Distribution limited WHC-92/CONF.002/12 14 December 1992 Original: English/French UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Sixteenth session (Santa Fe, United States of America, 7-14 December 1992)
C O N T E N T S I. INTRODUCTION II. OPENING SESSION III. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-CHAIRPERSONS IV. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA V. REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT SINCE THE FIFTEENTH SESSION VI. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE VII. PRESENTATION OF THE EVALUATION REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION AND THE DRAFT STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE VIII.MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES IX. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES: REPORT ON THE CELEBRATION OF THE TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CONVENTION AND FUTURE PROPOSALS X. NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER XI. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE XII. SITUATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND DRAFT BUDGET FOR 1993 XIII.REVISION OF THE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION XIV. DATE AND PLACE OF THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU AND THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE XV. OTHER QUESTIONS XVI. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION A. ANNEXES TO THE REPORT I. List of Participants II. Strategic Orientations III. Declaration of the Representative of Egypt IV. Declaration of the Representative of the Holy See V. Declaration of the Representative of Mexico VI. Declaration of the Representative of the United States of America B. INFORMATION DOCUMENTS I. Speech of Mr. Russell Train, President of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, United States II. Opening speech of the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr. Federico Mayor
REPORT I. INTRODUCTION I.1 The sixteenth ordinary session of the World Heritage Committee was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States of America, from 7 to 14 December 1992. It was attended by the following members of the Committee: Brazil, China (People's Republic of), Colombia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Spain, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia and the United States of America. I.2 The following States Parties to the Convention who are not members of the Committee were represented by observers: Algeria, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech & Slovak Federal Republic, Finland, Greece, Guinea, Holy See, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Russia and Switzerland. I.3 Representatives of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of the Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity. The complete list of participants is given in the Annex I. II. OPENING SESSION II.1 The outgoing Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Azedine Beschaouch, opened the session by thanking the authorities of the United States of America, namely the Honourable Mr. Manuel Lujan, Secretary of the Interior and the Honourable Mr. Bruce King, Governor of New Mexico, for inviting the Committee to convene its sixteenth session in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Mr. Beschaouch called the attention of the delegates to the fact that in 1992 the Convention completed 20 years of successful work since the adoption of the Convention and paid tribute to several persons who conceived the notion of world heritage and drafted the text of the Convention, such as Messrs. Gérard Bolla and Russell Train who are present at this opening session, and Messrs. Michel Batisse, Michel Parent, Ahmed Darragi and the late Selim Adel Abdulhaq. II.2 The Governor of New Mexico, Mr. Bruce King, welcomed the delegates and participants and thanked the Committee for accepting the invitation of the Government of the United States of America and selecting Santa Fe as the venue for convening its sixteenth session. He informed the delegates that Santa Fe was one of the oldest cities in the country and * had a population comprising many different cultures. He highlighted the fact that since it was located in the southwestern part of the United States where several World Heritage sites were situated, and due to its scenic landscapes, Santa Fe provided an ideal location for such an international event. II.3 The United States Secretary of the Interior, the Honourable Mr. Manuel Lujan, was introduced to the delegates by Ms Jennifer Salisbury, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Mr. Lujan conveyed the greetings of Mr. George Bush, President of the United States of America. He remarked that world heritage was a noble idea which maintains that some scenic, historic and natural sites in the world are so unique that the entire international community is responsible for their conservation. He pointed out that the completion of the work of 20 years of the Convention is a time for celebration as well as for serious reflection regarding the future. He urged the Committee to be innovative in particular when addressing the problems facing the conservation of World Heritage sites. He noted with regret the lack of public awareness of the work of the Convention, in most States Parties, including the United States of America. He informed the delegates that the US National Park Service was bringing together 16 World Heritage site managers at the time of the sixteenth session of the Committee, to meet and develop a strategy for drawing up awareness and interpretation programmes specifically designed to inform the American public of the universal significance of World Heritage sites. He concluded by pointing out that the next two years will be a critical time for the Committee, since during that time the work of the Convention in conserving the world's cultural and natural heritage could either become renowned or be overshadowed by the work of a number of other conventions which are currently being elaborated by the international community. II.4 Mr. Russell Train, one of the founding fathers of the World Heritage Convention and currently the Chairman of the World Wildlife Fund-US, was introduced to the delegates by Mr. James Thorsell, IUCN's Senior Adviser for Natural Heritage. Mr. Train commenced his address by paying tribute to all those who dedicated their life towards the conservation of the world's cultural and natural heritage. He emphasized that the concept of World Heritage is the international community's acknowledgement of its shared responsibility to protect the global commons. He briefly recapitulated the sequence of historical events which led to the elaboration of the World Heritage Convention and its adoption by UNESCO's General Conference in 1972. He noted that the original draft of the Convention was submitted to the UN Conference on the Human Environment which was held in Stockholm, Sweden, in * 1972. He highlighted the fact that the UN Conference on Environment and Development, recently concluded in July 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, marked 20 years of increasing environmental awareness among the nations of the world, during which time the World Heritage Convention has contributed significantly to the conservation of the world's cultural and natural heritage. II.5 Mr. Train emphasized that the World Heritage Convention has been successful in establishing a system for identifying and declaring sites of outstanding universal value and providing an on-going mechanism of international co- operation for the conservation of such sites. He observed that the recognition conferred under the Convention has increased visitation rates in some sites and contributed to the improvement of management infrastructure and human resource development in others. Mr. Train, however, cautioned States Parties against complacency since many World Heritage sites faced serious threats due to industrial development and civil unrest. II.6 He drew the attention of the delegates to the fact that while all countries recognized the significance of the work of the Convention, not all of them were forthcoming in increasing their financial contributions to the Fund in order to address conservation problems faced by World Heritage listed sites. After recognizing the value of efforts undertaken by the Committee to evaluate 20 years of the work of the Convention and elaborate a strategy for the future, Mr. Train concluded by appealing to all States Parties to increase their support to the World Heritage Convention. II.7 The Director-General of UNESCO, Mr. Federico Mayor, who was introduced by the outgoing Chairman, Mr. Azedine Beschaouch, expressed his pleasure at being present in the multicultural city of Santa Fe to welcome delegates to the sixteenth session of the World Heritage Committee. He thanked the authorities of the United States of America for hosting the Committee's session and acclaimed the services which Mr. Russell Train has rendered in conceiving and promoting the notion of world heritage. II.8 The Director-General stressed the fact that the concept of world heritage encourages diverse expressions of non-tangible universal values of cultural and natural significance, therefore adding a new dimension to the discussions of the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, in June 1992, which were mainly of an economic nature. He recognized that the task of promoting an awareness of the need to conserve natural and cultural World Heritage properties, the values of which cannot be quantified, is a challenging one, particularly in the light * of pressures due to socio-economic development, natural disasters and civil unrest. He called upon States Parties to the Convention to co-operate with one another and establish partnerships with non-governmental and grassroot organizations to meet this challenge. Mr. Mayor noted that there were already 358 sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and at the end of the sixteenth session of the Committee, additional sites will be included in the List. He recalled the fact that the inscription of a site on the World Heritage List brings to a State Party not only prestige but responsibilities and obligations. He expressed the hope that the strategic orientations that were expected to be adopted by the Committee will provide better guidance to the international community to meet their obligations in the framework of the World Heritage Convention. II.9 Mr. Mayor highlighted several policy issues, such as the appplication of criteria for the evaluation of nominated sites, inclusion of sites in the List of World Heritage in Danger and ensuring conservation of World Heritage sites in co-operation with ICOMOS and IUCN. He requested the Committee to consolidate efforts taken by States Parties to conserve World Heritage sites by soliciting the support of the international community. He underlined the fact that such support need not always be financial and that awareness and recognition of the universal significance of World Heritage sites could also strengthen the ability of States Parties to conserve their cultural and natural properties. The Director- General informed the delegates that he has recently set up a World Heritage Centre at UNESCO, bringing together the cultural and natural parts of the Secretariat which had hitherto been under the administration of separate sectors, and has consolidated the Secretariat by appointing new staff. II.10 Mr. Mayor was hopeful that the Centre, in co- operation with ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN, will be better equipped to serve the Committee, to monitor the state of conservation of World Heritage sites, to mobilize additional financial and human resources and to raise public awareness. He concluded by ensuring the delegates that the noble ideal of preserving humankind's heritage was a strong component of UNESCO's mission to promote peace and international co- operation. * III. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE- CHAIRPERSONS III.1 The outgoing Chairman, Mr. Azedine Beschaouch, submitted to the members of the Committee a recommendation made by the Bureau at a special meeting held on 6 December 1992, regarding the strictly specific situation evoked by the Observer Mission of the United States of America to UNESCO in its letter of 27 November 1992 to him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Committee. In accordance with this recommendation, the Committee unanimously decided to suspend the application of the dispositions of paragraph 2, Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure, between the sixteenth and seventeenth plenary sessions of the World Heritage Committee (December 1992 to December 1993). The Committee, however, underlined the fact that this decision, taken in a friendly spirit, which has always characterized relations between the members of the Committee, cannot under any circumstances be evoked in the future as a precedent. III.2 Ms Jennifer Salisbury (United States of America) was elected Chairperson of the Committee by acclamation. Mr. Azedine Beschaouch (Tunisia) was elected Rapporteur, also by acclamation, and the following members of the Committee were elected as Vice-Chairpersons: Brazil, China, Colombia, Germany and Senegal. IV. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA IV.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Bureau, at a special meeting held on 6 December 1992 had recommended that the reports on the strategy for the future, requests for international assistance and the situation of the World Heritage Fund, instead of being examined by working groups, be submitted to the members of the Committee under agenda items 7, 12 and 13 respectively. The members of the Committee also decided, in accordance with another recommendation made by the Bureau at its meeting of 6 December 1992, that they will consider the report of the expert group on cultural landscapes under agenda item 14. The Committee adopted the agenda incorporating these amendments. * V. REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT SINCE THE FIFTEENTH SESSION V.1 Mr. Bernd von Droste, Director of the World Heritage Centre, congratulated the Chairperson, the Rapporteur and the Vice Presidents on their election and reported on the activities undertaken since the fifteenth session of the Committee. V.2 He drew the attention of the members of the Committee to the important work undertaken to evaluate the implementation of the Convention during the last twenty years and to elaborate a new strategy for the future. He pointed out that the strategic orientations that will be adopted by the Committee at its current session would provide a framework for States Parties to elaborate their own national strategies. He informed the Committee that some countries such as Australia, have already begun to elaborate national strategies for the implementation of the Convention. He thanked Mr. A. Beschaouch, former Chairman of the Committee for his guidance in the elaboration of the strategic orientations. V.3 Mr. von Droste recalled that the Committee recognized the increasing importance of monitoring the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. He emphasized the useful experience in monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage properties in the Latin American and Caribbean region. He informed the members of the Committee that the same methodology had been used to monitor several properties during 1992 and a detailed report of the monitoring programme will be submitted to the Committee by the Co-ordinator of UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project for Cultural Heritage in the Latin American and the Caribbean Region. V.4 He drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that due to the increasing number of World Heritage properties facing serious threats to their authenticity and integrity, the budget for emergency assistance for 1992 had been completely spent. Most of the emergency assistance was provided to the Republic of Croatia for the restoration of the historic centre of Dubrovnik and for an international expert mission to assess the state of conservation of Plitvice Lakes National Park. Mr. von Droste recalled that the Committee, at its last session, inscribed Dubrovnik on the List of World Heritage in Danger. UNESCO and the World Heritage Fund together have provided US$249,000 for the purchase of roof tiles, the training of artisans and craftsmen, the carrying out of a cadastral survey of the Old City of Dubrovnik and the preparation of an inventory of damaged monuments. Mr. von * Droste remarked that, however, international assistance received so far for the restoration of Dubrovnik falls far short of the estimated requirements. V.5 Furthermore, he also mentioned that at its current session the Committee will have to decide whether or not to include at least five more properties, namely Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria), Plitvice Lakes National Park, (Croatia), Sangay National Park (Ecuador), Mt. Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire) and Aïr-Ténéré Reserve (Niger) in the List of World Heritage in Danger. V.6 Mr. von Droste provided many examples of events launched in States Parties and at UNESCO Headquarters to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Convention. He informed the Committee that an estimated 30,000 people participated in events which were held in connection with an exhibition on World Heritage sites which was held from 8 July to 8 October 1992 at UNESCO Headquarters. He drew the attention of the members of the Committee to the launching of some new initiatives to promote the Convention, namely, a CD- ROM prototype has been developed to provide a user-friendly computer presentation on World Heritage sites to the general public; under a programme entitled "Patrimoine 2001" a photographic data base comprising high quality photographs of World Heritage sites was being developed; a prototype for a World Heritage Newsletter has been prepared and was available for comment from the members of the Committee. V.7 Mr. von Droste reported satisfactory progress in the development of a World Heritage Cities Network and informed the members of the Committee that the General Assembly of the World Heritage Cities Organization is expected to be convened in Fez, Morocco, in mid-1993. He, furthermore, expressed his concern regarding the situation of the World Heritage Fund and drew the attention of the Committee members to the fact that the outstanding obligatory contributions to the Fund now exceeded US$2.5 million. He suggested the Committee appeal to the States Parties to make their contributions to the Fund in good time. V.8 Mr. von Droste thanked the Governments of Italy and Germany which had seconded staff to the World Heritage Centre and he informed the Committee members that he was negotiating with other States Parties to obtain the services of experts. He said that the Centre was also attempting to establish agreements with UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank in order to utilize funds from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for the conservation of World Heritage properties, and is exploring possibilities for launching joint projects with private foundations dedicated to preserving the world's cultural and natural heritage. He concluded by assuring the * members of the Committee that the Centre, in co-operation with ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN, will provide a new platform to mobilize and co-ordinate global efforts for the conservation of world heritage. VI. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE VI.1 Mr. Diaz-Berrio (Mexico) former Rapporteur of the Committee, presented the report of the sixteenth session of the Bureau held in Paris from 6 to 10 July 1992. He drew the attention of the Committee to document WHC-92/CONF.002/2 and highlighted important elements from different sections of the report. He informed the Committee of the findings of monitoring reports on the state of conservation of a selected number of cultural and natural properties. He recalled that the Bureau examined a total of 29 new nominations, and four proposals for the extension of World Heritage sites and recommended that the Committee inscribe 16 new properties on the World Heritage List and approve three of the four extensions proposed. The Rapporteur highlighted the observations and recommendations of the Bureau with regard to proposed revisions to the Operational Guidelines and the preparation of a strategy for the future implementation of the Convention, and noted that the Committee will be examining these items in greater detail. VI.2 Mr. Diaz-Berrio also provided a brief summary of the recommendations of the Bureau made at a special meeting held on 6 December 1992, on the nominations of four cultural properties: two properties, one of which, the Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria), the nomination procedure had already been initiated, and Angkor (Cambodia), for which an emergency procedure had been initiated. The other two nominations were deferred by the Bureau at its fifteenth session held in June 1991: Rohtas Fort (Pakistan) and Ban Chiang Archaeological Site (Thailand). The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria) and the Ban Chiang Archaeological Site (Thailand) on the World Heritage List. The Bureau again deferred the nomination of Rohtas Fort (Pakistan) pending receipt of additional information from the State Party. In the case of Angkor (Cambodia), the Rapporteur informed the Committee that four members of the Bureau (France, Mexico, Senegal and Tunisia) were in favour of immediate inscription, whereas Thailand and the United States of America while recognizing the outstanding value of the property, would only agree to its inscription once the conditions proposed by ICOMOS had been met. Mr. Diaz-Berrio said that a report of the meeting of the Bureau, including * detailed recommendations on each of the four properties, will be submitted to the Committee to facilitate the discussion of Agenda item 10. VII. PRESENTATION OF THE EVALUATION REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION AND THE DRAFT STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE VII.1 The document WHC-92/CONF.2/4 was introduced by Mrs. C Cameron, Chairperson of the Expert Group which was convened in Washington (United States of America) from 22 to 24 June 1992, then in Paris at UNESCO Headquarters, from 27 to 30 October 1992. Mrs. Cameron stressed that on the one hand the group comprised a certain number of experts from different regions of the world, and representatives of ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN, and on the other, Bureau members had participated in the work of the Paris meeting. The discussions of the working group were based on the evaluation report for the implementation of the Convention, made by Mr. Beschaouch in 1991, and presented to the Committee as document WHC- 92/CONF.002/3, as well as a study prepared by Mr. G. Bolla in 1992. VII.2 Following in-depth discussions, the Committee adopted, with a certain number of revisions, the conclusions, goals and the recommendations with which they had been presented, as constituting not only a strategy as such, but strategic orientations for the future, aimed at the different actors concerned with the implementation of the Convention, e.g. the States Parties, the World Heritage Committee, the advisory organizations and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre. VII.3 These strategic orientations are presented as Annex II to the present report. The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to send them to all States Parties to the Convention. The Committee also requested the World Heritage Centre, with the assistance of the UNESCO Legal Office, to prepare draft revisions to the Guidelines for the implementation of the Convention reflecting its decisions, and to send them to all Committee members before the end of March 1993. These draft revisions of the Guidelines should more particularly take into account the proposal presented by United States of America as well as by Italy. These draft revisions will be submitted to the Bureau of the Committee at its seventeenth session for review. * VIII.MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES VIII.1 The World Heritage Centre introduced document WHC- 92/CONF.002/5 and stressed the fact that ensuring the maintenance of the values for which sites were given World Heritage status and taking measures to remove or minimize threats to those values is a major part of the work of the Committee, the non-governmental advisory bodies and the Centre. The Committee noted that the monitoring of the state of conservation of World Heritage sites will receive greater emphasis than the identification and designation of sites in the future work of the Convention. The Committee took note of the fact that the methodology used to monitor the state of conservation of World Heritage properties in the Latin American and the Caribbean region is to be adapted and extended to other regions. In 1993 it was decided that monitoring will be applied to 48 sites: - 17 are in the Latin American and the Caribbean region (continuing programme); - 24 in the Mediterranean region (continuing programme); - 7 in the African and Asia-Pacific region, respectively (new programmes). Cultural properties VIII.2 Introducing the debate, the Deputy Director of the Centre, Mr. S. Zulficar, indicated that the report from the Secretariat provided information on the state of conservation of a number of World Heritage cultural sites. The Committee examined the state of conservation of the following sites, for which it made specific observations and recommendations. Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia) The Committee took note of the report on the state of conservation of Dubrovnik, which was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, in Carthage in 1991, and was also informed of the request received by the World Heritage Centre for the creation of a buffer zone. This request will be submitted to ICOMOS for review. Abou Mena (Egypt) The Committee was apprised of the report presented on the site of Abou Mena following concerns expressed by the Bureau in * July 1992. At the request of the Chairperson, the Delegate from Egypt provided all the clarifications regarding allegations on the state of the site in his report, which the Chairperson, upon the suggestion of one of the delegates, requested the Committee to include in the report as an appendix. During the discussion which followed, the Tunisian Delegate asked the Centre to pay special attention to confirming the information received by the Secretariat before bringing it to the attention of the Committee. Delos and Delphi (Greece) The Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Committee of the status of the site of Delos, over which the Bureau had expressed some concern in terms of the human resources required for its protection. Following the explanations provided by the Observer from Greece, the Committee took note of the willingness of the Greek authorities to increase the number of guards in spite of the problems involved in attracting employees to an island which is no longer inhabited. On the other hand, concerning the site of Delphi, the Greek Observer reminded the Committee of the protective measures taken as well as the restoration activities coinciding with the one hundredth anniversary of the excavation works of the Ecole Française d'Athènes celebrated in 1992. Vatican (Holy See) The Committee was informed of the various actions undertaken by the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS in collaboration with the Holy See authorities following a certain number of protests concerning a new building on the site of the Hospice of Santa Marta. The Director of the World Heritage Centre as well as ICOMOS were able to ascertain at the site that the allegations reported mainly by the press were groundless. They commended the spirit of co-operation with which this problem had been approached by the authorities of the Vatican. One delegate congratulated ICOMOS on the quality of his report and raised a point regarding the use of appropriate terminology by the Secretariat in presenting questions to the Bureau or the Committee. The Representative from the Holy See then took the floor to express his satisfaction with the way in which this matter was settled and read a statement which was annexed to the report. * Ggantija Temples (Malta) The Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre brought up the problem of protecting the Megalithic temples of Ggantija and indicated that the report requested of the Maltese authorities on this subject had arrived shortly before the sixteenth session of the Committee. This report shows that the authorities involved have taken the Bureau's concerns into consideration and confirmed the request to extend the site. Ancient City of Damascus (Syria) The Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre reported on the information unofficially transmitted to UNESCO expressing concern over the work being done on the western wall of the Mosque of the Omeyyades in Damascus (Syria). When invited by the Chairperson to provide clarification, the Delegate from Syria retraced the history of the Mosque and confirmed that the work in question is being effected on a wall built about twenty years ago to protect the Mosque's inner courtyard from the rain. The ensuing discussion emphasized the need for the Centre to have a comprehensive and updated documentation available and for the State Party concerned to specify the type of intervention, which may vary from consolidation, restoration, renovation or reconstruction. One delegate pointed out that the States Parties must understand, when fears are expressed concerning a site or a monument inscribed on the List, that it is the duty of the Committee to follow up, in a spirit of openness and co-operation, by sending a mission to the site. This opinion was seconded by other delegates. One of them expressed the hope that the word "reconstruction" would never appear in the reports of the Committee and that a mission might visit Damascus in 1993 and that a report as detailed as the one devoted to the Vatican be submitted at the next meeting of the Bureau. Taking note of the favourable opinion of the Delegate from Syria, the Committee requested the Centre to send a technical mission in the first quarter of 1993. El Jem (Tunisia) Regarding the site of El Jem (Tunisia), the Committee was informed of the measures taken at the highest level of Government, as the President of the Republic of Tunisia had transmitted through, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in response to the concerns of the Bureau, the decisions pertaining to a halt in the construction of any extension to the shopping arcade and to the ban on construction of any permanent structures within the amphitheatre. Concerning this * point, the Delegate from Tunisia took the floor to thank the Committee for its interest in heritage at large and to the site of El Jem. From now on, new constructions are prohibited by order of the President within a radius of 100 meters around the amphitheatre. Furthermore, the Committee requested the Centre to write to the President of the Republic to thank him for his intervention for the safeguard of the national heritage. Göreme National Park and the Rock Sites of Cappadocia (Turkey) The Committee noted with concern the information received on the state of conservation of the site. According to the consultant responsible for evaluation of the site in question, the Turkish authorities and the Ministry of Culture in particular did not seem to be aware of the decisions taken by the Committee in 1985 providing for an extension of the protected area of the Göreme site. According to the consultant's report, this site is undergoing serious changes due mainly to the construction of hotels in the safeguarded sector. After hearing the comments of the delegates emphasizing the gravity of the situation in a site for which UNESCO has issued an appeal for an international safeguard campaign, and after receiving information from ICCROM concerning preparations for a seminar in Göreme in 1993, the Committee asked the World Heritage Centre to write to the Turkish authorities reminding them of its decisions. The Deputy Director of the Centre indicated in this regard that the Turkish authorities had requested assistance from the Centre in setting up a coordinating committee for this site, which comes under the authority of several ministries. Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey) On the subject of Istanbul, ICOMOS found the information provided by the Turkish authorities to be acceptable. However, it would be desirable for ICOMOS to obtain the accompanying plans of the master safeguard plan, which the Centre might request. Given the importance of Istanbul, which, like Göreme, is the subject of a UNESCO international safeguard campaign, the Committee felt it necessary to send a mission there. Latin American and the Caribbean VIII.3 Mr. S. Mutal, Chief of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional project was given the floor and presented his report on the monitoring of World Heritage sites in Latin America and the Caribbean and in Portuguese-speaking Africa. After explaining * the process established for monitoring of sites in the region, he reviewed the methodology adopted and its application by national and international experts who collaborated in this effort and whom he wished to commend. He expressed the opinion that this type of activity should be extended to include each of the geographic areas and the concept of development, not only drawing upon the resources of the World Heritage Fund but also seeking other funding sources as was done in the case of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project for the Cultural, Urban and Natural Heritage and the Environment, of which he is in charge in Lima (Peru). VIII.4 Emphasizing the fact that Latin America, the Caribbean and Portuguese-speaking Africa represent fourteen percent of the total number of heritage sites, he focused his presentation on the one hand, on the monitoring of six sites in 1991, specifically: Antigua (Guatemala), Ouro Preto (Brazil), Cartagena (Colombia), Machu Picchu (Peru), San Francisco de Lima (Peru) and Quito (Ecuador), and, on the other, on the monitoring of seven sites in 1992, specifically Salvador de Bahia (Brazil), San Lorenzo and Porto Bello (Panama), La Fortaleza and San Juan Historic site (Puerto Rico), Tikal (Guatemala), Olinda (Brazil) and Potosi (Bolivia). VIII.5 The speeches by the delegates from the Latin American region (Brazil, Peru and Colombia) confirmed the conclusions and recommendations submitted to the attention of the Committee. Concerning the site of La Fortaleza and San Juan Historic site (Puerto Rico), the Delegate from the United States of America, while noting that the work carried out was of high quality, pointed out that the report on this site could be confusing, especially as regards the monuments included and those not included in the World Heritage site. VIII.6 The Delegate from France commended the UNDP/UNESCO Chief of the Regional project for his excellent report, which he appreciated as being exceptionally well thought out, well founded from the methodological and logistical standpoints and wisely focused in terms of geographic region. VIII.7 The Committee decided to continue this exercise for the year 1993, in the same methodological conditions and in co-operation with the States concerned. The Delegate from Mexico informed that a monitoring exercise had already been carried out by the national authorities concerned for four sites included in the new project and consequently he requested a revision be made with regard to this point. The statement of the Delegate of Mexico is annexed to the report. VIII.8 At the request of the Delegates from Senegal and China to extend this monitoring effort to other areas of the * world, the Director of the World Heritage Centre explained that on-going fund-raising efforts will continue to allow for monitoring on a regional level, with priority being given to Sub-Saharian Africa and south-east Asia. ICOMOS Monitoring Report VIII.9 The Chairperson asked the Secretary General of ICOMOS to present the ICOMOS report which focused on a number of sites; for the most part it was noted that these reports were carried out at the request of the World Heritage Centre in response to perceived problems. Before introducing the status of the sites examined, the Committee was informed about ICOMOS, methodology in monitoring and its desire to stand back from the problems of specific sites and to draw general lessons for improving the state of conservation of all sites. ICOMOS also informed the Committee that its report differed from that of the Chief of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional project in that the procedure followed was based essentially on responses to specific cases. Rila Monastery (Bulgaria) After the presentation on the Monastery of Rila, the Committee asked the World Heritage Centre to write a letter to the Bulgarian authorities to draw their attention to the necessity for implementing a management plan in co-operation with Church representatives. Quebec Historic Area (Canada) In response to information conveyed by the press as well as by groups and individuals, the ICOMOS Representative informed the Committee of the task assigned to him by the World Heritage Centre to examine, with the authorities in Quebec, two construction projects (one for the IMAX cinema and one for a naval academy) both on the land located immediately outside the protected area. The ICOMOS report on this matter and the additional explanations given by him gave rise to two statements, the first by the Observer from Canada and the second by the Representative from the City of Quebec. Both of them thanked ICOMOS for the quality of the work carried out and noted that the manner in which this matter was dealt with was proof of the effectiveness of the Convention. The Delegate of Tunisia brought to the attention of the Committee the position in favour of preservation of the historic site publicly expressed by the Mayor of the City of Quebec during the meeting of the Mayors of World Heritage Cities which took place on 23 and 24 November 1992. He recommended to the * Committee that it strongly support the proposals contained in the ICOMOS report. The Committee approved this proposal. Paris, Banks of the Seine (France) Concern was expressed with regard to the insertion of a new building in the historic setting of the Banks of the Seine in Paris. Based on a visit to the site and a study of the architectural project, an ICOMOS expert, Mr. Barthélemy, made a favourable report on the project which was approved by ICOMOS and of which the Committee took note. Budapest, the Banks of the Danube (Hungary) After having analyzed the characteristics of the construction project for the French Institute of Culture building in Budapest, the ICOMOS Representative emphasized the doctrinal considerations involved in inserting contemporary architecture in historic quarters, and the necessity to avoid pastiche or "kitch". He proposed that no action should be taken with regard to this project. Historic Centre of Rome (Italy) The ICOMOS Representative informed the Committee of the state of the Rome Colisseum which is suffering both from air pollution due to the proximity of a road and from vibrations caused by the subway. At present financial support from the Banco de Roma is enabling conservation work of the monument to ensure its safeguard. The Delegate of Italy intervened to thank ICOMOS for the scientific information presented to the Committee and which recalled the usual problems dealt with concerning catastrophes, but in this case the problem of the Colisseum is the harmful daily effects on the monument. However, it will be possible to implement projects to consolidate and protect the stone due to the provision of exceptional financial resources, from the Banco de Roma, and ICOMOS and the Committee will be kept informed of progress. Moreover, prior to any intervention, the Italian authorities have initiated a systematic process to analyze materials, and have set up a scientific committee which will co-operate with ICCROM and ICOMOS. In addition, the Delegate of Italy stated that, in general, it was necessary to request States Parties to provide periodic information to the World Heritage Centre on interventions * anticipated in inscribed properties so as not merely to evaluate a fait accompli but rather to undertake preventive action. Kathmandu Valley (Nepal) Upon the initiative of ICOMOS, the report pertaining to the Valley of Kathmandu was submitted to the attention of the Committee. This site is the subject of a UNESCO international safeguard campaign and, as the ICOMOS Representative pointed out, numerous reports have been written about it for the past twenty years. Moreover, following an ICOMOS seminar held recently in Nepal on wood conservation, the ICOMOS Representative was able to confirm previously identified obstacles posed by the protection of sites in the Kathmandu Valley. He expressed his concern for the future safeguarding of these sites, due especially to the absence of technical personnel and skilled labour, and to the quality of some restorations of wooden monuments with true architectural value, in and outside in the protected area. The conclusions drawn by ICOMOS addressed different levels of intervention (site boundaries, legislation, human resources) and propose involving UNESCO and ICOMOS in a global evaluation process of everything which has been done from the standpoint of safeguarding the cultural heritage of Kathmandu. The Delegate of Germany, who expressed his concern at this alarming report, asked the Committee to consider extending the seven protected areas so as to include all the historic and artistic elements of exceptional value, and to create a buffer zone which would comprise the greatest part of the Valley. Furthermore, he suggested to recommend to the Nepalese Government to substantially increase the staff at the Antiquities Department and the funds at their disposal so that they may act effectively with regard to urban development threatening the Valley. The Delegate of Tunisia reported on his contacts with two teams of experts (Germany and the United States of America) who only confirmed the conclusions drawn by ICOMOS, which he commended. He expressed the hope that the Committee approve the recommendations made by ICOMOS and that ICCROM reinforce this action in this field with the support of the Committee. The Delegate from Pakistan and the ICCROM Observer each discussed in turn the importance of acting in order to preserve the heritage of the Kathmandu Valley. The Delegate of Pakistan recalled that the use of wood in architecture was a very old tradition since protohistoric times. Hence, in India the Palaces of Pathipulsa are wooden * structures in spite of the fragility of this material. It is for this reason that particular attention should be paid to the preservation of wooden structures in historic areas in tropical countries, as is the case for Kathmandu. Following this discussion, the Committee adopted the recommendations made by ICOMOS and asked the World Heritage Centre to contact the Nepalese authorities to study all the recommendations of ICOMOS and the Committee. Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation) With the help of slide illustrations, the ICOMOS Representative introduced the status of the site of Kizhi Pogost, explaining the nature of the problems and the manner in which urgent problems were determined. This presentation was followed by a discussion during which several technical questions were raised. The Committee decided to support the coordination effort undertaken by ICOMOS for this site, and requested that a report be provided during the next meeting of the Bureau in view of implementing an assistance project. The Committee adopted the recommendation formulated in the ICOMOS report. Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (United Kingdom) Concerning Stonehenge, the ICOMOS representative provided all the details on the management of the site as well as on the anticipated projects for improvement, including that of a museum site. The ICOMOS recommended to the World Heritage Centre to write to the authorities in the United Kingdom in order to support the measures undertaken for the management of Stonehenge. Hadrian's Wall (United Kingdom) Bringing up the point pertaining to Hadrian's Wall, the ICOMOS Representative indicated to the Committee that ICOMOS is taking the necessary steps to monitor all actions undertaken near this site and will keep the Committee informed. These include projects for opencast coal mining and for a long- distance footpath. City of Bath (United Kingdom) The Committee noted with satisfaction the model plan drawn up for the City of Bath. The World Heritage Centre was asked to write to the authorities in the United Kingdom to this effect. * Chaco Canyon (United States of America) Following the monitoring report presented by ICOMOS on the status of the Chaco Canyon site, the Committee expressed its warm congratulations to the National Park Service for the work carried out. VIII.10 At the conclusion of the presentation on the monitoring of cultural sites, the Secretary General of ICOMOS informed the Committee of plans to be developed with the Centre, IUCN and the Chief of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional project for Latin America and the Caribbean, for submitting reports in the future according to a standardized format. He also suggested that the Committee devote more time to analyse its ability to deal with major problems and themes emerging from the monitoring. He also stressed ICOMOS plans to work on a regional basis with the assistance of ICOMOS' national committees. VIII.11 In his capacity as former Chairperson of the Committee, Mr. Beschaouch had received information relating to a certain number of sites in the Arab region which are inscribed on the World Heritage List: Tipasa (Algeria) Mr. Beschaouch indicated that he had personally ascertained the status of the site of Tipasa in Algeria during a visit in October 1992. This site had suffered the effects of an earthquake in October 1989 and emergency assistance had been granted by the Fund. The remedial works had been completed in good conditions and a safeguard plan elaborated. He asked the Committee to recommend application of the safeguard plan in order to ensure the integrity of the site. The Committee adopted this proposal. Furthermore, Mr. Beschaouch raised the question of training of scientific and technical staff for the safeguard of Tipasa. Tyr (Lebanon) Concerning the site of Tyr, the Committee requested, at the suggestion of Mr. Beschaouch, that a report be provided during the next meeting of the Bureau on the project carried out by the Lebanese authorities and UNESCO, specifically from the standpoint of the international safeguard campaign. * Ksar of Aït-Ben-Haddou (Morocco) Mr. Beschaouch brought to the attention of the Committee information pertaining to a project implemented jointly by UNDP, UNESCO (World Heritage Centre) and the Moroccan authorities on the site of the Ksar of Aït Ben Haddou (Morocco) and pointed this out as a positive example, and the Committee took note of this. Natural Properties VIII.12 The Committee decided to register the report and the map provided by the Canadian authorities as a description of the revised boundaries of the Dinosaur Provincial Park (Canada). The Committee expressed satisfaction on the progress in the implementation of the rehabilitation project in the Simien National Park (Ethiopia) for which the Committee approved US$50,000 at its last session. In the case of Iguazu National Park (Argentina), Iguaçu National Park (Brazil) and Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada), the Committee requested the Centre to submit progress on their state of conservaiton to the Bureau scheduled to meet in mid-1993 at UNESCO Headquarters, Paris. VIII.13 The Representative of IUCN introduced a monitoring report. He explained the seven-step procedure used by IUCN for monitoring the state of conservation of natural properties and drew the attention of the Committee to the new reporting format. The Committee then examined the state of conservation of the following properties and made specific recommendations. Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia) The Committee noted that, as requested at the time of the inscription of this property on the World Heritage List in 1988, IUCN had undertaken a review mission to the site. The Committee learnt with satisfaction that despite a slow start, the management of the Wet Tropics area had achieved much progress, particularly with respect to: (a) establishing a headquarters and appointment of staff; (b) drafting legislation; (c) preparing management plans and site plans; (d) carrying out a number of policy-relevant studies; (e) setting-up advisory committees and a management authority; (f) improving budgetary allocations for site management, and (g) rehabilitating degraded forest areas. * The Committee commended the Australian authorities for taking these steps for ensuring the adequate management of this site and requested IUCN and the World Heritage Centre to continue to monitor progress. Srebarna Biosphere Reserve (Bulgaria) The Committee recalled that at its last session, it recommended that the Bulgarian authorities nominate this small (600 ha) site for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee was informed of the conclusion of two IUCN missions to this site undertaken in early 1992: although Srebarna's importance as a Ramsar site and a biosphere reserve could still be retained by the implementation of specific remedial measures, its World Heritage status can no longer be justified because it has deteriorated to a state where it has irretrievably lost the characteristics which merited its inclusion in the World Heritage List. The Bureau at its last session held in Paris in July 1992, recommended that the Committee consider deleting this property from the List and had requested the Centre to obtain all observations and comments the Bulgarian authorities may wish to make. The Committee recalled that Srebarna Biosphere Reserve was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1983 on the basis of criterion (iv), i.e. as a naturally functioning ecosystem providing an important and significant habitat for the threatened Dalmatian Pelican. The IUCN Representative informed the Committee that a series of upstream interferences, including the Iron Gates Dam, have permanently altered the natural hydrology of the Danube River in the region and that of Srebarna, located downstream along the river. Prevention of seasonal flooding has caused significant decline in the size and productivity of Srebarna; agricultural and residential use of surrounding areas have impacted the wetland leading to decline or disappearance of the water and passerine bird populations. Consequently, while awaiting the results of the on-going studies, the Committee decided to inscribe Srebarna on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Observer from Bulgaria, while agreeing with the Committee's decision that this site be included on the List of World Heritage in Danger, was of the view that measures which are being currently taken by the Bulgarian Government will restore the World Heritage values of Srebarna. He said that his Government is planning to construct two canals which will increase and regulate water delivery to Srebarna. Furthermore, 200 ha of surrounding area have been added to the Reserve and all agricultural and residential activities which impacted the lake have been halted. He informed the Committee * of an on-going project to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the state of conservation of the site and a plan for ecosystem restoration, and that the report of this project would be available in the first quarter of 1993. The Committee instructed the Centre to indicate to the Bulgarian authorities that scientific evidence available to date suggests that the site may no longer possess the natural habitat values for which it was inscribed, and that a full restoration of a naturally functioning ecosystem appears to be highly problematic and may be impossible. The Committee invited the Bulgarian authorities to submit to the Centre, not later than 1 May 1993, the results of their on-going project to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the state of conservation of the site and a plan for ecosystem restoration. The assessment should include an analysis of available data to monitor biological populations and environmental quality. The Committee requested the Centre to co-operate with experts nominated by IUCN and the Secretariat of the RAMSAR Convention to undertake an interdisciplinary review of the report on the state of conservation and ecosystem restoration plan which the Bulgarian authorities are expected to submit. The interdisciplinary review will require participation of specialists in wetland ecosystem dynamics, wetland restoration, avian population dynamics, hydrology, regional planning, resource management and other relevant disciplines. A report on the outcome of the review, indicating the possibility of the full restoration of a self-sustaining wetland ecosystem, including a viable population of the threatened Dalmatian Pelican that contributes substantially to the survival of the species, should be submitted to the Bureau at its seventeenth session. The Bureau will assess whether the proposed plan being developed by the Bulgarian authorities, will enable a full restoration of Srebarna as a naturally functioning wetland ecosystem. If the Bureau concludes that such restoration is not technically feasible, then the Bureau should recommend that the Committee delete Srebarna from the World Heritage List at its seventeenth session. Manovo-Gounda Saint Floris (Central African Republic) The Committee recalled that when this site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1988, several members of the Committee had registered their reservations as to its state of conservation and several threats to its integrity. Despite assurances given to the Committee at the time of its inscription and the US$27 million EEC (European Economic Community) project which had been implemented in the region, the deterioration of the property had continued and this site * still does not have a management plan. The Committee was informed of the intention of the President of the Central African Republic to transfer the management of the site to a private foundation, and of the invitation made to UNESCO to participate, as a scientific body, in the management of the site by this foundation. The Committee was satisfied that the State Secretary to the Ministry of Scientific Research and Technology has, in accordance with the recommendations of the Bureau made at its last session held in Paris in July 1992, invited a mission to review the state of conservation of the Park and evaluate the proposal to transfer the management of this site to a private organization. The Committee requested the Centre to organize such a mission, building upon a recent project audit carried out by the EEC. The Committee recommended that the proposal to transfer the management of this site to a private organization be evaluated, particularly in relation to the implications it would have to: (a) the protection of the site; (b) participation of local people in the management of the site; and (c) the social and economic impact the setting up of a private management regime will bring to the region and the nation. The Committee requested the Centre to submit the findings of this mission and an evaluation of the proposed transfer of management to the seventeenth session of the Bureau. Talamanca-La Amistad National Park (Costa Rica-Panama) The Committee commended the Panamanian authorities for preventing 59,000 hectares of La Amistad National Park being released for oil exploration. The Committee noted that the Costa Rican authorities have not yet informed the Centre of their views on its recommendation, made at its last session, to consider revising the boundaries of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves by deleting four Indian Reserves in the north-eastern Atlantic sector and submit a map showing the new boundaries of the site. The Committee was also informed of a proposal to construct a road through the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves and that the Costa Rican authorities have not yet responded to the Centre's request for information on the proposal and its potential impact on the state of conservation of the site. The Committee instructed the Centre to contact the Costa Rican authorities to request, once again, (a) that they consider revising the boundaries of the Reserves and provide a map showing the new boundaries and (b) to obtain detailed information regarding the proposal for constructing a road through the middle of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves, * including an assessment of the potential impact of this project on the state of conservation of the site. The Committee instructed the Centre to contact the Costa Rican authorities to request, once again, (a) that they consider revising the boundaries of the Reserves and provide a map showing the new boundaries and (b) to obtain detailed information regarding the proposal for constructing a road through the middle of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves, including an assessment of the potential impact of this project on the state of conservation of the site. Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia) The Committee noted that the Croatian authorities officially informed UNESCO in June 1992, that they will abide by the obligations of the World Heritage Convention and requested that a joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN mission be undertaken to assess the impacts which unrest in the region has had on the state of conservation of Plitvice Lakes National Park. Using part of the US$30,000 approved by the Bureau at its last session, for the organization of such a mission, a team of three experts representing IUCN, the Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, respectively, visited Zagreb and Plitvice Lakes National Park, from 18 to 27 September 1992, in co-operation with the UN Protection Forces, the Ministry of Environment of Croatia and the local authorities in Plitvice. The Committee deplored that several villages in and around the northern boundary of the Park had been destroyed and the Croatian population resident in those villages forced to withdraw to Zagreb. The Committee, however, was relieved to know that the values for which the Plitvice Lakes National Park was originally granted World Heritage status remained intact and the tourism and management infrastructures inside the Park and equipment such as boats and buses suffered little damage during last year's (1991) conflict with minimum damage. The Committee also noted that part of the staff of Plitvice National Park still reside within the site and carry out basic management operations. Although the World Heritage values of the Plitvice Lakes National Park have not been adversely impacted by the war which broke out in the region in 1991, the Committee recognized that the potential resurgence of hostilities continued to prevail as a threat to the integrity of this site. Hence the Committee decided to inscribe this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, with the provision for removing the site from the Danger List as soon as stability is * re-established and the relationship between the Government of Croatia and the region of Krajina is normalized. Furthermore, the Committee also recommended the following: (a) The Government of Croatia, UNPROFOR and the authorities in the Krajina region co-operate to implement the Vance Plan and its successor resolutions to stabilize the political situation. (b) UNPROFOR undertake regular surveillance patrols in the Park area, particularly in the old growth forest in Corkova Uvala and take necessary measures to make all parts of the Park accessible. (c) The Government of Croatia, UNPROFOR and the authorities in the Krajina region include the conservation of Plitvice Lakes National Park as a subject to be addressed by such bodies as the Joint Commission, and bring together scientists from the two conflicting parties to undertake studies on water quality, the brown bear population and forestry and tourism practices. (d) The Centre organize another mission to Plitvice in early 1993 to assess the state of conservation of the site and examine the feasibility of organizing an international workshop to plan the future management of Plitvice. The Committee noted with satisfaction that the Croation authorities have expressed their willingness to co-operate with UNPROFOR and other UN agencies to normalize relations with the region of Krajina, and revive the tourism industry which is of crucial importance to the economy of the region. Sangay National Park (Ecuador) The Committee noted that the Sub-Secretariat of Forestry and Renewable Natural Resources, which is responsible for the management of this site, has been successful in temporarily halting a proposed road construction project in order to bring together the relevant provincial and national agencies to discuss the environmental impact of the project and plan mitigating measures. The Committee commended the Ecuadorean authorities for having included substantial areas south of the World Heritage site in the National Park. The Committee, however, was concerned about the information reported by the Representative of IUCN regarding heavy poaching of wildlife, illegal livestock grazing and encroachment in this site. Furthermore, the Committee took note of the fact that the road construction could recommence, and that the Ecuadorean authorities have not yet undertaken an impact study and have * not responded to repeated requests for information by the Centre. The Committee was informed by the Representative of IUCN that although the size of this site has been nearly doubled, the values and conditions of the new areas added to the site were not known, and the severity of the threats to the integrity of the site has been confirmed by IUCN's Regional Office for Latin America, and by the Ecuadorean Conservation Organization, Fundacion Natura. The Committee therefore decided, in accordance with the provisions of Article 11, paragraph (4) of the Convention, to include this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested the Centre to contact the Ecuadorean authorities and request them to (a) provide information on the status of the road construction project and on-going efforts to assess its impact on the integrity of the site, and (b) consider submitting a proposal to extend this World Heritage site to include new areas added to the Park. The Committee urged the Centre to co-operate with the Ecuadorean authorities to organize a mission, comprising regional experts, in order to assess the severity of the threats faced by this site and plan necessary remedial action. Galapagos National Park (Ecuador) The Committee was informed that the employees of this World Heritage site staged a four-week strike during May-June 1992, demanding higher salaries and other improvements of their working conditions. The Committee also noted that a draft tourism and conservation plan for Galapagos is now being finalized and the management plan of the Park would have to be revised in the light of the strategies and programme of action foreseen in the tourism and conservation plan. The Committee noted with satisfaction that the Galapagos National Park authorities, in accordance with the recommendations made by the Bureau at its last session, have up-graded the annual training course for guards and guides of the Park by inviting international participation. They have also submitted a request for technical co-operation for revising the management plan to take account of strategies and programmes of action foreseen in the tourism and conservation plan. Mt. Nimba Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire/ Guinea) The Committee recalled its decision taken at its last session in Carthage, Tunisia, that the reduction in the size of this site proposed by the Government of Guinea in order to exclude areas that would be impacted by a proposed iron-ore mining * project, posed a major threat to its integrity. The site is also threatened by the arrival of a large number of refugees to areas in and around the Guinean part of the World Heritage site. The Committee noted that a meeting of experts of Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea, with participants from UNDP and UNESCO, was held at Mt. Nimba from 29 June to 3 July 1992. The meeting endorsed the recommendation of the Committee made at its last session, and called upon the Governments of Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire to nominate this site for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee took note of the Bureau's recommendation, made at its last session, that the Centre, together with the two States Parties concerned and donor agencies, such as the World Bank and UNDP, develop an integrated rural development project to bring socio-economic benefits to people living in the immediate vicinity of the World Heritage site. The Committee was deeply concerned that the Guinean Government had issued a decree on 6 August 1992 entrusting a part of the Mt. Nimba Nature Reserve to an international mining consortium and published a brochure announcing the launching of the mining project. The Committee was informed by the Guinean Observer that there had been an error in the boundary of the Mt. Nimba Nature Reserve originally nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List in 1981 and that the area proposed for the iron-ore mining project was not considered by his Government as being part of the World Heritage site. Mr. Beschaouch confirmed this point, recalling a meeting he had in Paris in July 1992, in his capacity as President of the Committee, with the Minister for Environment and Mineral Resources of Guinea. Aware of the confusion concerning the boundaries of the World Heritage site and the decision of the Government of Guinea on the one hand, and on the other the real dangers of exploitation of the mine and the arrival of large numbers of refugees, the Committee decided, in accordance with the provisions of Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Convention, to inscribe Mt. Nimba on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee recommended that the Centre takes the necessary steps to send an expert mission to (a) ascertain, in co- operation with the States Parties concerned, the boundary of the site at the time of its inscription and if it cannot be definitely determined, to recommend an appropriate boundary, and (b) assess the impact of the iron-ore mining project, demographic changes and other threats to the integrity of the site and the universal values for which the site was inscribed. * Furthermore, the Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with agencies such as UNDP to prepare an integrated management plan that addresses the existing and potential threats to the site. The Committee instructed the Centre to continue on-going co-operation with donor agencies to develop projects and implement integrated rural development projects that benefit the local population. Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) The Centre informed the Committee that the damage caused by the invasion of this Sanctuary by the Bodo tribe in Assam, India, was estimated to be about 50 million Indian rupees (about 1.6 million US dollars). Although the Park infrastructure suffered considerable damage, the habitat in the inaccessible parts of the Sanctuary appeared to be intact. The Committee, while noting that the conditions for introducing normal management and administration regimes for the site may be improving, was nevertheless concerned that a full assessment of damage had not been made and that the Indian authorities have not yet provided a formal written report on the state of conservation of this Sanctuary, despite repeated requests from the Committee since 1989. The Committee noted with concern the information provided by the Representative of IUCN that the area is still not completely free from encroachment by militants belonging to the Bodo tribe and that illegal cultivation was spreading into parts of the Sanctuary. The Committee concurred with the view of IUCN that Manas Wildlife Sanctuary continues to be in danger of losing the values for which it was granted World Heritage status. The Committee noted with regret that the Indian authorities have not provided a report on the status of conservation of Manas, despite repeated requests over the last three years, and therefore decided to include Manas Wildlife Sanctuary on the List of World Heritage in Danger, in accordance with the provisions of Article 11, paragraph 4, of the Convention. The Committee requested the Centre to inform the Indian authorities of its decision and reiterate its request for a comprehensive report providing a full assessment of damage to the site and the remedial measures that are being taken. Tsingy Bemaraha Nature Reserve (Madagascar) The Committee was concerned with the information reported by the Representative of IUCN concerning the disruption of conservation activities due to shortage of supplies in, and transport to, this site which is situated in a remote part of * Madagascar. The Committee noted that the World Heritage Fund has provided to this site US$20,000 for the purchase of equipment and an additional US$20,000 for a management seminar during 1992. The Committee instructed the Centre to contact the Malagasy authorities and request a state of conservation report for this World Heritage site and a progress report on the expenditure of funds provided in 1992. Te Wahipounamu - Southwest New Zealand (New Zealand) The Committee was informed that the Government of New Zealand has approved an application from a private company for a licence to export water from the World Heritage site. The exportation of freshwater would require the construction of a dam, a buried pipeline and four large reservoirs at Jackson's Bay. The Committee noted that the visual and ecological impacts of the proposed development project were not clearly known and that the legal and economic considerations which guided the decision to approve the project are being actively debated in New Zealand. The Committee instructed the Centre to contact the New Zealand authorities and request them to keep the Committee informed of the environmental impacts of the water export project. Aïr and Ténéré Nature Reserve (Niger) The Committee expressed concern that the region in which this site is situated has recently been affected by civil disturbance. The Committee was informed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Niger had requested the Director-General of UNESCO to launch an appeal for the protection of this site. The competent authorities in Niger, in accordance with the recommendation of the Bureau made at its last session in Paris in July 1992, have requested the Committee to include this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Niger authorities have also requested financial assistance for the organization of a mission in order to assess the state of conservation of this site. The Committee decided to include this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. Noting with regret that six members of the Reserve staff are being held hostage since February 1992, the Committee decided not to support any mission to the site until such time as security conditions in the region have returned to normal. The Committee instructed the Centre to contact the relevant authorities in Niger and request them to take all measures possible in order to secure the safe release of the Reserve staff. * Danube Delta (Romania) The Committee recalled that when this site was inscribed on the World Heritage List at its last session in Carthage, Tunisia, it requested IUCN and the Secretariat to submit a progress report at its sixteenth session. The Committee was concerned that despite assurances given at its last session by the Representative of Romania, the final steps in the process to establish a legislative framework for this site have not yet been completed. The Committee instructed the Centre to contact the competent authorities in Romania to remind them of the assurances they gave the Committee last year and urge them to finalize the process to establish a legal framework for the protection of the site. Djoudj National Park (Senegal) The Committee recalled that the repair of barrages and gates regulating water flow into this wetland area was financed by the World Heritage Fund in 1988. The Committee noted that the parallel wooden planks, held together by clay, which keep the gates dry and resistant to water leaks and seepage to and from the Djoudj River, have been found to be defective, and that the Senegalese authorities had been provided emergency assistance for the purchase of wood to replace the existing planks at an estimated total cost of about US$10,000. The Delegate of Senegal thanked the Committee and informed the members that repair work was progressing rapidly and satisfactorily. Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal) The Bureau at its last session held in Paris in July 1992, requested IUCN to provide an up-to-date report on the measures taken by the Senegalese authorities to mitigate the impacts of a road being constructed through this Park. The Committee noted that IUCN's Office for Western Africa, in co-operation with the Senegal National Park Service and the University of Dakar has undertaken a field mission to examine the mitigative measures taken and that the findings of the mission will be reported to the Bureau when it convenes for its seventeenth session. Everglades National Park (United States of America) The Delegate for the United States of America informed the Committee members of the damage caused by Hurricane Andrew to this site. The hurricane which affected extensive areas in south Florida on 24 August 1992, damaged virtually all large * hammock trees and destroyed 20-25% of the royal palms, 25-40% of the pines, 90% of trees where the red-cockaded woodpeckers nested and 70,000 acres of mangrove forests. Despite the extent of the damage caused, the Committee noted with satisfaction that a post-hurricane survey of the area undertaken by a team of 25 scientists has indicated that the recovery of vegetation and the status of wildlife populations was satisfactory. The representative of IUCN informed the Committee that IUCN has discussed the desirability of preparing a monitoring report, in 1993, on the Everglades with the US National Park Service. IUCN will consult with the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention to obtain information on the recovery of the Everglades system from damage caused by Hurricane Andrew, as well as the impacts of the diversion of waters flowing into the Everglades for agricultural and industrial uses. The Representative of IUCN said that a monitoring report to made to the Bureau is being considered, which may include a recommendation to inscribe the Everglades on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Olympic National Park (United States of America) At its last session the Committee was informed by the Delegate of the United States of America of an oil spill off the coast of this World Heritage site. As requested by the Committee at its last session, the US Delegate submitted to the Committee a description of the plan and organization of the emergency response mechanism used to mitigate the negative impacts of the oil spill and a proposed study to make an inventory and monitor affected coastal areas. The Committee was informed that the long-term impacts of the oil spill were unknown. The US Delegate, however, gave assurances that the Committee will be provided with new information regarding these impacts as they become available. Durmitor National Park (Montenegro) The Committee noted that the authorities responsible for the management of this site had submitted to the Secretariat several reports on the potential impacts of the proposed construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Tara River and the pollution of that river by a large asphalt plant situated upstream along the river. The Committee was informed that the Montenegro authorities maintained that the two problems mentioned above had minimal impacts on the conservation of Durmitor and that necessary measures to mitigate those impacts were being taken. In accordance with the Bureau recommendation, the Director of this Park has, in accordance * with the wish of the Bureau expressed at its last session, invited a joint UNESCO/IUCN mission to this site and has agreed to provide on-site briefing on the status of the dam construction proposal and pollution problems. The Committee was also concerned about recent reports regarding the threat caused by a dam adjacent to the Tara River which, if breached, could spill large volumes of toxic material into the river. The Committee instructed the Centre to co-operate with the United Nations Protection Forces (UNPROFOR) to organize an international expert mission to this site and to make a report on the threats to its integrity and necessary mitigation measures to the seventeenth session of the Bureau. Garamba National Park (Zaire) The Committee recalled that at its last session, it deferred taking a decision to remove this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger, due to the uncertainties associated with prevailing civil unrest in Zaire at that time. The Committee was happy to note that the rhinoceros population in the Park has now increased to 32 individuals and that the state of conservation of the site continues to be stable. Hence, the Committee recommended, in accordance with the request made by the State Party by letter of 26 February 1991, to remove this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee also recommended that the Centre suggest that the Zairois authorities (a) conduct an assessment of the operation of the multi-donor project to date, particularly with regard to institutional arrangements and future directions, and (b) continue to co-operate with the Committee and other donors in ensuring that the integrity of the Park is further strengthened. The Committee also requested the Centre to transmit its congratulations to the Zairois authorities to have undertaken all necessary measures which made the removal of this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger possible. Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe) The Committee noted that a proposal to construct a dam across the Batoka Gorge could flood some parts of this transfrontier World Heritage site, and that the Bureau had requested the Centre to contact the States Parties concerned and obtain more information on the proposed dam construction project. * The Director of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management of Zimbabwe has informed the World Heritage Centre that the dam to be built at the Batoka Gorge will flood up to the third gorge which is about 10 km inside the World Heritage site, but that he was of the view that this change in the ecology of the site will have minimum impacts. The Director has also informed the World Heritage Centre that his Department accepts this development project owing to its minimum impact and the fact that it will produce power under favourable environmental conditions, in contrast to the alternative of thermal power production. The representative of IUCN informed the Committee that there is opposition to the dam construction project in Zambia. The Committee requested the Centre to co-operate with IUCN, and in particular with IUCN's Regional Office in Harare, Zimbabwe, to make an assessment of the proposal to construct a dam across the Batoka Gorge and submit a report to the seventeenth session of the Bureau. MIXED WORLD HERITAGE SITES Mt. Athos (Greece) The Committee noted that the deforestation in this mixed site could have adverse impacts on the landscape in the area. In response to a request for information from the Centre, the Greek authorities indicated that 25,732 acres of forest in the area were damaged due to a fire in 1990 and this calamity might have been responsible for reports concerning the removal of vegetation. The Greek authorities have, however, pointed out that the natural regeneration of the forest is progressing satisfactorily. The Committee noted that Mt. Athos is an autonomous region within Greece and removal of timber from the forests by monks resident in Mt. Athos is permitted under a law gazetted on 24 February 1953. This law was amended on 9 April 1991 to ensure that the removal of timber is carried out on a sustainable basis. The amendment also allowed the establishment of a Forest Service which takes measures to control fires. During 1992 there were seven fires caused by lightning, and the Forest Service successfully controlled these fires to maintain damage to the vegetation in this site at minimum possible levels. The Committee was in agreement with the view of the Greek authorities that the state of conservation of the natural environment in this site is satisfactory and that there was no need for a special expert mission. * IX. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES: REPORT ON THE CELEBRATION OF THE TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CONVENTION AND FUTURE PROPOSALS IX.1 The Committee congratulated the World Heritage Centre for the activities carried out in 1992 and presented in document WHC-92/002/6, particularly with regard to the organization at UNESCO Headquarters of the events to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the World Heritage Convention. These events comprised a general exhibition on the Convention and the properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, as well as some thirty national exhibits, more than twenty conferences and about fifteen evening programmes. The Committee felt that these events, which could not have been organized without the co-operation of all the UNESCO services concerned, and particularly that of the Office of Public Information and the Press Service, demonstrated the great interest of the public in the world heritage concept and discovery of the heritage of each country. IX.2 In this respect, schoolchildren and teachers were particularly interested, and had requested additional information on the Convention. IX.3 The events also received excellent press coverage, from the written press as well as audio-visual, and proved a good investment for the future, the first effects of which can already be felt to judge by the numerous proposals for books, films and promotional material that the Centre has already received from the private sector. IX.4 The Committee was in agreement with the proposal of the Centre to renew the experience, in a more modest way and more decentralized, and by facilitating exchanges of exhibitions between the States Parties. IX.5 The Committee was also satisfied about the many activities carried out in 1992 by IUCN and ICOMOS; these activities had notedly included, for IUCN, the organization or the participation of regional seminars, the publication of books and articles on the Convention in the IUCN bulletin, the publication of the results of the seminar on the World Heritage Convention held during the Fourth Parks Congress in Caracas, Venezuela, in February 1992, etc. The USA-ICOMOS Committee had, for its part, realized an educative project on the Convention and the World Heritage sites which was in an experimental stage and being used by some teachers, as well as an audio-visual presentation for adult audiences. * IX.6 The Committee noted that, during 1992, the States Parties had also organized a certain number of promotional activities which were described in the document WHC- 92/CONF.002/6. The Chinese Delegation informed the Committee that, in co-operation with UNESCO and the States Parties concerned, a film project on World Heritage in certain countries of Europe had been successfuly carried out by a Chinese production team, and its distribution in China had greatly contributed towards the promotion of the World Heritage Convention. The Committee hoped this type of production would be encouraged in the future. IX.7 Finally, the Committee was happy to note that 1992 had not been entirely devoted to activities for the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the Convention, but had also seen the updating and production of new information material, such as publications, a prototype video- disk (CD-ROM) for the general public and the model for a newsletter on world heritage, which were both presented to members of the Committee for their comments. IX.8 With regard to activities proposed for 1993, the Committee has accepted proposals contained in document WHC- 92/CONF.002/6. However, it was felt that more emphasis should be placed on the production of material aimed at informing managers of World Heritage sites about criteria and the implications of the inscription of sites on the World Heritage List, and the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee also noted that the CD-ROM project should be pursued in accordance with the recommendation of the Bureau, but that it was not appropriate to allocate to it a quarter of the promotional budget but a more modest amount, and that a part of the budget should rather be allocated to the production of basic educational material which is more easily disseminated. IX.9 With regard to private initiatives for publications and films, etc. the Committee requested the Centre to control the technical quality of the information contained in the material produced and to negotiate, if possible, the sharing of the copyright. IX.10 The Committee also noted that three regional seminars particularly destined for the press, which were initially foreseen to take place in 1992, had been postponed until 1993, and which will be organized in Dakar (Senegal), Fez (Morocco) and Quito (Ecuador). IX.11 Finally, the Committee wished that its strategic orientations concerning promotion be taken into account in the activities of the World Heritage Centre as of 1993. * X. NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER X.1 The Delegate from China informed the Committee that due to inadequacy of information provided in the nomination dossiers, his Government was withdrawing the nominations of Lunan Scenic Area of the Stone Forest and the Huangguoshu Waterfalls Scenic and Historic Area. Nominations to the World Heritage List A. Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. Name of Property Identifi- State Party havingCriteria cation submitted the N° nomination of the property in accordance with the Convention Butrinti 570Rev Albania C(iii) Kasbah of Algiers 565 Algeria C(ii)(v) The Committee took note of the report presented by Mr. Beschaouch on the Kasbah and noted with satisfaction that, as requested by the Committee at its fifteenth session, a general safeguard plan for the Kasbah had been drawn up and approved. Following the decision for inscription, the Committee recommended that a special monitoring survey be carried out in liaison with the Algerian authorities for the safeguard of the Kasbah. Furthermore, the French Delegation requested that the text of the ICOMOS evaluation be modified, in accordance with the discussions already held in Carthage, so that historic events may be correctly portrayed. It is therefore requested that in the ICOMOS document (page 40 of the French version), the statement beginning with "the French occupation..." and ending with "saved a part of the city" be eliminated. Fraser Island 630 Australia N(ii)(iii) The Committee inscribed the Fraser Island component of the nomination excluding the Cooloola National Park, on the World * Heritage List. The Committee encouraged the efforts of the Australian and Queensland authorities to plan and manage Fraser Island in the wider context of a 'Regional Park' and extend statutory protection to all of Fraser Island. The Committee requested the Australian authorities to consider the addition of the aboriginal name of Fraser Island and to report to the June 1993 meeting of the Bureau on progress with this issue. Belovezhskaya Pushcha 627 Belarus N(iii) State National Park The Committee inscribed the core zone of this property on the World Heritage List, noting that this site is an extension of the Bialowieza National Park of Poland. The Committee inscribed the transfrontier property as a single entry on the World Heritage List as Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest of Belarus/Poland. The Committee commended the authorities of the two States Parties for recognizing the ecological unity of the transborder site and agreeing to inscribe the whole area as a single entry on the World Heritage List. The Committee requested the Belarus authorities to prepare a management plan for the area, in co-ordination with the plan available for the Polish part of the site and encouraged the two States Parties to share management experience. The Committee recommended that the fence between the two parks be removed if the management plan indicates that it would lead to enhanced viability. Angkor 667 *[sic; should be 668] Cambodia C(i)(ii)iii) (iv) I. The Committee took note of the report presented by Mr. A. Beschaouch. Given the unique situation in Cambodia, which, in accordance with the Paris Accords, has been placed under the temporary administration of the United Nations since July 1991, the Committee has decided to waive some conditions required under the Operational Guidelines and, on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), has inscribed the Angkor site, together with its monuments and its archeological zones as described in the "Périmètre de Protection" accompanying the ICOMOS report, on the World Heritage List. The Committee stressed that this action was not to be taken as setting a precedent for the inscription procedure. Therefore, in order to guarantee protection of the site for a three year period (1993 - 1995), the Committee has decided that a special in-depth study will be made of the Angkor site, and that reports will be presented to the Bureau and the Committee on the status of the monuments and the protective perimeter; the * first report is to be presented at the June 1993 session of the Bureau to be followed by a report to the Committee during its seventeenth session in December 1993. II. In order to deal with the urgent problems of conservation quickly and effectively, the Committee has inscribed the site of Angkor on the List of World Heritage in Danger, and has requested, on the recommendation of ICOMOS, that the authorities concerned take the necessary steps to meet the following conditions: a) enact adequate protective legislation; b) establish an adequately staffed national protection agency; c) establish permanent boundaries based on the UNDP project; d) define meaningful buffer zones; e) establish monitoring and coordination of the internationalv conservation effort. The United States Delegate requested that his statement be incorporated as an annex to this report. Wulingyuan Scenic 640 China, People's N(iii) and Historic Interest Republic of Area The Committee inscribed the core zone (first class, second class and third class conservation sections) of this site on the World Heritage List and encouraged the efforts of the Chinese authorities to manage the buffer zone for conservation objectives and maximise the natural characteristics of the site. The Committee noted that pressure due to tourism is likely to increase and urged the management to be vigilant and protect the integrity of the site. The Committee recommended that the Chinese authorities prepare a species conservation status report in order to study the possibility of proposing that the site may also qualify under natural heritage criterion (iv). Jiuzhaigou Valley 637 China, People's N(iii) Scenic and Historic Republic of Interest Area The Committee inscribed this site of 72,000 ha on the World Heritage List. The Committee expressed concern over the question of growing human impact in the reserve and strongly encouraged the Chinese authorities to take appropriate measures to safeguard this site. The Committee recommended the State Party to prepare a species conservation status report in * order to study the possibility that the site may also qualify for inscription under natural heritage criterion (iv). Huanglong Scenic and 638 China, People's N(iii) Historic Interest Area Republic of The Committee inscribed the central and second class conservation zones of Huanglong on the World Heritage List, excluding Mouni Gully sub-division in the west, since its condition and natural values need to be further investigated. The Committee recommended that the Chinese authorities prepare a species conservation status report in order to investigate the possibility that the site may also qualify for inscription under natural heritage criterion (iv). The Committee recognized that the Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area and the Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area belong to the same ecological unit, despite being under different county administrations. Taking into account the views expressed by members, the Committee proposed that the separate listing of Huanglong and Jiuzhaigou as World Heritage sites be regarded as Phase I of a two-phase process. The Committee recommended that the Chinese authorities initiate Phase II by investigating the land intervening between the Huanglong and Jiuzhaigou sites (including the previously nominated Wanglang Reserve) and consider submitting a revised nomination for inscription as a unified site in the Minshan Mountains. Such a revised nomination would incorporate the Huanglong and Jiuzhaigou sites and other land considered as meeting World Heritage criteria. The Committee also noted that many precedents exist, including transfrontier sites, where the inscription of a large site does not imply the necessity for a single administrative structure. The Delegate from China thanked the Committee for separate listing of the two sites and informed the members that the Chinese authorities would take into consideration the recommendations of the Committee. The reports on the recommendations will be submitted to the Committee in the future. Historic Centre 616 Czech and Slovak C(ii)(iv) of Prague Federal Republic (vi) Historic Centre 617 Czech and Slovak C(iv) of Cesky Krumlov Federal Republic In view of the heavy tourism pressure in the town, the Committee requested the Czech & Slovak authorities to ensure * that safeguards be established to mitigate any potential adverse impacts from the Sumava International Park project. Historic Centre 621 Czech and Slovak C(i)(iv) of Telc Federal Republic Bourges Cathedral 635 France C(i)(iv) Mines of Rammelsberg 623 Germany C(i)(iv) and the historic town of Goslar Pythagoreion and 595 Greece C(ii)(iii) Heraion of Samos El Tajin, 631 Mexico C(iii)(iv) Pre-Hispanic City Rio Abiseo 548 Peru C(iii) National Park The Committee already inscribed this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of natural heritage criteria in 1990. The Committee decided that this site qualified on the basis of the cultural heritage criteria (iii) as well. Old City of Zamosc 564 Poland C(iv) Historic Monuments 604 Russian C(ii)(iv)(vi) of Novgorod and Federation surroundings Cultural and 632 Russian C(iv) historic Federation ensemble of the Solovetsky Islands * The White Monuments 644 Russian C(i)(ii)(iv) of Vladimir and 633 Federation Suzdal *[sic; should only read 633] Ban Chiang 575 Thailand C(iii) Archaeological Site Pueblo de Taos 492Rev United States C(iv) of America The Committee took note of the agreement between the U.S. Government and Taos Pueblo Tribal Council on interpretation of the United States' trust responsibility for the protection of the Taos Pueblo as a World Heritage site to include appropriate legal, moral and financial support necessary to assure respect for, and the protection of those cultural traditions, natural resources and practices which the Pueblo's leadership considers sacred and necessary for the continuity of the community. The Committee also took note, in this regard, of the additional agreement between the U.S. and Taos Pueblo on the latter's status as a self-governed community, and that any action undertaken by the United States in carrying out its trust responsibility for the protection and preservation of the Pueblo be conducted in a manner that acknowledges the full knowledge, participation and prior approval of the Pueblo's duly elected leadership. B. Properties which the Committee did not recommend for inscription on the World Heritage List Name of Property Identifi- State Party having cation N° submitted the nomination of the property in accordance with the Convention Macquarie Island 629 Australia Nature Reserve The Committee noted that this natural site had interesting geological value but was of the view that its characteristics were not of universal significance. However, the Committee * endorsed the recommendation of IUCN that the Australian authorities consider Macquarie in the wider sense of an oceanic island ecosystem representative of the subantarctic biogeographic realm. The Committee noted that Macquarie's values might be enhanced if it was assessed in combination with some of New Zealand's neighbouring island groups and in the long-term could be a part of an international nomination. Berezinsky Biosphere 628 Belarus Reserve The Committee noted that this natural site is internationally recognized as one of UNESCO's Biosphere Reserves but did not meet criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List. Cidade Velha 607 Cap Vert The Comittee noted that there was no protection or management plan for this cultural property and that it did not meet the criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List. Tatra National Park 656 *[sic; should be 636] Czech and Slovak Federal Republic The Committee acknowledged the high national importance of this natural site, but was of the view that it did not meet any natural heritage criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List. The Committee, however, encouraged the nomination of this site to UNESCO's International Network of Biosphere Reserves. Gir Wildlife 615 India Sanctuary The Committee noted that the conservation of this natural site will be greatly enhanced if it were included in UNESCO's International Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Committee was of the view that although it is a site of high national value, it did not meet World Heritage criteria. * C. Extension of World Heritage sites Name of Property Identifi- State Party having Criteria cation submitted the pro- N° posal for extension of the property in accordance with the Convention Kakadu National 631 Australia N(ii)(iii)(iv) Park *[sic; should be #147] C(i)(vi) The Committee commended the Australian authorities for concluding a 10-year programme to extend this Park and for the exemplary management operation at the Park. The Committee inscribed the full extent of the Park as re-nominated by the Australian authorities on the World Heritage List. On the basis of the ICOMOS evaluation, the Committee decided to inscribe Kakadu under cultural heritage criteria (i) and (vi) instead of (i), (iii) and (vi) as in the past. Potsdam, Park 532bis Germany C(i)(ii)(iv) with Sacrow Castle and Sauveur Church The Committee decided that the Castle and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin would be extended to include the Park with Sacrow Castle and Sauveur Church. Megalithic Temples 132 bis Malta C(iv) The Committee decided to extend the existing cultural property, the Temples of Ggantija, to include the five prehistoric temples situated on the islands of Malta and Gozo and to rename the site as "The Megalithic Temples of Malta". Glacier Bay 72bis United States of N(ii) National Park Rev America extension of the Wrangell/St.Elias/ Kluane site of Canada-USA) The Committee inscribed the Glacier Bay National Park as an extension of the Wrangell/St. Elias/Kluane World Heritage site of Canada and the United States of America. The Committee * encouraged the two States Parties to consider linking the Glacier Bay National Park with the Wrangell/St. Elias/Kluane unit; specifically, the Committee urged the American authorities to consider adding the Tongass National Forest Wilderness and the Canadian authorities to establish and incorporate a new protected area within the Haines Triangle. The Committee also requested the Canadian and American authorities to propose a new name such as "St. Elias Mountain Parks" for the transfrontier World Heritage property. The Committee expressed serious concerns over the prospect of potential impacts of the proposal to exploit the Windy Craggy mine in Canada. The Delegate of the United States and the Observer from Canada agreed to initiate processes necessary for the consideration and implementation of the Committee's recommendations. The Delegate of the United States informed the Committee that the Division of Environmental Affairs of the US Department of Interior had already written to the Canadian Ministry of Environment to request information concerning proposals to exploit the Windy Craggy mine and possible impacts on Glacier Bay. D. Deferred Nominations Name of Property Identification No. State Party having submitted the nomination of the property in accord- ance with the Convention Mir Castle 625 Belarus At the request of both ICOMOS and the Belarus authorities, the inscription of this cultural property has been deferred until a comparative study of similar castles in this region is undertaken by ICOMOS and a report on the study is presented to the Committee at its next session. Karlstejn Castle 619 Czech and Slovak Federal Republic Several delegations requested that ICOMOS undertake a study of the historicity of the nineteenth century restoration of the Castle and present a report at the seventeenth session of the Bureau. The inscription of this cultural property would be deferred until such a report is available. * Reserve of Popular 622 Czech and Slovak Architecture of Federal Republic Vlkolinec The requested information arrived too late to enable ICOMOS to make an evaluation and recommendations to the Committee, hence the inscription of this cultural property was deferred. Rohtas Fort 586 Pakistan Since the comparative study on military architecture in the region has not been received, the Committee decided to defer inscription of this cultural property until information became available. Safranbolu 614 Turkey Village The Turkish authorities have not yet replied to the Bureau's request for further information concerning the boundaries of the site and on certain monuments. The Committee decided to defer inscription of this cultural property until this information was made available. Tongariro National Park 421 New Zealand This site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1990 on the basis of natural heritage criteria. The Committee instructed the Centre to contact the New Zealand authorities and request further supportive material on cultural aspects of this site in order to study the possibility to inscribe the site under cultural heritage criteria as well. E. List of World Heritage in Danger A. Properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger Srebarna Biosphere Reserve Bulgaria The Committee, as requested by the authorities of Bulgaria by letter of 7 October 1992 decided, to include this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee's observations and recommendations regarding the state of conservation of this site are described in Chapter VIII, page 21. * Plitvice Lakes Croatia, Republic of National Park The Committee as requested by the authorities of Croatia by letter of 24 April 1992 decided to include this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee's observations and recommendations regarding the state of conservation of this site are described in Chapter VIII, page 24. Aïr-Ténéré National Nature Reserve Niger The Committee as requested by the authorities of Niger, by letter of 1 October 1992, decided to include this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee's observations and recommendations regarding the state of conservation of this site are described in Chapter VIII, page 29. Even though there were no requests from the States Parties concerned, the Committee on the basis of state of conservation reports provided by IUCN (see Chapter VIII, page 20) decided, in accordance with Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Convention to include the following sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Angkor (Cambodia) Mt. Nimba Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire/Guinea) Sangay National Park (Ecuador) Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) B. Property removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger Garamba National Park Zaire The Committee, in accordance with a request made by the State Party in their letter of 26 February 1991, decided to remove this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. Observations and recommendations of the Committee for sustaining the improvements to the state of conservation of this site are described in Chapter VIII, page 31. * XI. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE The Committee examined document WHC-92/CONF/002/8, 8Add. and 8Add.2, as well as information on additional requests received by the Committee from States Parties during its session, and approved the following projects: A. Technical Co-operation US$ Galapagos National Park (Ecuador) Revision of the Management Plan to harmonize 29,000 its goals and objectives to that of the tourism and conservation plan. The Committee instructed the Centre to provide these funds to the Galapagos authorities on the condition that they finalise the implementation of on-going projects receiving assistance from the World Heritage Fund and nominate in 1993, the marine park as an extension to the World Heritage site. Old City of Cairo (Egypt) Restoration of monuments and sites damaged 50,000 by the earthquake which occurred in Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt in October 1992. Mt. Nimba Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire/ Guinea) Organization of an interdisciplinary mission 35,000 to ascertain boundaries of the site in Guinea, assess impacts of iron-ore mining projects and influx of refugees into the region and plan integrated rural development projects benefiting the local population. The Committee instructed the Centre to contact donors such as UNDP and the World Bank to explore the feasibility of obtaining funds for the organization of the interdisciplin- ary mission and to keep costs of organizing this mission to the minimum possible level. Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey) Provision of materials and equipment for 30,000 the restoration of mosaics in St. Sophia. * World Heritage Cities Organization 50,000 Support to allow participation at the General Assembly and colloquium of the World Heritage Cities Network, mid-1993, Fez, Morocco. Sub-total (Technical Co-operation) 194,000 B. Training 1. Saudi Arabia Organization of a training course (4-19 30,000 April, 1993) on protected area management for the Arab region. 2. France/Mali Organization of a one-month (January- 30,000 February 1993) course for Francophone Africa in ecology and conservation in the Boucle de Baoule Biosphere Reserve, Mali. The Committee instructed the Centre to request: a) the organizers to incorporate a component on the philosophy and work of the Convention in the course curriculum; b) undertake an evaluation of the course, covering the last 5-year period, and providing specific information on the extent to which course participants have returned to African States Parties to assume responsibilities concerned with natural heritage protection; c) to ensure in the future that these field courses take place, if possible, at an African natural site inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Committee also requested the Centre to inform the course organizers (ENGREF/France), that contributions from the Fund for this course will, in the future, depend upon the findings of this evaluation. * 3. ICCROM a) Financial contributions to trainees from 30,000 States Parties participating in two courses, namely architectural conservation and scientific principles of conservation, respectively, to be held in Rome, Italy, January-March 1993. b) Financial contribution to trainees from 44,000 States Parties participating in the 10th International course on Technology of Stone Conservation and organization of study tours during the course, Venice, Italy, autumn 1993. Sub-total (Training) 134,000 The Committee took note of the fact that it approved, at its fourteenth session in Banff, Canada, a sum of US$50,000 for the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves of Costa Rica, subject to the State Party satisfying two conditions, viz. that the Costa Rican authorities (a) report on the completion of the projects for which the Committee had already provided funds and, (b) revise the boundaries of the site in accordance with IUCN's recommendations. The Committee was satisfied to note that the Costa Rican authorities have completed the implementation of two of three on-going projects which receive assistance from the World Heritage Fund. The Committee requested the Centre to contact the Costa Rican authorities and to urge them to expedite the implementation of the remaining project and revise the boundaries of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves in accordance with IUCN's recommendations. The Committee took note of the fact that the implementation of the project to prepare a Master Plan for the Machu Picchu Historic Sanctuary, Peru, for which the Committee approved a sum of US$40,000 during its fifteenth session in Carthage, Tunisia, has not progressed according to the timetable foreseen in the project proposal due to changes in the co-operating government agencies. The Committee was informed by the Regional Co-ordinator for the UNDP/UNESCO Project on Cultural Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean that the situation is now stable and that the implementation rate of the project is expected to improve in 1993. * XII.SITUATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND DRAFT BUDGET FOR 1993 XII.1 The Committee examined the document WHC- 92/CONF.002/9 which presented the situation of the contributions to the World Heritage Fund for the years 1981 to 1992. Noting with satisfaction that a certain number of States Parties had paid, within the given delay, either their obligatory contribution or their voluntary contribution, the Committee remarked with concern that many States Parties had not yet paid their obligatory contributions. Sometimes the outstanding contributions covered several bienniums. The Committee therefore strongly appealed to the States Parties concernecd requesting them to make their outstanding contributions to the Fund as soon as possible and so contribute to minimizing the impact of budgetary constraints on the development and the implementation of the Convention. XII.2 A working group under the Chairperson of the Committee examined the budgetary proposals presented by the World Heritage Centre and the advisory bodies (ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN). Also, it examined the approved proposal concerning the programmes which was approved by the Bureau for monitoring carried out by certain organisms in the Latin American and Caribbean region on the one hand, (US$60,000) and on the other the Mediterranean region (US$20,000). It also examined the proposals for international assistance and monitoring programmes proposed in the framework of the implementation of the new strategies for the Sub-Saharian African region, and that for Asia and the Pacific (US$20,000) and for the Workshop on Monitoring Methodology (US$25,000). XII.3 On the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee adopted the proposals presented by the Working Group on the budget and decided to reserve a special line for monitoring, in conformity with the new strategic orientations, and another for assistance for the participation of experts (LDC and DC) to statutory meetings of the Committee, in application of a previous decision taken by the Committee. Furthermore, it recalled the express decision of the Bureau, that the possibility of transferring, from one line to another, of credits allocated but not yet engaged could not in any case apply to credits for Emergency Assistance. Finally, the Committee considered that the "Reserve Funds" would be credited by excess budgetary resources and that recourse to this "Reserve Fund" would always remain dependant upon a specific Bureau decision. XII.4 Before the adoption of the budget for 1993 by consensus, the Delegate of Thailand expressed some reserves. He recommended that in the future, all the budgetary documents be transmitted to the members of the Committee in sufficient * time for them to be fully studied, independent of the constraints of the agenda of the session. The Committee approved this recommendation. XII.5 The Committee adopted the following budget for 1993: ____________________________________________________________ Items 1993 ____________________________________________________________ 1. Preparatory 130,000 assistance 2. Technical 450,000 Co-operation 3. Monitoring a) ICOMOS 30,000 b) IUCN 34,000 c) Others Latin America 60,000 Mediterranean 20,000 Strategies for 20,000 Asia/Africa Methodology Meeting 25,000 Total Item 3: 189,000 * Items 1993 ____________________________________________________________ 4. Training a) ICCROM 74,000 b) IUCN 10,000 c) Others 316,000 Total Item 4: 400,000 5. Emergency 150,000 Assistance 6. Promotion 210,000 7. Advisory Services a) ICOMOS 280,000 b) IUCN 175,000 8. Temporary Assistance to the Centre 250,000 9. Attendance of experts 30,000 (LDC and DC) to statutory Committee meetings ___________ TOTAL 2,264,000 _____________ XII.6 After approval of the budget for 1993, the Committee adopted the two following recommendations and decisions for the execution of the budget: A. The Committee decided: a) that the World Heritage Centre should present to the Committee, at its next session, a financial statement showing the funds allocated by the Committee, including credits earmarked for the services of ICCROM, ICOMOS and * IUCN. The Centre should also present detailed budgetary proposals for 1994; b) that the World Heritage Centre should indicate in its budgetary report to the Committee concerning Preparatory Assistance, Training and Technical Co-operation, the projects which have been approved by the Committee so as to take into account the ceiling of 20% (for all three items) for projects not approved by the Committee; c) that before each ordinary Committee session, the World Heritage Centre should provide the Committee with a global budgetary report to permit the Committee to better understand the justification for temporary assistance requested by the Centre; d) that the amount allocated for promotion in 1993 should not attain, with regard to the CD-ROM programme, an amount of 25% fixed in the detailed project budget. The Centre should present to the Bureau a report on the evaluation and implementation of this programme. The continuation of this programme (after end-1993) will be decided in the light of this report; e) that no funds allocated for temporary assistance can be used for the purchase of equipment or furniture for offices; d) that the World Heritage Centre should provide the Committee at its next session with a complete budgetary report on the sum accumulated through World Heritage Fund investments. B. The Committee recommended the following: a) to ensure the scientific quality of operations to be carried out in the field (preparatory assistance, technical co-operation, etc.) it is indispensable to use the services of experts, not only highly competent in their field but also having a wide knowledge of the cultures concerned. b) As far as possible and to make appreciable reduction in costs, it is recommended to make use of expertise available in the region concerned. c) With regard to training, whether local, regional or international, it is recommended to call upon, to the extent possible, the advice and services of IUCN and ICCROM. * This method can also be considered as contributing towards lowering costs. d) The participation of highly qualified experts is recommended in each action necessary for the safeguarding of the heritage (be it archealogy and the history of art, conservation techniques for architecture or engineering, physical or chemical methods, or management techniques). Whenever necessary, call will be made upon this expertise, working as closely together as possible with the specialized organizations concerned. XII.7 Noting the comments of IUCN and IOCMOS on their budget allocations, the Committee proposed that these questions of giving supplementary allocations be examined by the Bureau at its next meeting upon submission of appropriate justifications. XIII.REVISION OF THE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION XIII.1 Natural Heritage Criteria XIII.1.1 The Bureau examined document WHC-92/CONF.002/10 in the light of introductory remarks made by the Representative of IUCN and changes proposed by the Delegation of the United States of America. The Committee adopted the revised natural heritage criteria and the conditions of integrity amended in accordance with the proposals made by the United States Delegation. The Committee requested the Centre to revise the Operational Guidelines accordingly and submit them to the Bureau for verification and approval so that the revised criteria for integrity could come into effect by 1 October 1993. XIII.2 Cultural Criteria XIII.2.1 The Committee examined document WHC- 92/CONF.002/10Add. As requested by the Committee at its fifteenth session in Carthage, the Secretariat in collaboration with ICOMOS, IUCN and other competent partners, organized an expert meeting on Cultural Landscapes at La Petite Pierre in October 1992 at the invitation of the French Ministry of the Environment. * XIII.2.2 The Representative of ICOMOS reported on the proposed amendments to the six existing criteria for cultural properties and on the recommendations for the new interpretative paragraphs relating to cultural landscapes which would replace the existing paragraph 34. XIII.2.3 The Committee adopted the revised cultural criteria which now include outstanding cultural landscapes. Furthermore, the Committee made the following recommendations: (a) the modified criteria will be applied in identifying and evaluating cultural landscapes for the World Heritage List; (b) the German proposal for amendments to paragraph 24 (b) (ii) and the new paragraph 37 will be incorporated in the Operational Guidelines; (c) in view of the relationship of many cultural landscapes to the maintenance of ecosystem processes and biological diversity, the importance of interdisciplinary review of proposals for inscribing such sites needs to be kept in mind. In this regard, IUCN has offered to assist ICOMOS in landscape evaluations; (d) it is essential to ensure that cultural landscapes nominated for the World Heritage List meet the highest standards of universal significance and integrity that characterize sites inscribed previously under natural and cultural criteria; (e) the States Parties should be informed of the new criteria and be asked to submit Tentative Lists of cultural landscapes in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Operational Guidelines; (f) the Centre is requested to convene a group of experts on the tentative lists and related issues (illustrations, examples and specific revisions requested by these criteria), and report back to the seventeenth session of the Bureau. XIII.3 Framework Proposal for the Global Study XIII.3.1 The Committee examined a proposed framework, presented by the Delegation of the United States of America, for the preparation of a global study for cultural properties. XIII.3.2 After having recalled that the proposal was the outcome of discussions between the Delegations of the United States and Greece, the United States Representative * particuarly insisted on the distinction to be made between the indicative lists (prepared and presented by the States Parties from a strictly national viewpoint) and the global study system (which must include the lists prepared by the experts, on a multidisciplinary basis and in line with given universal considerations). Furthermore, he emphasized that the need for a global study has been the object of a consensus for many years and it was now most important to start this study. XIII.3.3 The Committee took note of the document as well as of the proposal of a study system founded on the basis of a matrix structuring cultural properties into three categories: time, culture and human achievement. XIII.3.4 To this end, the Committee decided upon the constitution of a working group which, in consultation with ICOMOS and ICCROM and in liaison with the World Heritage Centre, will formulate a report to be presented to the Bureau during its seventeenth session in 1993. The working group will comprise, apart from ICOMOS and ICCROM, experts from Germany, the United States of America, France, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Poland and Tunisia and other interested States Parties. XIV. DATE AND PLACE OF THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU AND THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE XIV.1 The Committee decided that the session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee will be held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 21 to 26 June 1993. XIV.2 The Delegate from Colombia repeated the invitation by the Colombian Government to the Director-General to invite the seventeenth session of the World Heritage Committee to be held from the 6 to 11 December 1993 in Cartagena, Colombia. On behalf of the Director-General, Mr. von Droste expressed his thanks for the generous offer of Colombia, and underlined that, however, a formal agreement following the decisions of the General Conference has to be worked out. The Bureau will conduct a meeting in advance of the seventeenth session of the World Heritage Committee to consider a selected number of items. XIV.3 Several members of the Committee expressed their gratitude for the kind invitation by Colombia. XIV.4 IUCN expressed the wish that Colombia should nominate a natural site for the World Heritage List. * Furthermore, IUCN proposed to host a future Bureau meeting in their new Headquarters in Gland/Switzerland. XV. OTHER QUESTIONS XV.1 The Committee took note of the proposal from Canada to provide to the World Heritage Fund in accordance with the provisions of Article 15, paragaph 4 of the Convention, a sum of C.$200,000 (Canadian dollars) for 1993-1994 for specific projects identified by the Canadian Government. The Committee thanked and congratulated the Canadian Government for taking this initiative. The Committee was informed by the Canadian Observer that under the proposed scheme the Canadian Government would request the Committee to advance funds for specific projects and would reimburse the cost incurred by the World Heritage Fund for implementing the projects. XV.2 The Committee, however, requested the Centre to study the Canadian proposal in detail, particularly the implications linked to receiving funds from a States Party to implement projects identified by that Party and submit a report to the seventeenth session of the Bureau. XV.3 As a first step, the Committee approved a contribution of US$ 30,000 towards the organization of a meeting to harmonize tentative lists of heritage-canals from all parts of the world. XVI. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION XVI.1 On behalf of the Committee, the Chairperson, Mrs. Salisbury, thanked the Rapporteur and the Secretariat of the World Heritage Centre for their efficiency in carrying out the work. She also mentioned the considerable work achieved by the Committee. She thanked all those who contributed towards the success of the sixteenth session. XVI.2 In the name of his colleagues, the Delegate of Tunisia congratulated the Chairperson, and acknowledged the work accomplished by the Secretariat, the interpreters and the welcome service of the host country. XVI.3 Finally, the Director of the Centre, in the name of the Director-General, thanked the members of the Committee and the Bureau and assured them that the Centre would implement the new strategic orientations adopted by the Committee. XVI.4 The Chairperson then declared the closure of the sixteenth session of the Committee.
A. ANNEXES TO THE REPORT I. List of Participants II. Strategic Orientations III. Declaration of the Representative of Egypt IV. Declaration of the Representative of the Holy See V. Declaration of the Representative of Mexico VI. Declaration of the Representative of the United States of America B. INFORMATION DOCUMENTS I. Speech of Mr. Russell Train, President of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, United States II. Opening speech of the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr. Federico Mayor
*[ANNEX 1/2] ANNEX I LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE BRAZIL/BRESIL Mr. Ademar CRUZ Jr. Advisor to the Chief of the Cultural Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sqn. 308 Block "F", Apto. 504 BRASILIA CHINA/ CHINE Mr. Shang Hua LIU Senior Engineer and Deputy Director Department of National Scenic Areas Ministry of Construction 9 San Li He Avenue Beiwanzhuang BEIJING Mr. Yansheng MA Deputy Director Division of General Policy, Culture and Communication Chinese National Commission for UNESCO BEIJING 100816 CYPRUS/CHYPRE Mr. Christos CASSIMATIS Deputy Permanent Delegate Permanent Delegation of Cyprus to UNESCO 86 Av. Foch PARIS 75116 *[ANNEX 1/3] COLOMBIA/COLOMBIE Mrs Olga PIZANO Deputy Director of Cultural Heritage COLCULTURA Colombian Institute for Culture Calle 9# 8-31 BOGOTA EGYPT/EGYPTE Dr. Mohamed Gamal EL DIN MOKHTAR ex-Preaident Egyptian Antiquities 16 Sahab Street GIZA FRANCE Mme. Francoise BERCE Chief Conservator for Heritage Ministry for National Education and Culture 12 rue du Parc Royal 75003 PARIS Mr. Jean-Pierre BOYER Technical Adviser to the French National Commission for UNESCO French National Commission for UNESCO 42 Av. Raymond Poincaré 75116 PARIS Mr. Jean-Louis PONS Civil Administrator Ministry for the Environment 14 Bd. Général Leclerc 92524 NEUILLY-sur-SEINE Mr. Léon PRESSOUYRE Professor University of Paris I PARIS 75005 *[ANNEX 1/4] GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE Mr. Hans CASPARY Conservator of Historic Monuments Landesant fur Denkmalpslege Rheinland-Pfalz Gottelmannstrasse 17 D-6500 Mainz 1 Germany Mr. H. PLACHTER Professor for Biology & Natural Preservation University Marburg Lahnberge DW-MARBURG INDONESIA/INDONESIE Mr. Rizali INDRAKESUMA Vice Consul (Cultural Information) Indonesian Consulate General HOUSTON, Texas USA ITALY/ITALIE H.E. Ambassador Michelangelo JACOBUCCI Permanent Delegate Permanent Delegation of Italy to UNESCO UNESCO House 1 rue Miollis 75015 PARIS Mme. Margherita SABATINI Direction Générale for Cultural Relations Ministry for Foreign Affairs Via N. Tilli 62 00156 ROME Ms Clara PALMAS Ministry of Environment and Architectural Properties 22 rue St. Michele ROME MEXICO/MEXIQUE Mr. Salvador DIAZ-BERRIO Deputy Director Technical Support and Training (INAH) CORDOBA 45 MEXICO D.F. 06710 *[ANNEX 1/5] OMAN Mr. Ali AL-KATHIRY Second Secretary Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman 2342 Massachusetts Av. NW WASHINGTON D.C.20008 PAKISTAN Dr. Ahmed Nabi KHAN Director-General of Archasology & Museums Government of Pakistan 27-A Central Union Commercial Area Shaheed-e-Millat Road KARACHI PERU/PEROU Mr. Martin YRIGOYEN Director of Press and Information Ministry of Foreign Affairs Malecon Cismeros 1270 Minaflores LIMA PHILIPPINES Mme Deanna ONGPIN-RECTO Attaché to the Philippine Permanent Delegation to UNESCO UNESCO House 1 rue Miollis 75015 PARIS SENEGAL Mr. Mbaye Bassine DIENG Director Historic and Ethnographic Culture B.P. 4001 DAKAR Mr. Seydina Issa SYLLA Director National Parks Service BP 5135 DAKAR-FANN Point "E" DAKAR *[ANNEX 1/6] SPAIN/ ESPAGNE Ms. Maria MARINE Subdirectora General de Monumentos y Arqueologia ICRBC Ministerio de Cultura calle Greco s/n 28015 MADRID SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE ARABE SYRIENNE Dr. Ali ABOU ASSEFI Gereral Director Anriquities and Museums National Museum DAMASCUS THAILAND/THAILANDE Dr. Adul WICHIENCHAROEN Chairman National Committee for Protection of the World Cultural & Natural Heritage BANGKOK Mr. Sunthad SOMCHEVITA Secretary-General Office of Environmental Policy & Planning 60/1 Phibulwattana Rama IV Road BANGKOK 10400 Lt. Bunnalert RUSHTAKUL Deputy Director-General Royal Forest Department BANGKOK Mr. Payung NOPSUWAN Director of National Park Division Royal Forest Department BANGKOK Miss Pinida LEWCHALERMWONG Budget Analyst Bureau of Budget Office of the Prime Minister BANGKOK *[ANNEX 1/7] Mrs. Somsuda LEYAVANIJA Archaeologist Archaeology Division Fine Arts Department 68/2 Ladprado 87 BANGKOK Mr. Manit SIRIWAN Director of Natural and Cultural Heritage Conservation Division Secretary to the National Committee on World Heritage BANGKOK Mr. Phathai NIJARNDRECHA Vice-Governor Udonthani Province Office of Udonthani Province Mr. Surachet 2HETTAMART Assistant Professor Faculty of Forestry Kaseteart University BANGKOK 10903 TUNISIA/TUNISIE Mr. A. BESCHAOUCH Director of Archaeological Research National Institute of Archaeology and Art TUNIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE The Honourable Manuel LUJAN Jr. United States Secretary of the Interior United States Department of the Interior WASHINGTON D.C. 20013-7127 Ms Jennifer SALISBURY Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks United States Representative to the World Heritage Convention United States Department of the Interior WASHINGTON D.C. 20013-7127 *[ANNEX 1/8] Mr. Knute Knudson Deputy Chief-of-Staff Department of the Interior 635 A St. N.E. WASHINGTON D.C. 20002 Mr. James RIDENOUR Director National Parks Service Mr. Robert BLOHM Deputy Director of the Department of State Office of Ecology, Health & Conservation WASHINGTON Mr. Terry MILLER Director Office of UN Social & Refugee Affairs 4787 Farndon Street FAIRFAX, UA 22032 Mr. Richard COOK Chief, International Affairs National Park Service P.O. Box 37127 WASHINGT9N D.C. 20013 II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CO,-,ULTATIF INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES(ICOMOS) Mr. Herb STOVEL Secretary General 301 Strathearn Avenue MONTREAL Quebec Mr. Henry CLEERE World Heritage Co-ordinator 75 rue du Temple PARIS 75003 Ms Terry B. MORTON President ICOMOS/US 1600-H St. N.W. WASHINTON D.C. *[ANNEX 1/9] Ms Barbara TIMKEN Education Consultant ICOMOS/US 1600 H Street NW WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)/UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE (UICN) Mr. James THORSELL Senior Adviser - Natural Heritage Rue Mauverney 28 CH-1196 GLAND Switzerland Mr. P.H.C. (Bing) LUCAS IUCN Commission on National Parks & Protected Areas 1/268 Main Road Tawa WELLINGTON 6006 New Zealand INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM) Mr. Marc LAENEN Director Via di S. Michele 13 00153 ROME Italy Mr. Jukka JOKILEHTO Chief Architectural Conservation Programme Via di S. Michele 13 00153 ROME Italy III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS ALGERIA/ALGERIE Mr. Mohammed BOUKLI-HACENE Deputy Director for Monuments, Historic Sites and National Parks Ministry for Culture and Communications Plateau des Annassers Palais de la Culture ALGIERS *[ANNEX 1/10] Ms. Kadria KADRA Inspector for Cultural Heritage Ministry for Culture and Communications Algiers Mr. Omar HACHI Chief Heritage Conservator ALGIERS Ms. Houria BONHIRED President of the Association "Sauvons la Casbah" 3 rue Maleike Ben Aissa Kasbah ALGIERS AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE Mr. Andy TURNER Assistant Secretary Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environnent & Territories CANBERRA BANGLADESH Mme Touhida Faruki BEGUM Secretary Bangladesh National Commission for UNESCO 1 Asian Highway DHAKA BELIZE Mr. Mick CRAIG Belize National Commission for UNESCO P.O. Box 47 BELMOPAN BULGARIA/BULGARIE Mr. Branimor NATOV Deputy Minister Ministry of Environment 67 Gladetone str. SOFIA *[ANNEX 1/11] CANADA M. Michel BONNETTE Directeur Division du Vieux-Québac et du Patrimoine Service de l'urbanisme 2 rue des Jardins C.P 700, Haute-Ville QUEBEC G1S 4S9 Ms Christina CAMERON Director-General Canadian Parks Service Environment Canada 25 rue Eddy HULL P.Q. K1A OH3 Mme. Gisèle CANTIN Chef, Affaires Intergavernementales Service Canadien des Parcs Environnent Canada 25 rue Eddy HULL, Quebec K1A OH3 Mr. Harold EIDSVIK Consultant 135 Dorothea Drive OTTAWA K1V 7C6 Mme Louise L. TRAHAN Chargée de Programme Culture et Décennie Mondiale du Développement Culturel Commission Canadienne pour 1'UNESCO 99 rue Metcalfe, C.P. 1047 OTTAWA K1P 5V8 CZECH AND SLOVAK FEDERAL REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE TCHEQUE ET SLOVAK Mr. Peter MUSKA Director of the Ecological Policy Division Hlboua 2 81235 BRATISLAVA Mr. Josef STULC Member of the National ICOMOS Committee Americka 2 12000 PRAGUE 2 *[ANNEX 1/12] FINLAND/FINLANDE Mr. Jaakko ANTTI-POIKA Director Suomenlinna Fortress Island Suomenlinna C 62 00100 HELSINKI GREECE/ GRECE Dr Yannis TOURARSOGLOU Department of Classical Antiquities Ministry of Culture Tossitsa No 1/106 82 ATHENS GUINEA/GUINEE Mr. Lancei BAKAYOKO Director-General MIFER B.P. 837 CONAKRY Mr. Ibrahima MAGASSDUBA Secretary General UNESCO National Commission for UNESCO P.O.Box 964 CONAKRY HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE His Exc. Ernesto Gallina Archbishop, Apostolic Nuncio Delegate for International Governmental Organizations Vatican City ROME JAPAN/JAPON Mr. Kunio KIKUCHI Director Planning Division Nature Conservation Bureau Environment Agency 1-2-2 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-ku TOKYO *[ANNEX 1/13] Mr. Kanefusa MASUDA Chief Senior Specialist of Historic Monuments Architecture Division Agency for Cultural Affairs Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 3-2-2 KasumigaseRi Chiyodaku TOKYO 100 Mr. Kensei ODA Forestry Agency Ministry of Agriculture Forestry & Fisheries 1-2-1 Kasumipaseki Chiyoda-ku TOKYO NETHERLANDS/PAYS-BAS Mrs. Sabine GIMBRERE Deputy Head Bureau for International Cultural Relations Ministry for Cultural Affairs P.O. Box 3009 2280 ML RIJSWIJK POLAND/POLOGNE Professor Krzysztof PAWLOWSKI Associate Professor of Toulouse & Monpellier Universities Résidence des Facultés La Picardia 201 Avenue de la Justice 34090 MONTPELLIER France RUSSIA/RUSSIE Ms Tatiana NIKITINA Deputy Minister of Culture Ministry of Culture Kitaiskiy Pr. 7 MOSCOW SWITZERLAND/SUISSE Ms Brigitta SCHOCH Consul Consulate General of Switzerland 11766 Wilshire Blvd. # 1400 LOS ANGELES CA 90025 *[ANNEX 1/14] A. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ORGANISATIONS NON- GOVERNMENTALES THE GETTY CONSERVATION INSTITUTE/INSTITUT GETTY DE CONSERVATION Mr. Miguel Angel CORZO Director The Getty Conservation Institute 4503 Glencoe Avenue Marina del Rey Ca 90292 Mr. Neville AGNEW The Getty Conservation Institute 4503 Glencoe Avenue Marina del Rey Ca. 90292 Ms Arlene FLEMING Consultant The Getty Conservation Institute 4503 Glencoe Avenue Marina del Rey Ca 90292 Ms. Margaret MACLEAN Senior Co-ordinator The Getty Conservation Institute 4503 Glencoe Avenue Marine del Rey Ca. 90292 Ms Jane SLATE Head, Institutional Relations The Getty Conservation Institute 4503 Glencoe Avenue Marina del Rey Ca. 90292 Mr. Timothy P. WHALEN Program Officer The Getty Grant Program 401 Wilshire Blvd. Santa Monica Ca. 90401 *[ANNEX 1/15] WORLD WILDLIFE FUND-US/FOND MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE-USA Mr. Russell E. TRAIN Chairman World Wildlife Fund-USA 1803 Kalorama Square NW WASHINGTON D.C. 20008 Mr. Douglas WILLIAMSON World Wildlife Fund-USA Congressional Liaison 1250 24th Street NW WASHINGTON D.C. 20037 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS/INSTITUT AMERICAN DES ARCHITECTS Mr. M. Hamilton MORTON, Jr. Architect 4813 Faletone Avenue Chevy Chase MD 20815 IV. PRESS Ms Marguerite CULP Journalist P.O. Box 23316 SANTA FE NM 87502 Ms Ellen HOFFMAN OMNI Magazine/USA P.O. Box 3144 Shepherdetown, W.V 25443 V. SECRETARIAT Mr. Federico MAYOR Director-General Mr. Bernd von DROSTE Director World Heritage Centre Mr. Saïd ZULFICAR Deputy Director World Heritage Centre *[ANNEX 1/16] Mr. Mounir BOUCHENAKI Acting Director Division of Cultural Heritage Mr. Gerard BOLLA UNESCO Consultant Mr. Richard ENGELHARDT UNESCO Representative in Cambodia Mr. T. FORSTENZER Directorate, CAB Ms Breda PAVLIC Head of Office UNESCO Office Quebec City Mr. Natarajan ISHWARAN World Heritage Centre Ms Mireille JARDIN World Heritage Centre Ms Mechtild ROSSLER World Heritage Centre Ms. F. TRUEL Interpretation Division Ms Jane DEGEORGES World Heritage Centre Ms Jocelyne POUTEAU World Heritage Centre UNESCO/UNDP Mr. Sylvio MUTAL Chief, UNDP/UNESCO Project Casilla 4480 LIMA
ANNEX II I. BACKGROUND 1. As of 1 October 1992, the Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage (henceforth called the "Convention") adopted 16 November 1976 by the 17th Session of the UNESCO General Conference, comprising 127 States' Parties (henceforth called the "Parties") from all regions of the world regardless of their political regimes, their socio-economic systems, their centralized or federal governmental structures, their cultural diversities, their differing forms of cultural or natural heritage, their policies with regard to administration of their heritage etc. 2. At the XIVth session of the World Heritage Committee (Banff, Canada in December 1990) (henceforth called the "Committee") it was decided that 1992, the year during which the Twentieth anniversary of the Convention of the World Cultural Heritage is to be celebrated, should be the occasion for an in-depth evaluation of the implementation of the Convention prior to undertaking the preparation and the adoption of a future strategy. 3. In 1991, as a follow-up to this decision, the Secretariat called in a consultant, Mr. Azzedine Beschaouch, who was given the task of preparing an evaluation of the work done by the Convention. 4. A meeting took place in Washington between 22-24 June 1992 during which a panel of experts, provided with the evaluation report, drew up a series of recommendations which were examined by the Bureau of the Committee (henceforth called the "Bureau") at its 16th Session in Paris (6-10 July 1992). 5. This panel of experts has met once again in Paris from 27-30 October 1992. The aim of the meeting was to finalise a plan set down in this document, which is to be submitted to the Committee at its 16th Session (Santa Fe, 7-14 December 1992) taking into consideration the recommendations, proposals or suggestions put forward by Mr. Azzedine Beschaouch, those of the panel of experts, the Bureau of the Committee and its consultative bodies (ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN), as well as the proposals contained in a report prepared by Mr Gérard Bolla. 6. During its 140th Session, the Executive Board of UNESCO has taken into consideration a report of the Director-General (document 40 EX/13) concerning "the revitalization of UNESCO 's action for the protection of world cultural and natural heritage". *[ANNEX 2/2] II. GOALS A. INTRODUCTION 1992 marks the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the World Heritage Convention. After twenty years, the Convention remains a remarkably visionary instrument, with the potential to achieve outstanding successes in global conservation causes. At the request of the World Heritage Committee, and its Secretariat, the new UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the occasion has been dedicated to a series of efforts to review and evaluate the Convention's performance, to identify weaknesses, and to recommend specific actions that would lead to improvements in its performance. These efforts, including both special studies and meetings described in the following pages, have been undertaken with a view to enabling the Convention not only to realize its full potential as envisioned in 1972, but also to address new challenges based on anticipated trends of the future. The original concept of the Convention and its future challenges involve several major goals that have been identified. For each goal, selected objectives have been listed as a reference guide to States Parties, the Committee, the advisory organizations, and the World Heritage Centre. In addition, the following pages describe the sequence of events during the evaluation and planning stages, general recommendations for renewed and expanded efforts among the States Parties and a summary of specific recommendations for Committee action of both a procedural and technical nature. It should be noted that this process is by no means marked by a clear beginning and ending. On the contrary, the process should be maintained and improved, on a continuous basis. However, 1992 is the appropriate occasion to advance the core elements that could be the bases for strategic plans by all the major players in the Convention, including the advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre. B. STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1 - Goal Promote completion of the identification of the world heritage Objectives - Complete the global study and appropriate thematic studies *[ANNEX 2/3] - Assist, where necessary, in identification of sites and preparation of nominations 2 - Goal Ensure the continued representativity and credibility of the World Heritage List Objectives - Maintain objective and consistent review and evaluation procedures - Refine and update criteria for evaluation of natural/cultural heritage nominations - Promote consideration for inscription from all geo/cultural regions of the world - Consider situation of sites no longer qualifying for listing 3 - Goal Promote the adequate protection and management of the World Heritage Sites Objectives - Take specific stops to assist in strengthening site protection and management - Take appropriate actions to address threats and damage to sites 4 - Goal Pursue more systematic monitoring of World Heritage sites Objectives - Define elements and procedures for monitoring - cooperate with State parties and competent authorities on regular monitoring work 5 - Goal Increase public awareness, involvement and support Objectives - Provide support to site presentation and interpretation - Implement a professionally designed marketing strategy - Attract donations and public support, including through demonstration of accountability in World Heritage Fund management *[ANNEX 2/4] - Reinforce the image of a World Heritage Site network by introducing standards in the design and content of site programs and general information materials - Compile and regularly distribute reports highlighting the success stories of the Convention - Encourage appropriate co-operation with local populations in promoting and protecting World Heritage sites - Provide support for circulation of exhibits on World Heritage sites among States Parties to the Convention III. RECOMMENDATIONS I. THE CONVENTION AND ITS LINKS WITH OTHER INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Every effort should be made to ensure that the States which have not yet done so become Parties to the Convention. 2. It is not necessary to revise the Convention, but only its Operational Guidelines should be periodically reviewed. 3. There should be closer links between the World Heritage Convention and the other Conventions (the Hague Convention, the Convention concerning Illicit Traffic of cultural property, the Geneva Convention, the Ramsar Convention, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Biodiversity Convention, etc.). These could be achieved by the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention becoming Parties to those Conventions, by organizing consultations between the secretariats, when they exist, and by regularly inviting observers from the other Conventions' governing bodies to attend meetings of the Committee. Moreover, it must be recalled that it is necessary to study the means by which to strengthen these links between the different conventions and avoid all overlapping of their actions. In this context, it is advisable that in the future the World Heritage Centre plays an increasingly important role, in order to take into consideration all the problems relating to the safeguarding of World Heritage in Danger. *[ANNEX 2/5] II. BODIES RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION 4. The three pillars on which implementation of the Convention rests, namely, the Committee, the Secretariat, and the consultative bodies, should play their role fully and equitably. A. The Committee 5. To ensure observance of Article 9.3 of the Convention, which stipulates that the Member States of the Committee should be represented by experts, it is recommended that: - States communicate in advance to the Secretariat the names and status of their representatives. The Secretariat should remind them, if necessary, of their obligations in this regard; - The attendance of experts, not only from the LDCs but from all the developing countries, should be facilitated as necessary by assistance from the Fund. Attendance of not more than two representatives (one for cultural sites, one for natural sites) by country to any Committee meeting will be considered inasfar as the Fund resources permit; - Pursuant to Article 10.2 of the Convention, the Committee should invite to its meetings public or private bodies or individuals who would attend the Committee's sessions as observers and augment the expertise available to it. These observers would be chosen with the utmost attention to the need for equitable representation, within the Committee, of the different cultural and natural areas, and would be consulted on specific matters. 6. In order to improve the functioning of the Committee, it is recommended that: - Specific working groups be established not only during the Committee sessions but also between its sessions in order to examine questions such as the budget, the monitoring of the state of conservation of property, requests for international assistance and revisions of the Operational Guidelines. These working groups should report to the Committee; - Meetings of the outgoing Bureau should be organized before each regular session of the Committee, with the attendance being sought of those members of the outgoing Bureau who would no longer be members of the Committee; *[ANNEX 2/6] - Strict procedures for debate should continue to be followed in the Committee and the Bureau sessions, enabling each member to express his or her position, and to more accurately record decisions taken on each item of business, possibly even by a vote, but without the search for a consensus being abandoned; - The rule that the representative of a State should not intervene to support a nomination or assistance request from his or her own country should be more strictly applied. B. The Secretariat 7. The Committee appeals to the Director-General of UNESCO to provide sufficient financial resources to the World Heritage Centre to ensure the effective functioning of the Committee and the implementation of its decisions, as required by Article 14 of the Convention. Until this is done, it is recommended that the Committee continue to consider requests by the Centre for temporary assistance for this purpose. 8. States Parties to the Convention should be encouraged to second competent staff to the Centre, in order to strengthen it. Closer and more constant cooperation between the Centre and other UNESCO sectors as well as the implementing bodies of other conventions, when they exist, is strongly encouraged for mutual strengthening and support of the Convention. C. The Consultative Bodies 9. Cultural and natural heritage should no longer be considered separately for purposes of site planning, management, and conservation. A common philosophy should be promoted which would merge the human dimension of the heritage with the environmental aspect. Such philosophy would not supplant the definitions of the natural and cultural heritage in the Convention, but could be used to further efforts to enhance site planning and conservation by a more integrated approach. It recommended that the Centre should take all the necessary steps in this direction. 10. Every means should be employed to improve the structures and expertise of ICOMOS and IUCN. With respect to ICOMOS, States Parties should be encouraged to give more vigorous support to the National Committees, and ICOMOS should ensure the representation of the different disciplines concerned, by drawing fully on its constituent professional groups and networks. 11. The offer of ICCROM to continue and even expand its cooperation with the Committee in areas of training, expertise, documentation, and research should be accepted and developed further. *[ANNEX 2/7] 12. The Centre should build on the special historic and traditional partnership which exists between IUCN, ICOMOS, and ICCROM in implementation of the Convention. 13. Furthermore a genuine partnership should be established, on the basis of the guidelines of the Committee, between the Centre and the three organizations, both regarding the techniques and the doctrine of conservation. 14. The Centre should draw up a list of NGOs and institutions with which it would be desirable to have closer ties and which might also be consulted by the Committee and the Centre on specific matters, pursuant to Article 10.1 of the Convention. D. The General Assembly 15. The General Assembly of States Parties should be held as early as possible during the General Conference of UNESCO, and the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee should present its report to the General Assembly. III. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION A. The World Heritage List 16. No quantitative limits should be set to the List, but encouragement should be given to the establishment of tentative lists with more systematic assistance being given with their preparation to countries which have not yet drawn up such lists. 17. It is not necessary to limit the number of nominations submitted each year. However, in order to take account of the difficulties that the Committee and the advisory bodies have had in making a more thorough evaluation and a more searching examination of nominations, consideration should be given to several solutions, which could complement each other: They include: States being asked to submit more detailed applications and adhering to the deadlines set by the Operational Guidelines; nominations received after the deadlines, and/or incomplete nominations should not be put forward for consideration; all available documentation should be sent to the members of the Committee early in the annual cycle of nomination review; and, the advisory bodies should be given more time for their reviews by: - expediting the referral of nomination files from the Secretariat; and, - producing a draft Bureau report during the Bureau meeting to confirm recommendations with respect to nominations. *[ANNEX 2/8] 18. To make the List more representative, the Centre should examine, with the appropriate experts, the List's deficiencies and ways of correcting them. 19. A critical evaluation should also be made of the criteria governing the cultural heritage and the criteria governing authenticity and integrity, with a view of their possible revision. The World Heritage Centre should, in consultation with ICOMOS, organize a meeting of experts in accord with the decision already made during the fifteenth session of the World Heritage Committee. 20. At each inscription, the characteristics which justified the inclusion of the property on the List and which must, as a result, determine the basis of its future management, should be clearly stated. 21. Inscriptions of sites should be deferred until evidence of the full commitment of the nominating government for site protection is available. Evidence should in particular take the forms of national legislation, staffing, funding within the capabilities of the government, and management plans, as currently required in the nomination document. 22. In order to insure a rigorous procedure for the inscriptions, nominations deferred by the Bureau on the basis of Category D of the Operational Guidelines should not be changed to a different category/status except by consent of the Committee, and should not be reexamined in the same calendar year. B. List of World Heritage in Danger 23. Inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger should not be seen as a sanction, but as the acknowledgement of a condition that calls for safeguarding measures, and as a means of securing resources for that purpose. The Centre should promote this idea among States. 24. In compliance with Article 11.4 of the Convention, the possibility of inscribing a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, without a prior request from the State concerned, should be included in the Operational Guidelines. 25. The assistance envisaged in Article 11.4 of the Convention should allow for messages from the Committee drawing attention to the potential or actual dangers threatening a site ; paragraph 58 of the Operational Guidelines should be modified accordingly. In the case of an emergency, priority should be given to the allocation of financial resources from the World Heritage Fund to properties inscribed on the World Heritage in Danger. *[ANNEX 2/9] C. Withdrawal of a property from the World Heritage List 26. The Committee should strictly apply the existing procedures for withdrawing a property from the List when the characteristics which justified its original inscription no longer exist and when consultations with the State concerned have not led to an agreement. Public notice of this action should be issued by the Committee. D. Monitoring the state of conservation 27. The Committee should systematically ensure that the recommendations made at the time of inscription have been put into practice. 28. All requests for assistance from the Fund should be accompanied by an assessment of the state of conservation of the property. 29. Monitoring should no longer be seen as a periodical inspection, but as a process of continuous co-operation involving local partners in a regional context, and including information and research activities. Each State Party could draw the attention of the Committee to situations of risk or deterioration of a World Heritage site or to a possible violation of the obligations foreseen by the Convention. The possibility should be considered of a clause which would require a periodical review of the properties on the World Heritage List, in order to determine after a given period whether the sites still meet, totally or partially, the criteria under which they had been originally included. Representatives of the Centre or experts from the NGOs will participate at this periodical review. 30. The Centre should produce a document on the state of the world cultural heritage, beginning with the Latin American region, for which a monitoring exercise along these lines has already been undertaken. 31. In order to strengthen the guidelines and procedures for systematic and continuous monitoring of the state of conservation of World Heritage Sites, the Centre, in cooperation with IUCN, ICOMOS, and ICCROM, should convene an experts' meeting during the year 1993. E. The World Heritage Fund 32. Improved efforts to increase financial resources of the World Heritage Fund should be carried out by the World Heritage Centre. *[ANNEX 2/10] There should be a number of aspects to these efforts, including systematic reminders to States Parties asking them to pay their contributions, the seeking of contributions for specific projects from private foundations and other public or private sources. 33. States requesting and receiving assistance should be required to produce more precise reports, based on defined standards, and the reports should be referred by the Centre, as appropriate, to the advisory body and, together with their assessments, should be reviewed the Committee, with respect to further assistance requests from the State Party. The Committee may request the World Heritage Centre to publish periodically a resumé of these reports accompanied by illustrated documentation to better inform the public of the successes of the Convention in the field of conservation 34. The Centre should note, in connection with each technical assistance request, the status of the requesting State Party's financial contribution to the Fund, the amount of assistance from the World Heritage Fund previously allocated to the project and/or site, and, in the case of training, the per centage involvement of World Heritage Site related management or conservation staff. 35. No more than 20 per cent of the total annual assistance budget (excluding emergency assistance) should be allocated by the Chairman without discussion and approval of the full Committee. 36. The Committee should consider re-establishing a contingency reserve as a per centage of the annual budget to be available for responses to unforseen emergencies affecting World Heritage Sites. 37. Assistance requests should be referred, as appropriate, to the advisory bodies for review/evaluation, and their evaluations should be presented to the Bureau, appropriate sub-committee and Committee. 38. The Fund should be invested more systematically in projects which could attract funding, rather than in small, isolated projects. Training should preferably, but not exclusively, involve the managers of World Heritage sites. When several training assistance requests compete for funding that is not adequate to support all, priority should be given to requests involving World Heritage Site management and/or technical conservation personnel. F. Promotional work 39. Promotional activities, in general, should cover three complementary aspects, as follows: a) communication, i.e. public information by means of the media; *[ANNEX 2/11] b) promotion itself, by way of exhibitions and various cultural events; and, c) development of financial and human resources to promote the Convention, with the assistance of associations, information from decision-makers, sponsorship and the sale of products credited to the Fund. d) Information programmes proposed by the Committee to the States Parties should include action to be taken at already at primary school level. 40. All promotional activities concerning the Convention should, within UNESCO, be the primary responsibility of the World Heritage Centre, which would report to the Committee. 41. A report on the state of World Heritage property, showing the effects of inscription on conservation, should, if possible, be published by the Centre on a two-yearly basis. 42. The Committee should devote more time, during its sessions, to the discussion of questions concerning promotion, which should be examined by specialists. 43. The advisory bodies should increase their respective efforts to increase awareness of, and support for, the Convention. 44. States Parties should promote the Convention, particularly on World Heritage sites, by producing publications, plaques, etc., explaining to the public and groups concerned the philosophy and principles of the Convention and the qualities which had justified the inscription of the site. States Parties also should promote the establishment and activities of associations concerned with the safeguarding of cultural and natural sites. 45. The World Heritage Centre should recognize the growing concern over the impact of tourism on World Heritage sites and consider sponsoring a study on the topic. This study should take into consideration other similar efforts, including particularly a 1992 publication by WTO/UNEP tourism in- protected areas, in order to avoid duplication.
ANNEX III ABU MINA (EGYPT) The site of Abu Mina (Sant Minas) is located in the desert, to the west of Alexandria, on an area of about 2,000 acres which was nominated as an archaeological site protected by the Egyptian laws a long time ago. It contains the remains of a great basilica churches, hostels for pilgrims, villas, houses, shops, bath houses, a health centre, wine factories, arches, parts of an enclosure wall, etc.. The site had been venerated since the times of the old Roman Empire, and became one of the important pilgrimage centres in Egypt. The site took its present form in the late fifth century and the early sixth. The legend that dealt with life, death and the burial of St. Minas at that site, attracted Christian pilgrims to visit the site. The site was placed in 1979 on the World Heritage List because of its exceptional cultural and spiritual value. The progress report (item 8 of the Provisional Agenda) reported that the Bureau noted with concern the damage threatening the conservation of the site of Abu Mina because of these elements. 1. The increased flow of pilgrims On the contrary, and even unfortunately, it must be noted that few pilgrims, visitors and tourists who visit the site nowadays, the site is not placed on Egypt's tourist maps. But, more than ten years ago, the Coptic Pope choose to stay for some time in one of the monasteries of Wade El Natroun, which by chance, is not far from Abu Mina. So many of the visitors of the Pope thought that it was a chance to visit that sacred site nearby. Thus, there was a flow of visitors at that time, but not at all nowadays. 2. The possibility of the reconstruction of a church over the Saint's tomb There is a small monastery near the site of Abu Mina but entirely outside of the site. This monastery was established in the year 1959, nearly 14 years before the World Heritage Convention was established, by Patriarch Cyril VI. It may be just a dream or a non-realistic hope of the monks of that monastery to come back to the old sacred site, but at the same time there is no serious suggestion or proposal for a project, or even the slightest idea of any rehabilitation or new construction there. The site is entirely protected by the Egyptian law for the Protection of Antiquities, *[ANNEX 3/2] which considers the transformation of any archaeological building or land or any part thereof into dwellings, an offence which is punished by imprisonment and a fine (item 43). So, such kind of rehabilitation which will damage the dominant characteristics and the nature of the historic site is against the Antiquities Law and is completely forbidden, and prevented by law. Surely no authority in Egypt may even think of replacing old monuments with new buildings in an archaeological site where life was completely different from nowadays. 3. The fragility of the site No doubt that the remains of the monuments there, which are constructed of mud and bricks, are very weak and fragile. But the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo, which executed many successive excavations and research work there since the site was discovered by the German archaeologist Kaufman in 1907, is now maintaining and reinforcing the monuments of the site in a very careful, reasonable and scientific way. The preservation is in accordance with the results of the excavations of the German Institute, the Greco-Roman Museum in Alexandria and the Coptic Museum in Cairo. At the same time, a circular enclosing drainage canal was dug around the area of Abu Mina in order to protect the site from underground and ground water, that may penetrate owing to a project aiming to reform and cultivate the neighbouring desert land, which is partly funded by the World Bank. The canal seems also to be a barrier protecting and securing the enclosed area. Access to the site is now legally possible through an entrance provided with a bridge over the drain. There are also some projects to promote the site, for example establishing a local museum nearby, improvement of the security system and increasing the number of guards at the site. Finally, I assure the Bureau and the Committee that the Mina site is not in danger and almost safe. Thank you. Dr. Gamal Mokhtar Representative for Egypt 10/12/1992
ANNEX IV Declaration of the Representative of the Holy See 9 décembre 1992 Madame le Président, Jusqu'à présent, par un désir de discrétion, je n'ai jamais demandé la parole. Je vous l'ai demandé maintenant, quand la question de l'Hospice Santa Marta est désormais heureusement close, pour une J déclaration, que je prie de bien vouloir insérer - au moins comme annexe - dans le Rapport final: La voici: 1. Quand, avec une procédure exceptionnelle, a) le 7 octobre 1982, le Saint-Siège, après une invitation unanime de la Conférence générale de l'UNESCO, a adhéré à la Convention concernant la protection du patrimoine mondial ; b) le 21 octobre 1984, la Cité du Vatican a été inscrite sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial ; c) le 8 décembre 1990, ses biens extraterritoriaux à Rome ont été inscrits sur la même Liste ; le Saint-Siège exprima sa respectueuse reconnaissance a) pour la haute considération dont on l'avait honoré, et b) pour l'importante reconnaissance - de la valeur culturelle unique de son patrimoine ; - et de son constant souci pour le sauvegarder. 2. Le Saint-Siège a) désagréablement surpris par la forme et le contenu d'une certaine déclaration de juillet dernier, a toutefois préféré la considérer comme signe ultérieur d'intérêt pour ses biens culturels étroitement liés à sa propre mission spirituelle ; b) exprime sa satisfaction pour les corrections et les éclaircissements donnés à la présente session du Comité par des organes compétents, après de courtoises visites et constats personnels exhaustifs faits au Vatican soit par le Directeur du Centre du patrimoine mondial, soit par le délégué de 1'ICOMOS; c) rappelle et souligne sa tradition millénaire de promotion et sauvegarde de tout son patrimoine qui est aussi patrimoine de l'humanité entière.
ANNEX V Declaration of the Representative of Mexico Le délégué du Mexique a souligné l'importance des travaux de suivi au niveau régional et a signalé l'intérêt accordé par son pays à cette activité. En faisant référence aux textes relatifs aux six sites mexicains inscrits en 1987, élaborés et remis au chef du Projet régional PNUD/UNESCO et au Centre du patrimoine mondial en octobre 1992, il a regretté que les informations fournies ne soient pas apparues dans le Bulletin publié par M. Mutal. D'autre part, il a précisé que le programme du Projet régional pour 1993 ne devait pas inclure les quatre sites mexicains signalés parmi les 17 sites proposés, car le travail de suivi pour ces quatre sites avait déjà été réalisé.
ANNEX VI Inscription of Angkor Declaration of the Representative of the United States of America The Representative of the United States of America presented a statement explaining his Government's position on the Committee action. He noted that, although the United States has voted in the Bureau to inscribe the site only subject to the conditions identified by ICOMOS, that position was now to support the compromise consensus to inscribe Angkor immediately. He noted, however, the United States hope that inscription would in fact lead to stronger protection of this site of unquestioned international value, and the United States concern that the Committee be willing and able to deal with future problems at the site should circumstances not improve. He noted the position of the United States that this inscription not be understood as a precedent, and congratulated ICOMOS for the integrity of their position and advice to the Committee.
THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS AND BEYOND REMARKS BY THE HONORABLE RUSSELL E. TRAIN CHAIRMAN WORLD WILDLIFE FUND Before THE INTERNATIONAL WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE MEETING Santa Fe, New Mexico Monday, 7 December 1992 *[INF 1/2] I am delighted to be here this morning among this distinguished company to reflect on twenty years of the World Heritage Convention, its contributions to humanity, and its future. It is a particular point of pride for me to be present at this 20th anniversary meeting. When the World Heritage Convention was first adopted in 1972, I and others who helped develop the World Heritage concept viewed it as a tremendous step forward in the international community's recognition of our shared responsibility to protect the global common. For the first time, there existed a legal and financial mechanism through which nations could cooperate to preserve natural and cultural properties so unique and special that they should be considered part of the heritage not only of individuals, but of all mankind. Today, the great majority of the community of nations are party to the World Heritage Convention, and I believe it is a great accomplishment that in just twenty years so many nations have come together to embrace its concept and adopt measures to ensure its effective implementation. I believe that the rapid growth of membership in the Convention reflects the global recognition of the common value of World Heritage areas and the common need to protect these areas. But before I get ahead of myself, let me review some of the history of the Convention. In the autumn of 1965, I had the privilege of serving as a member of the Committee on Natural Resources of the White House Conference on International Cooperation. The idea of a World Heritage Trust emerged in discussions between myself and *[INF 1/3] the Committee Chairman, Dr. Joseph Fisher, then the distinguished President of Resources for the Future. The report of our Committee recognized that: "Certain scenic, historic, and natural resources are part of man's heritage, and their survival is a matter of concern to all". and we recommended international cooperation to further that purpose. So far as I recall, this recommendation received little or no official reaction at first. When I became the first chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, I had the opportunity to give the World Heritage concept a real push. As a result, part of President Nixon's Message on the Environment in 1971 said that: "It would be fitting by 1972 (that being the centennial Anniversary of the establishment of Yellowstone National Park) for the nations of the world to agree to the principle that there are certain areas of such unique worldwide value that they should be treated as part of the heritage of all mankind and accorded special recognition as part of a World Heritage Trust. Such an arrangement would impose no limitations on the sovereignty of those nations which choose to participate, but would extend special international recognition to the areas which qualify and would make available technical and other assistance where appropriate to assist in their protection and management." This idea became a focal point of the United States' agenda at the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment held in *[INF 1/4] Stockholm in June, 1972, where I was privileged to head the U.S. Delegation. That Conference marked its twentieth anniversary this year when the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development convened in Rio de Janeiro. In preparation for the 1972 meeting, both the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and UNESCO developed draft conventions embodying the World Heritage concept. The IUCN draft included both natural and cultural sites as we had originally proposed while the UNESCO draft was primarily oriented toward the conservation of cultural properties and sites. While the two draft conventions had some similarities, there were also significant differences. Recognizing these differences between the two drafts but desiring to avoid duplication and to expedite development of the World Heritage Trust, and believing that the desirable concept was a convention covering both the natural and cultural heritage, the United States proposed to UNESCO that the meeting of experts scheduled for April 1972 consider both of the draft conventions with a view to combining them into a single convention for a World Heritage Trust. At the Conference the delegates in plenary session acknowledged that the draft convention "marks a significant step towards the protection, on an international scale, of the environment." They voted overwhelmingly to invite governments to examine the draft convention "with a view to its adoption at the next General Conference of UNESCO." This was accomplished in October-November of 1972, and the Convention was adopted. The twenty years between that first step and now seems a short time in the history of humanity and nations. But in that time, the World Heritage concept has blossomed into a vigorous, worldwide program. What has the World Heritage concept accomplished in its first twenty years? Most importantly, it has established a system of protection for those places that are so unique, priceless, and irreplaceable *[INF 1/4] that they have been declared World Heritage sites -- and I commend the World Heritage Committee's careful work over the years to identify the best of the best. But just as important, as this meeting reflects, the Convention provides an ongoing mechanism for international cooperation based upon a common recognition of how precious the world's natural and cultural heritage is, and how it is our common duty to protect that heritage. The 1990s and beyond present great possibilities for the World Heritage program, and it is my hope that this meeting will focus on bringing about even stronger efforts to realize the goals of the Convention. Already, the Convention has led to strengthened recognition of the importance of World Heritage areas worldwide. It has significantly increased tourism to such areas. It has raised management standards and, most importantly, has provided technical training opportunities, particularly on a regional basis. World Heritage status has become an important bulwark against actions which threaten the integrity of listed areas and sites. The World Bank and other lending agencies now recognize World Heritage sites as being of central importance to natural area conservation. This does not mean that the Convention does not face significant challenges ahead. A number of World Heritage sites remain endangered by inadequate management, underfunding, pollution, and, tragically, even by human warfare as in the case of Dubrovnik. Some sites remain listed as severely threatened, and I hope that one goal of the meeting will be to focus attention on bringing those areas back from the brink. In the United States, the Everglades National Park was classified for some years as a threatened World Heritage site, and has again been severely damaged by the recent hurricane. *[INF 1/5] The first twenty years have also brought challenges to the World Heritage Committee. Governments, including, I must add, the United States, have not always been forthcoming with their dues to the World Heritage Trust. It is my hope that before this week is over you will be given some indication by U.S. representatives of increased U.S. financial support. And, of course, I realize that developing operational procedures, guidelines, and criteria for site selection has also been a challenge. Even with some shortcomings, however, I believe that we can look back at the first twenty years of the World Heritage Convention as a significant success and as a concept that has proven its worth. Clearly, there is recognition that there exists a common heritage that merits our special attention and protection. And clearly, public sentiment calls for protection of natural and cultural treasures, whether they be national parks such as the United States' Yellowstone or cultural marvels such as Egypt's Abu Simbel. What the Convention, and this meeting, symbolize is that only through concerted, cooperative action between governments throughout the world community will this heritage be protected for future generations. Beyond will, protecting the World Heritage also requires resources, and I hope that this meeting will address is that of how the world community can increase the level of financial and technical resources devoted to protecting World Heritage areas. The 1990s present an awesome challenge to resource managers in every field as global threats, environmental degradation and increasing population pressure in particular, continue to mount against previously unspoiled natural and cultural areas. A particular need exists in the developing nations of the world, which house many of our greatest World Heritage sites, but which are the least prepared financially to protect them. *[INF 1/6] Finally, it seems clear to me that the fundamental strength of the World Heritage, and, indeed, its power to help shape human affairs, lie in its concept of shared human values, of a common heritage for all peoples. In a world that seems increasingly torn by divisiveness, those are values to cherish and promote. It has always saddened me that the United States, which did so much to initiate the World Heritage system, has consistently done so little to promote knowledge of the World Heritage among its own citizens and particularly at its 17 World Heritage sites. It is a concept we should be proud of and actively promote. Mr. Secretary, I hope that you and your successors at the Department of the Interior will take that comment to heart and will give the World Heritage program the attention it deserves. In closing it is my sincere hope that the World Heritage program will continue to grow and expand over the next twenty years in the same way that it has in its first twenty. It is a program that remains very close in my heart and thoughts. I wish you the best in your deliberations on the future of the World Heritage program over the next several days, and am confident that, through the efforts of this meeting and further cooperation between nations, the World Heritage program will prosper. It is a program that deserves nothing less than our full support.
opening address by M. Federico Mayor, Director-General of UNESCO Mr Secretary of the Interior, Mr Chairman of the World Heritage Committee Mr Governor of the State of New Mexico, Mr Russell Train, Distinguished Members of the World Heritage Committee, Distinguished representatives of bodies associated with the World Heritage Convention, Dear Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen, It gives me very great pleasure to be here in the multicultural and most beautiful city of Santa Fe to inaugurate the sixteenth session of the World Heritage Committee and to celebrate with you the twentieth anniversary of the World Heritage Convention, which has already been marked by a series of very successful activities organized at UNESCO Headquarters and in various States Parties. It is appropriate that this anniversary session of your Committee should be taking place in the United States of America, which - as we have just heard - played a leading role in the birth of the Convention. The United States was subsequently the first country to ratify the Convention and hosted - in 1978 in Washington - the World Heritage Committee's second session, which saw the inscription of the first properties on the World Heritage List. Its support for the Convention has remained strong over the years, and I thank the American Government for reiterating - through you, Mr Secretary - its commitment to the protection of the world heritage and for extending its hospitality to the World Heritage Committee on this occasion. I should like to pay a special tribute to Mr Russell Train, who as President of the Conservation Foundation was instrumental in promoting and shaping the concept of the World Heritage Convention, and who has contributed in no small measure to the success of this unique venture. The main focus of international co-operation in 1992, twenty years after the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, has been the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. There has been much discussion - before, during and after the Rio Summit - on the problems of reconciling economic development with the protection of the environment. Somewhat less attention has been given to cultural and spiritual values, although they have much to do with what development is about and may well hold the key to the achievement of a genuinely human and sustainable development. The concept of the world heritage, which is essentially non-economic and cultural, provides a vital complement to the discussions surrounding Rio. The World Heritage Convention affirms the importance of intangible values, of the human aspiration to beauty and meaning as well as to the satisfaction of material needs and wants. It assimilates the wonders of nature to those of culture, regarding as a continuum what have all too often - and at what cost ! - been treated as distinct. At the same time, it gives to these diverse expressions of beauty and meaning a universal dimension. What is most representative of the cultural identity of each people is - in its diversity - of value *[INF 2/2] to humanity as a whole and must be preserved for present and future generations, in the same way as landscapes of great beauty or outstanding interest. The task of safeguarding the world's cultural and natural heritage is an inherently challenging one. The challenge is that of promoting awareness of the importance of preserving an inheritance whose loss is irreparable for precisely the reason that its value is unquantifiable. It is that of mobilizing support - including the essential financial backing - for an undertaking that yields relatively few tangible "returns" to set against the all too tangible threats to which the heritage is subject. Twenty years after the adoption of the Convention, the scale of these threats continues to grow. Uncontrolled urban development, overpopulation, environmental degradation, poverty and neglect place at risk priceless monuments and the historic centres of cities. Natural areas are subject to encroachment by farming, mining, drilling and other economic activities. Catastrophes provoked by human activity add to the problems of natural disasters. Civil conflict threatens indiscriminately the works of nature and civilization. Tourism - including that generated by inscription on the World Heritage List - can, if not handled properly, be the cause of damage out of all proportion to the benefits it brings. The need for the World Heritage Convention has never been greater than at the present time. Fortunately the strong support the Convention enjoys among the nations of the world has served to limit the impact of these threats to the world heritage. It is a measure of this support that 128 States have to date acceded to the Convention and 358 properties are currently inscribed on the World Heritage List. Your Committee will, I know, consider the inclusion of new properties on the List at its current session as it pursues the task of bringing all the world's heritage of universal value under the protection of the Convention. It is worth underlining here that the inclusion of a property on the World Heritage List, while bringing benefits in the form of increased prestige and worldwide recognition, also entails responsibilities for the State concerned. It implies an obligation to preserve the listed property in accordance with the provisions of the Convention in order that it may be transmitted to future generations. All possible actors need to be mobilized to this end. They include not only the relevant government departments but also non-governmental organizations, grassroots associations, young people and local authorities, including elected representatives. In this connection, I welcome very much the creation with the help of the Canadian Government of a network of World Heritage Cities, which should help through the pooling of knowledge and experience to promote in the cities concerned a development consistent with the spirit of the Convention. *[INF 2/3] At the international level, your Committee has a crucial role to play. By setting out its goals and adopting, at its current session, new strategic guidelines for the implementation of the Convention, the Committee is providing itself with policy instruments that should enable it to fulfil to maximum effect its role of guiding the efforts of the international community to protect and preserve the universal heritage. I should like to take this opportunity to underline the following policy issues that seem to me essential : - The first concerns the need to continue to exercise good sense and pragmatism in applying the criteria for the inclusion of properties in the World Heritage List, since the credibility of our enterprise rests not only on the maintenance of the highest standards of selection but also on taking into account all the relevant circumstances in each particular case. - My second point is to emphasize the importance of listed properties being maintained in a proper state of conservation. The Committee, in association with its technical advisory bodies and all the local partners, must continue its efforts to improve monitoring of listed properties so that threats to the conservation of sites can be detected well in advance and remedial measures taken. Before work or activities of any scale are undertaken - particularly when the characteristics that led to the recognition of a site could be altered - it is important that appropriate information should be provided. - My third point would be to underline that, important as it is to boost the resources of the World Heritage Fund, the protection of the heritage is not exclusively a question of financial means. It is also of the greatest importance to increase awareness and to mobilize decision-makers and the general public in support of the safeguarding of the heritage. The World Heritage must be a shared inheritance in every sense of the term. - Events have shown that urgent action may be sometimes be required in the heritage field. As Director-General, I shall continue to act in accordance with my constitutional prerogatives and with the duties assigned to me by treaties by moving quickly when our common heritage is threatened. On the question of the World Heritage in Danger and bearing in mind recent discussions in the Executive Board, it seems to me that exceptional circumstances - such as the recent case of Dubrovnik - may justify the inclusion of a property on the World Heritage in Danger List without preliminary request from the State concerned. However, in most instances inclusion in the List should involve the consent of the State Party and should never be assimilated to a sanction. At the most it should be a stimulus to the government concerned to work closely with *[INF 2/4] the Secretariat and your Committee to identify and apply the appropriate technical solutions to the problem in question, as well as a pressing invitation to donors to contribute to the safeguarding of the universal heritage. In order to support the work of your Committee and in response to the wish of the General Conference to see UNESCO's action reinforced in a field where it has special constitutional responsibilities, I have recently - as you will know - established a World Heritage Centre, bringing together a secretariat previously divided along cultural and natural lines and strengthening it with the addition of four professional staff. This new unified World Heritage Centre, working in close co-operation with the other sectors of the Secretariat, should be better equipped to assist the Committee in its various objectives, such as the building up of sound monitoring systems, the launching of appeals and fund-raising activities for the World Heritage Fund, and action to promote greater public awareness of the Convention. It should also make for closer and easier co-operation with the technical advisory bodies - notably ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN - which have consistently provided UNESCO with such excellent service in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Other tasks to which the Centre can contribute include helping to persuade those countries that have not yet acceded to the Convention to consider doing so, and pursuing efforts to ensure that the heritage list is representative of the variety of the world cultures. How then, as the implementation of the World Heritage Convention enters a new phase of consolidation and renewal, may we sum up the future challenges and prospects for the protection of the natural and cultural heritage under the Convention ? The essential challenge is that of preserving the memory of the past - that of the world and of humanity, of nature and culture, which remain indissociable. In preserving memory in this way we are doing more than simply safeguarding the past : we are ensuring organic continuity with the future. For as the Spanish philosopher Unamuno observed : "Memory is the basis of the individual personality as tradition is the basis of the collective personality of a people. We live in memory and through memory, and our spiritual life is, in the last resort, no more than the effort of remembrance to persevere, to become hope, the effort of our past to become future". Memory is the continuum of past and present and the essential context of individual creativity. Memory of the past is often the best hope for shaping a brighter and more equitable future; and the future is the only heritage that remains intact to be better shared. The roots of the past embedded in works of nature or culture thus represent an incalculable spiritual resource for humanity and one that it neglects to protect at its peril. They also serve to remind humanity of its unity in diversity and thereby contribute powerfully to one of UNESCO' s essential goals - the promotion of mutual understanding and solidarity among peoples, the construction of the defences of peace in the minds of men, which remains one of the international community's priority tasks at the close of the twentieth century. *[INF 2/5] The prospects for the preservation of the world heritage must inevitably depend on the success of the international community in addressing the wider spectrum of problems - in the spheres of development, peace and protection of the environment - at the origin of so many of the threats to the heritage. Let us never forget that poverty, over-population, ignorance and prejudice threaten the collective memory and destiny of humanity, which are our children's birthright. Children, wherever they are, remain the supreme masterpieces of our common heritage. However, within the more limited context that is our immediate concern, the growing consciousness of the importance of the natural and cultural heritage, the strong support of the nations of the world for activities under the World Heritage Convention and the commitment of UNESCO, your Committee and the relevant NGOs to its effective implementation provide very real grounds for optimism. And so, as we contemplate the whole network of world heritage sites spread over the face of the globe, representing simultaneously memories of the past and beacons of energy and hope, there is good reason - I believe - for all concerned with the World Heritage Convention to celebrate on this twentieth anniversary, and perhaps to proclaim with the poet Rimbaud : "I have hung cords from steeple to steeple; garlands from window to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance". *[EOF]