to include
the Galapagos National Park in the List of World Heritage in
Danger at this time.
In order to enable the World Heritage Committee, at its twenty
first session, to have a full picture of the up-to-date
situation of the World Heritage Site, the Bureau asked the
State Party to deliver a progress report by, 15 November 1997,
*[18]
on the nine issues outlined in the IUCN report of 3rd June
1997, as follows:
Decree
Law
Control of Residency
Quarantine
Environmental management of populated areas
Introduced species
Marine reserve
Tourism
Financing
The Bureau recommended the World Heritage Committee to ask the
State Party for an annual progress report on the above
mentioned issues from the end of 1998 until the end of 2002.
The Bureau further recommended that if the decrees of the
Government of Ecuador are not reflected in law by the time of
the twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee,
scheduled in December 1997, in Naples, Italy, the Committee
could once again consider adding the Galapagos to the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
IV.21 Kaziranga National Park (India)
The Bureau noted that a member of the Centre joined the Deputy
Inspector General for Wildlife for India, during 24-25 January
1997, on a mission to Kaziranga National Park, in the State of
Assam, India. The Bureau learnt with satisfaction Kaziranga's
success in conserving the great one-horned rhinoceros, whose
population within the Park has grown from 366 in 1966 to about
1,200 at present. However, every year about 26 rhinos are
poached and an additional 52 die due to natural causes, most
of them drowning in the annual floods of the Brahmaputra
River.
The Bureau encouraged the management of Kaziranga to proceed
with their plans to add six adjacent patches totalling more
than 400 sq.km. to the Park, increase the number of anti-
poaching camps along the periphery of the Park, build upland
refuges for animals to retreat during the annual flooding of
the Brahmaputra River and launch conservation awareness and
environmental education programmes for local villagers.
Furthermore, the Bureau noted that the Indian authorities have
submitted a request for financial assistance to support the
implementation of parts of the above-mentioned activities and
that the Bureau will consider the request under Agenda Item 6
(Requests for international assistance).
*[19]
IV.22 Keoladeo National Park (India)
The Bureau recalled the fact that the Committee had previously
expressed concerns regarding the decrease in the population of
wintering Siberian cranes returning to this site and
management problems, such as the over-growth of grasses,
forming a thick mat in some areas were adversely affecting the
breeding habitat of the Siberian cranes. Records maintained by
Park management indicated that the wintering population of
Siberian cranes, estimated at about 38 in 1985-86 when the
site was inscribed on the World Heritage List, had dropped to
5 in 1992-93; no Siberian cranes were seen in Keoladeo during
1993-95. In 1996-97 three Siberian cranes have returned to
Keoladeo National Park.
The Bureau noted that the State Party, recognizing that the
decrease in the number of Siberian cranes arriving to winter
at Keoladeo may be attributable to the intensity of hunting
and other threats prevailing along the migratory route of the
species, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
the eight countries (Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Islamic Republic
of Iran, Kazakstan, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Turkmenistan
and Uzbekistan) with whom it shares the range of the central
and western Asian populations of the Siberian crane. UNEP,
which hosts the Secretariat of the Convention on Migratory
Species (CMS), International Crane Foundation (ICF) and the
Wild Birds Society of Japan are also signatories to the MOU,
under which an action plan foresees: (i) the release of
captive-bred Siberian cranes to augment wild populations; and
(ii) capturing of Siberian cranes and the deployment of
satellite transmitters on the cranes for tracking their
migratory route from their wintering areas in Keoladeo to
spring breeding grounds in other countries. At the site level,
the management has introduced a controlled burning and cutting
regime for grasses in order to limit their growth from
negatively impacting the breeding habitats of the cranes and
closed the Park for grazing by cattle belonging to local
villagers. The Bureau urged the Centre to cooperate with the
CMS Secretariat and support the implementation of the action
plan.
IV.23 Sundarbans National Park (India)
The Bureau was informed that the Sundarbans National Park and
World Heritage Area, comprising 1,330 sq.km., forms the core
area of the larger Sundarbans Project Tiger Reserve (2,585
sq.km) and the even larger "Sundarbans Biosphere Reserve"
which extends over more than 9,000 sq.km of the inter-tidal
area of the Sundarbans delta. Although India has not yet
formally nominated the Sundarbans Biosphere Reserve for
inclusion in UNESCO's international network of biosphere
reserves, the case illustrated an interesting application of
the World Heritage and the Biosphere Reserve concepts of
UNESCO within the same ecosystem. Several eco-development
*[20]
activities undertaken in the larger Biosphere Reserve, e.g.
fishing, collection of honey, timber harvest etc., have
enabled the management to establish a working relationship
with the local people and solicit their cooperation for the
protection of the "Biosphere Reserve's" core area, i.e.
Sundarbans National Park and World Heritage Area. This working
relationship between the management and the local people has
been particularly useful in minimizing the poaching threat to
the world's largest population of the Bengal tiger inhabiting
this World Heritage Site. The Bureau noted with interest the
harmonious application of UNESCO's World Heritage and
Biosphere Reserve concepts in Sundarbans and urged the
Secretariat and IUCN to identify similar cases and bring them
to the attention of States Parties to the Convention.
IV.24 Nanda Devi National Park (India)
The Bureau was informed that this Park is located in a very
remote area, and due to difficulty of access, remains well
protected. There are no major threats to the Park; a certain
amount of illegal collection of medicinal plants and herbs has
been recorded. No visitors are allowed to the Park; some
mountaineering groups have in recent times expressed an
interest in organizing expeditions to the area. Allowing a
certain amount of visitation may facilitate the presentation
of this World Heritage Area to the general public and may
generate income for the benefit of local people as well.
Hence, the Bureau, while taking note of the high level of
protection afforded to Nanda Devi National Park, invited
Indian authorities to consider undertaking a feasibility study
for specialized (mountaineering) tourism development in the
Park.
IV.25 Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
The Bureau recalled the fact that the boat provided to this
World Heritage area with financial assistance from the Fund in
1994, was destroyed in an accident during a systematic
monitoring mission to the site in July 1995, in which four
Indonesian officials lost their lives. With a view to
equipping the Park with a boat capable of undertaking open-sea
travel, the Committee at its nineteenth session (Berlin, 1995)
approved a sum of US$ 30,000 and requested that the State
Party provide the additional US$ 30,000 needed to purchase a
large fiberglass catamaran. Learning the fact that the
Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia has made available the US$
30,000 as recommended by the Committee, the Bureau requested
the Centre to transmit its appreciation of the Indonesian
Government's contribution of US$ 30,000 to match an equal
amount provided by the Committee. The Bureau also requested
the management of the Komodo National Park to fully insure the
boat against accidents and other potential liabilities.
*[21]
IV.26 Banc d’Arguin National Park (Mauritania)
The Bureau was informed that the Centre's attention had been
drawn by the International Foundation for Banc d’Arguin (FIBA)
and WWF, to a Rally, “Trophée des Gazelles - Rallye des
Sables”, that had traversed the area of the Park and to
potential impacts which the Rally could have had on the
fragile ecosystem within the Park. However, the Bureau noted
that subsequently the Rally Organizers and FIBA have informed
the Centre that the Rally did not traverse the World Heritage
site and that there were no threats to the integrity of the
site.
IV.27 Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its twentieth
session (Merida, 1996) reviewed a report on a project for
industrial salt production at the site and its potential
threats to the site's whale population and noted that the
project had not yet been authorized and that a Scientific
Committee to review the proposed project had been established
by the Ministry of Environment.
The Bureau was informed that the seven member Scientific
Committee has elaborated, through consultations with the
public, rigorous and comprehensive terms of reference for its
work and for the environmental impact study of the proposed
San Ignacio industrial salt production project. The Scientific
Committee is expected to document the actual situation of the
World Heritage area prior to the commencement of the
industrial salt production project, assess the impact of the
project's proposed construction and operational activities on
the ecological, biological and protected area management
aspects of the World Heritage area and undertake a 26-issues
driven socio-economic evaluation of the project. The Bureau
was satisfied to note that the Scientific Committee, in its
preliminary report, had indicated that the proposed industrial
salt production project will only be authorized if the
Committee finds that the project will not compromise the
conservation of natural resources in the region and does not
pose a risk to the protection of the biological heritage of
the Mexican people.
The Bureau requested the Centre to transmit its appreciation
for the State Party's efforts to ensure a rigorous evaluation
of the environmental impacts of the proposed industrial salt
production project and requested the State Party to provide a
progress report on the work and findings of the Scientific
Committee for the consideration of the World Heritage
Committee, at its twenty-first session, in December 1997.
*[22]
IV.28 Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)
The Bureau noted with satisfaction that this site has a
population of more than 400 great one-horned rhinoceros and
its success is partly attributable to the cooperation between
the Nepalese Army and the staff of the Royal Chitwan National
Park in anti-poaching activities.
The Bureau was informed that 80% of the total population (i.e.
about 2,000) of the great one-horned rhinoceros, a species
restricted in its range to South Asia, are found in the World
Heritage sites of Kaziranga (India; 1,200) and Royal Chitwan
(Nepal; 400). The Bureau, however, noted that intensive
poaching can quickly lead to sharp declines in rhino
populations, as observed in the World Heritage area of Manas
(India), a site included in the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
The Bureau encouraged the Centre to facilitate cooperation
between the staff of Royal Chitwan (Nepal) and Kaziranga and
Manas (India) World Heritage sites, and the CITES Convention
for sharing of intelligence information on trading routes of
rhino horns and the activities of commercially motivated
poaching gangs in order to sustain the contributions which
World Heritage sites have made to rhino conservation in South
Asia.
IV.29 Sagarmatha National Park (Nepal)
The Bureau was informed that about 3500 people belonging to
the Sherpa community live in and around the Park and play a
significant role as guides for the visitors to the Park.
Tourism however, is placing an ever increasing energy demand
on the sparse woody vegetation left remaining in the area and
also introduces considerable problems of waste disposal.
The Director of the Park had proposed that staff, army
personnel and the Sherpa community resident in the vicinity of
the Park shift to using kerosene as a primary source of energy
but has been unable to raise the necessary capital, estimated
to be about US$ 50,000, for making this shift. The Director
has called for more involvement of scientific expertise in
advising the management on resolving practical problems such
as energy needs of the staff, army personnel, the Sherpa
community and the tourists and the management of waste
disposal. The Bureau requested IUCN to utilize expertise
available in its Nepal Office in Katmandu to undertake a field
visit to Sagarmatha National Park and discuss with the
Director of the Park, ways and means by which they can provide
advise on alternative energy sources and other management
issues. The IUCN Representative pointed out that funding
would be required to support IUCN involvement.
*[23]
IV.30 Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its twentieth
session (Merida, 1996) expressed its concerns regarding the
poaching of thirteen Oryx, the damage to the desert habitat
caused by construction of a reverse osmosis plant and delays
in the completion of the management planning and boundary
definition project. The Bureau was informed that the
authorities in Oman have provided the Centre an outline of an
interim plan which foresees the following:
(a) a new outer boundary which will be fixed and boundaries of
the five management zones which will be provisionally accepted
for 5 years to allow the Ministry of Resource Management and
the Environment (MRME) to map individual zones more
accurately;
(b) construction of an MRME Headquarters at or near Al Ajaiz
with management, research and monitoring facilities and a
visitor centre, a local service centre and a desalination
plant for supplying water to Al Ajaiz and its integrated
development and access roads to the desalination plant at Al
Khumkham, specifically to Haylat at Kharasheef and the Habbab
Road;
(c) pilot projects on environmental tourism, environmental
tourism plan for the coastal region from Ras Madrakab to Al
Khaluf, establishment of a local coordinating committee, range
land and livestock management, archaeological studies,
particularly in the northern extension to the Sanctuary, and
environmental awareness programmes; and
(d) possible MRME financial and human resources to develop the
Sanctuary as Oman's first national park.
The Bureau thanked the Omani authorities for providing an
outline of the interim plan and encouraged them to develop the
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary as Oman's first national park. The
Bureau requested the Omani authorities to provide a map
indicating the outer boundary and the boundaries of the five
management zones and to report to the Centre on the status of
the Arabian Oryx population in the Sanctuary and the impacts
of the reverse osmosis plant on the desert ecosystem. The
Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to study the map(s) and
the report(s) to be provided by authorities in Oman and assess
whether a site visit to the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary is
necessary. The Delegate of Germany stated that this case
clearly demonstrates the danger connected with the inscription
of a site without exact boundaries.
IV.31 Tubbataha Reef Marine Park (Philippines)
The Bureau noted that the Chairperson of the World Heritage
Committee approved, in 1996, a sum of US$ 20,000, for the
*[24]
implementation of a project entitled "Protection and
Information and Education Campaign for the Conservation of
Tubbataha Reef Marine Park". The Bureau was happy to note that
the Project Management Team (PMT) has regular consultations
with Government agencies, research institutions and local
communities concerned with the project's implementation and
that a Presidential Task Force has brought together all groups
interested in the conservation of this World Heritage site. In
addition the Bureau noted that a symposium had been convened
on 31 March 1997 for raising public awareness of the
Management Plan for Tubbataha Reef.
The Bureau encouraged the PMT to provide the Centre with a
copy of the Management Plan for Tubbataha Reef and submit
periodical reports on the progress made by the Project and the
status of conservation of Tubbataha Reef Marine Park. The
Bureau also commended the Marine Parks Centre and the
Environment Agency of Japan for financing several projects in
support of the conservation of this World Heritage site.
IV.32 Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)
The Bureau was informed that the Sri Lankan authorities have
increased the total area of the Sinharaja National Heritage
Wilderness Area from 8,860 ha to 11,187 ha to incorporate some
habitat fragments northeast of the World Heritage Area. Since
the current size of the Sinharaja World Heritage area is 8,860
ha, the Bureau requested IUCN and the Centre to contact Sri
Lankan authorities to obtain information on areas included in
the extension in order to determine whether or not the State
Party should be invited to consider increasing the total area
of the World Heritage Site.
IV.33 Canaima National Park (Venezuela)
The Bureau noted with concern that this site faced
considerable threats from a proposal of the national
electricity company (EDELCA) to erect a series of power
transmission lines, expected to extend 160 km across the Park,
to supply power from the Guri dam to Brazil and to a mining
site north of the Park. The traditional Pemon community who
inhabit a portion of the Park are concerned that the power
generation project will lead to increased mining and logging
and hence are opposing the scheme. During recent years large
scale mining operations have been started in areas outside of
the Park and is resulting in significant loss of forests and
pollution of rivers. INPARQUES, the national agency
responsible for Canaima National Park have limited resources
and have not yet intervened against the project proposed by
EDELCA. An adequate environmental impact study had not been
carried out and construction is expected to begin soon. It is
not known whether funds for the completion of the power lines
project have been guaranteed by either the Venezuelan
Government or international donors.
*[25]
The Bureau noted that the Committee, at the time of
inscription of this World Heritage Site in 1994, had made
several recommendations, including the finalization of the
boundaries of the World Heritage area, which have not yet been
implemented. Hence, the Bureau suggested the Centre to
transmit its concerns regarding the integrity of Canaima
National Park to the Venezuelan authorities and discuss with
them the feasibility of fielding a high level mission to
Venezuela in order to gather information and discuss and
resolve problems facing the conservation of Canaima National
Park.
IV.34 Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its nineteenth and
the twentieth sessions expressed concerns over the impacts
which a proposed port development project could have on this
site and plans of the Vietnam Government to issue a license
for the establishment of a large floating hotel in the
vicinity of the World Heritage site. The Bureau noted that a
member of the Centre staff participated in the management
planning training seminar organized by the Vietnamese
authorities in Ha Long City, during 10-23 June 1997, with
financial support (US$ 24,250) approved by the Committee at
its last session in Merida and was informed of the following:
(i) As recommended by the Committee at the time of inscription
of Ha Long Bay in the World Heritage List in 1994, a Ha Long
Management Department had been set up and currently has a
total staff of 102. The Department is legally authorized by
the Provincial Government of Quang Ninh to protect the Ha Long
Bay World Heritage Area and regulate development activities
along the entire coast of the Bay.
(ii) The Vietnamese authorities have submitted a request for
US$ 20,000 to the consideration of the Chairperson of the
World Heritage Committee for the purchase of selected
equipment for the Management Department of Ha Long Bay.
(iii) While the Ha Long Bay World Heritage Area is protected
adequately, enforcement of environmental regulation along the
coastal zone of the Quang Ninh Province needed considerable
improvement.
(iv) Plans to issue a license for the establishment of a
floating hotel near Ha Long Bay World Heritage area had been
withdrawn.
(v) JICA (Japanese International Cooperation Agency) will
conduct an environmental study of the Ha Long Bay area.
(vi) When phase 1 of the construction of the port (i.e. Cailan
port) is completed in the year 2000 about 2-4 large ships
*[26]
could pass through the Ha Long Bay World Heritage area each
day.
The Bureau commended the Vietnamese authorities for
establishing and strengthening the Ha Long Management
Department and welcomed JICA's environmental study of the Ha
Long Bay area. The Bureau requested the Vietnamese authorities
to strictly enforce environmental regulations in the
development of the coastal zone throughout the Quang Ninh
Province with a view to minimizing the pollution impacts on
the Ha Long Bay World Heritage area. The Bureau encouraged the
Vietnamese and the Japanese authorities to cooperate in
carrying out the JICA's environmental study of the coastal and
marine environment of Ha Long Bay mentioned above. The Bureau
encouraged the Vietnamese authorities to search for ways and
means to direct large ships that are expected to pass through
the World Heritage area along alternative routes.
IV.35 Durmitor National Park (Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro))
The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its last session had
been concerned about the unplanned and uncontrolled expansion
of the village of Zabljak and its environs and requested
clarification regarding the boundary adjustments under
consideration. Furthermore the Committee had considered an
engineering evaluation of the earthen containment structures
built within the earthquake prone flood plains of the Tara
River.
The Bureau was informed that the Management of the Durmitor
National Park have informed the Centre that their proposal to
excise the 40 ha area around the village of Zabljak from the
Park area had been approved by the Government of the Republic
of Montenegro and that the Management wished to know whether
the World Heritage Committee would agree with the proposed
modification of the Park boundary. The Park Management, while
ensuring high protection of the Tara River Canyon, and
supporting spelaeological, hydrological, biological and
archeological studies there, had not reacted to the
Committee's suggestion for an engineering evaluation of the
earthen containment structures built in the earthquake prone
flood plains of the River. Finally the Management has brought
to the attention of the Centre its concerns regarding the
revival of plans for exploiting the hydropower potential of
the River to resolve the problem of the negative balance of
power faced by the Republic of Montenegro.
The Bureau requested the Park Management to submit to the
Centre, before 15 September 1997, a map showing the proposed
modification of the Park's boundaries to excise the 40 ha area
around the village of Zabljak and recommended that the
Committee at its next session in December 1997 decide whether
or not the proposed boundary modification is acceptable.
*[27]
Furthermore, the Bureau requested the Centre to request
clarification from the Durmitor authorities whether they feel
that an engineering evaluation of the earthen containment
structures in the flood plains of the River is necessary.
Finally, the Bureau requested the Centre to transmit its
concerns to the relevant authorities regarding their plans for
tapping the hydropower potential of the Tara River and obtain
more information on this subject for submission to the
Committee session in December 1997.
MIXED (NATURAL AND CULTURAL) HERITAGE
IV.36 Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
The Bureau thanked the Government of Peru for the report on
Machu Picchu prepared by the National Institute for Culture. It
expressed its concern, however, about the apparent lack of
integral management mechanisms for the property and the
implementation and/or consideration of several projects that
might have a negative impact either on its natural or cultural
values. The Bureau, therefore, requested IUCN and ICOMOS to
undertake a joint mission to Machu Picchu in order to examine
the management and conservation of the site and to draw up
recommendations for future actions. The Bureau requested IUCN
and ICOMOS to submit a report on the mission to the twenty-
first session of the World Heritage Committee.
The Bureau suggested that the mission also examines the
measures taken for the protection and conservation of the Chan
Chan Archaeological Zone, on which the Committee at its
twentieth session requested the Government of Peru to submit a
full state of conservation report by 15 September 1997.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
IV.37 Butrinti (Albania)
The Secretariat informed the Bureau of press reports according
to which the site of Butrinti and its museum were looted during
the civil disturbances in Albania. This information was
confirmed by the Butrint Foundation and in a meeting with the
Ambassador and Permanent Delegate of Albania to UNESCO on 16
April 1997 at which it was agreed that a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS-
Butrint Foundation mission would be undertaken to the site.
Due to the security situation in the country, this mission
could not be undertaken before this session of the Bureau.
The Bureau expressed its great concern about the damages caused
to the World Heritage site of Butrinti and the actual
conditions of the site in terms of protection, management and
conservation. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to undertake
a mission to the site as soon as the security situation in
Albania permits *[28] and to submit a report to the World Heritage
Committee at its twenty-first session. This report should
include an assessment of the damages to the site and the actual
state of conservation, a recommendation whether the Committee
should consider the inscription of the site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger, as well as proposals for future
actions in the framework of the World Heritage Convention and
the resolution adopted by the Executive Board of UNESCO at its
hundred and fifty-first session which "urges the Director-
General, in close co-operation with the competent authorities
of the Republic of Albania and in close co-ordination with the
other international organizations concerned, to draw up a plan
of action for the rehabilitation of educational, cultural and
scientific institutions and the restoration of the cultural and
architectural heritage in Albania".
IV.38 Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid fields
from Giza to Dahshur; Nubian Monuments from Abu
Simbel to Philae; Ancient Thebes with its
Necropolis (Arab Republic of Egypt)
After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat
regarding the studies carried out in several tombs at Saqqara
in the Necropolis of Thebes and at Abu Simbel, by INERIS, the
Supreme Council of Antiquities and the University of Cairo, the
Bureau thanked the Egyptian authorities for their cooperation
and invited them to implement the recommendations of the
experts concerning the ventilation of these monuments, which
would ensure the long-term conservation of their mural
paintings.
IV.39 Islamic Cairo (Arab Republic of Egypt)
a) Al-Azhar Mosque
After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat
concerning the ongoing works at the Al-Azhar Mosque at the site
of Islamic Cairo, the Bureau requested the Egyptian authorities
to ensure that the authenticity of the monument is respected,
which unfortunately was not the case for the three Fatimid
Mosques, and recalled that the World Heritage Centre is
available to provide expert advice to this end.
b) Al-Sinnari House
After having taken note of the Secretariat's report concerning
the ongoing work at the Al-Sinnari House in Islamic Cairo, the
Bureau thanked the Egyptian authorities for their efforts in
the restoration of this exceptional monument and requested them
to ensure that highly qualified artisans be made available for
this project.
*[29]
IV.40 Roman Monuments, Cathedral and Liebfrauen Church
in Trier (Germany)
The Bureau took note of a report submitted by the Minister for
Culture, Youth, Family and Women of the Land Rheinland-Pfalz
regarding the Roman amphitheatre in Trier.
The Bureau noted the results of the urban competition for the
zone north of the Roman amphitheatre and the selection of a
project which would permit the reopening of the northern access
to the arena, which had until now, been blocked by brewery
constructions. The Bureau requested the City of Trier to adopt
this project and to establish a legal planning instrument for
its implementation.
With regard to archaeological excavations of which the report
makes no mention, the Bureau learned that they were important
for a better knowledge of the site which includes, other than
the amphitheatre, barracks, depots and a cementery. The Bureau
requested the local and Land authorities to do their utmost to
allow the archaeologists to continue their work and to provide
them with the means and the time necessary to accomplish their
task.
As to the height of the urban villas east of the Bergstrasse,
the Bureau regretted that the advice of the UNESCO-ICOMOS
mission of May 1996 to reduce the height of the buildings
closest to the amphitheatre had not been followed up. It
considered that this will have a negative impact on the
historical aspect of the amphitheatre. In this context, the
Bureau noted the need for clearly established and adequately
managed buffer zones. It requested the Secretariat to transmit
these considerations to the German authorities with the request
for a full report on the protection and management mechanisms
for the monuments and their surroundings for examination by the
next session of the Committee.
In conclusion, the Bureau requested ICOMOS to send another
expert mission to Trier to assess the actual impact caused to
the World heritage site, as well as the possible impact of the
proposed urbanization of the Petrisberg east of the
amphitheatre. It requested ICOMOS to report its findings to
the next Committee session.
IV.41 Collegiate Church, Castle and Old Town of
Quedlinburg (Germany)
In response to a request for information made by the Observer
of Lebanon, the Bureau requested the German authorities to
present, by 15 September 1997, a report on the state of
conservation and development plans for the City of Quedlinburg.
The Bureau also requested ICOMOS to undertake a mission to
Quedlinburg to assess the situation, and to report to the
extraordinary session of the Bureau.
*[30]
IV.42 Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
The Bureau commended the Minister for Science, Research and
Culture of the Land Brandenburg for the detailed report on the
state of conservation of the site and the actions that have
been taken to preserve the Potsdam cultural landscape.
The Bureau particularly welcomed the openness of the German
authorities for dialogue and their commitment to seek
compromise solutions. In particular, the Bureau took note of
the commitments of the German authorities to:
- proceed with the extension of the World Heritage site as
recommended by the World Heritage Committee at its
twentieth session;
- initiate the preparation of a comprehensive 'Urban
Development Master Plan for the Development of the
Potsdam Cultural Landscape';
- launch three architectural/urban competitions for
the Quartier am Bahnhof, Alter Markt/Lustgarten and
the Alter Markt/Palais Barberini.
- cancel previous plans for the hotel in the Quartier am
Bahnhof building area number 2, so as to include this
area in the architectural/urban competition;
- not to implement the results of the earlier competition
for building areas 9-12 for any construction above the
zero ground level until the competition for the entire
Quartier am Bahnhof will be completed and thus to allow
for the competitors to develop their proposals for the
entire site and for the German authorities to review the
plans for building areas 9-12 in the light of their
compatibility with the results of the competition and the
feasibility of the project.
Furthermore, the Bureau noted with satisfaction that the
'German Unity Transport Project No 17' will not have any
negative impact on the World Heritage site and that no
dredging along the river sides of the castle park of
Babelsberg, Neuen Garten and castle parks of Glienicke and
Sacrow will be undertaken and that the Glienicke Bridge will
not be changed.
Having examined in detail the report provided by the Minister
for Science, Research and Culture of Land Brandenburg, the
Bureau requested the German authorities to provide by 15
October 1997 a report for examination by the World Heritage
Committee at its twenty-first session which should address in
particular:
*[31]
- the progress made in the preparation of the proposal for
the extension of the World Heritage site;
- the progress made in the preparation of a comprehensive
'Urban Development Master Plan for the Development of the
Potsdam Cultural Landscape';
- the results of the architectural/urban competitions for
the Quartier am Bahnhof, Alter Markt/Lustgarten and the
Alter Markt/Palais Barberini;
- an assessment of the impact of individual building
projects, as mentioned in the report submitted by the
German authorities as well as other projects, on the
values of the Potsdam cultural landscape;
- the results of the impact assessment of the 'German Unity
Transport Project No 17'.
The Bureau recommended that, on the basis of this new report,
the Committee during its twenty-first session, examines if the
threats to the World Heritage site still persist and if it
still considers it necessary to inscribe the World Heritage
site of Potsdam on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.43 Ajanta, Ellora and Elephanta Caves (India)
In view of the information provided by the Secretariat
regarding the state of conservation of the Ajanta, Elephanta
and Ellora Caves, and taking note with appreciation of the
additional information provided by the Observer of India
concerning the national and local efforts being made to
safeguard these sites, the Bureau expressed its serious concern
over the state of conservation of these sites, especially that
of the advanced deterioriation of the wall paintings and
insufficient visitor control at the site of Ajanta. In
addressing the problem of water seepage, the Bureau recommended
that a study be made on the means of vegetation control and
selection of species to be planted to prevent soil erosion.
While the Bureau commended the plan for establishing a
visitors' museum displaying replicas of the wall paintings to
decrease the number of visitors entering the Ajanta Caves, it
requested the concerned authorities to keep the Committee
informed of the developments of the OECF Ajanta-Ellora
Development Plan and conservation plans at Elephanta and
Ajanta, especialy in relation to the conservation of the
fragile wall paintings in Ajanta.
IV.44 Petra (Jordan)
After having noted the report of the Secretariat on Petra and
the report of the Director of the Department of Antiquities
dated December 1996, the Bureau thanked the Jordanian
authorities for their efforts to protect the site, but again
insisted that preservation measures be urgently undertaken and
*[32]
that the coordination of on-site activities be reinforced with
the support of UNESCO. Amongst these measures, it would be
appropriate to provide the Petra Regional Council and the
Coordination Group of the Ministry of Antiquities and Tourism
with the means to function; to urgently regulate and limit the
construction of hotels too near to the site, buildings and the
extensions to houses in the vicinity of the site and on the
Taybeh road; to closely study the negative impacts of measures
encouraging uncontrolled influx of tourists, such as the
widening of roads; and to preserve the natural environment
through the conservation of all green and wooded areas (Hishe
oak forest, the pine forest and agricultural terraces close to
the entrance of the site). They also requested the authorities
to refrain from undertaking restoration work within the site
until the condition of the monuments has been carefully
recorded.
IV.45 Quseir Amra (Jordan)
After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat on the
site of Quseir Amra, the Bureau thanked the Jordanian
authorities for their efforts, jointly with UNESCO and the
Cultural Service of the French Embassy, to protect the site
from flooding and to restore the manège and the cistern of the
Omayyades Baths. The Bureau recommended that the Jordanian
authorities improve visitor control mechanisms to ensure a
better protection of the wall paintings.
IV.46 Tyre (Lebanon)
After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat on
the site of Tyr and the remarks of the Observer of Lebanon,
the Bureau decided to defer the examination of the state of
conservation of the site until its twenty-first extraordinary
session in November, so as to take into consideration the
mission reports of the experts sent to the site by UNESCO in
the framework of the International Safeguarding Campaign and
the observations of the Lebanese authorities.
IV.47 Historic City of Vilnius (Lithuania)
After having taken note of the report made by World Heritage
Centre consultant, the Bureau commended the State Party and the
cooperating governments, institutions and agencies for their
joint effort to conserve and rehabilitate the Vilnius Historic
Centre, and requested to be kept informed on the progress made.
The Bureau also recommended to the State Party to accelerate
the operationalization of the Agency for the Revitalization of
Old Vilnius (OTRA) as a key element for the revitalization of
the Historic Centre. It called upon international and
bilateral donors to further discussions with the Lithuanian
authorities with a view to initiating cooperative agreements
along the lines endorsed at the donors' meeting which was held
in February 1997 in Vilnius.
*[33]
IV.48 Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan (Mexico)
The Bureau took note of the results of an expert mission to
the Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan and commended the
National Institute for Anthropology and History (INAH) for the
exemplary management and conservation of the site. The Bureau
requested the national authorities to examine the consultant's
report with great attention and to transmit its views on, and
follow-up actions foreseen in response to the conclusions and
recommendations contained in it to the Secretariat by 15
September 1997 for examination by the Bureau at its next
session.
IV.49 Medina of Fez (Morocco)
The Bureau took note of the information provided by the
Moroccan authorities according to which the road construction
projects through the Medina had been abandoned and
congratulated them for the measures undertaken to preserve the
site.
IV.50 Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
The Bureau took note of the state of conservation report
provided by His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and expressed
its appreciation for the progress made towards fulfilling the
sixteen-point recommendation of the UNESCO-ICOMOS mission of
1993. In expressing its regret over the further delay in the
integration of the Development Control Unit (DCU) as a
permanent unit of the Department of Archaeology (DOA), the
Bureau recalled that international assistance under the World
Heritage Fund for the establishment of the DCU was not to
provide salary support but for the training of the DCU staff.
It therefore reiterated its hope that His Majesty’s Government
will honour its commitment to make available the necessary
resources to enable the DOA to maintain the DCU in function.
While having noted improvements in the enforcement of building
regulations in the Monument Zones of Bhaktapur, and Patan, the
Bureau expressed deep concern over the continued demolition of
historic buildings located along the circular street
surrounding the Bauddha Stupa and the construction of new
structures, including the new Buddhist temple, which do not
conform to the building codes. In view of the alarming
situation in the Monument Zone of Bauddhanath, and the
persisting problems in the Monument Zone of Kathmandu, the
Bureau wished to consider at its twenty-first extraordinary
session to be held in November 1997, the placement of the
Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger. To enable it to make a sound
recommendation to the Committee in this regard, the Bureau
requested His Majesty’s Government of Nepal to provide a full
report on the progress made in each of the sixteen points of
the 1993 UNESCO-ICOMOS recommendation.
*[34]
IV.51 City of Cusco (Peru)
The Bureau took note of the report presented by the Peruvian
National Institute for Culture on Cusco and reiterated the need
for appropriate planning mechanisms for the historical City of
Cusco. The Bureau welcomed the proposal to establish a Master
Plan but emphasized that in the process of its preparation and
application arrangements should be made for the adequate
coordination and collaboration between all institutions and
authorities involved, particularly the National Institute for
Culture and the municipality of the City.
IV.52 Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)
The Bureau commended the Polish authorities for the adoption of
the 'Strategic Government Programme (Oswiecim Program)' which
foresees activities for the years 1997-2001 aiming at a long-
term and comprehensive development and management of the site
while fully recognizing the need to protect and preserve the
physical integrity and dignity of the site and abstaining from
any commercial development which could compromise the site's
symbolic values. The Bureau fully supported the 'Declaration
Concerning Principles for Implementation of Program
Oswiecimski' and commended the signatories of the Declaration
(the Government of Poland, the United States Holocaust Memorial
Council, the International Council of the State Museum of
Auschwitz-Birkenau and the City of Oswiecim) for their will to
fully cooperate in the preparation and implementation of the
'Urban Master Plan for the State Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau'.
The Bureau requested the Polish authorities to inform the
Committee on a regular basis on the progress made in this
matter.
The Observer of Poland underlined the importance of the
Declaration and informed the Bureau that the Government of
Poland has asked ICOMOS-Poland to coordinate its
implementation. The Representative of ICOMOS-Poland assured the
Bureau that the Committee will be kept informed about the
progress made in this respect.
IV.53 Churches of Moldavia (Romania)
The Bureau took note of the initiation of the UNESCO/Japan
Funds-in-Trust project 'International Support for the
Restoration and Preservation of the Probota Monastery' which
is the first large-scale UNESCO cultural heritage project
funded by the Japanese authorities outside Asia. It commended
the authorities of Romania and Japan as well as UNESCO for
their joint collaboration in this respect.
*[35]
IV.54 Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzin, Grenada
(Spain)
After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat
regarding the situation of the Albayzin and the construction
of a festivities hall at the Place del Rey Chico, the Bureau:
1) expressed satisfaction that the global
revitalization programme of the Albayzin quarter was
being elaborated in association with all sectors
concerned;
2) strongly requested the competent authorities to
undertake all efforts to ensure that the revitalization
of the Albayzin quarter is implemented in accordance with
the World Heritage Convention and other international
conventions and recommendations in force;
3) insisted strongly that the competent authorities
undertake all efforts to avoid the degradation of the
site through construction works which should be
interrupted until the results of impact studies are
known, and requested them to provide the Secretariat with
a report relating the measures undertaken to remedy this
situation so that the World Heritage Committee may be
informed at its twenty-first session in December 1997;
4) requested that the application of the Convention
should be strengthened in this World Heritage sites and a
management plan for the entire site be prepared within
the framework of a joint Spain-UNESCO Committee to be set
up urgently to follow-up the implementation of the above
measures.
IV.55 Old Town of Segovia and its Aqueduct (Spain)
Having taken note of the information provided by the
Secretariat on the state of conservation of the site and
inappropriate management of traffic in its vicinity, the
Bureau requested the national authorities to provide a report
on the measures taken and the plans adopted for the protection
of the Old Town of Segovia and its Aqueduct. The Bureau
requested ICOMOS to examine the state of conservation of the
World Heritage Site of Segovia and to present a report to the
twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau.
IV.56 Old City of Berne (Switzerland)
The Bureau expressed its concerns regarding the damages caused
by a fire to five of the historic buildings in the Old City of
Berne. It commended the Swiss authorities for the immediate
actions taken for their safeguarding and restoration.
*[36]
IV.57 Ancient City of Damascus (Syrian Arab Republic)
a) Mosque of the Omayyades
After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat on the
Mosque of the Omayyades in the Ancient City of Damascus, the
Bureau thanked the Syrian authorities for having halted the
work which was threatening the authenticity of the monument and
renewed the invitation which had been made by the Committee at
its twentieth session to provide all possible advice of
national and international experts to decide upon future action
to be undertaken
b) Tekiya Souleymaniah
After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat on the
situation at the Tekiya Souleymaniah in the Ancient City of
Damascus, and the letter dated 21 June from the Direction of
Antiquities and Museums, the Bureau thanked the authorities of
the Arab Republic of Syria to have halted the calls for tender
for foundation work at the monument and asked them to keep the
Committee informed of the results of the additional scientific
and technical studies.
IV.58 Ancient City of Bosra (Syrian Arab Republic)
After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat on the
Ancient City of Bosra, the Bureau thanked the Syrian
authorities for their efforts in the conservation of the
restoration of the southern Baths, and invited them to continue
collaboration with the French Mission to continue the
restoration of these monuments with all necessary precautions
and with the most competent enterprises.
IV.59 Site of Palmyra (Syrian Arab Republic)
After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat on
Palmyra, the Bureau warmly encouraged the Syrian authorities to
proceed with the deviation of the busy road which crossed the
World Heritage site and to initiate, without delay, the study
on a global plan for its conservation. It recalled that the
Centre was always available to provide expert assistance for
such projects.
IV.60 Hadrian's Wall (United Kingdom)
At the time of inscription the site was not defined by mapped
boundaries. In response to increasing threats through tourism,
development etc., English Heritage together with the
authorities and landowners devised a management plan for the
site.
The Representative of ICOMOS underlined the exemplary nature of
the management plan which ensures cooperation between all
partners, a strategy for tourism management and provides a
clear *[37] definition of the boundaries of the site. An extensive
buffer zone has been identified along Hadrian's Wall and its
associated sites. The plan further foresees the establishment
of a database and periodic monitoring.
The Bureau commended the authorities of the United Kingdom for
the preparation of the management plan for Hadrian's Wall and
for the clear delimitation of the site.
IV.61 In connection with discussions on the state of
conservation of several World Heritage sites, the Bureau
emphasized the need for the recognition of the World Heritage
values in the integral planning at World Heritage sites, as
well as the need for the establishment of adequate buffer
zones. It also concluded that communications between all
levels of government and the World Heritage Committee and its
Secretariat should be improved so as to avoid that the World
Heritage Committee be alerted too late in the process about
inappropriate interventions and constructions in or close to
World Heritage sites. The Representative of IUCN also
commended the importance given in the Hadrian's Wall
Management Plan to the site's World Heritage status and drew
the Bureau's attention to the excellent emphasis on World
Heritage in the planning ordinances for the City of Bath.
IV.62 In this context it was recalled that paragraph 56 of
the Operational Guidelines invites the States Parties to
inform the Committee, through the UNESCO Secretariat, of their
intention to undertake or to authorize in the area protected
under the Convention major restorations or new constructions
which may affect the World Heritage value of the property, and
that notice should be given as soon as possible and before
making any decision that would be difficult to reverse, so
that the Committee may assist in seeking appropriate solutions
to ensure that the world heritage value of the site is fully
preserved. In discussing the management plan for Hadrian's
Wall, the Representative of ICOMOS noted that the matters of
the boundaries, buffer zones and management mechanisms should
receive particular attention in the context of the monitoring
and reporting procedures that might be introduced following
the decision-making at the General Assembly of States Parties
later in the year.
IV.63 Following discussions of the looting of the site
museum at Butrinti, Albania, the Secretariat recalled that
illicit traffic was a severe problem at a number of World
Heritage sites (Angkor, Baalbek, Petra, Kathmandu Valley,
Saqqara, etc.) and that support could be provided by UNESCO in
training, contact with other international networks such as
INTERPOL and ICOM, and recovery (UNESCO press releases and
Notices of Stolen Cultural Property). It also could support
states to implement the UNESCO Convention on Illicit Traffic
(1970) and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally
Exported Cultural Property (1995). There are 150 States
*[38]
Parties to the World Heritage Convention but only 86 to the
1970 Convention. Further information about participation of
States in these conventions was requested and a table with
information was circulated.
IV.64 The need for an integrated application of UNESCO's
three Conventions for the protection of cultural heritage was
stressed by several of the Bureau members. The Representative
of ICOMOS emphasized the need for better collaboration by all
actors for protection of heritage and described new working
arrangements of ICOMOS, ICOM, ICA and IFLA in the
International Committee of the Blue Shield. He also stressed
the importance of the 1954 and 1970 Conventions to complete
protection of heritage.
IV.65 The Bureau concluded that the item of prevention of
illicit traffic at World Heritage sites should be included in
the agenda of the next Committee session and that the
Committee should consider recommending to all States Parties
to the World Heritage Convention to also adopt the other two
Conventions.
V. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF
NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO
THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND THE LIST OF WORLD
HERITAGE IN DANGER
V.1 The Secretariat informed the Bureau that all the
cultural properties proposed for inscription are listed on the
tentative lists of the respective States Parties.
Furthermore, the Bureau noted that of 149 States Parties, 75
had submitted, by June 1997, tentative lists in accordance
with criteria specified in the Guidelines. The complete list
of States Parties having submitted tentative lists and having
presented nominations for inscription by 1 July 1996, as well
as the individual lists of each State, have been communicated
to members of the Bureau (WHC-97/CONF.204/3ARev.).
V.2 The Bureau decided not to examine tentative list of
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). It
was remarked that this tentative list should not have been
processed and presented to this session of the Bureau.
V.3 The Delegate of Germany, supported by the Delegate
of Mexico and the Observers of Thailand and Lebanon, noted
that this year's nominations increase the imbalance between
cultural and natural properties as well as between regions. He
made a particular reference to paragraph 6 (viii) of the
Operational Guidelines in which it is stated that the
Convention provides for the protection of a select list of the
most outstanding cultural and natural properties and in which
the Committee invites States Parties to consider whether their
cultural heritage is already well represented on the List and
*[39]
if so to slow down voluntarily their rate of submission of
further nominations.
V.4 The Bureau concluded that this matter should be
examined in great depth in the context of the global strategy
for a representative World Heritage List. The Observer of
Canada referred to the report of the 1994 global strategy
meeting in which this matter is analysed and suggested that
this report be made available, as a working document, to the
forthcoming Committee session.
V.5 55 nominations for inscription were examined by the
Bureau (13 concerning natural properties, 41 cultural and one
mixed).
NATURAL HERITAGE
V.6 The Bureau examined 13 new natural nominations and
one mixed site received for review by IUCN. IUCN informed the
Bureau that, due to climatic conditions, two field missions
could not be carried out in time for the June meeting of the
Bureau and are scheduled for August (Central Karakorum
National Park) and October (Natural Reserve "Le Triunfo",
Mexico) 1997, respectively. The Bureau also examined two
previously deferred nominations. The Centre furthermore
informed the Bureau that two sites were withdrawn by States
Parties: Fossil Forest of Dunarobba (Italy) and Vodlozero
National Park (Russian Federation).
V.7 The Bureau decided not to examine the nomination of
Biogradska Gora National Park (No. 838) submitted by the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
V.8 Concerning the nomination of Central Karakorum
National Park (No. 802) submitted by Pakistan, the Observer of
India made the following statement: "The proposed site in the
Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir is located in an area which
is under illegal control of Pakistan. Therefore, the question
of territorial jusrisdiction cannot be overlooked in this
case. I request the Bureau to take note of the Indian position
on this issue and not to proceed further with the
consideration of the matter".
V.9 The Bureau recalled that the World Heritage
Convention fully respects sovereignity of its States Parties
(Articles 4 and 6) and decided to defer the examination of the
Central Karakorum National Park. Hence, the Bureau requested
IUCN not to proceed with the evaluation of the nomination.
V.10 Several members of the Bureau expressed the wish
that the Rapporteur contact the Representative of Pakistan to
UNESCO and obtain a statement regarding Pakistan's position on
the Central Karakorum National Park nomination for inclusion
*[40]
in the Rapporteur's report. After consultation with the
Permanent Delegate of Pakistan to UNESCO, the Rapporteur was
provided with a statement (see Annex IV).
A. Property which the Bureau recommended for inscription on
the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identi- State Party Criteria
fication having submitted
number the nomination
in accordance
with Article 11
of the Convention
Heard and McDonald 577Rev. Australia N(i)(ii)
Islands
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this
property under criteria (i) and (ii). It noted that this site
is the only volcanically active sub-Antarctic island and
illustrates ongoing geomorphic processes and glacial dynamics
in the coastal and submarine environment and sub-Antarctic
flora and fauna, with no record of alien species.
Cocos Island 820 Costa Rica N(ii)(iv)
National Park
The Bureau noted that the name of the site, originally
nominated as "Cocos Island Marine and Terrestrial Conservation
Area", had been changed to "Cocos Island National Park". The
Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe Cocos Island
National Park under natural criteria (ii) and (iv) because of
the critical habitats the site provides for marine wildlife
including large pelagic species, especially sharks. The Bureau
commended the Government of Costa Rica for its initiative to
incorporate the marine environment into the Park and
encouraged it to extend the limit of this protection from 8km
to 15 km around the island.
Morne Trois 814 Dominica N(i)(iv)
Pitons National
Park
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the Morne
Trois Pitons National Park on the basis of natural criteria
(i) and (iv) for its diverse flora with endemic species of
vascular plants, rich fauna including a large number of bird
species, its volcanoes, rivers and waterfalls, illustrating
ongoing geomorphological processes with high scenic value.
*[41]
The Bureau asked the Centre to write a letter to the
authorities of Dominica requesting them to provide a time
frame for the revision of the management plan and encouraging
them to submit a technical assistance request for this
revision. In addition, the Bureau requested the Dominica
authorities to control further hydroelectric power development
in the Park and act to eliminate private holdings in the
Park. The Bureau urged the authorities of Dominica to provide,
by 15 September 1997, their response to the above suggestions
in order for it to be considered by the Bureau at its twenty-
first extraordinary session on 28 and 29 November 1997.
Pyrénées - 773 France/Spain N(i)(iii)
Mount Perdu
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site
under natural criteria (i) and (iii). The calcareous massif of
the Mount Perdu displays in a classic way a number of
geological landforms including deep canyons and spectacular
cirque walls. It is also an outstanding scenic landscape with
meadows, lakes, caves and forests on mountain slopes. In
addition, the area is of high interest to science and
conservation.
The Bureau took note of the change of the name of the site,
from "Mont "Perdu/Tres Seroles" to "Pyrénées - Mount Perdu",
as proposed by the two States Parties, and was informed that
the site was originally submitted in 1995 under natural
criteria. In April 1997 the authorities of France and Spain
informed the Centre that they wish also to nominate the area
as a cultural landscape under cultural criteria. The Bureau
noted that this site is not included in the tentative lists of
France or Spain. If the States Parties take action to include
the site in their respective tentative lists by 1 September
1997, ICOMOS would be able to carry out an evaluation mission
for the cultural landscape aspects in time to report back to
the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau.
The Bureau also noted that "cultural landscape" is a
relatively new concept, adopted by the Committee in 1992, and
that the Expert Meeting on "Evaluation of general principles
and criteria for nominations of natural World Heritage sites"
held at the Parc national de la Vanoise, France, in March
1996, had addressed the links between cultural and natural
heritage.
*[42]
B. Property which the Bureau did not recommend for
inscription
The Valley of 840 Cuba
Viñales Pinar del
Río
The Bureau noted that the site does not meet the natural
criteria, lacked clearly defined boundaries and does not have
sufficient legal protection. Hence the Bureau did not
recommend inscription of this site on the List.
The Bureau noted that the Cuban authorities may wish to
consider nominating the area as a cultural landscape.
C. Properties for which the nominations were referred
back to the State Party
Macquarie Island 629 Rev. Australia N(i)(iv)
The Bureau noted that the nomination was submitted for its
geological features resulting from its location at the edge of
two tectonic plates.
The Bureau noted that IUCN has received further information
from the Australian authorities and external reviewers of the
nomination dossier. These concern both the significance of
Macquarie's geological and biological values and further
comparative data on islands of the southern ocean.
The Bureau referred this nomination back to Australia in order
that this new material can be assessed in light of additional
natural heritage criteria. If this information is received by
15 September 1997, IUCN is asked to provide its evaluation to
the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau in
November 1997.
The Sunderbans 798 Bangladesh N(ii)(iv)
The Bureau decided to refer the property back to the State
Party, as it does not meet the conditions of integrity on its
own. The Bureau suggested that the authorities of Bangladesh
consider enlarging the nomination to include the Sundarbans
East and South Wildlife Sanctuaries.
The Bureau furthermore encouraged the authorities of
Bangladesh and of India to discuss the possibility for
creating a transfrontier site with the adjoining Sundarbans
National Park and World Heritage site (India).
*[43]
National Reserve of 799 Kenya
Maasai Mara
The Bureau noted that the site, on its own, does not meet
natural criteria. However, the Bureau noted that this site is
an integral component of the Serengeti ecosystem and hence
could be considered as an extension to the World Heritage site
of Serengeti National Park in Tanzania.
The Bureau encouraged the Kenyan authorities to work together
with the Government of Tanzania for a transfrontier agreement
to extend the Serengeti World Heritage site to include the
National Reserve of Masai Mara. The Bureau expressed concerns
over the integrity of the National Reserve of Maasai Mara and
asked the Centre to transmit these comments to the authorities
of both Tanzania and Kenya and to request their replies by 15
September 1997.
Mount Kenya National 800 Kenya N(ii)(iii)
Park/Natural Forest
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this
property under natural criteria (ii) and (iii) as one of the
most impressive landscapes of Eastern Africa with its rugged
glacier-clad summits and forested slopes illustrating
outstanding ecological processes.
The Bureau noted that Mt. Kenya is also a UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve and will be the subject of a periodic review to
strengthen its Biosphere Reserve functions. Under the
statutory framework for Biosphere Reserves, such periodic
reviews are required every ten years. The Bureau however
expressed concern about illegal deforestation and encroachment
on the slopes of Mt. Kenya and recommended that the Kenyan
authorities reduce the size of the nominated area by excluding
heavily impacted forests. The Bureau asked the Centre to
contact the Kenyan authorities and request them to provide
details of actions they intend to take to improve management
of the forested zone, and a detailed map of the revised
boundaries of the property before 15 September 1997.
D. Deferred property
Natural Reserve 839 Cuba
of the Terrestrial
Molluscs, genus Polymita
The Bureau noted that the present nomination did not meet the
natural criteria. It decided to defer this property to allow
the Cuban authorities to consider preparing a revised
nomination to include one or more national parks in eastern
*[44]
Cuba, which would also incorporate Polymita species as well as
other natural features.
E. Properties recommended for inscription on the List of
World Heritage in Danger
Okapi Faunal Reserve (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
The Bureau discussed the state of conservation of these two
sites under Agenda Item 4 (see Chapter IV) and serious threats
to their integrity. The Bureau recommended that a high-level
mission be undertaken to the Democratic Republic of the Congo
to remind authorities of their obligations under the World
Heritage Convention and initiate actions to plan
rehabilitation of the two sites. The Bureau requested the
Centre and IUCN to report back on the steps taken in this
regard to the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau
in November 1997.
MIXED PROPERTY
Property which the Bureau recommended for inscription on the
World Heritage List
Sibiloi/Central Island 801 Kenya N(i)(iv)
National Parks
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this property
on the basis of natural criteria (i) and (iv) for the
discoveries of mammal fossil remains in the site which led to
the scientific reconstruction of the palaeo-environment of the
entire Turkana lake basin of the Quarternary period. The Lake
Turkana ecosystem with its diverse bird life and desert
environment offers an exceptional laboratory for studies of
plant and animal communities. The Bureau expressed its concern
and drew the attention of the Kenyan authorities to grazing by
large herds of domestic livestock in the Parks.
Concerning cultural criteria the Bureau noted ICOMOS' request
for further information on the Koobi Fora portion of the site
and that a comparative study of fossil homeoide sites is
expected to be completed in late summer 1997; the results of
that study will be presented to the twenty-first extraordinary
session of the Bureau in November 1997.
*[45]
CULTURAL HERITAGE
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription
on the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identi- State Party Criteria
fication having submitted
number the nomination
in accordance
with Article 11
of the Convention
Hallstatt-Dachstein/ 806 Austria C(iii)(iv)
Salzkammergut
Cultural Landscape
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this property
on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv). The Hallstatt-
Dachstein/Salzkammergut alpine region is an outstanding
example of a cultural landscape of great scientific interest
because it contains evidence of a fundamental human economic
activity.
The Historic Centre 821 Brazil C(iii)(iv)(v)
of Sao Luis
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this
property on the basis of criteria (iii), (iv) and (v). The
Historic Centre of Sao Luis do Maranhao is an outstanding
example of a Portuguese colonial town that adapted
successfully to the climatic conditions in equatorial South
America and which has preserved its urban fabric, harmoniously
integrated with its natural setting, to an exceptional degree.
The Ancient City 812 China C(ii)(iii)(iv)
of Ping Yao
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii)
and (iv). The Ancient City of Ping Yao is an outstanding
example of a Han Chinese city of the Ming and Qing Dynasties
(14th-20th centuries) that has retained all its features to an
exceptional degree and in doing so provides a remarkably
complete picture of cultural, social, economic and religious
development during one of the most seminal periods of Chinese
history.
*[46]
The Classical Gardens 813 China (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
of Suzhou (v)
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii),
(iii), (iv) and (v). The four classical gardens of Suzhou are
masterpieces of Chinese landscape garden design in which art,
nature, and ideas are integrated perfectly to create ensembles
of great beauty and peaceful harmony, and the four gardens are
integral to the entire historic urban plan. The Bureau,
however, requested the Secretariat to inform the State Party
of its recommendation to submit a nomination to extend the
World Heritage protection to the entire historic town of
Suzhou whose cultural value, marked by the linkage between
its canal system and hundreds of gardens, extends beyond the
four nominated gardens. The Bureau also requested the
Secretariat to inform the State Party of its concern over the
proposed construction of the ring road inside the historic
town, which would entail irreversible damage to the historic
urban morphology of this once fortified town.
The Episcopal Complex 809 Croatia C(ii)(iii)(iv)
of the Euphrasian
Basilica in the Historic
Centre of Porec
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii)
and (iv). The Episcopal Complex of the Euphrasian Basilica in
the Historic Centre of Porec is an outstanding example of an
early Christian Episcopal complex which is exceptional by
virtue of its completeness and its unique Basilica Cathedral.
The Historic City of 810 Croatia C(ii)(iv)
Trogir
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and
(iv). Trogir is an exceptional example of a medieval town
built on and conforming with the layout of a Hellenistic and
Roman city that has conserved its urban fabric to an
exceptional degree and with a minimum of modern interventions
in which the trajectory of social and cultural development is
clearly visible in every aspect of the townscape.
The Historic Centre 822 Estonia C(ii)(iv)
(Old Town) of Tallinn
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and
(iv). Tallinn is an outstanding and exceptionally complete and
*[47]
well preserved example of a medieval northern European trading
city that retains the salient features of this unique form of
economic and social community to a remarkable degree.
The Historic 345rev France C(ii)(iv)
Fortified City of
Carcassonne
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this
property on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv). The historic
town of Carcassonne is an excellent example of a medieval
fortified town whose massive defences were constructed on
walls dating from Latin Antiquity. It is also of exceptional
importance by virtue of the restoration work carried out in
the second half of the 19th century by Viollet-le-Duc, which
had a profound influence on subsequent developments in
conservation principles and practices.
The 18th Century 549Rev Italy C(i)(ii)(iii)
Royal Palace at (iv)
Caserta, with the
Park, the Aqueduct
of Vanvitelli, and the
San Leucio Complex
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this
property on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv).
The monumental complex at Caserta, whilst cast in the same
mould as other 18th century royal establishments, is
exceptional for the broad sweep of its design, incorporating
not only an imposing palace and park, but also much of the
surrounding natural landscape and an ambitious new town laid
out according to the urban planning precepts of its time. The
industrial complex of the Belvedere, designed to produce silk,
is also of outstanding interest because of the idealistic
principles that underlay its original conception and
management.
Residences of the 823 Italy C(i)(ii)(iv)(v)
Royal House of Savoy
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (i),
(ii), iv) and (v). The Residences of the Royal House of Savoy
in and around Turin represent a comprehensive overview of
European monumental architecture in the 17th and 18th
centuries, using style, dimensions, and space to illustrate in
an exceptional way the prevailing doctrine of absolute
monarchy in material terms.
*[48]
The Botanical Garden 824 Italy C(ii)(iii)
(Orto Botanico), Padua
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (ii)
and (iii). The Botanical Garden of Padua is the original of
all botanical gardens throughout the world, and represents the
birth of science, of scientific exchanges, and understanding
of the relationship between nature and culture. It has made a
profound contribution to the development of many modern
scientific disciplines, notably botany, medicine, chemistry,
ecology, and pharmacy.
The Bureau requested the State Party to provide complementary
information on financing and management of the site.
The Cathedral, Torre 827 Italy (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
Civica and Piazza Grande,
Modena
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (i),
(ii), (iii) and (iv). The joint creation of Lanfranco and
Wiligelmo is a masterpiece of human creative genius in which a
new dialectical relationship between architecture and
sculpture was created in Romanesque art. The Modena complex
bears exceptional witness to the cultural traditions of the
12th century and is one of the best examples of an
architectural complex where religious and civic values are
combined in a medieval Christian town.
The Archaeological 829 Italy C(iii)(iv)(v)
Areas of Pompei,
Herculanum and
Torre Annunziate
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this property
on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria
(iii), (iv) and (v). The impressive remains of the towns of
Pompei and Herculaneum and their associated villas, buried by
the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79, provide a complete and
vivid picture of society and daily life at a specific moment
in the past that is without parallel anywhere in the world.
Villa Romana 832 Italy C(i)(ii)(iii)
del Casale
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (i),
(ii) and (iii). The Villa del Casale at Piazza Armerina is the
supreme example of a luxury Roman villa, which graphically
*[49]
illustrates the predominant social and economic structure of
its age. The mosaics that decorate it are exceptional for
their artistic quality and invention as well as their extent.
The Bureau urged the State Party to address concerns expressed
in the evaluation of ICOMOS regarding the drainage of the site
and the climatic conditions within the cover buildings.
Su Nuraxi di Barumini 833 Italy C(iii)(iv)
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria
(iii) and (iv). The nuraghe of Sardinia, of which Su Nuraxi is
the pre-eminent example, represent an exceptional response to
political and social conditions, making an imaginative and
innovative use of the materials and techniques available to a
prehistoric island community.
The Ch'angdokkung 816 Korea C(ii)(iii)(iv)
Palace Complex (Republic of)
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii),
and (iv). The Ch'angdokkung Palace Compound is an outstanding
example of Far Eastern palace architecture and garden design,
exceptional for the way in which the buildings are integrated
into and harmonized with the natural setting, adapting to the
topography and retaining indigenous tree cover.
Hwasong Fortress 817 Korea C(ii)(iii)
(Republic of)
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and
(iii). The Hwasong Fortress is an outstanding example of
early modern military architecture, incorporating the most
highly developed features of that science from both east and
west.
The Historic Centre of 852 Latvia C(i)(ii)
Riga
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (i)
and (ii). The Historic Centre of Riga, while retaining its
medieval and later urban fabric relatively intact, is of
outstanding universal value by virtue of the quality and the
quantity of its Art Nouveau/Jugendstil architecture, which is
unparalleled anywhere in the world, and its 19th Century
architecture in wood.
*[50]
The Archaeological 836 Morocco C(ii)(iii)(iv)
Site of Volubilis (vi)
After having taken note of the evaluation of ICOMOS, the
Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the
Archaeological site of Volubilis on the basis of criteria
(ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi), considering that this site
constituted an exceptionally well preserved example of a large
Roman colonial town on the very fringes of the Empire.
The Delegate of Morocco informed the Bureau of his country's
intention, to propose an extension to the site to include the
City of Moulay Idriss. This proposal would be made once
effective measures for the long-term protection of the city's
cultural and architectural values had been taken, in view of
its rapid growth.
The Medina of 837 Morocco C(ii)(iv)(v)
Tétouan (formerly
known as Titawin)
After having taken note of the evaluation of ICOMOS, the
Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the Medina of
Tétouan (formerly Titawin) on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv)
and (v), considering that it is an exceptionally well
preserved and complete example of this type of historic town,
displaying all the features of the high Andalusian culture.
Hospicio Cabanas, 815 Mexico C(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
Guadalajara
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this
property on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv).
The Hospicio Cabanas is a unique architectural complex,
designed to respond to social and economic requirements for
housing the sick, the aged, the young, and the needy, which
provides an outstanding solution of great subtlety and
humanity. It also houses one of the acknowledged masterpieces
of mural art.
Lumbini, the 666Rev. Nepal C(iii)(vi)
Birthplace of
the Lord Buddha
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and
(vi). As the birthplace of the Lord Buddha, the sacred area
of Lumbini is one of the holiest places of one of the world's
great religions, and its remains contain important evidence
about the nature of Buddhist pilgrimage centres from a very
early period.
*[51]
The Mill Network 818 Netherlands C(i)(ii)(iv)
at Kinderdijk-Elshout
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (i),
(ii) and (iv). The Kinderdijk-Elshout Mill network is an
outstanding man-made landscape that bears powerful testimony
to human ingenuity and fortitude over nearly a millennium in
draining and protecting an area by the development and
application of hydraulic technology.
The Historic Area of 819 Netherlands C(ii)(iv)(v)
of Willemstad,
Inner City and Harbour
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria
(ii), (iv) and (v). The Historic Area of Willemstad is a
European colonial ensemble in the Caribbean of outstanding
value and integrity, which illustrates the organic growth of a
multicultural community over three centuries and preserves to
a high degree significant elements of the many strands that
came together to create it.
Historic District 790 Panama C(ii)(iv)(vi)
of Panama with the
Salon Bolivar
The Bureau noted that the Government of Panama had withdrawn
the nomination of the site of Panama Viejo and that it
maintained the nomination of the Historic District with the
Salon Bolivar for inscription on the World heritage List.
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this
property on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi). Panama
was the first European settlement on the Pacific coast of the
Americas, in 1519, and the Historic District preserves intact
a street pattern, together with a substantial number of early
domestic buildings, which are exceptional testimony to the
nature of this early settlement. The Salon Bolivar is of
outstanding historical importance, as the venue for Simon
Bolivar's visionary attempt in 1826 to create a Pan-American
congress, more than a century before such institutions became
a reality.
The Medieval Town 835 Poland C(ii)(iv)
Torun
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (ii)
and (iv). Torun is a small historic trading city that
*[52]
preserves to a remarkable extent its original street pattern
and outstanding early buildings, and which provides an
exceptionally complete picture of the medieval way of life.
The Castle of the 847 Poland C(ii)(iii)(iv)
Teutonic Order in
Malbork
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria
(ii), (iii) and (iv). Malbork Castle is the supreme example of
the medieval brick castle that characterizes the unique
architecture of the Teutonic Order in eastern Europe. It is
also of historical significance for the evidence that it
provides of the evolution of the modern philosophy and
practice of restoration and conservation.
Upon the decision of the Bureau to recommend inscription, the
Delegate of Germany and the Observer of Poland made statements
(see Annex V).
Las Médulas 803 Spain C(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this
property on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)
considering that the gold-mining area is an outstanding
example of innovative Roman technology, in which all the
elements of the ancient landscape, both industrial and
domestic, have survived to an exceptional degree.
After having taken note of the evaluation of ICOMOS, the
Delegate of Germany requested that his disagreement to this
recommendation for inscription be noted in the report of the
Bureau.
The Palau de la 804 Spain C(i)(ii)(iv)
Musica Catalana and
the Hospital de
Sant Pau, Barcelona
After having taken note of the evaluation of ICOMOS, the
Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe these two
properties on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv),
considering that the Palau de la Musica Catalana and the
Hospital de Sant Pau in Barcelona are outstanding examples of
the Art Nouveau style that played so important a role in the
evolution of 20th century architecture.
*[53]
San Millan Yuso 805 Spain C(ii)(iv)(vi)
and Suso Monasteries
After having taken note of the evaluation of ICOMOS, the
bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property
on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi), considering that
the Monasteries of Suso and Yuso at San Millan de la Cogolla
are an exceptional testimony to the introduction and
continuous survival of Christian monasticism, from the 6th
century to the present day. The property is also of
outstanding associative significance as the birthplace of the
modern written and spoken Spanish language.
Dougga/Thugga 794 Tunisia C(ii)(iii)
After having noted the evaluation of ICOMOS, the Bureau
recommended that the Committee inscribe this property on the
basis of criteria (ii) and (iii) considering Dougga/Thugga is
the best preserved Roman small town in North Africa and as
such provides an exceptional picture of everyday life in
antiquity.
Maritime Greenwich 795 United C(i)(ii)(iv)(vi)
Kingdom
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (i),
(ii), (iv) and (vi). The public and private buildings and the
Royal Park at Greenwich form an exceptional ensemble that
bears witness to human artistic and scientific endeavour of
the highest quality, to European architecture at an important
stage of its evolution, and to the creation of a landscape
that integrates nature and culture in a harmonious whole.
B. Properties for which the nominations were referred
back to the State Party
The Old Town of 811 China C(ii)(iv)
Lijiang
The Bureau decided on the referral of this nomination to the
extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 1997 in view
of the lack of time to fully analyse the additional documents
on the management and protective mechanisms provided by the
State Party. ICOMOS however stated the site's outstanding
universal value as a unique historic town which merges the
indigenous Naxi people's building tradition and external forms
of architecture and design. The traditional engineering skills
witnessed in the remarkable water system supplying water from
the surrounding mountains to every house demonstrates the
town's harmonious relationship with its natural environment.
*[54]
ICOMOS paid tribute to the excellent quality of the
reconstruction of the town without loss of authenticity after
the February 1996 earthquake which demonstrates the living
tradition of the indigenous building skills. In relation to
this nomination, the Bureau requested the State Party to
provide comparative analyses of the historic towns on China's
tentative list.
San Pedro de la 841 Cuba C(iv)(v)
Roca Castle, Santiago
de Cuba
The Bureau welcomed the revised and extended boundaries for
the site that were submitted by the State Party in response to
ICOMOS' recommendations. The Bureau decided to refer this
nomination back to the State Party in order to enable the
State Party to submit, by 1 October 1997, a management plan
for the site for evaluation by ICOMOS in time for the twenty-
first extraordinary session of the Bureau.
Portovenere, Cinque 826 Italy C(ii)(iv)(v)
Terre, and the Isands
(Palmaria), Tino and
Tinetto)
The Bureau referred the examination of this property back to
the State Party requesting detailed information on tourism
management, and legal instruments and mechanisms and community
involvement to preserve the characteristics of this cultural
landscape. There was a discussion on the role of IUCN in
evaluating cultural landscapes. The Representative of IUCN
pointed out that, while the Operational Guidelines call for
IUCN to be associated with ICOMOS in evaluating appropriate
cultural landscape nominations, no additional finance had yet
been allocated to ICOMOS to facilitate this.
If this information is provided and judged satisfactory by the
next extraordinary session of the Bureau, the Bureau
recommends inscription of this property on the World Heritage
List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (v).
The Costiera 830 Italy
Amalfitana
The Bureau referred the examination of this property and
requested the State Party to provide information on the
management of the site.
In case this information be provided and judged satisfactory
by the next extraordinary session of the Bureau, the Bureau
*[55]
recommended the inscription of the property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (v).
The Archaeological 831 Italy C(i)(ii)(iii)
Area of Agrigento (iv)
The Bureau referred the examination of this property and
requested the State Party to provide assurance for adequate
funding for the management and maintenance of the property.
In case this information be provided and judged satisfactory
by the next extraordinary session of the Bureau, the Bureau
recommends the inscription of the property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and
(iv).
Bagan (Pagan) 796 Myanmar (i)(ii)(iii)
Archaeological (iv)(v)
Area and Monuments
The Bureau decided on the referral of this nomination to the
extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 1997. In view
of the unquestionable universal significance of this site, the
Bureau recognized the merit for the inscription of this site
on the World Heritage List. The Bureau, however, stressed the
need for the State Party to define the core protected area and
a meaningful buffer zone and adopt legal measures to ensure
their effective enforcement. The Bureau expressed concern over
the impact of the golf course located in the vicinity of the
archaeological site and of the recently upgraded road which
cuts across the site. The Bureau therefore urged the State
Party to urgently submit a preparatory assistance request to
enable an international expert team to carry out a mission to
assist the authorities in defining the boundaries of the
protection area and buffer zone, as well as to review the
master plan and the national legal and management framework to
ensure the site's protection, authenticity and integrity.
C. Deferred nominations
The Roman Amphitheatre 808 Croatia
of Pula
The Bureau deferred the examination of this property to await
the completion of a comparative study of Roman amphitheatres.
The Roman Theatre and 797 Italy
Amphitheatre of Verona
The Bureau deferred the examination of this property and
invited the State Party to combine it with an eventual
nomination of the Historic Centre of Verona. If the State
*[56]
Party prefers to retain this as a separate nomination, further
consideration should await the completion of appropriate
comparative studies.
Essaouira 753 Morocco
The Bureau decided to defer the examination of this property
to allow the State Party to formulate and implement a
management plan incorporating monitoring and maintenance
programmes supported by professionally accepted conservation
standards and guidelines and implemented by a formal
administrative structure responsible solely for this work.
The Delegate of Morocco thanked UNESCO and ICOMOS for having
sent a highly qualified expert to complete the evaluation of
this site. He assured the Bureau that the recommendations
made by this expert mission would be taken into account in the
elaboration of a management plan of the city, which would
serve for the future resubmission of the nomination.
V.10 Upon the conclusion of the examination of the
nominations, the Delegate of Italy made a statement on the
meaning and implications of the establishment of the World
Heritage List and the position of the Government of Italy in
this respect. His statement is attached to this report as
Annex VI.
VI REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
VI.1 The Bureau examined Documents WHC-97/CONF. 204/4 and
WHC-97/CONF.204/4.Add and made the following decisions:
NATURAL HERITAGE
Technical Co-operation:
Request approved by the Bureau:.
International expert meeting on "World Heritage Convention as
an International Instrument for Biodiversity Conservation in
Tropical Forests", Brastagi, North Sumatra, Indonesia (March,
1998)
The Bureau approved an amount of US$ 30,000 for the above
meeting and requested IUCN and the Centre to ensure that
scientific information used in the preparation of, and
discussions during the meeting, is used to deliver products
that are directly beneficial to the operations of the World
Heritage Convention.
*[57]
Request recommended by the Bureau for approval by the
Committee:
Support to Strengthening Protection of Kaziranga National Park
(India)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee at its twenty-first
session scheduled to convene from 1 to 6 December 1997 in
Naples, Italy, approve a sum of US$ 50,000 as a contribution
for 1997-98, to enable the construction of 10 guard posts (US$
25,000) and 5 highland shelters (US$ 21,000) and the purchase
of audio-visual equipment for the Interpretation Centre at
Kohora (US$ 4,000).
Emergency Assistance:
Request approved by the Bureau:
Contribution to the implementation of an Emergency
Rehabilitation Plan for Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The Bureau approved a sum of US$ 75,000 for enabling the
purchase of 3 vehicles (US$ 30,000), 55 wireless communication
sets (US$ 40,000) and 2 boats (US$ 5,000) for Manas Wildlife
Sanctuary, a site included in the List of World Heritage in
Danger since 1992. The Bureau recommended that the Committee,
at its twenty-first session scheduled to be convened in
Naples, Italy, during 1-6 December 1997, review progress on
the use of the US$ 75,000 approved by the Bureau and consider
approving additional amounts of the total sum of US$ 235,000
requested by the Indian authorities as emergency assistance
from the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau requested that the
Centre ensure that the counterpart contribution of US$
1,185,000 expected to be provided, over a 2-3 year period,
jointly by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) of
the Government of India (GOI) and the State of Government of
Assam (SGA) are provided and used as described in the
international assistance request for emergency assistance
submitted by India. The Observer of India assured the Bureau
that the amounts indicated as contributions from MOEF/GOI and
SGA will be made available as planned for the rehabilitation
of Manas Wildlife Sanctuary.
Training:
Request not approved by the Bureau
Request for financial assistance (US$ 30,000) for training of
an individual specialist from Ecuador in Masters in Natural
Resources Administration at the Business Administration
Central American Institute (INCAE), Costa Rica
The Bureau concluded that the training of a specialist over a
10-month period for a Masters programme did not conform with
*[58]
the "short-term refresher programmes and exchanges of
experience" permitted for training individuals under paragraph
95 of the Operational Guidelines. Hence, the Bureau decided
not to approve this request.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Prior to the presentation of the international assistance
requests for cultural heritage, the Secretariat stated that
the amount of US$ 236,800 is still available under the 1997
budgetary allocation for technical assistance for cultural
heritage. The Bureau examined and decided upon the following
four requests:
Requests approved by the Bureau
Visitors’ Centre at Paphos, Cyprus
(US$ 23,267)
The Bureau approved a sum of US$ 12,187, recommended by the
World heritage Centre, of the US$ 23,267 requested by the
State Party for a mission of two international experts to
design the exhibition display of the Visitors’ Centre of the
site. The Bureau, however, noted that the amount of $ 12,187
for the experts’ mission was deemed too high and requested the
Secretariat to apply the consultant rates conforming to those
of UNESCO. The Bureau, furthermore, agreed to the
recommendation of ICOMOS that the State Party submit a
separate request for the procurement of exhibition materials
upon the identification of the needs and costs for the
exhibition cases and the interior design by the expert
mission.
Symposium on the Preservation of Contemporary
Heritage: Case of Brasilia (Brazil)(US$ 30,000)
The Bureau approved the amount of US$ 30,000 requested by
Brazil, on the condition that the State Party submits for the
Chairperson’s approval, a more detailed description and budget
breakdown of the activities to be financed by a contribution
from the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau supported the goals
of this symposium, aimed at reviewing the experience acquired
by the institutions involved in the preservation and
management of Brasilia and to discuss and establish new
general urban directives for the efficient preservation of
Brasilia's heritage.
*[59]
Preparation of a Replica of the Hieroglyphic Stairway of the
Maya Site of Copan (Honduras) (US$ 29,613)
The Bureau approved US$ 29,613 requested by the State Party
for the preparation of the replica before further
deterioration of the Hieroglyphic Stairway.
Request recommended by the Bureau for approval by the
Committee
Special Course on the World Heritage Convention (Mexico) (US$
30,000)
In view of the recommendations of ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM, and
upon considering paragraph 106(b) of the Operational
Guidelines which states that requests from members of the
Bureau can only be decided by the Committee, the Bureau
recommended approval by the Committee of the requested amount
of US$ 30,000. The Bureau, however, agreed to the suggestions
of ICCROM to place this special course within the context of
the regional training strategy adopted by the Committee, and
to IUCN’s recommendation to ensure a balanced participation of
natural and cultural heritage experts, and better define the
target audience of the course.
Requests for carry-over in 1997 from the Reserve Fund for
prior-year Approvals
The Deputy-Director of the Centre explained that in accordance
with the recommendations of the external auditors, all
unobligated balance of funds for international assistance
activities had been returned to the Reserve Fund for the
closure of the 1996 accounts. He therefore requested the
approval of the Bureau to charge the outstanding sums for two
of these approved activities described below against the
Reserve Fund.
Joya de Ceren Archaeological Site (El Salvador)
The Bureau agreed that the balance of US$ 14,750 of a
technical cooperation activity for Joya de Ceren (US$ 25,000)
approved by the Committee in 1994 be charged against the
Reserve Fund in order to enable the implementation of the
international seminar at the site from 7 to 11 July 1997.
Exhibition on "From Abu-Simbel to Angkor"
The UNESCO Cultural Heritage Division (CLT/CH), entrusted to
implement this activity for which US$ 45,000 was approved by
the Committee in 1994, reported that the delay was due to the
time-consuming negotiations with the major museums which are
partners in the organization of this exhibition. The CLT/CH
Representative stated that the amount granted from the World
Heritage Fund represents only a small share of the overall
*[60]
cost of the exhibition and therefore additional time is
required. Negotiations are, however, progressing smoothly.
The Bureau agreed to charging the unobligated balance of US$
39,741 against the Reserve Fund.
VII. PROGRESS REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE'S CONSULTATIVE BODY ON
THE OVERALL MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL REVIEW OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
VII.1 The Chairperson began by recalling the decision
taken by the World Heritage Committee at its twentieth session
in Merida (Mexico) in December 1996 to carry out, on the
occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Convention, an
external audit of the World Heritage Fund and management
review of the World Heritage Centre. The Chairperson also
recalled the work of the Consultative Body which has met twice
(1 and 2 April, and 20 June 1997) in Paris to define the terms
of reference for the evaluation, and study the results of the
financial audit, undertaken by the external auditors of
UNESCO, the Office of Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
The Chairperson informed Bureau members that the documents
pertaining to this point are WHC-97/CONF.204/5 and WHC-
97/CONF.204/5Add., and WHC-97/CONF.204/10 and WHC-
97/CONF.204/10Add.
VII.2 The Chairperson recalled that the Director-General
had been informed of this decision and had approved its
implementation, requesting the External Auditors of UNESCO to
carry out this task. The Chairperson then gave the floor to
the Deputy External Auditor of the Office of the Auditor
General of Canada to present their report.
VII.3 Ms B. Miller, Deputy External Auditor, presented the
report on the audited Financial Statements of the World
Heritage Fund and informed the Bureau that the financial
statements of the World Heritage Fund, controlled by their
Office, were considered correct, but a series of
recommendations, that she presented to the Bureau, are
contained in the report. These recommendations have been
detailed in the Auditor's Report under the following headings:
Coordination, Filing, Expenditures and revenues, Internal
controls, Cash monitoring, Unliquidated obligations, Costs for
fund raising, Financial information, Training and Internal
Audit.
VII.4 The Chairperson then intervened on the result on the
audit as follows:
"Without minimizing the fact that current procedures and
controls regarding financial and accounting operations do not
guarantee clarity and effectiveness in the presentation of
financial information, it is important to consider that the
opinion of the external auditors is that:
*[61]
"it presents fairly, in all material respects, the
financial position of the Fund as at 31st December 1996 and
income over expenditures for the year then ended, in
accordance with the Fund's stated accounting policies".
Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the
observed mismanagement has clearly affected the efficiency in
which programmes and projects have been implemented.
Summarizing, the following three are the most clear and
serious consequencies:
"the first has to do with the fact that in 1996, budget
expenditures were about 25% less if compared to the total
allocation approved by the Committee.
the second with the lack of clear and on-time financial
information, necessary to the Committee in decision-making in
terms of budget allocation.
and the third relates to the increase in 100% on the
expenditures of the external financial audit due to the
difficulties associated with the gathering of the
documentation required to be the job."
Furthermore, it is also considered important to fully
support the external auditor's opinion regarding the need of
precise guidelines in the World Heritage Centre's effort to
increase fund-raising activities. The Committee, at its next
meeting in December should fully address this matter.
The second stage of this review which has to do with
management procedures is scheduled to begin in September. The
external auditor is expecting to have this work done by
November, so that results can be presented and discussed at
the December Committee meeting.
All this being said, the Bureau asked the World Heritage
Centre for an effort in implementing such controls and
procedures regarding financial activities as recommended by
the external auditor. This will assure an effective and
efficient budget approval process at the next Committee
meeting in December."
VII.5 The Observer of France, took note that the debate
would be held the next day and recalled that the members of
this Body were awaiting two additional documents from the
Secretariat: one concerning the list of accounts which was
requested on Friday, 20 June from the Director of the World
Heritage Centre, and the other being the advice of the UNESCO
Legal Advisor concerning the consultant contract for
promotional activities (Mr A. Goldman).
*[62]
VII.6 The Director of the World Heritage Centre informed
the Bureau that the Centre had already prepared several
documents, in particular one on international assistance
projects approved in 1996 and still ongoing (WHC-
97/CONF.204/INF.6Rev), one on 1996 contracts, income and
expenditure from media activities (WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.7), and
another providing the Director-General's response to the
Auditor's report WHC-97/CONF.204/10Add). He also mentioned
that the Legal Advisor would respond orally to the question
raised by France. Furthermore, he pointed out that the rate
of implementation for the budget set aside out of the World
Heritage Fund for 1996 amounted to 82% and that a higher rate
could not be attained since there was a lack of suitable
requests from States Parties.
VII.7 The Delegate of Mexico then recalled that the
Consultative Body was still awaiting the reply of the Auditors
concerning the questions raised during the first meeting of
this Body on 1 and 2 April. The Representative of the
Auditors replied that they had only received a copy of this
report after the completion of the audit. However, they
indicated that the financial aspect requested by the
Consultative Body had already been addressed in the audit. In
this regard Italy recalled that, following information
transmitted by the Chairperson of the World Heritage
Committee, the report of the Consultative Body meeting of
April had been transmitted to the Director of the Centre and
to the Director-General, and that, in spite of this, the
auditors had not received it. The Delegate of Italy
requested that this point be noted in the report of the Bureau
session.
VII.8 With regard to the study and use of the World
Heritage emblem, requested from the UNESCO Legal Advisor or
other competent advisor, the Director of the Centre said that
this had not been undertaken as no funds were available. He
also recalled that this matter had been delegated to the
Consultative Body. The Delegate of Italy expressed surprise;
he recalled that the advice of the Legal Advisor had already
been requested regarding this matter and noted that the
Secretariat, in spite of the importance of the problem, had
not responded to the demands of the Committee.
VII.9 The Observer of Lebanon noted that the question
concerning the study of the emblem had been discussed at the
Consultative Body meeting in April 1997 but the
recommendations of that meeting had not been followed up.
VII.10 The Observer of Malta thanked the Auditors for their
report and said that she shared Italy's concerns regarding the
fact that a study on the use of the emblem had not been
carried out. She expressed the view that the Centre and the
Legal Advisor of UNESCO could have studied the matter and that
there was no need to hire the services of a consultant.
*[63]
VII.11 The Delegate of Germany requested the view of the
Legal Advisor on the question of the use of the emblem.
VII.12 The Legal Advisor pointed out that the emblem was
designed and developed by an artist under contract with UNESCO
and the legal rights of the emblem belongs to UNESCO. Hence,
from a legal point of view UNESCO is responsible for managing
the use of the emblem. However, he said that the World
Heritage Committee may make policy prescriptions to the UNESCO
Secretariat (i.e. the Centre) regarding how the emblem should
be used. He continued by saying that the Legal Affairs Office
does not hold any views concerning such policy questions.
VII.13 Regarding the consultant contract on promotional
activities the Director of the Centre recalled that the
contract had been prepared with the assistance of the UNESCO
Legal Advisor, and in accordance with UNESCO procedures.
VII.14 Discussions on Item 7 of the Agenda continued on
Tuesday, 24 June, during the morning session. The Delegate of
Italy made a point of order based on the fact that there had
not been time to read all the new documents provided by the
Secretariat. He requested that the discussions be postponed
until later. After an exchange of views, the Chairperson
considered that this would not be necessary as the only new
document was the one containing information on "Funds-in-trust
and other sources administrated by the World Heritage Centre :
1996 Allotment and Expenditure" (WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.11).
VII.15 The Delegate of Mexico opened discussions by
addressing several questions and remarks to the auditors and
the Secretariat:
(a) Are there clear instructions concerning the use of income
accumulated by the World Heritage Fund? If this is not the
case, the Committee should establish them.
(b) Why are expenditures of the 1996 budget less than the
amount of US$ 1,168,197 approved by the Committee for the same
year? The unused funds should be resubmitted to the Committee
if it is intended that they be used during the following year.
(c) "Additional income" is a term which is used in the
Information Document in Merida. It is no longer used today.
Will it be used in the future? Of the total amounts obligated
(US$ 552,944), an amount of US$ 283,973 has been spent. As
these funds are part of the World Heritage Fund, have these
expenditures been approved by the Committee in conformity with
Paragraphs 3.1 and 4.1 of Article 15 of the Convention? It
was suggested that precise information be presented by the
World Heritage Centre concerning "other income", in conformity
with paragraph 3.1(e) of the Financial Rules. Finally, he
suggested that the unobligated amounts of "other income",
including earmarked and non-earmarked income, for 1996 and
*[64]
1997, be clearly included in the budgetary proposals to be
submitted to the twenty-first session of the Committee.
(d) Further, with regard to "other income", it was
recommended that it be recorded in specific accounts in the
World Heritage Fund. This would allow the Committee and the
Centre to better identify and control the total budget to the
benefit of the protection of World Heritage. At the same
time, this will improve trust and clarity for donors.
(e) What are the level of payments to consultants and are
these payments based on income received?
(f) Are the promotional and fund-raising contracts
established and signed in conformity with the World Heritage
Convention and the rules of the Organization?
VII.16 The Auditors first responded concerning interest
received on the funds, which are recorded separately and can
be used in accordance with the instructions of the Committee.
With regard to the fact that the expenditures are less then
the budget approved by the Committee, the auditors recalled
that this was due to the fact that all the activities had not
been implemented during the year and that a part would be
carried over to the following year.
VII.17 With regard to earmarked and non-earmarked income
and in conformity with Article 15 of the World Heritage
Convention, the Delegate of Mexico remarked that this income
should be submitted to the Committee. He asked whether this
had been the case. The Auditors said that they have found no
stipulation that requires that additional income other than
the budget approved by the Committee should comply with the
Financial Rules of the Fund. The Delegate of Mexico
emphasized the fact that all funds should be submitted for
approval by the Committee. The Representative of the Bureau
of the Comptroller intervened, and referred to the Financial
Rules of the World Heritage Fund (Article 4, paragraph 4.1).
He said that according to his interpretation of this Article,
the resources of the Fund could only be used as defined by the
Committee and that expenditures could only be made to the
limit of funds available. He continued by saying that
consequently, the Committee could define the use of "other
income". The Auditors confirmed this, recalling that, in
their report, they recommended that the Committee be
consulted.
VII.18 The Delegate of Mexico again requested an answer be
given to the question concerning the contracts established
regarding "other income", e.g. had they been established in
conformity with the procedures of the World Heritage
Convention and UNESCO. The auditors said that the consultant
contract had been established in the name of the World
Heritage Centre and not UNESCO, and that it had been charged
to the Regular Programme of UNESCO and not to the World
*[65]
Heritage Fund because the amount was above US$ 30,000 and not
submitted to the Chairperson of the Committee. It was
recalled that in accordance with the Financial Rules, all
amounts should be submitted to the Committee and consequently,
the Committee should approve the nature of the contracts, and
the origin and the use of their funds. With regard to income,
it should be shown in the World Heritage Fund. The auditors
then recalled that this was in line with their
recommendations.
VII.19 The Director of the Centre drew the attention of the
participants to the fact that donors were free to contribute
to the World Heritage Fund or other Funds-in-Trust of UNESCO.
The promotional contracts, as in the case of those with
publishing houses, cannot wait until the Committee session to
be approved; they are often concluded during book fairs. With
regard to contracts involving income, it is evident that the
remaining amounts of these contracts would be transferred to
the World Heritage Fund and its use be decided by the
Committee. In response to a question put by the Delegate of
Germany concerning the legal aspects of this particular case,
the Representative of the Bureau of the Comptroller replied
that the Financial Rules indicated that it was for the
Committee to define the use of the funds, within the limit of
the approved budget. Therefore, the Centre should provide the
Committee with proposals for the use of the funds and
estimates for the future income to the World Heritage Fund,
including for "other income". The Bureau stated that the use
of "other income" should be approved by the Committee.
VII.20 The Auditors considered that, as the income for
promotion would be increasing, they thought it necessary to
review the Rules and define the role of the Committee in this
domain, whilst allowing a certain flexibility to the World
Heritage Centre in the implementation of its daily work.
VII.21 The Delegate of Germany and the Chairperson were in
agreement with the opinion of the auditors, whilst at the same
time recalling the importance of reviewing the Rules so as to
have a complete and clear picture of all the resources and of
their use, all the more so because clear rules and
transparency would be more attractive to donors. The
Chairperson confirmed, therefore, that this exercise was aimed
at improving information exchange between the Centre and the
Committee and adapting the role of the Committee.
VII.22 The Delegate of Australia voiced her agreement with
the general trend of the discussions, which should result in a
balance between the daily role of the Centre and the role of
the Committee. More frequent and regular consultations
between the two would be useful and would maintain the spirit
of cooperation and good relations.
*[66]
VII.23 The Observer of France thanked the Chairperson for
having recalled that the World Heritage Centre was part of
UNESCO and stated that there existed concise procedures
concerning fund-raising, which was debated during the
Executive Board. The Observer asked whether these procedures
had been followed by the World Heritage Centre and if the
responsible UNESCO Unit for fund-raising had been consulted.
With regard to the consultant contract in question, the
Observer asked whether the remuneration was at a fixed rate,
or in function of income, or both.
VII.24 At the request of the Director of the World Heritage
Centre, the UNESCO Legal Advisor replied that his service had
been consulted regarding this contract which is not a new type
for UNESCO. In this particular case, the contract covered two
activities: servicing of on-going promotional contracts, and
fund-raising. At the request of the consultant, the two
activities were covered in the same contract. This contract
did not raise any legal problems, and therefore it was
approved by the Legal Advisor. However, the Auditors recalled
that they considered that this contract should be reviewed and
clarified and it was up to the Bureau to decide. As to
income, the Auditors considered that it should be paid into
the World Heritage Fund.
VII.25 The Observer of Thailand remarked that, with regard
to the World Heritage Fund, it is necessary to refer to
Article 15 of the Convention, paragraph 3 (a, b, c, d, e)
which stipulate that all receipts and payments are paid into
the World Heritage Fund, and that in paragraph 4 of the same
Article which states that "Contributions to the Fund and other
forms of assistance made available to the Committee may be
used only for such purposes as the Committee shall define.
The Committee may accept contributions to be used only for a
certain programme or project, provided that the Committee
shall have decided on the implementation of such programme or
project. No political conditions may be attached to
contributions made to the Fund."
VII.26 He furthermore recalled that, as the Observer of
France had mentioned, the Centre is part of the Secretariat of
UNESCO, and consequently UNESCO procedures apply. Therefore,
if a donor contributes to a project, either this project is
not administrated under the World Heritage Fund and therefore
the UNESCO procedures are applied, or the contribution is
included in the World Heritage Fund and it is submitted to the
Committee for approval. A distinction must therefore be made
between contributions paid into the Fund and those paid
elsewhere.
VII.27 The Observer of Canada, submitted questions to the
Legal Advisor and the Centre concerning fund-raising: in the
past, contributions to the Fund were of a philanthropic nature
and no return was expected. However, this has changed into a
*[67]
more commercial approach. What does the Centre give to the
donor in exchange for the financial contribution? Are there
standard instructions? What is mentioned in the contracts?
What about the use of the World Heritage emblem?
VII.28 In response, the Legal Advisor recalled that in the
past, the Organization gave photos, maps, texts, free of
charge. Since then, the Director-General has established a
unit responsible for private fund-raising and standards and
instructions have been elaborated. UNESCO does not give its
name to any donor or sponsor, just as it does not accept funds
from any source.
VII.29 The Chairperson drew the attention of the Bureau on
the use of the World Heritage emblem and that of UNESCO: it
concerns a legal problem and we need clear and precise
instructions : how to reconcile the interests of the
Convention, the States Parties and the need to protect the
sites? The Legal Advisor replied that this concerned legal
aspects and policy decisions. Policy issues are the domain of
the Committee while UNESCO remains the legal owner of the
emblem.
VII.30 Referring to the consultant contract, the Delegate
of Mexico recalled that it was first of all obligated to the
World Heritage Fund and then transferred to the Regular
Programme of the Centre, as presented in Document WHC-
97/204/INF.7. These operations were not approved by the
Committee.
VII.31 The Auditors explained that funds for the consultant
contract, e.g. US$ 45,000, were taken from the Regular
Programme of the Centre, whilst the income perceived from the
contract, US$ 290,000, was paid in total into the Fund; there
was a confusion and it was decided to use funds from the
Regular Programme of the Centre. The Delegate of France stated
that she did not understand this manoeuvre; she recalled that
first of all the funds were taken from the Regular Programme
of the Centre, funds which should have been voted in the
28C/5, but that this does not appear in the C5. Then, she
requested whether the US$45,000 in question was a fixed amount
or a percentage, and if so of what funds? This contract was
established without the approval of the Committee.
VII.32 The Auditors responded that the consultant contract
did not figure in the workplans approved by the Committee and
consequently the amount was taken from the Regular Programme
of the Centre; this amount represented the fixed salary of the
consultant (e.g. US$4,000 per month) and covered travel costs.
No commission was paid in 1996.
VII.33 The Delegate of Italy requested the recommendation
of the Auditors concerning Document WHC-97/CONF.204/10,
paragraph 7 on "Other Funds-in-Trust"; he stated that Article
*[68]
15 of the Convention does not mention "Other Funds-in-Trust".
The Delegate then asked the Auditors several more technical
questions concerning the status of "other funds-in-trust"; who
approved them and what methods of control exist? Italy is in
favour of flexible management vis-à-vis donors on the
condition that the status of the funds is transparent and
follows defined directives. The Delegate also asked why these
funds are not part of the World Heritage Fund under a "Special
Account"; finally, he concluded by stating the necessity that
these types of funds be approved by the Committee.
VII.34 The Legal Advisor explained the different types of
funds: Regular Programme, funds-in-trust, donations by Member
States for specific activities. The Advisor indicated that
apart from the Regular Programme, UNESCO may also accept other
funds (extrabudgetary).
VII.35 The Delegate of Lebanon requested that a typology of
contracts be established to facilitate the debate: from a
technical point of view, distinction must be made amongst
others between contracts established to carry out the Centre's
activities following the decisions of the Committee,
publication contracts and promotional contracts which may not
have the same legal regimes. With regard to the policy
regarding the establishment of contracts to date, as presented
in the Bureau documents, there is unequal geographical
distribution favouring contractors from large industrialized
countries, whereas the objectives of the Convention are,
amongst others, international cooperation and exchange of
experiences. Concerning the recommendation of paragraph 53 of
the Auditor's Report, (Working Document WHC-97/CONF.204/10)
the Delegate of Lebanon enquired as to how long the post of
Administrator for the Centre had been vacant and expressed his
surprise at the comments of the Direction with regard to the
paragraph; he emphasized the fact that a candidate should be
chosen in relation to the tasks to be carried out and not to
adjust the functions of the post to suit the candidate chosen.
VII.36 The Observer of Malta took the floor and referred to
the Financial Regulations of the Fund; she supported the
statement of the Observer of Thailand in paragraphs 23 and 24.
She then recalled that the question put by the Observer of
Canada concerning what UNESCO provided in exchange for funds
on promotional contracts remained unanswered; she underlined
the importance of a quality control mechanism to ensure a
proper exchange and use of the emblem in line with the spirit
of the Convention.
VII.37 In replying, the Legal Advisor explained that the
many different types of contracts existed; the third party
sometimes required documentation, films or photos as well as
permission to use the UNESCO emblem; other times UNESCO takes
a more active role. However, it remains that UNESCO decides
*[69]
and determines the use of the emblem in the terms of the
contract.
VII.38 The Director of the Centre took the floor to provide
explanations. He began by mentioning dates concerning the
implementation of the audit: the Consultative Body met on 1
and 2 April and their report reached the Centre end-April,
beginning May; this report among other subjects, dealt with
the use of the emblem from the legal aspect and
recommendations for its correct use; the Director concurred
that an in-depth study of the use of the emblem was necessary,
as mentioned in the Document WHC-96/CONF.201/17 submitted to
the twentieth session of the Committee (December 1996). With
regard to promotional activities carried out in 1996, he
explained that this was done on an experimental basis which he
considered as successful as it had permitted, in cooperation
with partners selected with the National Commissions
concerned, the production of a large number of quality films
on World Heritage sites. He informed that these films were
available free of charge - or at a nominal price - to States
Parties unable to produce such films. The Document
WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.7 provides details on this experimental
year.
VII.39 With regard to financial management, the Director
recalled that the Director-General of UNESCO had responded on
20 June 1997 (Document WHC97/CONF.204/l0Add) to the Auditor's
comments received on 3 June 1997; concerning the documents
which were not submitted to the Auditors, he explained that a
large part of the activities of the Centre are decentralized
to Field Offices which explained the delay in the transmission
of information. He informed the Bureau that very shortly the
Centre would be provided with a professional administrator.
Since 1996, the Centre has been without a professional
administrator and the daily work has been carried out
efficiently by a general service staff member (GS-5) whom he
warmly praised for the high quality of his work.
VII.40 The Chairperson considered that the use of the
emblem and the promotion contracts were not completely clear.
She mentioned that the consultant contract gave rise to
different opinions in UNESCO and the Bureau should work upon
the elaboration of clear directives for the preparation of
such contracts and the use of the emblem. Finally, she
requested explanations regarding the contract established with
Korea. The Director of the Centre provided the requested
information: the agreement with Korea was for the development
of the Centre's computing capacity and the World Heritage Web
page (Internet), which now enjoys great success on the
network.
VII.41 In agreement with the Delegates of Australia,
Germany and Italy, and the Observer of Canada, the Chairperson
*[70]
underlined the necessity to elaborate clear directives for
promotion, fund-raising and use of the emblem.
VII.42 The Chairperson emphasized the general problems of
communication between the Centre and the Bureau and the
Committee, and called for improvements in this regard. The
second phase of the audit would concentrate on the management
aspects and would begin in September (see Annex VII), so that
the report could be ready in November for submission to the
twenty-first session of the Committee. In this audit work,
clarification of legal aspects in line with the spirit of the
Convention would also be covered. A concise agenda should be
prepared. The Chairperson also proposed to hold a one or
two-day workshop between the members of the Consultative Body,
the Auditors and the Centre staff to study together new
approaches: flexibility for improved functioning of the
Centre; implementation directives; improved interpretation and
application of the Convention.
VII.43 The Delegate of Germany endorsed the proposals of
the Chairperson and added that he wished that the second phase
of the audit begin without delay, that the seminar could be
held before the General Assembly of States Parties and
insisted upon the importance of a serious study of the
comments put forward by Canada. With regard to the Convention
and the use of the emblem, he recalled that the notion of
World Heritage had to be taken into consideration.
VII.44 The Director of the Centre informed the Bureau of
his preoccupation with regard to the coming months: the staff
was already overloaded with the forthcoming General Assembly,
the meetings of the Committee and the Bureau as well as the
General Conference of UNESCO, and all these activities to be
held before the end of the year. Furthermore, the Centre has
to follow up on the decisions taken by the Committee in Merida
to assist the audit. It appeared to him impossible to keep to
such a full timetable. The Chairperson insisted and said that
the decisions of the Committee must be implemented at all
costs.
VII.45 The Delegate of Australia supported the opinion of
the Chairperson whilst at the same time recognizing the
difficulties raised by the Director of the Centre. She
suggested that the Consultative Body and the Auditors study
together ways and means to facilitate the role of the Centre
and that the Bureau studies the possibility of lightening the
work load for the preparation of the twenty-first session of
the Committee. She insisted however, that the audit be
undertaken as foreseen.
VII.46 In concluding discussions on this Item agenda, the
Chairperson distributed the text of a proposed agreement
prepared by the Consultative Body concerning the financial
management procedures, presentation of the financial
*[71]
statements and budget of the World heritage Fund and
promotional aspects. She submitted this text to the members
of the Bureau for approval.
VII.47 The Director of the Centre explained how the
promotion contracts had been prepared, with full compliance of
UNESCO's procedures and regulations, on a total auto-financing
basis and asked the Bureau to postpone all decisions regarding
these contracts until the next session. The Chairperson
requested the Director to provide the Bureau with a complete
list of all the films produced and foreseen. This list is
provided in Information Document WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.12
VII.48 A discussion on the document of the Consultative
Body submitted to the Bureau by the Chairperson followed
during which all Bureau members and observers concurred to
approve its content and requested its immediate
implementation. In particular, the Delegates of Australia,
Germany and Italy and the Observers of Lebanon, Malta and the
United States of America underlined the importance of better
management for an improved application of the Convention and
use of the World Heritage emblem.
VII.49 Delegates also requested that UNESCO's instructions
concerning private funds be distributed to the members of the
Bureau, that the use of the emblem be in conformity with the
wishes of the States Parties, and finally increased
communication be established between the World Heritage Centre
and the Chairperson of the Committee who should be consulted
regularly.
VII.50 It was finally decided that the results of the
financial audit, with the comments of the Director-General, as
well as the documents of the Consultative Body constitute an
official Bureau document (Annex VIII) to be presented to the
twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee.
VIII. EXAMINATION OF THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON ITS
ACTIVITIES FOR 1996-1997 TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE 29th
SESSION OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF UNESCO
VIII.1. The Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre
presented document WHC-97/CONF.204/6 which will be submitted
to the 29th session of the General Conference of UNESCO in
October 1997. He indicated to the Bureau that the missing
figures in paragraph 24 will be included prior to the document
being submitted to the 11th General Assembly of States
Parties. In response to comments from the Delegates of Japan
and Germany, and at the request of the Chairperson, it was
agreed that the Document WHC-97/CONF.204/6 be revised and in
accordance with their comments for their approval on 27 June.
*[72]
IX. INFORMATION ON THE PREPARATION OF THE ELEVENTH GENERAL
ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES (October 1997)
IX.1 The Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre
presented Document WHC-97/CONF.204/7 to the Bureau. This
document indicates that the Eleventh General Assembly of
States Parties will take place on 27 and 28 October 1997,
during the 29th ordinary session of the General Conference of
UNESCO which is scheduled from 21 October to 12 November 1997.
An extraordinary session of the World Heritage Committee will
be held on the 29 October 1997. As decided by the twentieth
session of the Committee in Merida, this extraordinary session
will be held to elect its new Bureau, hence permitting the
latter to meet in all legality the following month prior to
the twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee.
IX.2 The provisional agenda of the Eleventh General
Assembly of the States Parties to the World Heritage
Convention was adopted without changes.
X. PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIRST EXTRAORDINARY
SESSION OF THE BUREAU (28 - 29 November 1997)
The Director of the World Heritage Centre presented
Document WHC-97/CONF.204/8Rev., the Provisional Agenda of the
twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau to be held in
Naples, Italy on 28-29 November 1997. The Provisional Agenda
was adopted without modification and is attached as Annex IX.
XI. PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIRST SESSION OF
THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (1-6 December 1997)
XI.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre presented
Document WHC-97/CONF.204/9Rev., the Provisional Agenda of the
twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee to be
held in Naples, Italy on 1-6 December 1997. The Director
noted that Item 5 "Management Review of the World Heritage
Centre" which had been included in error in the Provisional
Agenda should be removed as it was encompassed by Item 6
"Report on the work of the Committee's Consultative Body on
the overall management and financial review of the
administration of the World Heritage Convention". Further to
earlier discussions by the Bureau at this session a new Agenda
Item was added, "World Heritage and the Prevention of the
Illicit Traffic of cultural property". The Provisional Agenda
was adopted with the modifications noted above and is attached
as Annex X.
*[73]
XII. OTHER BUSINESS
The Observer of Thailand expressed his great pleasure in
announcing an untied voluntary contribution to the World
Heritage Fund of 350,000 Baht (approximately US$ 14,000). A
cheque was handed to the Chairperson who then thanked the
Royal Thai Government for their generous contribution on
behalf of the entire Bureau. The Director of the World
Heritage Centre expressed his thanks, on behalf of the
Director-General of UNESCO, and noted that this was the second
time that the Royal Thai Government had made a contribution to
the Fund in addition to their regular obligatory
contributions.
XIII. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT AND CLOSING OF THE SESSION
XIII.1 Following a detailed examination of the draft
report, the Bureau adopted it with the amendments and
clarifications noted during the debate. The Rapporteur
thanked the Bureau members for the trust they placed in him,
and facilitating his work in finalizing the Report. The
Director of the Centre, after having thanked all concerned for
their hard work, drew attention to some changes and additions
to the List of Annexes: the title of Annex VII is now entitled
"Reports of the Consultative Body to the twenty-first session
of the Bureau", and one of the additional annexes would be the
Report of the Nature-Culture meeting held on the morning of 28
June (Annex XI).
XIII.2 Several delegates thanked the Rapporteur and the
Secretariat for their efforts during the meeting. The
Chairperson, Ms Maria-Teresa Franco, took the floor and
thanked Bureau members, observers, representatives of the
advisory bodies, and the Secretariat staff and interpreters
and all others concerned for their support in her work to
conduct a successful meeting. She expressed her appreciation
of the work carried out in the framework of the Convention and
said that she considered it an honour to serve as the
Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee. She then
declared the twenty-first session of the Bureau closed.