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
*[2]
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
*[3]
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
*[4]
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.
*[5]
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.
*[6]
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
*[7]
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
*[8]
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
*[9]
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.
*[10]
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
*[11]
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.
*[12]
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
*[13]
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
*[14]
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
*[15]
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
*[16]
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
*[17]
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
*[18]
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.
*[19]
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.
*[20]
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.
*[21]
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
*[22]
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
*[23]
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,
*[24]
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
*[25]
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
*[26]
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
*[27]
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.
*[28]
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
*[29]
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.
*[30]
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
*[31]
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
*[32]
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.
*[33]
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.
*[34]
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.
*[35]
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.
*[36]
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
*[37]
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
*[38]
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
*[39]
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
*[40]
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
*[41]
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
*[42]
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.
*[43]
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
*[44]
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.
*[45]
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.
*[46]
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.
*[47]
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.
*[48]
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.
*[49]
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.
*[50]
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
*[51]
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
*[52]
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
*[53]
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.
*[54]
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.