CC-81/CONF/003/6
Paris, 5 January 1982
Original : English and French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC
AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION
OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
World Heritage Committee
Fifth Session
Sydney, 26-30 October 1981
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The fifth session of the World Heritage Committee was held in
Sydney, Australia (26-30 October 1981) at the kind invitation of
the Government of Australia. The meeting was attended by the following
States Members of the World Heritage Committee: Argentina, Australia,
Brazil, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Federal Republic of Germany,
Guinea, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nepal, Pakistan,
Switzerland, Tunisia and the United States of America.
2. Representatives of the International Centre for Conservation in
Rome (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity.
3. Observers from seven States Parties to the Convention not members
of the Committee, namely Canada, Chile, India, Iran, Malta, Poland
and Portugal also participated in the session, as well as observers from
one intergovernmental organization, the Arab Educational, Cultural and
Scientific Organisation (ALECSO) and two international non-governmental
organizations, the International Council of Museums (ICOM); and the
International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA). The full list
of participants will be found in Annex I to this report.
*[2]
II. OPENING OF THE SESSION
4. The meeting was formally opened by the Prime Minister of Australia,
The Rt. Hon. Malcolm Fraser, who welcomed delegates and observers
to his country. The Prime Minister referred to the concept of a World
Heritage as a profound expression of co-operation between people and a
willingness to share, and stated that the World Heritage Convention was
an important milestone in the modern history of man's concern, not only
for his environment, but also for his cultural roots and origins. The
Prime Minister also spoke of the first nominations by Australia for the
World Heritage List and of the environmental and conservation concerns
of the Australian authorities. The Prime Minister concluded by referring
to the challenging task of the Committee in trying to ensure that univers-
ally valuable sites and properties from all countries could find a secure
place on the World Heritage List.
5. In reply, the representative of the Director-General of Unesco,
Mr. G. Bolla, thanked the Prime Minister for his welcome and expressed
the profound gratitude of the participants for the kind invitation to hold
the meeting in Sydney and for the generous hospitality of the Australian
people. He also recalled the concern of Mr. Amadou Mahtar M'Bow, Director-
General of Unesco, for the conservation of the cultural and the natural
heritage and expressed the Director-General's appreciation for the active
participation of Australia in all the activities of Unesco.
III. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
6. Professor R. O. Slatyer (Australia) was elected Chairman of the
Committee by acclamation and he delivered a brief address.
IV. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
7. The Committee adopted the agenda for the session.
8. A delegate suggested that two working groups be set up in order
to examine a number of questions of principle relating to the
implementation of the Convention, and, in particular, the procedures
for the evaluation of nominated properties and the way to strike a
better balance between the cultural heritage and the natural heritage.
9. The Chairman suggested that this proposal be examined by the Bureau
as soon as it was established. It was subsequently decided to set
up two working groups, one to study the procedure for the evaluation and
examination of nominations to the World Heritage List as well as the
question of protecting world heritage properties and another to examine
technical co-operation requests and to propose a budget for the forth-
coming year.
*[3]
V. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMEN AND RAPPORTEUR
10. The Committee thereafter elected by acclamation the delegates of
the following States members of the Committee as Vice-Chairmen:
the Federal Republic of Germany, Brazil, Bulgaria, Guinea and Nepal.
Mr Azedine Beschaouch (Tunisia) was re-elected Rapporteur by acclamation.
VI. REPORT ON THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE
11. The Rapporteur, Mr A. Beschaouch, referred to the main points of
the report on the fifth session of the Bureau of the Committee,
held in Paris from 4 to 7 May 1981. In particular, he draw attention
to the twenty-seven properties recommended for inclusion in the World
Heritage List.
VII. REPORT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL
12. In reporting on the activities undertaken during the last twelve
months relating to the implementation of the Convention, the
representative of the Director-General informed the Committee that a
total of sixty-one States had now adhered to the Convention. There
were however some regions in which only a few countries had ratified
the Convention and the Secretariat assured the Committee that it would
do its utmost to urge other countries to participate in this activity.
Eighty-six sites, proposed by twenty-nine countries, had already been
inscribed on the World Heritage List, but there were twenty-four States
Parties which had so far not submitted any nomination to the List. He
also reported on the activities undertaken in implementation of the
decisions taken by the Committee at its fourth session and on the
financial situation of the World Heritage Fund which could be considered
satisfactory. He indicated, in particular, that as at 31 August 1981,
the cash in hand amounted to $1,907,600.75.
VIII. NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
13. The Committee examined one by one the nominations of those
properties which the Bureau had recommended for inclusion on the
World Heritage List. In each case, the Committee took note of the
comments of the representatives of ICOMOS and/or IUCN, who had made
an evaluation of each property in relation to the criteria for
inscription. The Committee also noted, for each case, the point of
view of the Bureau as presented by the Rapporteur.
14. The Chairman informed the Committee that he had received a letter
from an Australian non-governmental organization asking to address
the Committee on one nomination and to provide material to the Committee
concerning the Australian site in question. On the recommendation of
the Bureau, the Committee decided that such groups would not be
authorized to address the Committee direct nor to circulate material
in the meeting room and that they should be requested to contact their
national delegations.
*[4]
15. The Committee decided to include in the World Heritage List all
the properties recommended by the Bureau. Two nominations, the
Fort of Lahore and Shalimar Gardens in Lahore were combined and thus
the following twenty-six properties were inscribed :
Nomination Identifi-
Name of Property submitted by cation No.
________________ ____________ __________
- Los Glaciares Argentina 145
(See paragraph 39 below)
- Kakadu National Park Australia 147
NB The Committee noted that the
Australian Government intended to
proclaim additional areas in the
Alligator River Region as part of
Kakadu National Park and recommended
that such areas be included in the
site inscribed on the World Heritage
List and that in the Region the
environmental protection measures
specified in the relevant legislation
continue to be enforced.
- The Great Barrier Reef Australia 154
NB The Committee noted that only a
small proportion of the area nominated
for the World Heritage List had been
proclaimed within the Great Barrier
Reef Region as defined in the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, 1975,
and the Committee requested the
Australian Government to take steps
to ensure that the whole area is
proclaimed under relevant legislation
as soon as possible and that the
necessary environmental protection
measures are taken.
- Willandra Lakes Region Australia 167
NB The Committee would like to see a
management plan rapidly established
for the whole area.
- Anthony Island Canada 157
- Head-Smashed-in Bison Jump Canada 158
- Speyer Cathedral Federal Republic 168
of Germany
- Wurzburg Residence with the Court Federal Republic 169
Gardens and Residence Square of Germany
*[5]
Nomination Identifi-
Name of Property submitted by cation No.
________________ ____________ __________
- Palace and Park of Fontainebleau France 160
- Chateau and Estate of Chambord France 161
- Amiens Cathedral France 162
- The Roman Theatre and its surroundings France 163
and the "Triumphal Arch" of Orange
- Roman and Romanesque Monuments of Arles France 164
- Cistercian Abbey of Fontenay France 165
- Archaeological Park and Ruins Guatemala 149
of Quiriguá
NB The Committee recommended that the
authorities of Guatemala take the
necessary steps to protect the cultural
property at the site.
- Nimba Strict Nature Reserve Guinea 155
NB The Committee recommended that
Guinea, the Ivory Coast and Liberia
establish close co-operation for the
safeguarding of the whole of the
natural ecosystems of the Nimba
mountain which stretch over territory
within these three countries.
- The Medina of Fez Morocco 170
- Historical monuments of Thatta Pakistan 143
- Fort and Shalimar Gardens at Lahore Pakistan 171
&
172
- Darien National Park Panama 159
- Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary Senegal 25
NB The Committee expressed the
hope that on the basis of the Unesco
Consultants' Report (1981) the
Government of Senegal would take the
protective measures necessary to
maintain the integrity of this World
Heritage site in spite of the con-
struction of a series of dams by the
O.M.V.S.
*[6]
Nomination Identifi-
Name of Property submitted by cation No.
________________ ____________ __________
- Niokolo-Koba National Park Senegal 153
NB The Committee urged the Government
of Senegal to formulate a comprehensive
management plan for the park which
would take fully into account the need
to integrate it into socio-economic
development programmes for the region.
The Committee requested the Government
of Senegal to take all necessary steps
to avoid adverse impacts of water
resource development on this World
Heritage site.
- Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and ruins of
Songa Mnara Tanzania 144
- Serengeti National Park Tanzania 155
*[sic; should be #156]
NB The Committee urged the competent
authorities of Tanzania to consider
adding the Maswa Game Reserve to this
World Heritage site.
- Mammoth Cave National Park United States 150
of America
- Olympic National Park United States 151
of America
NB The Committee urged the competent
authorities of the United States of
America to take steps to include in
this World Heritage site the coastal
strip, which is owned by the State of
Washington.
16. The Committee took note of the decision of the Bureau to defer
twenty nominations because additional information was required.
The meeting was informed that the Australian Government had withdrawn
the nomination of the Sydney Opera House in its setting and that it
hoped to submit a revised nomination in due course. In addition, the
Rapporteur and the Secretariat informed the Committee that the Algerian
Authorities intended to revise the nomination relating to the Dey's
Palace at Algiers in order to extend it to cover the whole of the Casbah;
this revised nomination would be submitted when the necessary preparatory
studies had been completed. Furthermore, the Committee took note of
the submission by Italy of a tentative list which would enable the
Bureau to examine the nomination of the Convent of Santa Giulia -
San Salvatore at its next session.
*[7]
IX. PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMITTEE
17. At its fourth session (Paris, 1-5 September 1980), the Committee
elected five Vice-Chairmen including the representatives of Ghana
and Yugoslavia. However, at the Third General Assembly of States Parties
to the World Heritage Convention, which met in Belgrade on 7 October 1980,
Ghana and Yugoslavia, whose term of office was due to expire at the end
of the 21st session of the General Conference, were not candidates for
re-election to the Committee and thus ceased to be members. Therefore,
in accordance with Rule 12.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee,
these two Vice-Chairmen could no longer remain in office after the end
of the 21st session of the General Conference. In consequence, at the
fifth session of the Bureau (Paris, May 4-7 1981) the members of the
Bureau were reduced in number.
18. To avoid a repetition of this situation a number of proposals were
put forward, in particular to amend the Rules of Procedure of the
Committee. At the end of the debate, the Committee was of the opinion
that Rule 12.1 of the Rules of Procedure should not be amended. It
decided that henceforth, in the year when the General Assembly of States
Parties to the Convention is held, the ordinary session of the Committee
should be held as soon as possible after the meeting of this Assembly.
X. PUBLIC INFORMATION ACTIVITIES
19. The Secretariat reported on public information activities under-
taken in implementation of the decisions taken by the Committee
at its fourth session. The attention of the Committee was drawn, in
particular, to the problem of obtaining adequate visual material on
World Heritage sites . With respect to future activities the Secretariat
proposed to continue the implementation of the programme as undertaken
and to focus a major part of its efforts on the establishment in each
State Party of private foundations or associations for the purpose of
promoting the objectives of the World Heritage Convention, as advocated
by Article 17 of the Convention. Such private groups would be in a
position to adapt the information provided by the Secretariat to the
specific needs of the different categories of the population of their
country, and this would enable a much larger public to be reached than
has been so far.
20. During the discussion several delegates informed the Committee
of initiatives undertaken in order to make the Convention known in their
country and declared themselves ready to assist in the dissemination
of the series of slides produced by the Secretariat. It was suggested
in particular that an exhibition of the existing information material
be organized for the next meeting of the Committee. The representative
of IUCN announced that during the World National Parks Congress to be
held in Bali, Indonesia, in 1982 a whole session would be devoted to
the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. This congress,
which will bring together over 400 of the world's experts on the manage-
ment of protected areas, will boost the progress of the establishment
of a tentative list of sites eligible for the World Heritage List. He
also pointed out that several articles on the Convention had already
appeared in the magazine "Parks" which is published by IUCN. Similarly,
the representative of ICOMOS informed the Committee that from now onwards
*[8]
a notable place would be given to the Convention and its implementation
in the ICOMOS periodical "Monumentum". At the close of the discussion,
the Committee took note of the future activities proposed by the
Secretariat in document CC-81/CONF/003/3 and in the note entitled
"Philately at the service of the World Heritage Convention" and gave
them its full support.
XI. PROCEDURE FOR THE EVALUATION AND EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS TO
THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
21. The Committee heard the report of the working group set up to
examine the above agenda items as well as the question of
protecting world heritage properties. After discussing the different
recommendations formulated by the working group, the Committee adopted
the following guidelines relating to these questions :
22. The Committee agreed that there was a need for a statement on
the dual concepts of representativeness and selectivity to guide
the Committee in the development of the World Heritage List. During
the discussion, many delegates spoke of the need to ensure that the
List was fully representative of all natural systems and cultures.
Whilst it was acknowledged that the Convention itself implied selectivity
and that in the short term at least there were other important reasons
for limiting the overall size of the List, several delegates argued that
the form of words used should not carry any suggestion of restriction
on the range and variety of properties which might be inscribed in the
List. It was therefore agreed that the concept of selectivity was best
expressed by reference to the requirement in the Convention that properties
should be "of outstanding universal value" and to the criteria adopted by
the Committee for the inscription of natural and cultural properties.
The statement adopted by the Committee is as follows:
"The World Heritage List should be as representative as possible of all
cultural and natural properties which meet the Convention's requirement
of outstanding universal value and the cultural and natural criteria
adopted by the Committee in its operational guidelines."
It should be noted that some 90 Member States of Unesco have not yet
adhered to the Convention and that nominations to the List have been
received from only 37 of the 61 States that have adhered. Therefore,
the List cannot yet be fully representative of the heritage of the whole
world.
23. The Committee agreed to support the holding of meetings which
could :
- help to create interest in the Convention within the countries
of a given region ;
- create a greater awareness of the different issues related to
the implementation of the Convention to promote more active
involvement in its application ;
- be a means of exchanging experiences ;
- stimulate critical evaluation and comparative assessments prior
to the submission of tentative lists and nominations ;
- stimulate joint promotional activities.
*[9]
The Committee agreed to make funds available for this activity from the
World Heritage Fund and expressed the hope that States would contribute
to the cost and management of such meetings.
24. The Committee decided to remind States Parties of the desirability
of submitting tentative lists which should contain the following
information :
- the name of the property
- the geographical location of the property
- a brief description of the property
- a brief justification of the outstanding universal value of
the property in accordance with the criteria set out in the
Operational Guidelines (including a comparative assessment
of similar properties inside and outside State boundaries).
The Committee also recommended that natural properties should be grouped
according to biogeographical provinces and cultural properties should be
grouped according to cultural periods or areas. Furthermore, the
Committee decided that States which had already submitted tentative lists
should be invited to complete them in the light of the above requirements.
25. To prevent the World Heritage list from becoming increasingly
imbalanced, the Committee decided to encourage those countries
which have several properties already inscribed on the list to exercise
restraint in putting forward additional nominations (especially cultural
nominations) at least for a limited period of time. This should not be
interpreted as suggesting that countries which have not yet proposed
properties for inscription on the List should in any way be deterred
from bringing forward nominations. On the contrary, the Committee was
anxious to ensure that a greater variety of properties should be included
in the World Heritage List as soon as possible.
26. On the question of evaluation and protection, the Committee
decided :
- to encourage ICOMOS and IUCN to be as strict as possible in
their evaluations and to request the Secretariat to support
the NGOs to this end ;
- to encourage informal discussions between the State Party,
the Secretariat and the NGO to advise the State Party on a
nomination wherever it seems useful ;
- to request the Secretariat to distribute as soon as possible
after the Bureau Meeting the statement of justification on
each property recommended for inclusion on the World Heritage
List ;
- to devote more time at the beginning of each session to a
general discussion prior to the examination of individual
proposals for inscription in the List ;
- to encourage the presentation by the NGO concerned of slides
on the property recommended for the List during the preliminary
discussions ;
- to ask States Parties to provide slides, other graphic material
and suitable maps.
*[10]
27. The Committee furthermore decided :
(a) to request that representatives of a State Party, whether
or not a member of the Committee, should not speak to
advocate the inclusion in the list of a property nominated
by that State, but only to deal with a point of information
in answer to a question ; and
(b) to ask that the manner of the professional evaluation
carried out by ICOMOS and IUCN should be fully described
when each nomination is presented.
20. With particular reference to the evaluation and protection of
cultural properties, the Committee requested that :
(a) ICOMOS in the future make comparative evaluations of
properties belonging to the same cultural phase or
area ;
(b) ICOMOS prepare for the next Bureau Meeting guidelines
for evaluating contemporary architectural structures ;
(c) the Secretariat examine with ICCROM and ICOMOS the
question of protection and management of listed
properties and report back to the Committee.
29. With regard to natural areas, the representatives of IUCN informed
the Committee that their expectation was that, according to the
criteria currently adopted, approximately 5 to 10 per cent of the 2,000
natural areas which are listed on the United Nations List of National
Parks and Protected Areas would meet the criteria for inscription on the
World Heritage List. They also informed the Committee that they expected
to present the first world list of potential natural World Heritage sites
at the World National Parks Congress in October 1982. They explained
that this list was being prepared from information supplied by experts
within the countries and regions concerned. It was however agreed that
States Parties should be invited to develop tentative lists as quickly as
possible. The Committee agreed that for natural properties the greatest
problems related to integrity and management and decided to :
(a) request IUCN to make comments and recommendations on
the integrity and future management of each property
recommended by the Bureau, during its presentation to
the Committee ;
(b) encourage States Parties to prepare a management plan
appropriate to the capacity of the country concerned
for each property nominated and to make such plans
available when technical co-operation is requested ;
(c) request IUCN to continue monitoring the progress of
work undertaken for the preservation of World Heritage
properties on behalf of the Committee.
*[11]
XII. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION REQUESTS STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET
30. The Committee took note of the report of the working group entrusted
with the task of examining technical co-operation requests and of
proposing a budget for the period from the 5th session to the 5th session
of the Committee.
31. The Committee took note of document CC-81/CONF.003/4 which presented
the interim statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the
three-year financial period 1981-1983 as at 31 August 1981. It also took
note of the fact that as at that date funds available as cash in hand
amounted to $1,907,600.75, which did not include some contributions due
for 1981. In view of this satisfactory financial situation, the Committee
adopted for the period 1 November 1981 to 31 October 1982 a budget amount-
ing to $1,940,000 (see para. 36 below).
32. On the basis of the recommendations of the Bureau and the report of
the working group, the Committee approved the following technical
co-operation requests :
$
- Cyprus - Paphos 54,000
(Request No. 79.1)
- Egypt - Historic Centre of Cairo 30,000
(Request No. 89.1(2))
- Malta - Hal Saflieni Hypogeum 9,000
(Request No. 130.1)
- Malta - City of Valetta and the Temples of Ggantija 3,250
(Request No. 131.1/132.1)
- Poland - Historic Centre of Cracow 75,000
(Request No. 29.1)
- Senegal - Island of Gorée 40,700
(Request No. 26.1)
- Syria - Old City of Damascus 67,800
(Request No. 20.1 Rev.)
_______
Sub-total for technical co-operation 279,750
requests concerning cultural properties
- Ethiopia - Simen National Park 113,450
(Request No. 9.1)
- Guinea - Nimba Strict Nature Reserve 70,300
(Request No. 155.1)
- Nepal - Sagarmatha National Park 54,900
(Request No. 120.1)
- Tanzania - African Wild Life College at Mweka 60,000
(Assistance to a regional training centre)
- Tunisia - Ichkeul National Park 30,000
(Request No. 8.1)
_______
Sub-total for technical co-operation 328,650
requests concerning natural properties
TOTAL 603,400
=======
*[12]
The Committee also approved an additional amount of 152,100 dollars
for small projects. Thus the total budget for technical co-operation
amounts to 760,500 dollars.
33. Two members of the Committee expressed reservations about the
content of the technical co-operation programme for the old
City of Damascus. The Committee shared their opinion in regard to
the need for a master plan for the preservation of the traditional
urban fabric of the city, and recommended that the competent Syrian
authorities establish such a plan.
34. One member of the Committee expressed reservations about the
constant need for temporary assistance to the Secretariat
for the implementation of the Convention and recommended that the
necessary services for the implementation of the Convention be as
far as possible provided for under the Regular Programme of Unesco
In this connection the Rapporteur drew the attention of the Committee
to the considerable increase in the workload and the Secretariat
observed that financial support from the Regular Programme to the
Convention is also constantly on the increase.
35. The Committee decided to substantially increase the funds
allocated to training activities, considering the shortage
of qualified personnel as noted in many countries. On this subject
the representative of the Director-General indicated that a large-
scale world training programme at both the regional and national
levels for specialists in the conservation of cultural property
could be envisaged within the framework of Unesco, of the Convention
and of ICCROM. This latter organization would be willing to part-
icipate in a programme of this type. The Committee gave its support
to such a project, which was viewed as being particularly desirable
for consolidating national infrastructures including those concerned
with training. It was noted that this type of international technical
co-operation provided one of the most effective means to attain the
objectives of the Convention. In regard to the training of specialists
in the field of the conservation of natural properties, the Unesco
Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB) already provides significant
assistance to developing countries. The World Heritage Committee,
for its part, will give priority to the training - preferably on-
the-spot of specialists (rangers, managers, scientists) so as to
meet more effectively those needs most urgently felt in regard to
the management and protection of sites inscribed on the World Heritage
List. The Committee requested that information be made available on
regional and national training courses in the conservation of the
cultural and natural heritage for which assistance was requested
under the Convention.
*[13]
36. The Committee adopted the following budget for the period
1 November 1981 to 31 October 1982 :
BUDGET
$
I. Preparatory assistance and regional 150,000
studies
II. Technical Co-operation 760,500
III. Training 500,000
IV. Emergency assistance 220,000
V. Promotional activities 100,400
VI. Programme support
- ICOMOS 50,000
- IUCN 25,000
VII. Temporary assistance to the Secretariat 80,000
_________
1,885,900
3% contingencies 54,100
_________
Total 1,940,000
=========
XIII. GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION REQUESTS
37. The Committee examined guidelines for the evaluation of technical
co-operation requests as proposed by the Bureau and adopted the
text set out in Annex II. This text will replace paragraphs 45 to 49
of the "Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World
Heritage Convention" and the following paragraphs of that document
will be re-numbered accordingly.
38. Furthermore, the Committee decided that in each future annual
budget a sum equivalent to one quarter of the total amount
approved for technical co-operation projects will be added to this
amount to finance projects costing not more than $20,000 each.
XIV. OTHER BUSINESS
39. The nomination of "Los Glaciares" National Park and the delimit-
ation of the Park were the subject of an intervention and a
statement by the observer of Chile and a statement by the delegate of
Argentina. The intervention and the statement of the observer of Chile
are set out in Annex III ; the statement of the delegate of Argentina'
is reproduced in Annex IV in its original Spanish version and in
translation.
*[14]
40. The representative of ALECSO informed the Committee of the
activities undertaken by this organization in the field of the
cultural heritage and stated that it was determined to strengthen its
co-operation with Unesco, in particular in regard to the training of
technicians and specialists.
41. The Rapporteur informed the Committee that, with the addition of
the twenty-six properties approved by the Committee during its
fifth session, a total of 112 cultural and natural properties had so
far been included in the World Heritage List. The list of properties
inscribed should be widely disseminated and it would be necessary, for
this purpose, to decide whether the properties should be grouped by
category and, if so, what categories should be established. The repre-
sentative of the Director-General stated that, according to the terms
of the Convention, it was for the Committee to establish the form in
which the List should be published and that it was therefore for the
Committee to take a decision on this question before the List was
distributed ; he added that no official list had been distributed by
the Director-General or the Secretariat. It was therefore decided that
the Bureau, at its next meeting, would take up this question and formulate
recommendations to the Committee.
42. The Secretariat informed the Committee of the invitation from
Sri Lanka, a State Party to the Convention but not a member of
the Committee, to hold the sixth session of the Committee in Colombo.
The Committee took note of this kind invitation and recalled that its
Rules of Procedure foresee that it is only members of the Committee
who may extend such invitations.
43. The Committee was informed that the Secretariat had received from
the Jordanian Delegation an official letter inviting the Committee
to hold its next session in Amman. Two other members of the World
Heritage Convention, Pakistan and Tunisia, expressed the intention of
their respective governments to invite the Committee to hold its sixth
session in their countries. The delegate of Brazil, for his part,
informed the Committee that he had consulted his Government about holding
that session in his country.
44. After consultations among the representatives of Brazil, Jordan,
Pakistan and Tunisia, it was proposed that the Committee hold its
sixth session in Pakistan and consider holding its seventh session in
Brazil. The Committee decided, as far as it was concerned, to accept
for 1982 the invitation of Pakistan and warmly thanked the authorities
of Pakistan.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CC-81/CONF.003/6
Annex I
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION
DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL, CULTUREL ET NATUREL
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE/COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
Fifth Ordinary Session/Cinquième session ordinaire
Sydney (Australia),
26-30 October, 1981
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE
ARGENTINA/ARGENTINE
Mr. R. PALARINO,
Second Secretary,
Embassy of Argentina in Australia
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
Professor R.O. SLATYER
Professor of Environmental Biology,
Australian National University
Professor J.D. OVINGTON,
Director,
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service
Mr. N. BOURKE,
Director,
Australian Heritage Commission
Mr. D. YENCKEN,
Chairman, Culture Committee,
Australian National Commission for Unesco
Professor D.J. MULVANEY,
Professor of Prehistory,
Australian National University
Dr. J. BAKER,
Director, Centre for Tropical Marine Studies,
James Cook University of North Queensland
*[ANNEX I/2]
Mr. G. MlDDLETON,
Chief Resources Officer,
Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service
BRAZIL/BRESIL
Professeur A. MAGALHAES,
Secrétaire à la Culture du Ministère de l'éducation et de la culture
Mr. Francisco ALVIM NETTO,
Intellectual Co-operation Division,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Professeur Ghentchev Nicola NICOLOV,
Doyen de la Faculté d'histoire,
Université de Sofia
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
H.E. Mr. Dinos MOUSHOUTAS,
High Commissioner of the Republic of Cyprus to Australia
Mr. Christos CASSIMATIS,
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. Phivos ANTHOULIS,
Counsellor,
High Commission of the Republic of Cyprus to Australia
EGYPT/EGYPTE
Professor M. Ghani HASSAN,
The Arab Academy, Cairo
FRANCE
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 au Ministère de l'Urbanisme
et du Logement
Mr. Jean ROZAT,
Sous-Directeur des Affaires générales et des Constructions publiques à
la Direction du patrimoine du Ministèere de la Culture
Mlle. F. VALLON,
Vice-Consul,
Consulate General of France in Sydney
*[ANNEX I/3]
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY/REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Mr. Magnus BACKES,
Landeskonservator,
Bavarian State Office for Protection of Ancient Monuments
H.E. Mr. Wilhelm FABRICIUS,
Ambassador to Australia
Mr. Gottfried PAGENSTERT,
Consul General
GUINEA/GUINEE
Mr. Youssouf DIARE,
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
IRAQ
Dr. A. NAJI,
Scientific Researcher, Head, Advisory Committee for Restoration,
State Organisation of Antiquities
Dr. Ismail HIJARA,
Director of Explorations and Investigations,
Department of Antiquities,
Ministry of Information
Mr. Tarik Ahmed HAMENDI,
Consul General,
Consulate General of Iraq in Sydney
ITALY/ITALIE
Mr. M. Mario Augusto LOLLI-GHETTI,
Architest,
Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali
JORDAN/JORDANIE
H.E. Mr. Taher N. MASRI,
Anbassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Jordan to France and
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. Samir NAOURI,
Chargé d'Affaires,
Embassy of Jordan in Australia
LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA/JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE
Dr. A. SHAIBOUB,
Directeur général du Departement des Antiquités
Mr. Abdul Hamid ZOUBI,
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
*[ANNEX I/4]
NEPAL
Mr. R.J. THAPA,
Additional Secretary,
Ministry of Education and Culture
PAKISTAN
Mr. T.A. BOKHARI,
Consul,
Consulate of Pakistan in Sydney
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Mr. Francis GRUBER,
First Secretary,
Embassy of Switzerland in Australia
TUNISIA/TUNISIE
Mr. Azedine BESCHAOUCH,
Directeur général de l'Institut d'Archéologie et d'Art
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mr. G. Ray ARNETT,
Assistant Secretary,
Department of the Interior
Mr. James F. ORR,
International Co-operation Specialist,
Department of the Interior
Mrs. G. MILOVANOVIC,
Vice-Consul,
Consulate General of the U.S.A. in Sydney
II. ORGANISATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY
ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
Mr. Michel PARENT,
President
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (IUCN)
UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE ET DES RESSOURCES
Mr. Jeffrey McNEELY,
Executive Officer,
Commission of National Parks and Protected Areas
*[ANNEX I/5]
IUCN (continued/suite)
Mr. H. EIDSVIK,
Senior Policy Adviser Parks Canada,
Member of IUCN Council
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION IN ROME
CENTRE INTERNATIONAL POUR LA CONSERVATION A ROME (ICCROM)
Mr. Michel PARENT
III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS
A. STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION/ETATS PARTIES A LA
CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
CANADA
Mr. P. BENNETT,
Department of Environment
CHILE/CHILI
Mr. Eduardo MUNOZ,
Consul General of Chile,
Embassy of Chile in Australia
Mrs. Maria de la LUZ MARMENTINI,
Consul (Information),
Embassy of Chile in Australia
INDIA/INDE
Mr. C. D. SAHAY,
Consul,
Consulate General of India in Sydney
IRAN
Mr. Resa FEIZ,
Directeur a la délégation permanente de l'Iran auprès de l'Unesco
Mr. B.A. SHIRAZI,
Supervisor of General Office for Conservation of Historic Monuments
MALTA/MALTE
Mr. G. PACE,
Consul of Malta in Sydney
POLAND/POLOGNE
Mr. K. JASZCZYK,
Consul,
Consulate General of Poland in Sydney
*[ANNEX I/6]
PORTUGAL
Dr. J. SARMENTO,
Consul General of Portugal in Sydney
B. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION/ ORGANISATION INTERGOUVERNEMENTALE
ARAB EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANISATION/
ORGANISATION ARABE POUR L'EDUCATION, LA CULTURE ET LA SCIENCE (ALECSO)
Mr. Ahmed DERRADJI,
Délégué permanent auprés de l'Unesco
C. INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS / ORGANISATIONS
INTERNATIONALES NON GOUVERNEMENTALES
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MUSEUMS (ICOM)/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL
DES MUSEES
Mr. N.J. FLANAGAN,
Chairman,
ICOM National Committee in Australia
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS (IFLA)/FEDERATION
INTERNATIONALE DES ARCHITECTES PAYSAGISTES
Mr. Ken DIGBY
IV. UNESCO SECRETARIAT/SECRETARIAT DE L'UNESCO
Mr. Gérard BOLLA,
Deputy Assistant Director-General,
Sector of Culture and Communication
Mr. Bernd VON DROSTE,
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mrs. Anne RAIDL,
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mrs Margaret VAN VLIET,
Division of Cultural Heritage
*[ANNEX I/7]
V. AUSTRALIAN ORGANISING COMMITTEE/COMITE D'ORGANISATION AUSTRALIEN
Mrs. Denise ROBIN,
Australian Heritage Commission
Miss Linda HAY,
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Dr. Robert BRUCE,
Australian Heritage Commission
Mr. Robert LEGGE,
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Jillian CHAPMAN,
National Commission for Unesco
Ms. Elizabeth WETHERELL,
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Robin PRATT,
International Cultural Corporation
Miss Betty STONE,
International Cultural Corporation
Miss Michelle HEATHCOTE,
Foreign Affairs
Miss Leanne McKIBBIN,
Foreign Affairs
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CC-81/CONF.003/6
Annex II
Text adopted by the Committee to replace paragraphs 45 to 49
of the "Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the
World Heritage Committee"
45. States Parties can request technical co-operation for the following
purposes :
(a) work foreseen in safeguarding projects for properties included,
or nominated for inclusion, in the World Heritage list ; and
(b) support for the training of specialized staff at the national
or regional level, in accordance with Article 23 of the
Convention.
46. Requests for technical co-operation must be sent to the Secretariat
by the State Party concerned before 1st March of each year in order
to be considered by the Bureau and the Committee within the same year.
Requests received after this date will be considered by the Committee in
the following year.
47. The above schedule does not apply, however, to projects not
exceeding a ceiling of $20,000 for which the following simplified
procedure will be applied: The Secretariat, after examining the dossier
and receiving the advice of ICCROM, ICOMOS or IUCN, as appropriate, will
forward the request accompanied by all other relevant documents directly
to the Chairman, who is authorized to take decisions on the financing of
such projects up to the total amount set aside for this purpose.
48. On receiving the request, the Secretariat :
- registers the request, ensuring that it relates to property
included or nominated for inclusion in the World Heritage List,
or else that its objective is to assist training centres, in
accordance with paragraph 45 ;
- checks that this request takes one of the forms foreseen in
Article 22 of the Convention, as follows :
(i) studies concerning the artistic, scientific and technical
problems raised by the protection, conservation, present-
ation and rehabilitation of the cultural and natural
heritage, as defined in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 11
of this Convention ;
(ii) provision of experts, technicians and skilled labour to
ensure that the approved work is correctly carried out ;
(iii) supply of equipment which the State concerned does not
possess or is not in a position to acquire ;
(iv) low-interest or interest-free loans which might be repay-
able on a long-term basis ;
(v) the granting, in exceptional cases and for special reasons,
of non-repayable subsidies.
*[ANNEX II/2]
49. The following information should be provided in requests for
technical co-operation :
a) safeguarding projects for properties included or nominated
for inclusion in the World Heritage List
(i) details of property
- date of inscription or of nomination for inclusion in
the World Heritage List,
- description of property and of dangers to property,
- legal status of property ;
(ii) details of request
- scientific and technical information on the work to
be undertaken,
- detailed description of equipment requested (notably
make, type, voltage, etc.) and of required personnel
(specialists and workmen), etc.
- if appropriate, details on the "training" component
of the project,
- schedule indicating when the project activities will
take place ;
(iii) cost of proposed activities
- paid nationally,
- requested under the Convention
- other multilateral or bilateral contributions received
or expected, indicating how each contribution will be
used ;
(iv) national body responsible for the project and details
of project administration ;
if the request involves
b) support for the training of specialized staff at the national
or regional level
(i) details on the training course concerned (courses offered,
level of instruction, teaching staff, number of students
and country of origin, etc.) ;
(ii) type of assistance requested (details on field of
specialization and level of teaching staff requested,
duration required, equipment needed, etc.) ;
(iii) approximate cost of assistance requested ;
(iv) other contributions : national financing, received or
anticipated multilateral or bilateral contributions.
*[ANNEX II/3]
50. If necessary, the Secretariat will request the country concerned
to provide further information. This information should be made
available to the Secretariat at least two months before the forthcoming
session of the Committee. The Secretariat can also ask for expert
advice from the appropriate organization (ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN).
51. The Secretariat will present the Bureau with a brief description
of the technical co-operation requests which exceed $ 20,000.
52. The Bureau will consider the requests which are presented at its
meetings and will make recommendations thereon to the Committee.
The Secretariat will forward the Bureau's recommendation to all the
States members of the Committee.
53. If the recommendation is positive, the Secretariat will proceed
with all the preparatory work necessary for implementing the
technical co-operation immediately after the Committee has decided to
approve the project.
54. At the Committee meeting, the Committee will make a decision on
the request for technical co-operation taking account of the
Bureau's recommendation. The Committee's decisions will be forwarded
to the States Parties and the Secretariat will proceed to implement
the project.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CC-81/CONF.003/6
Annex III
INTERVENTION BY THE OBSERVER OF CHILE
In relation to the nomination presented by Argentina to
include in the World Heritage List, the site "Los Glaciares", the
observer of Chile expressed certain reservations. He noted for the
record, in this respect, the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 11
of the Convention and stated that Chile considered not enough
information had been made available on the question of the inclusion
of "Los Glaciares" in the List.
STATEMENT MADE BY THE OBSERVER OF CHILE
"The delegation of the Republic of Chile to the 5th Meeting
of the World Heritage Committee presents its compliments to the
Honourable Chairman and wishes to express to him the following :
a) The Government of Chile has noted with interest the initiative
taken by the Republic of Argentina of presenting for inscription
in the World Heritage List one sector of the Patagonic Glaciers.
b) The Glaciers' Region, due to its extension, physiography,
climate, fauna and flora presents exceptional characteristics as a
natural site and the Government of Chile will study the possibility
of presenting, in the near future, for inscription in the World
Heritage List, the sector of the Glaciers' Region located within
its national jurisdiction.
c) The Government of Chile understands that the presentation
of "Los Glaciares" formulated by the Government of Argentina falls
within the terms of Article 11 of the Convention concerning the
Protection of the World Natural and Cultural Heritage as was
expressed by the Delegation of Chile in the course of its
intervention last Monday October 26th".
Sydney, 29th of October, 1981.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CC-81/CONF.003/6
Annex IV
STATEMENT MADE BY THE DELEGATE OF ARGENTINA
Original Spanish version :
"El Delegado Argentino ante la 5ta. Sesión del Comité de
Patrimonio Mundial, presenta sus atentos saludos a los honorables
miembros del Comité, y en relación a la declaración efectuada por el
Sr. Representante de la República de Chile, se notifica por la presente
la respuesta de la República Argentina, para su incorporación en las
Actas de la Sesión, cuyo texto oficial es el siguiente :
"Con relación a la declaración efectuada por el Representante
de Chile acerca del "Parque Nacional Los Glaciares", la Delegación
Argentina rechaza con firmeza esa improcedente declaración, ya que
toda la extención del "Parque Nacional Los Glaciares" se encuentra
ubicada incuestionablemente en territorio argentino.
Es la primera vez que Chile pretende cuestionar los límites
en esa región. El "Parque Nacional Los Glaciares" fue creado en 1937
existiendo una ocupación argentina efectiva, pacífica y no contestada
hasta hoy de toda esa zona, que le pertenece por el Tratado de
Límites firmado entre la Argentina y Chile en 1881."
El Delegado Argentino reitera a los honorables miembros del
Comité las seguridades de su consideración más distinguida.
Sydney, 29 de octubre de 1981"
Translation
"The delegate of Argentina at the 5th session of the World
Heritage Committee, presents his compliments to the honourable members
of the Committee and in regard to the declaration made by the represen-
tative of the Republic of Chile, hereby announces the Argentine
Republic's answer to be incorporated in the records of the session,
the official text of which is as follows :
"With regard to the declaration of the Representative of Chile about
the "Parque Nacional Los Glaciares", the Argentine Delegation rejects
firmly this unwarranted declaration all the more so as the whole area
of the "National Park Los Glaciares" is unquestionably situated in
Argentinian territory.
This is the first time that Chile attempts to call in question the
frontiers in that region. The "Parque Nacional Los Glaciares" was
established in 1937 and, there exists an effective, peaceful and up
to this day uncontested occupation by Argentina of this whole zone
which belongs to it in accordance with the Treaty on frontiers signed
by Argentina and Chile in 1881."
The delegate of Argentina reiterates to the honourable
members of the Committee the assurances of his highest consideration.
Sydney, 29 October 1981".
*[EOF]