Distribution limited CC-79/CONF.003/13
Paris, 30 November 1979
Original: English
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND
CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Third session
Cairo and Luxor, 22-26 October 1979
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR ON THE THIRD SESSION
OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The third session of the World Heritage Committee was held in Cairo,
Egypt (22 October 1979) and in Luxor, Egypt (23-26 October) at the kind
invitation of the Egyptian Government. The meeting was attended by the
following States members of the World Heritage Committee: Australia,
Bulgaria, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Iran, Italy, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama,
Senegal, Switzerland, United States of America and Yugoslavia.
2. Representatives of the International Centre for Conservation (ICCROM),
of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and of the
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
attended the meeting in an advisory capacity.
3. Observers from three States Parties to the Convention which were not
members of the Committee, namely Canada, Federal Republic of Germany and
Honduras also attended the session, as well as observers from two other
international organizations: the Organization for Museums, Monuments and
Sites of Africa (OMMSA) and the International Union of Architects (IUA).
4. The full list of participants will be found in Annex I to this report.
II. OPENING OF THE SESSION AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
5. The Chairman, Mr. David Hales, declared the session open and proposed
that items 2 to 4 of the Provisional Agenda be considered before the
inaugural ceremony.
6. This Proposal was accepted by the Committee which proceeded to
examine the Provisional Agenda prepared for the meeting. The Chairman
(CC-79/CONF.003/COL.6)
*[2]
proposed that:
i) an additional item be added to the agenda as item 5, namely
"Report by former Chairman and Rapporteur on activities under-
taken during the period September 1978-October 1979 and action
to be taken thereon";
ii) items 5 and 6 of the Provisional Agenda be examined as one item, and
iii) item 14 should be reworded as follows "Support services to the
Secretariat and to the advisory international organizations".
With those modifications, the Committee adopted the Agenda.
III. REVISION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE
7. The Committee had before it a recommendation from the Bureau that
the Committee's Rules of Procedure be amended to provide for the replace-
ment of the Rapporteur when the Rapporteur was unable to act at any
session of the Committee or part thereof or was unable for any reason to
complete his term of office (document CC-79/CONF.003/2). The procedure
proposed for the replacement of the Rapporteur was identical to that
foreseen in the Rules of Procedure for the replacement of the Chairman.
8. After examining the Bureau's proposal, the Committee therefore
decided to amend its Rules of Procedure by inserting immediately after
Rule 14 an additional Rule providing for the replacement of the Rapporteur.
Rules 15 to 37 would be re-numbered accordingly.
IV. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN AND RAPPORTEUR
9. Dr. Shehata Adam (Egypt) was elected as Chairman of the Committee
by acclamation. The Committee then elected by acclamation the following
States members of the Committee as Vice-Chairmen: Bulgaria, Nepal,
Panama, Senegal and United States of America and Mr. Michel Parent (France)
as Rapporteur.
10. In a reply to a member of the Committee, Dr. Shehata Adam, in his
capacity as Chairman of the Committee, stated that States members of the
Bureau would be invited to designate as their representatives at meetings
of the Bureau persons qualified in both the natural and the cultural
heritage, so that a proper balance would be maintained.
V. INAUGURAL CEREMONY
11. The Committee was honoured by the presence of H. Exc. Mrs. Jihan
El-Sadat, First Lady of Egypt and of H. Exc. Dr. Mansour Hassan, Minister
of Presidency, Information and Culture, who both addressed the meeting
during the inaugural ceremony; the representative of the Director General,
Mr. G. Bolla, and the Chairman of the Committee also addressed the meeting.
*[3]
VI. REPORT BY FORMER CHAIRMAN AND RAPPORTEUR ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN
DURING THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1978-OCTOBER 1979 AND ACTION TO BE TAKEN
THEREON
12. In reporting to the Committee on activities undertaken during the
previous year, the former Chairman, Mr. David Hales, focussed on signifi-
cant successes noted by the Committee and he also referred to serious
problems for the future. He drew attention to the increase in the number
of ratifications or acceptances of the Convention which totalled 48, to
the substantial increase in the number of fellowships provided under the
World Heritage Fund as well as in the assistance provided for the protec-
tion of sites. Mr. Hales also laid stress on the vast increase in the
number of nominations received for inscription on the World Heritage List.
However, he had become aware over the past year of the fact that the
Convention remained largely an unknown body in the majority of countries
and that many Governments did not fully understand its implications. He
expressed his concern with respect to the extremely heavy workload for the
Secretariat, the advisory organizations, the Bureau and the Committee itself,
and he noted that the staff on the Secretariat of the Committee was still
insufficient. Another problem was raised by the increasing imbalance
between cultural and natural representation on the Committee and he felt
that appropriate action should be taken by the States members of the
Committee to redress this situation so that the credibility of the World
Heritage List should not be put in doubt. Lastly, he underlined the
serious responsibility of the Committee with respect to the List, stressing
that the Committee's wisdom would be judged by the composition of the List.
13. The Rapporteur then proceeded to report on the last two sessions of
the Bureau. The written report of the 2nd session, which took place in
Paris from 28-30 May 1979, gave rise to no comments from the members of
the Committee.
14. The report on the third session of the Bureau which took place in
Cairo on 21 October 1979 was read before the Committee. Those points
raised by the Bureau which called for decisions by the Committee and which
were not the subject of an item on the Agenda were then taken up by the
Committee.
15. Thus, with respect to paragraph 16 of the report on the different
types of recommendation formulated by the Bureau to the Committee on
nominations, the Committee decided to adopt for its third session the
procedure proposed by the Bureau which is as follows: nominations would
not be examined by the Committee: (a) when the deadlines for their
submission had not been respected, (b) when their proper processing had
not been possible and (c) when it was evident that the supporting docu-
mentation was incomplete and/or inadequate; on the other hand those nomina-
tions which raised problems of application of the criteria (calling in
some cases for the submission of additional documentation) would be sub-
mitted to the Committee for consideration with a recommendation from the
Bureau that action be deterred, together with those recommended to the
World Heritage List and those definitively not recommended for inscription
on the List.
*[4]
16. The Committee agreed with the proposal Or the Bureau that in the
case of properties which fully met the criteria for inclusion in the
World Heritage List and which had suffered damage from disasters, the
normal deadlines for the submission and processing of dossiers may be
waived by the Bureau.
17. The Committee also shared the concern of the Bureau at the establish-
ment in the United Kingdom of an organization bearing the name of "World
Heritage Association" and of a Fund called "Heritage Trust". The Committee
felt strongly that the use in names of the term "World Heritage" should
be strictly limited to those activities directly related to the Convention
and considered that the use of these terms in the titles of other organiza-
tions could only lead to confusion which would be regrettable. It therefore
requested the Chairman to write to the above-mentioned Association, expressing
the concern of the Committee, requesting it to modify its name so that the
terms "World Heritage" no longer appeared therein and suggesting that the
Association adopt a name such as the sub-title proposed by its Chairman-
designate ("International Federation of Independent Organizations for the
protection of the cultural and natural heritage").
18. Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee decided
to set up three working groups, as follows:
A. On criteria for the evaluation of cultural property and the
processing of nominations, composed of:
Australia, Bulgaria (Chairman), Ecuador, France, Iran, Italy,
Panama, United States of America, Canada (observer), ICOMOS and
OMMSA.
B. On the management of the Convention and its financial implications,
composed of:
Australia, France, Nepal, Pakistan, Senegal (Chairmen), Switzerland,
United States of America, Yugoslavia, ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM.
C. On criteria for the evaluation of natural properties, composed of:
Australia (Chairman), France, United States of America, Canada
(observer) and IUCN.
VI. DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND STATES
RECEIVING TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
19. The Chairman introduced the document (CC-79/CONF.003/5) prepared
by the Secretariat. Complementary information was provided by the
representative of the Director-General who proposed that the standard
agreement should only be concluded in the case of large-scale projects
and referred in particular to two points of special importance, namely
the provisions relating to the protection of experts and to the exemption
of taxes and duties on equipment and material necessary for the execution
of the projects. After examining the document before it, the Committee
approved, as recommended by the Bureau, the revised draft text as prepared
*[5]
by the Secretariat. Furthermore, it decided to delegate authority to the
Chairman to sign such agreements on its behalf. However, in exceptional
cases or where necessary for practical reasons:, the Committee authorized
the Chairman to delegate authority for this purpose to a member of the
Secretariat, to be designated by him.
VIII. PROCEDURE FOR THE EVENTUAL DELETION FROM THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST OF
PROPERTIES IN CASE OF DETERIORATION LEADING TO THE LOSS OF THE CHARACTERISTIC'
WHICH DETERMINED THEIR INCLUSION (Document CC-79/CONF.003/10)
20. The document on this item which proposed a procedure with respect
to the deletion of properties from the World Heritage List was introduced
by Mr. Bolla who drew attention to the different stages in the proposed
procedure. A wide exchange of ideas ensued, during which several parti-
cipants expressed the hope that the State Party on whose territory the
property was located would inform the Secretariat of the Committee if any
property inscribed on the List had seriously deteriorated and others drew
attention to the obligation contracted by the States Parties under the
Convention to-properly preserve-the properties entered on the List.
21. With respect to the source of information on the deterioration of
a world heritage site, the-Committee presumed that it would in most cases
be the State Party on whose territory the property was located which would
transmit such information to the Secretariat. However, information on the
deterioration of a site may be made available by other sources and it would
be for the Secretariat to check, as far as possible, on the source of the
information and on the substance in consultation with the State Party
concerned. The Committee requested the Secretariat in such cases to inform
the Chairman of the results of its investigations and decided that it would
be incumbent on the Chairman to decide whether the information received
should be acted upon. '
22. After some discussion, the Committee retained the proposal that
decisions such as the sending out of fact-finding missions should be taken
by the Committee, except in the case where emergency action was necessary,
when the Bureau would be authorized to request the Secretariat to take such
measures. It was understood that in all cases, the State Party concerned
would be consulted. The question of organizing regular inspection missions
was also raised, but the Committee felt that each action should not be taken,
particularly in view of the States' obligations to adequately preserve
properties inscribed on the List and of the cost involved.
23. The representative of ICOMOS proposed that ICOMOS should be consulted
on the choice of experts to be sent on fact-finding missions in connection
with the state of preservation of cultural properties. In reply, Mr. Bolla
indicated that ICOMOS was regularly consulted on the roster of experts
maintained by the Secretariat but that any obligation for the Secretariat
to consult ICOMOS, in addition to the State Party which was always consulted
on the choice of experts, would invariably lead to delays in the sending
out of missions.
*[6]
24. The Committee adopted the procedure proposed by the Secretariat
subject to amendments to stage A on the source of information on the
deterioration of a property and subject to reference to cases where the
necessary corrective measures for threatened natural sites have not been
duly taken (see paragraph 40 below). It was decided to incorporate this
procedure in the "Operational Guidelines". The full text of the procedure
is to be found in Annex II to this report.
IX. FORMS FOR REQUESTS CONCERNING PREPARATORY OR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE
AND FELLOWSHIPS
25. Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved
the draft form for requests concerning preparatory or emergency assistance
and fellowships as annexed to document CC-79/CONF.003/8.
X. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
26. The Committee took note of the report of the Secretariat on public
information activities undertaken during the preceding year. This report
called for decisions by the Committee on the publication of the World
Heritage List and on the proposal received from the Swedish firm, Upsala
Ekeby, to produce glass and silverware commemorating the World Heritage
Convention.
27. On the publication of the World Heritage List, the Committee
decided:
(a) to retard the publication of the List in order to include
the properties placed thereon at its third session; ,
(b) that the List of World Heritage in Danger and the List of
properties for which international assistance has bean granted would be
published as appendices of the List;
(c) that the list of properties for which international assistance
has been granted would include reference to properties for which technical
assistance has been granted but would make no mention of preparatory
assistance;
(d) to publish the full list once every two years.
28. The proposal from Upsala Ekeby to produce glass and silverware
gave rise to considerable discussion, since it raised the principle of
using tho World Heritage Emblem and depictions of World Heritage Sites
for commercial purposes. There was some reticence among members of the
Committee to authorize any commercial company to use the Emblem or
pictures of the sites for such purposes. On the other hand the Committee
underlined the need to-create a world-wide interest in the Convention
and recognized the importance of publicity. The Committee therefore
decided:
*[7]
(a) that the World Heritage Emblem should not be used for any
commercial purposes unless the Committee has given its authorization; and
(b) that the name, symbol or depiction of any property inscribed
on the World Heritage List or, of any element thereof should not be used
for commercial purposes unless written authorization has been received
from the State concerned on the principle of using the said name, symbol
or depiction and unless the exact text or display has been approved by
that State and as far as possible by the national authority specifically
concerned with the protection of the site; such utilization should be in
conformity with the reasons for which the property has been placed on the
World Heritage List;
(c) to accept the proposal from Upsala Ekeby as set out in the
Annex to document CC-79/CONF.003/6.1, authorizing the firm to use the
World Heritage Emblem and the name of the Convention on a series of silver
spoons and the glassware, subject to the stipulation formulated in para-
graph (b) above and on condition that the company was not given exclusive
rights to use the emblem and the name of the Convention on articles of the
type proposed; it is however understood that the company will retain
exclusive rights on its own design as foreseen in international agreements
on the protection of industrial property.
29. After examining the proposals of the Secretariat for promotional
activities for 1980 (document CC-79/CONF.003/6.2) the Committee authorized
the Secretariat to proceed with the following activities within a total
budget of $36,900:
Estimated cost
$
(a) creation of a photo library
of world heritage sites 9,600
(b) slide series and sound-track 7,000
(c) poster 7,500
(d) postcards 4,000
(e) journalists' seminars 2,800
(f) postage stamps 6'000
_____
$36,900
30. In response to a question from a member of the Committee who sought
to avoid the publication of information on cultural and natural world
heritage sites in separate publications, Mr. Batisse indicated that the
Secretariat was studying the possibility of enlarging the scope of the
Cultural Heritage bulletin to cover not only cultural sites but also
natural heritage sites.
31. The question was raised as to whether the Committee would authorize
States Parties to the Convention to produce material bearing the Emblem
such as postage stamps and post-cards for publicity purposes and for raising
financial contributions to the Fund. The Committee was of the opinion that
States Parties were free to use the Emblem for such purposes, and could make
additional voluntary contributions to the Fund by this means.
*[8]
XI. AMENDMENTS TO THE CRITERIA FOR THE INCLUSION OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL
PROPERTIES IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION
OF NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST BY ICOMOS AND IUCN
32. The Committee considered that it was absolutely essential that the
List contained only properties which were of outstanding universal value.
Unless this general criterion was applied to every nomination, the List
could rapidly decline in value and indeed in credibility. With this in
mind, the Committee recommended that the wording in the "Operational
Guidelines" and the nomination forms should more adequately reflect this
overriding consideration, and that ICOMOS and IUCN should be instructed
to regard this requirement as of critical importance in their evaluation
of nominations.
33. The Committee heard the reports of the two working groups set up to
examine amendments to the criteria and guidelines for the evaluation of
nominations and took the decisions set out below:
(a) Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of cultural
properties in the World Heritage List and guidelines for
the evaluation of nominations by ICOMOS.
34. On the general question of the number of inscriptions to be entered
on the World Heritage List, as well as of the selection criteria to be
applied, the Committee recalled that the Convention foresees in Article 11
paragraph 1 that each State Party "shall in so far as possible submit to
the World Heritage Committee _an inventory of property forming part of the
cultural and natural heritage_, situated in its territory and _suitable for
inclusion_" in the World Heritage List (passages not underlined in the text
of the Convention). The Committee recommends that States Parties in future
conform to this provision so that the Committee may have access to provi-
sional and non-exhaustive lists of cultural properties for which they
intend to submit nomination files. This "inventory" and the nominations
should be very restricted, it being understood however that no limit in
the number of nominations should be imposed and that assurance be given
to each State Party that it may submit nominations for cultural property
relating to all the civilizations which have succeeded each other or
which coexist in its territory. The Committee was of the opinion that
the inventories submitted by the States Parties - inventories which would
as it were constitute long-term plans over a period of 5 to 10 years -
should enable the Committee to have a better global idea of the form that
the World Heritage List would take and thus to better define the selection
criteria.
35. In response to specific questions raised by Mr. Michel Parent's
report, the Committee adopted the following principles:
(i) States Parties may propose in one single nomination
several individual cultural properties, which may be
in different geographical locations but which should:
- be linked because they belong to the same historico-
cultural group, or
- be the subject of a single safeguarding project, or
*[9]
- belong to the same type of property characteristic
of the zone.
the geographical zone in which these properties are situa-
ted should be delimited and the cultural properties indi-
vidually described and also precisely localized.
Each State Party submits only the cultural properties
situated on its territory (even if these properties belong
to an ensemble which goes beyond its borders) but it may
come to an agreement with another State Party in order to
make a joint submission.
(ii) In its justification of the outstanding universal value
of the property nominated, each State should, whenever
possible, undertake a sufficiently wide comparison;
(iii) The Committee should not take into consideration nomina-
tions of immovable property which are likely to become
movable.
(iv) The authenticity of a cultural property remains an
essential criterion.
(v) Particular attention should be given to cases which fall
under criterion (vi) so that the net result would not be
a reduction in the value of the List, due to the large
potential number of nominations as well as to political
difficulties. Nominations concerning, in particular,
historical events or famous people could be strongly
influenced by nationalism or other particularisms in
contradiction with the objectives of the World Heritage
Convention.
36. The Committee took note of the typology proposed in Mr. Michel
Parent's report. It considered that it was on the basis of the inventories
submitted by States Parties that such a typology could be finalized.
The question will therefore continue to be studied until its next session.
(b) Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of natural
properties in the World Heritage List and guidelines for
the evaluation of nominations by IUCN
37. In view of the difficulty of assessing nominations without an
adequate inventory, the Committee decided to encourage States Parties
to prepare such inventories. It was furthermore decided to ask IUCN
to prepare a proposal for the next meeting of the Bureau relating to
the methodology and cost of preparing an inventory on a global basis.
38. The Committee decided to instruct IUCN to use great caution in
the application of criterion (iv) when it was the sole criterion for
recommending sites for the World Heritage List. The sites nominated
under this criterion should be habitats where "significant populations"
or "concentrations of populations" of rare or endangered species of plants
*[10]
or animals survive, that is, sites representing in some way "superlative
situations".
39. The Committee considered the complex issues concerning sites occupied
by migratory species on a seasonal basis and decided to add to paragraph 11
on integrity in the "Operational Guidelines" a new sub-paragraph (v) as
follows:
"In cases of migratory species, integrity will require critical areas
necessary for the survival of the species to be included in the nomination.
States which are parties to the Convention are requested to seek the co-
operation of other States which contain seasonable sites for populations
of World Heritage species so as to ensure that these species are protected
throughout their full life cycle. Agreements of this nature should be
noted in the nomination".
40. The Committee noted that several areas nominated which meet the
criteria may be marginal because of the inability of States, for various
reasons to apply the rigid management criteria which they believe is
necessary. The Committee was concerned that this could lead to further
deterioration of these sites if corrective measures were not implemented.
The Committee therefore decided to amend the "Operational Guidelines" by
adding a sub-paragraph (vi) to paragraph 11 as follows:
"Where the intrinsic qualities of a World Heritage site are threatened by
action or works of man and yet meet the criteria set out in paragraph 10,
an action plan outlining the corrective measures required shall be sub-
mitted with the nomination form. Should the corrective measures submitted
by the nominating State not be taken within the time proposed by that
State, the site will be considered by the Committee for delisting in
accordance with the procedure adopted by the Committee."
(c) Other questions
41. The application of the procedure foreseen in paragraph 40 above to
cultural properties will be considered by the Committee at a later meeting.
42. The Australian Delegation drew attention to the fact that, on
several occasions, members of the Committee and representatives of IUCN
and ICOMOS had referred to the threat to which certain nominated sites
were exposed, and had suggested that this factor should influence the
favourable and rapid acceptance of the site in question. The Delegation
expressed concern at this development, pointing out that acceptance should
be based only on the established criteria dealing with the intrinsic
properties of the site and, further, that if the threat affected the
integrity of the site, acceptance should be deterred. The Bureau was
asked to discuss this matter in detail at its next meeting.
43. The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a revised text
of the "Operational Guidelines" reflecting the above-mentioned decisions
and to present this text to the Bureau at its next session. One question
that should be studied in this connection would be the possibility of
adding a criterion on integrity for the evaluation of cultural properties.
*[11]
44. The Committee considered that it would be desirable to be able to
examine nominations at its fourth session within the framework of a
national inventory of cultural and natural properties which the State
Party considers suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List. This
would allow for a preliminary evaluation of the comparative value of
properties within that State. The Committee therefore expressed the
hope that each State Party concerned would make available to the Committee
before its next session a list of those properties which it intends to
nominate to the World Heritage List during the next five to ten years.
XII. CONSIDERATION OF NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
45. The Committee took up one by one those nominations which had been
recommended by the Bureau for inscription on the List, those which had
been recommended by the Bureau not to be entered on the List and nomina-
tions which raised a problem of application of the criteria, in accordance
with the Committee's decision mentioned in paragraph 15 above. In each
case the Committee heard, as appropriate, the comments of the representa-
tives of IUCN and/or ICOMOS who referred to the criteria met by the property
in question.
46. The Committee decided to enter in the World Heritage List the
following 45 properties:
No. Name of property State Party
___ ___________________________________________ ____________
19 Fasil Ghebbi, Gondar Region Ethiopia
20 Ancient City of Damascus Syrian
Arab Republic
The Committee noted the reservation expressed
by ICOMOS concerning the threat to the site
from rapid urban development.
31 Auschwitz concentration camp Poland
The Committee decided to enter Auschwitz
concentration camp on the List as a unique
site and to restrict the inscription of other
sites of a similar nature.
33 Bialowieza National Park Poland
34 Forts and Castles, Volta Greater Accra,
Central and Western Regions Ghana
36 Medina of Tunis Tunisia
37 Site of Carthage Tunisia
38 Amphitheatre of El Jem Tunisia
39 Ngorongoro conservation area Tanzania
42 Boyana Church Bulgaria
43 Madara Rider Bulgaria
44 Thracian tomb of Kazanlak Bulgaria
*[12]
No. Name of property State Party
___ ___________________________________________ ____________
45 Rock-hewn churches of Ivanovo Bulgaria
58 Urnes Stave Church Norway
59 Bryggen Norway
63 Virunga national park Zaire
64 Tikal national park Guatemala
The Committee learned of a tourism
development project in the park and
expressed the hope that the planned
construction would not jeopardize
the cultural and natural value of
the site.
65 Antigua Guatemala Guatemala
71 Dinosaur provincial park Canada
72 Kluane national Park, Wrangell-
St. Elias National monument Canada & USA
75 Grand Canyon national park USA
76 Everglades national park USA
78 Independence Hall USA
80 Mont St-Michel and its Bay France
81 Chartres Cathedral France
83 Palace and Park of Versailles France
84 Vezelay, Church and Hill France
85 Decorated grottoes of the
Vezere Valley France
86 Memphis and its Necropolis -
the Pyramid fields from Giza to Dahshur Egypt
The Committee took note of the ICOMOS
proposal that a safeguarding plan for
the environment of the pyramids should
be drawn up.
87 Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis Egypt
88 The Nubian monuments from Abu Simbel to
Philae Egypt
89 Islamic Cairo Egypt
Note was taken of the concern expressed
by ICOMOS at the problems involved in
safeguarding this site.
90 Abu Mena Egypt
94 Rock drawings in Valcamonica Italy
*[13]
No. Name of property State Party
___ ___________________________________________ _____________
95 Old City of Dubrovnik Yugoslavia
96 Stari Ras and Sopocani Yugoslavia
97 Historical complex of Split with
the Palace of Diocletian Yugoslavia
98 Plitvice lakes national park Yugoslavia
99 Lake Ohrid (that part which
lies in Yugoslavia) Yugoslavia
The Committee decided to inscribe this
site on the List in view of the assurances
received concerning the integrity of the
Lake as a whole.
113 Tchogha Zanbil Iran
114 Persepolis Iran
115 Meidan-e Shah Esfahan Iran
120 Sagarmatha National Park Nepal
121 Kathmandu Valley Nepal
125 Natural and Culturo-Historical
Region of Kotor Yugoslavia
Following the recommendation of the
Bureau, the Committee decided to enter
this site in the List of World Heritage
in Danger as requested by the State Party
concerned.
47. The Committee decided furthermore to defer the following sites:
No. Name of property State Party
___ ___________________________________________ ___________
8 Ichkeul National park Tunisia
The Committee deferred this nomination
until the Tunisian Government has contacted
the other States concerned to ensure adequate
protection of summering and wintering areas
of major migratory species found in Ichkeul.
79 Paphos, Birthplace of Aphrodite Cyprus
The Committee deferred this nomination
until more precise information was avail-
able on the possible adverse impact on
the sites of the pressing needs of tourism
development.
*[14]
No. Name of property State Party
___ ___________________________________________ _________
92 Sta. Giulia/St. Salvator's Monastery Italy
The Committee heard the comments of ICOMOS
which referred to the outstanding universal
value of the property. However, ICOMOS was
concerned by the fact that the property had
not been presented in the more general con-
text of the cultural heritage of the country
as a whole. While recognizing the value of
the site nominated, the Committee decided to
defer a decision until indications had been
received from the Italian Government on the
properties situated in Italy which it was
considering nominating to the List.
48. The Committee furthermore decided not to inscribe the following
two sites on the World Heritage List:
No. 5: Zembra and Zembretta Islands National Park (Tunisia) and
No. 73: the Madeleine Island (Senegal).
49. In order to facilitate the examination by the Committee of
nominations, it was decided that in future documents submitting nomina-
tions to the Committee would include indication of the criteria under
which each nomination was to be considered.
XIII. CONSIDERATION OF TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION REQUESTS
50. After examining the requests received from States Parties and the
recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to grant technical
co-operation as follows:
(a) Ecuador
Equipment to enable the authorities to ensure the
integrity of tho natural environment of the
Galapagos Islands through protective measures.
up to a maximum of $ 50,000
(b) Tanzania
Services of an architect-museologist for three
weeks in order to draw up a project for the con-
servation and presentation of the prehistoric
sites of Olduvai and Laetolil.
estimated cost $ 5,400
(c) Egypt
Services of specialists in cultural heritage
as well as equipment to draw up a project for
the restoration and development of the Islamic
Centre of Cairo.
up to a maximum of $ 30,000
*[15]
51. The Committee was informed that requests for technical co-operation
were forthcoming for the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania and
Virunga National Park in Zaire and agreed to delegate authority to the
Chairman to approve these requests after consultation with members of the
Bureau if he considered it desirable.
XIV. REVISION OF THE NOMINATION FORM
52. The Committee approved the revised nomination form (CC-79/CONF.003/7)
subject to the following:
(a) the text should be revised to reflect the decisions taken by the
Committee on the criteria for the inclusion of properties in the World
Heritage List and guidelines for the evaluation of nominations (see
session XI above); the attention of States Parties should be drawn, in
particular, to the essential criterion of outstanding universal value
that should be met by properties nominated;
(b) The form should emphasize the importance of adequate buffer zones
and ask for details on measures taken by the State Party on the establish-
ment of such zones.
(c) A provision would be added inviting States to prepare a brief summary
of each nomination for reproduction and for distribution to members of the
Committee.
XV. SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE SECRETARIAT AND TO THE ADVISORY INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS
53 The Committee heard the report of the working group on the management
of the Convention and its financial implications and took note of the
following points:
i) The Convention was now entering its operational phase
particularly as regards technical co-operation, emergency
assistance and the training of specialists, which implied
a considerable increase in the workload of the Secretariat.
An amount of approximately $210,000 had been spent by the
Unesco Secretariat in 1979 under its Regular Budget for the
management of the Convention.
ii) Funds actually obligated in 1979 under the World Heritage
Fund for programme support were as follows:
ICOMOS $ 15,600
IUCN $ 6,000
Temporary
assistance
to the
Secretariat $ 59,000
________
$80,600
*[16]
iii) The representatives of ICOMOS and IUCN explained that they had
received funds under a lump-sum arrangement depending on the
number of nominations examined but that this approach did not
enable the Organizations to assure proper processing of the
files and their continuous participation in the management of
the Convention. They indicated that the direct contributions
of their organizations to the management of the Convention
could be estimated at $30,000 and $12,500 respectively in 1979.
53. The Committee then decided:
a) that it was not opportune at the present time to retain a
fixed percentage such as 14%, as indicated in paragraph 26
of document CC-79/CONF.003/12, to cover direct management
costs of the Convention;
b) to ask the Director-General of Unesco to make additional
efforts to provide the Secretariat with an adequate permanent
staff to enable it to meet the substantial increase in workload
due to the fact that the Convention has now entered its opera-
tional phase. Until the Secretariat could be fully constituted
and a sufficient number of Member States ratified the Conven-
tion, the Committee considered it necessary to continue to
provide for temporary assistance for the Secretariat and
decided to review this question at its next session;
c) that with respect to temporary assistance and the processing
of files by the advisory organizations, only a limited number
of files could be processed between two Committee sessions,
and therefore no allocation per nomination file should be made.
d) to allocate the following funds for programme support for the
implementation of the Convention:
- for the Secretariat: under
temporary assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 70,000
of which $40,000 for two consultants
each for 6 m/m, one consultant for the
cultural part, and one consultant for
the natural part, and $30,000 for two
(part-time) secretaries-documentalists
for IUCN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12,000
of which $4,000 for evaluation of files
based on approximately 20 files,
$2,500 for travel and per diem costs
for participation in meetings of the Bureau,
$2,500 for promotion of the Convention
and, if necessary, field visits,
$3,000 for professional experts in the
evaluation of the nominations
*[17]
for ICOMOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 30,000
of which $20,000 for a part-time
co-ordinator to evaluate nominations
based on approximately 80 files,
$10,000 for one third of a full-time
secretary and miscellaneous secretariat
expenditures.
__________
$112,000
XVI. PRESENTATION OF THE STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
FUND AND ADOPTION OF A BUDGET
55. The Committee took note of the statement of account of the World
Heritage Fund for the financial period which ended on 31 December 1978
and the interim statement of account of the Fund for the two-year
financial period 1979/80 as set out in document CC-79/CONF.003/9.
56. The Committee adopted the following budget for the period
October 1979 to December 1980.
BUDGET
October 1979 - December 1980
Activities Brought Additional Total funds
forward funds authorized
from allocated for period
1978-1979 October 78-
December 80
I. Preparatory $ $ $
Assistance 69,234 80,000 149,234 (30 m/m)
II. Technical
Co-operation -- 165,400 165,400
III. Training 4,700 200,000 204,700
IV. Emergency 70,000 100,000 170,000
V. Promotional
Activities 500 36,400 36,900
VI. Programme
Support
- ICOMOS } -3,600 45,600 42,000
- IUCN } (deficit) (12,000 IUCN
30,000 ICOMOS)
VII. Temporary
Assistance to -- 70,000 70,000
the Secretariat
______________ ____________ ___________
140,834 697,400 838,234
======== ======= =======
Contingencies: 3% of
total funds authorized
*[18]
XVII. OTHER MATTERS
a) Balance between natural and cultural properties
57. The working group on natural criteria also reported to the Committee
on its concern at the relatively low number of natural properties so far
included in the World Heritage List. It considered that, if the List gave
an initial impression of being a list of cultural properties, it would
deter further nominations of natural properties. The working group was
also concerned that the delegations of States Members at the third session
of the Committee did not include a sufficient number of specialists in
the natural heritage field which reduced the Committee's ability to
evaluate properly natural properties. In order to increase the awareness
of the Committee and of States Parties of the need to redress this situa-
tion, the working group made two specific recommendations to the Committee:
(i) that in future a quorum for a meeting of the Committee
should require, in addition to a majority of States
Members at least five delegates among the delegations
with expertise in natural heritage; and
(ii) that, in allocating funds for assistance to States,
not more than 60% should be allocated to either
cultural or natural properties.
58. The Committee shared the concern of the group. It considered,
however, that in view of the difficulty of determining precisely whether
persons were competent in the fields of nature conservation or of the
protection of cultural property, it would not be feasible to introduce
such a rule on the quorum for meetings of the Committee. The responsibility
for ensuring balanced representation lay with each State Member of the
Committee.
59. The Committee requested the Secretariat to renew its efforts to
ensure that the authorities in each State Party responsible for the
natural heritage were fully informed of the activities undertaken under
the Convention and of the meetings of the Committee. IUCN could also be
of assistance through its direct contacts. It was decided that copies
of letters of invitation would be sent to those authorities responsible
for the national heritage in the States Parties. The Committee decided
furthermore to take up the matter again if the situation did not improve.
b) Emergency assistance for the Natural and Culturo-historical
region of Kotor (Yugoslavia)
60. Note was taken of the request from Yugoslavia for emergency
assistance, in the form of equipment and consultant services, for the
Natural and Culturo-historical region of Kotor. However, the Committee
felt that further information should be made available on the equipment
required and decided to grant in the first instance $20,000 for consultant
services.
*[19]
c) Charter on the rights and obligations relating to towns inscribed
on the World Heritage List (Cracow-Quito)
61. The Committee noted that a draft Charter had been prepared jointly
by the Ecuadorian and Polish authorities on this question and decided to
take up the matter at a later stage.
d) Appeal of Mrs. El-Sadat
62. The Committee fully supported the appeal launched by Mrs. El-Sadat
for assistance in preserving the Islamic heritage of Cairo and members
declared that they would transmit details of the appeal to their respective
governments.
e) Date and place of fourth session of the Committee
63. The next session of the Committee will take place early in
September 1980, probably in France. The precise place and dates will be
communicated to all concerned as soon as possible.
XVIII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
64. Following an expression of thanks from the floor to the Egyptian
authorities for the remarkable hospitality offered to the Committee, to
the Chairman for the admirable way in which he had conducted the meeting
and to all those who had contributed to the smooth running of the meeting,
the Chairman declared the session closed.
+++++++
Michel Parent
Rapporteur
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CC-79/CONF.003/13 Annex I
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
H. Exc. Professor R.O. Slatyer
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Australia to Unesco
Mr. Peter Dalkin
First Secretary, Australian Embassy, Cairo
BULGARIA /BULGARIE
Mme Magdalina Stantecheva Vice-Chairman/Vice-President
Membre de la Commission nationale pour
l'Unesco
Maître de Recherches au musée de Sofia
ECUADOR/EQUATEUR
Mr. Rodrigo Pallares
Director, Instituto de Patrimonio Cultural
EGYPT/EGYPTE
Dr. Shehata Adam
President
Organization of Egyptian Antiquities Chairman/President
FRANCE
Mr. Michel Parent Rapporteur
Inspecteur général des Monuments historiques
Mr. Jean-Pierre Bady
Directeur de la Caisse nationale des
Monuments historiques et des sites
Mr. Lucien Chabason
Chef de Service de l'Espace et des Sites
Ministére de l'Environnement et du Cadre de Vie
IRAN
Mr. Charyer Adle (observer/observateur)
Archéologue
*[Annex I/2]
ITALY/ITALIE
Mr. Giovanni d'Andrea
Directeur des Relations culturelles de
la Région de Lombardie
Mme Carla Maria Burri
Attachée culturelle à l'Ambassade italienne au Caire
NEPAL
H. Exc. Gen. Singh Bahadur Basnyat Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador
of Nepal to Egypt
PAKISTAN
Mr. Shafqat Kakakhel
First Secretary, Pakistan Embassy in Cairo
PANAMA
Dr. Reina Torres de Arauz Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
National Director of Historical Heritage
SENEGAL
Mr. Amadou Lamine Sy Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Directeur du patrimoine national
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Mr. Ernest Martin
Membre correspondant de la Commission fédérale
des Monuments historiques
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mr. David Hales Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks
Department of the Interior
Mr. Robert R. Garvey, Jr.
Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic Prenervation
Mr. Richard Cook
National Park Service
Departmont of the Interior
Mr. Robert C. Milne
Chief, International Park Affairs
National Park Service
*[Annex I/3]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
(cont'd) / (suite)
Mr. Addison E. Richmond
Counselor for Scientific and Technological Affairs,
U.S. Embassy in Cairo
Mr. William H. Eddy (observer/observateur)
National Park Service
YUGOSLAVIA/YOUGOSLAVIE
Mr. Milan Prelog
Professeur à l'Université de Zagreb
II. OBSERVERS FROM OTHER STATES PARTIES/OBSERVATEURS D'AUTRES ETATS PARTIES
CANADA
Mr. Peter H. Bennett
Adviser on Unesco World Heritage Convention
to Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY/REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Dr. Georg Mörsch
Conservator in Rhineland-Westfalie
HONDURAS
Mr. Armando Alvarez
Minister, Secretary of Culture and Tourism
Mr. Guillermo Casco
Adviser, Ministry of Culture
III. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/ORGANISATIONS
PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION (ICCROM)/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL
POUR LA CONSERVATION
Mr. Louis-Jacques Rollet-Andriane
Special Representative of the Director
*[Annex I/4]
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)/
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
Prof. Raymond Lemaire
Président
Mr. Krzysztof Pawlowski
Vice-Président
Mr. François Leblanc
Directeur du Secrétariat
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES/
UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE ET DE SES RESSOURCES
Mr. Harold Eidsvik
Executive Officer
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas
IV. OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS/D'AUTRES ORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALES
ORGANIZATION FOR MUSEUMS, MONUMENTS AND SITES OF AFRICA (OMMSA)/
ORGANISATION POUR LES MUSEES, MONUMENTS ET SITES EN AFRIQUE
Mr. Kwasi Myles
Secretary General
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ARCHITECTS/UNION INTERNATTONALE DES ARCHITECTES
Mr. Yehya Mohamed Eid
Member of the Board of the UIA
V. SECRETARIAT
Mr. Gérard Bolla
Deputy Assistant Director General
Sector of Culture and Communication
Representative of the Director-General
Mr. Michel Batisse
Deputy Assistant Director General
Science Sector
Mr. Bernd von Droste
Diviaion of Ecological Sciences
Mrs. Margaret van Vliet
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mrs. Anne Saurat
Consultant
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CC-79/CONF.003/13 Annex II
PROCEDURE FOR THE EVENTUAL DELETION OF PROPERTIES
FROM THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
1. At its third session, the World Heritage Committee adapted the
following procedure for the deletion of properties from the World Heritage
List in cases:
a) where a property has deteriorated to the point where it
has lost those characteristics which determined its inclu-
sion in the World Heritage List; and
b) where the intrinsic qualities of a natural world heritage
site* were already threatened at the time of
its nomination by action or works of man and where the
necessary corrective measured as outlined by the State Party
at that time, have not been taken within the time proposed.
A. When a property inscribed on the World Heritage List has seriously
deteriorated or, in the case of a natural site*, when the necessary
corrective measures have not been taken within the time proposed, the
State Party on whose territory the property is situated should so inform
the Secretariat of the Committee.
B. When the Secretariat receives such information from a source
other than the State Party concerned, it will, as far as possible, verify
the source and the contents of the information in consultation with the
State Party concerned and request its comments. The Secretariat will
inform the Chairman of the Committee of the results of its investigations
and the Chairman will decide whether the information is to be acted upon.
If the Chairman decides that the information is not to be acted upon, no
action will be taken.
C. The Secretariat will request the competent advisory organization(s)
(ICOMOS, IUCN or ICCROM) to forward comments on the information received.
D. The information received, together with the comments of the State
Party and of the advisory organization(s), will be brought to the attention
of the Bureau of the Committee. The Bureau may take one of the following
measures:
(a) it may decide that the property has not seriously deteriorated
and that no further action should be taken;
(b) when the Bureau considers that the property has seriously deterio-
rated but not to the extent that its restoration is impossible,
it may recommend to the Committee that the property be maintained
on the List provided that the State Party takes the necessary
measures to restore the property within a reasonable period of
time. The Bureau may also recommend that technical co-operation
be provided under the World Heritage Fund for work connected with
the restoration of the property, if the State Party so requests.
---------
* The Committee decided to examine at a later stage the possibility of
applying this rule to cultural properties.
*[Annex II/2]
(c) when there is evidence that the property has deteriorated to the
point where it has irretrievably lost those characteristics which
determined its inclusion on the List, the Bureau may recommend that
the Committee delete the property from the List; before any such
recommendation is submitted to the Committee, the Secretariat will
inform the State Party concerned of the Bureau's recommendation; any
comments which the State Party may make with respect to the recommenda-
tion of the Bureau will be brought to the attention of the Committee,
together with the Bureau's recommendation;
(d) when the information available is not sufficient to enable the Bureau
to take one of the measures described in (a), (b) or (c) above, the
Bureau may recommend to the Committee that the Secretariat be author-
ized to take the necessary action to ascertain, in consultation with
the State Party concerned, the present condition of the property,
the dangers to the property and the feasibility of adequately restor-
ing the property, and to report to the Bureau on the results of its
action; such measures may include the sending of a fact-finding mission
or the consultation of specialists. In cases where emergency action
is required, the Bureau may itself authorize the Secretariat to take
such measures.
E. The Committee will examine the recommendation of the Bureau and
all the information available and will take a decision. Any such decision
shall, in accordance with Article 13(8) of the Convention, be taken by a
majority of two-thirds of its members present and voting. The Committee
shall not decide to delete any property unless the State Party has been
consulted on the question.
F. The State Party will be informed of the Committee's decision.
G. If the Committee's decision entails any modification to the
World Heritage List, this modification will be reflected in the next
updated list that is published. Tho reasons for the deletion of any
property from the List will also be given in the publication.
2. In adopting the above procedure, the Committee was particularly
concerned that all possible measures should be taken to prevent the dele-
tion of any property from the List and was ready to offer technical co-
operation as far as possible to States Parties in this connection. Further-
more, the Committee wished to draw the attention of States Parties to the
stipulations of Article 4 of the Convention which reads as follows:
"Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring
the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission
to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in
Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that
State..."