Distribution limited WHC-94/CONF.003/16
31 January 1995
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Eighteenth session
Phuket, Thailand
12-17 December 1994
REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Opening session, adoption of the agenda and 1-3
election of the new Bureau
Reports:
The Secretariat 4
The Rapporteur of the Committee 5
Constitution of Working Groups to examine 6
specific items on the Committee's agenda
Examination of UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan 6-9
(1996-2001) and World Heritage Conservation
Strengthening of the World Heritage Centre
in 1994 and its further development 9-13
Monitoring of the state of conservation of the 13-41
World Heritage cultural and natural properties
Progress Report on the preparation of a 41-44
Global Strategy for a representative
World Heritage List
Information on Tentative Lists and Nominations: 44-55
- Properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List
- Property inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger
Requests for International Assistance 56-61
The World Heritage Fund and Budget 61-63
Revision of the Operational Guidelines 64-68
Promotional activities 69-75
General Assembly 75
Date and place of the nineteenth session 75-76
and other business
Closing session 77
ANNEXES
I. List of participants
II. Agenda
III. Address by Mr A. Badran, Deputy Director-General a.i.
of UNESCO
IV. Address by Mr Preecha Musikul, Deputy Minister of
Science, Technology and Environment of the Royal Thai
Government
V. World Heritage Secretariat Report
*[1]
I. OPENING SESSION
I.1 The eighteenth ordinary session of the World
Heritage Committee was held in Phuket, Thailand, from 12 to
17 December 1994. It was attended by the following members
of the Committee: Brazil, China (People's Republic of),
Colombia, Cyprus, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Japan,
Lebanon, Mexico, Niger, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Senegal,
Spain, Thailand 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, Argentina, Australia, Austria,
Cambodia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador,
Finland, Holy See, India, Korea, Laos Democratic People's
Republic, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Myanmar, Norway, Pakistan,
Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and
Vietnam.
I.3 Representatives of the International Centre for
the Study of the Preservation and the Restauration 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 meeting was also attended by the Representatives of the
International Council of Museums (ICOM) and the
Organization of World Heritage Cities (OWHC). The complete
list of participants, including the representatives of
other nongovernmental organizations, is given in the Annex
I.
I.4 The outgoing Chairperson of the Committee, Ms
Olga Pizano, opened the session by thanking the authorities
of the Royal Thai Government, namely the Deputy Minister of
Science, Technology and Environment, Mr Preecha Musikul,
for inviting the Committee to convene its eighteenth
session in Phuket, Thailand. She then invited Mr Musikul to
address the Committee on behalf of the Royal Thai
Government.
I.5 The Deputy Minister of Science, Technology and
Environment, Mr Preecha Musikul welcomed the delegates and
other participants and thanked the Committee for accepting
the invitation of the Royal Thai Government to hold its
session in Phuket. Having underlined that the Royal Thai
Government cherishes the philosophy and the noble
objectives of the World Heritage Convention, and that it
was therefore actively involved in the Committee since
1989, he stressed his Government's conviction of the
effectiveness of the Committee as a mechanism established
by the Convention for international co-operation and
assistance designed to support States Parties to the
Convention in their efforts to protect and conserve world
heritage sites for the future of humankind. With the
valuable services and assistance provided by the IUCN,
*[2]
ICOMOS, ICCROM and the secretariat, he said, the World
Heritage Committee has been able to alleviate the magnitude
and the gravity of the dangers threatening, directly or
indirectly, many properties on the World Heritage List.
I.6 Congratulating the Committee for its success in
implementing its programmes and projects and its effective
use of the resources provided through the World Heritage
Fund, Mr Musikul announced that, over and above Thailand's
compulsory annual contribution, the Royal Thai Government
will be making a voluntary contribution in the amount of
three hundred thousand Bahts (i.e., US $ 15.000 ) to the
World Heritage Fund. The Chairperson thanked the Royal Thai
Government, on behalf of the World Heritage Committee, for
this generous contribution.
I.7 The Representative of the Director-General of
UNESCO, Mr Adnan Badran, Deputy Director-General, thanked
the Royal Thai Government for its gracious offer to host
this session, and expressed the Secretariat's gratitude to
Dr Adul Wichiencharoen, in particular, for the excellent
organization of the meeting. He then thanked the outgoing
Chairperson, Ms Olga Pizano, for her contribution to the
Committee as its Chairperson of these past twelve months.
I.8 Recalling that the Committee had asked at its
seventeenth session the Director-General of UNESCO to
increase the World Heritage Centre's capacities to service
the State Parties rapidly and effectively, Mr Badran was
pleased to inform the participants that the Director-
General took a number of steps, such as adding three high-
level professional posts (including an administrative
officer) which brings the actual total number of the
Centre's staff provided under Regular Programme to nine
professional posts and three general service. Furthermore,
he noted, UNESCO's total contribution to the Centre through
the Regular Programme budget adds up to some US $ 5.5
million per biennium when all costs, including indirect
costs and staff, are taken into account. Nonetheless, he
promised to help the Centre get additional staff,
particularly general service posts.
I.9 Another step in this direction may be the
Director-General's intention to give the Centre an
effective functional autonomy in regard to administrative
and financial aspects, through procedures based upon the
successful modalities already approved by the General
Conference in regard to the International Institute for
Educational Planning (IIEP) and the International Bureau of
Education (IBE), should the Committee endorse this and
recommend further action in this regard. Similarly, acting
upon the Committee's decision taken at the sixteenth
session (Santa Fe, 1992) to include among its strategic
goals the implementation of a professionally designed
marketing strategy to increase public awareness,
involvement and support, the Director-General commissioned
*[3]
a report, which the Committee is invited to examine at this
session. Consequently, the Director-General expects the
Committee's advice on a number of questions and proposals
raised in this report. A more detailed presentation of
these is given under item XV of this report, paras 2 to 9.
I.10 Mr Badran furthermore underlined the importance
of the Committee's views on a possible decentralization of
the World Heritage activities, the usefulness of the
emergency fund which was created by the Committee at its
seventeenth seession, and the progress made in the further
development of a methodology for systematic monitoring and
reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage
properties, which the Centre is working on in co-operation
with the Committee's advisory bodies: ICCROM, ICOMOS and
the IUCN. As regards monitoring, he reminded the Committee
that the Executive Board of UNESCO, at its recently held
session in October 1994, stated that "the monitoring of
sites on the World Heritage List should be undertaken in
accordance with the rules of the World Heritage Convention
and the Guidelines that should govern its implementation,
keeping in mind that Member States themselves will
undertake the monitoring of their World Heritage sites, in
consultation with UNESCO and other specialized
organizations." He then concluded his statement by
expressing the Director-General's satisfaction with the
innovative interregional project "Young People's
Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion"
initiated in the past year by the Centre and the Education
Sector, in cooperation with other units in the UNESCO
Secretariat, the Norwegian authorities, some thirty
National Commissions for UNESCO and various external public
and private sector partners, the main purpose of which is
to mobilize the enormous potential of schools, teachers'
associations, parents' organizations and local communities
for World Heritage awareness-building.
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II.1 The proposed agenda was adopted unanimously, without
modification. (See Annex II).
III. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-
CHAIRPERSONS
III.1 Dr Adul Wichiencharoen (Thailand) was elected by
acclamation as Chairperson of the Committee. Mr Zhang
Chongli (China) was elected Rapporteur, also by
acclamation, and the following members of the Committee
were elected as Vice-Chairpersons: Colombia, Germany,
Italy, Oman and Senegal.
*[4]
IV. REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT
SINCE THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE
IV.1 Mr Bernd von Droste, Director of the World
Heritage Centre and Secretary of the Committee, reported on
the activities undertaken since the seventeenth session of
the Committee. Referring to information document WHC-
94/CONF.003/INF.5, he focused his presentation on outlining
only some of the document's most salient parts. The first
of this deals with the Centre's close co-operation with
other partners, notably the advisory bodies (ICCROM, ICOMOS
and IUCN), the secretariats of other international
conventions, such as the "The Hague Convention", the
"Biodiversity Convention", etc., as well as cooperation
with other units in the UNESCO Secretariat. Speaking of
this, he also welcomed the presence, for the first time, of
the representative of the recently established Organization
of World Heritage Cities with which the Centre has been
fruitfully collaborating in the past year.
IV.2 He then reviewed briefly those areas in which the
Centre succeeded in breaking new ground in the past twelve
months, namely: work on the global strategy for the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention; monitoring
the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the
World Heritage List; tentative lists, nominations and
international assistance, including training, technical co-
operation and emergency assistance; awareness-building
activities, particularly those addressed to young people
and involving the active participation of youth through
schools and extra-curricula projects; and the exploration
of the private sector's fund-raising possibilities for
World Heritage.
IV.3 Before concluding, Mr von Droste drew the
Committee's attention to the staffing of the World Heritage
Centre, its financial resources, possible future functional
autonomy and possible decentralization of its activities.
Regarding the first, he thanked the Governments of Canada
and the United States of America respectively for having
provided a Fund-in-Trust under which the post of the senior
natural heritage specialist was financed in the past year.
He also thanked the Government of Italy for having seconded
one architect whose term, however, ended in August 1994,
the Government of Sweden for having seconded for three
months a senior cultural heritage specialist, and the
Government of Germany for providing an Associate Expert for
cultural heritage working at the UNESCO Office in Bangkok.
While this certainly reinforced the professional capacities
of the Centre, its lack of general service staff remains an
acute problem.
IV.4 Speaking about the Centre's envisaged functional
autonomy, Mr von Droste informed the Committee that, in
response to the Director-General's wish, the Centre has
studied arrangements concerning its financial autonomy,
*[5]
taking into account the existence of the World Heritage
Fund. Thus, he said, the General Conference could decide
that a financial allocation under the Regular Programme be
paid into the World Heritage Fund, which would provide for
full transparency of the Centre's budget and streamline its
administrative procedures. Such a special account would be
administered by the Director of the World Heritage Centre
under the authority of the Director-General of UNESCO, and
be based on the Budget adopted by the World Heritage
Committee. In this regard, he reminded the participants
that a draft text of the proposed new financial regulations
for the World Heritage Fund had been submitted to the
Committee for comments in document WHC-94/CONF.003/10.
V. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE SESSIONS HELD IN 1994
BY THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
V.1 Mr ZHANG Chongli (China), who accepted to be
Rapporteur at the eighteenth extraordinary session of the
Bureau, held in Phuket on 9 and 10 December 1994, to
replace the former Rapporteur, Mr D. Jose Guirao Cabrera
(Spain), elected at the seventeenth session of the
Committee, in Cartagena, Colombia in December 1993,
presented the report of the session which the Bureau held
in Phuket, on 9 and 10 December 1994.
V.2 Referring to the December 1994 session of the Bureau
(Phuket), Mr Zhang informed the Committee that the Bureau
had examined a great number of nominations of cultural and
natural properties for inscription on the World Heritage
List which had been referred back to States Parties or
deferred at previous sessions of the Committee and the
Bureau. As regards natural heritage, the Bureau recommended
the inscription of eight properties and the approval of two
extensions, while one nomination did not qualify for
inscription. For cultural heritage, the Bureau recommended
the inscription of twenty-two cultural properties, and the
approval of three extensions, while for two nominated
properties it felt that these did not meet the World
Heritage criteria.
V.3 As regards monitoring of the state of
conservation of World Heritage properties, the Rapporteur
reminded the Committee that the Bureau examined at its July
1994 session the state of conservation reports on forty
World Heritage sites, while forty-four reports were to be
presented at the Phuket session of the Committee. In order
to facilitate the work of the Committee, the Bureau had
considered it opportune to examine these reports and to
propose to the Committee for further examination only those
reports which required special attention and decisions.
Finally, speaking of international assistance, he informed
the Committee that the Bureau examined altogether eighteen
requests for training, out of which seven concerned natural
and the rest cultural heritage. Likewise, the Bureau
*[6]
examined fourteen requests for technical cooperation, four
of these for natural and ten for cultural heritage. Mr
Zhang concluded by pointing out that a detailed information
on the above was available in the report of the outgoing
Bureau, and that the requests above the ceiling of US $
30,000 would be examined by Working Group 1 (on Budget &
the World Heritage Fund) and a final decision would be
taken by the Committee at its session later in the week.
VI. CONSTITUTION OF WORKING GROUPS TO EXAMINE
SPECIFIC ITEMS ON THE COMMITTEE'S AGENDA
VI.1 In order to facilitate and speed up the work of the
Committee, the Chairperson proposed that two work groups be
constituted, one on the World Heritage Fund, the 1995
budget and the further development of the World Heritage
Centre, and the other group on the revision of Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention. Upon
the suggestion of the Delegate of France, it was agreed
that each delegation may participate in the work of both
groups if it so wishes. The Committee then approved the
Delegate of the United States of America, Mr Robert Milne,
as Chairperson of the first work group, and Ms Olga Pizano,
Delegate of Colombia, as Chairperson of the second work
group. The reports of the two work groups would be
discussed by the Committee towards the end of the session.
VII. EXAMINATION OF UNESCO's MEDIUM-TERM PLAN (1996-
2001) AND WORLD HERITAGE CONSERVATION
VII.1 The Director of the Centre recalled that this
document, established in the framework of the preparation
of UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan (1996-2001) and which will be
submitted to the General Conference in 1995, was warmly
received during the eighteenth sesion of the Bureau in July
1994. It should now be examined by the Committee for their
comments and reactions.
VII.2 This document presents to Committee members the
different points (completion, representivity and
credibility of the List/monitoring/international
assistance/project policy/promotion), as well as its two
areas of action: broadening of intellectual reflection
(content and widening of the notion of cultural
heritage/symbolic and ethnic heritage values/new insights
into nature and humankind) and an approach both
decentralized and federative.
VII.3 The Delegate of Germany thanked the Centre for
this important and well-formulated document, which provided
guidelines for future work. In his view it contained five
particularly important points: firstly the reciprocal and
closely associated relationships between nature and culture
and their equilibrium, the highlighting of several
*[7]
questions and fundamental concepts which require new work
mechanisms/infrastructures for the Convention, new
perspectives on non-monumental cultural heritage which
raise essential questions and implications which are very
important to discuss in the framework of the Convention,
monitoring of the state of conservation - one of the major
tasks - which, carried out in a decentralized manner, could
constitute a very efficient tool to achieve a better
equilibrium between the regions.
All this calls on the one hand for new work infrastructures
and in particular for scientific meetings and specific work
groups, and on the other a much more important appreciation
of the need to improve the present representivity of the
List and international cooperation with regard to the types
of danger far more frequently experienced now than
previously, such as, amongst others, civil wars, armed
conflict and poverty.
The above merits inclusion into the Guidelines and this
reflection should be integrated in the work of Work Group
2.
VII.4 The Delegate of France also congratulated the
World Heritage Centre for the excellent document, the
philosophy of which exactly corresponded to his views, in
particular the excellent paragraphs on the promotion of the
Conventions's values in the field of education, the
convergence of knowledge, the policy of sustainable
development and the culture of peace.
A better equilibrium between nature and culture and
between the regions should be achieved, whilst being very
careful not to create, without realizing it, kinds of
geopolitical or geo-economic balances which would only be
easy solutions or even false solutions.
In conclusion, he congratulated the authors of the document
of which the philosophy was excellent but requested that
attention be paid to the way in which it was applied.
VII.5 The Delegate of Senegal also addressed his warm
congratulations to the Centre for this well-conceived work
which took into account his preoccupations and which should
guide the work of the Committee.
He strongly endorsed the Medium-Term Plan and requested
that attention be given to its implementation to ensure
that equally excellent results could be achieved.
VII.6 The Delegate of Thailand requested that, in view
of its interest, the document be utilized as one of the
working documents for Working Group 2.
*[8]
VII.7 The Delegate of Spain also thanked the Centre for
the very interesting work and stated her appreciation of
the consideration given to the ethical values of heritage
which we have inherited and which we have to preserve and
transfer to future generations.
VII.8 The Representative of ICOMOS expressed great
intellectual satisfaction after reading this strategic
document which presented long-term perspectives for the
preservation of heritage and for that of a federative
character. This document would be distributed by ICOMOS to
its National Committees by whom it will certainly be warmly
received.
Four points, which figure in the document, seemed to him to
merit further development:
1) risks incurred by the heritage (particularly
armed conflicts) and their prevention;
2) regional cooperation, with the need to develop
new steps based on the specific scientific
problems common to certain areas or regions;
3) the importance of the intellectual discussion on
the place of cultural heritage in the society of
today, the importance of going beyond a purely
administrative conception of the Convention and
achieving a scientific, doctrinal and conceptual
perspective, as has been done this year on
several occasions (expert meetings on a Global
Strategy (June), Authenticity, Canals, Cultural
Routes), this is a priority for ICOMOS;
4) use the tools and techniques of the 21st century
for inventories, database creation and
management, communication, etc. (e.g. Internet).
He endorsed this action and requested UNESCO and the Centre
to play the role of coordinators in this matter.
VII.9 The Director of the Centre replied to the
intervention of the German Delegation and indicated that,
amongst others, the on-going reflection on geological sites
and fossils will contribute to rectifying the imbalance
between nature and culture. Links should also be
strengthened with the Biodiversity Convention and the role
of culture in the maintaining of this diversity and
sustainability of ecological systems should be further
developed. He emphasized his agreement with ICOMOS with
regard to the importance of modern communication techniques
and called upon States Parties to undertake the necessary
action to link up site managers to networks such as
Internet.
*[9]
VII.10 The Representative of IUCN was of the view that
their links with the Biodiversity Convention should also be
strengthened and expressed his agreement with ICOMOS on the
importance of specific regional interests. IUCN has
already developed a partnership with regional
organizations, particularly in the Pacific. He was also in
agreement with the cultural implications of sustainable
development and biodiversity conservation.
VII.11 In conclusion, the Chairperson reiterated the
very important questions emphasized by the Delegate of
Germany such as non-monumental cultures, the imbalance
between regions and the imbalance between nature and
culture. He proposed that the Document be used for
discussions by Work Group 2, which could also reflect on
the links to be established between the World Heritage
Convention and The Hague Convention, to strengthen the
protection of World Heritage properties.
VIII. STRENGTHENING OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE IN
1994 AND ITS FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
VIII.1 This item was discussed first by the Work Group
1, and then by the Committee on the basis of the proposals
made by the Work Group. Some of its points were already
raised, however, in the presentation by the Director-
General's Special Adviser when presenting his
recommendations on fund-raising and marketing (summarized
in Section XV of this report).
VIII.2 Although the shortage of time did not allow a
real debate on this item, a number of speakers in Work
Group 1 referred to work Document WHC-94/CONF.003/5. The
Delegate of Italy reiterated his Delegation's statement,
previously expressed at the plenary, that their legal
experts had examined carefully the proposals contained in
this Document and found them unacceptable. Recalling that
the Centre had been established only two years ago and that
its competences were regulated by Articles 14, 15 and 18 of
the Convention, he reminded that the Centre was meant to be
simply a Secretariat for coordination, monitoring of the
Convention's implementation, information and cooperation
with the States Parties in order to assure follow-up
actions. The proposal put forward in the above-mentioned
document, however, seems to lead on the contrary to a full
autonomy of the Centre by giving it functional and
administrative autonomy. The Italian Delegation is opposed
to this for philosophical/political, juridical and
administrative reasons. As regards the
philosophical/political concerns, he said, all actions of
UNESCO need to be united in order to achieve a major
impact, and to allow better linkage among the great themes
it is committed to, including the protection of cultural
and natural heritage. To detach the Centre from UNESCO
would weaken it precisely at a time when UNESCO's mandate
*[10]
and its message of peace, fraternity and mutual
understanding needs to be strengthened in a world which is
going through a difficult phase of transition, the
breakdown of the previous sense of balance, and the
precarious way to a new international order. Explaining the
juridical implications, the Delegate of Italy reminded that
according to Articles 3, 4 and 14 of the Convention, the
Committee should express its advice on this matter.
Furthermore, the examples given in the above-mentioned
document, i.e., the institutional set-up of the
International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP) and
the International Bureau for Education (IBE), do not seem
appropriate, as these have been established within the
General Conference of UNESCO, which means that all Member
States of UNESCO are included, and not just some, as is the
case with the Centre. Moreover, the internal structure is
quite different: the IIEP and IBE have each an
administration council which, however, does not exist in
the case of the Centre, as this is directly under the
Director-General of UNESCO and is, as such, a simple
Secretariat. Regarding the administrative aspects, the
document compares the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission (IOC) to the Centre, forgetting that this
Commission deals with oceans, which are beyond the States'
sovereignty, while the Centre is responsible for the
protection of cultural and natural heritage which is a
matter of the States' sovereignty. In conclusion, he
reiterated that the Centre belongs to the UNESCO
Secretariat and serves as the Secretariat of the Committee.
The Centre was created by the Director-General in order to
facilitate better implementation of the Convention. In
Cartagena, the Committee expressed its wish to have a
stronger Centre, and nothing more than that. On that
occasion the Committee stated that it would achieve better
its goals by relating its activities to those stemming from
other legal instruments and other UNESCO competent
services. The Centre should therefore continue to: (i)
coordinate the actions decided by the Committee with other
related actions in UNESCO and other organizations, and (ii)
ensure within this framework the services of the
Secretariat of the Committee and of the General Assembly of
the States Parties.
VIII.3 The Delegate of China stated that his country was
in favour of a strengthened World Heritage Centre, and was
therefore pleased with the Director-General's intention of
giving functional autonomy to the Centre, and giving it
support through a 'financial allocation', as expressed at
the 145th session of the Executive Board. He felt that
there need be no fear that the Centre may disassociate
itself from UNESCO, since it would remain an integral part
of UNESCO just like the case of IIEP and IBE.
VIII.4 While expressing his regret that such an
important item was discussed only in the Work Group, and
having endorsed the statement made by the Delegate of
*[11]
Italy, the Delegate of France said that his country is also
in favour of a strong World Heritage Centre, but that this
should by no means be understood as creating a unit which
might lead to a separation from UNESCO, or to a
modification in the terms of the 1972 Convention which
foresaw the provision by UNESCO of a Secretariat to the
World Heritage Committee. The evolution of the Centre
should be administrative and structural within the
Organization. Projects such as the Centre's current
project on World Heritage education, which is carried out
in collaboration with other units, is an example of
intersectoral activities which should be encouraged.
However, a private foundation cannot be created in the
shadow of a Convention between States Parties, which is
what appeared to be envisaged.
VIII.5 The Delegate of Germany also spoke in favour of
a strong Centre, underlining however that the spirit and
letter of the Convention must be fully respected.
Expressing his view that the statements made by Mr de Haes
and Mr Badran on this matter gave conflicting messages on
what the Centre's autonomy would imply, he reminded that
the Committee cannot decide by itself on issues which may
perhaps entail modifications of the Convention.
VIII.6 The Delegate of Japan expressed his support for
an increased 'functional effectiveness' of the Centre, but
felt that the Committee needed more information in order
to decide about a future 'functional autonomy' of the
Centre. He also wished to know how the Centre would
cooperate in the future with other units within UNESCO
should autonomy be granted, and what the UNESCO Legal
Adviser's view on this were. Finally, he suggested that a
detailed study on this matter be prepared for the
Committee.
VIII.7 The proposal made by the Delegate of Japan was
endorsed by the Delegate of Spain, stressing the comments
made previously by the Delegates of France and Italy
concerning the legal and institutional aspects of
functional autonomy.
VIII.8 Replying to the debate, the Director of the World
Heritage Centre reassured the speakers that the Director-
General laid great stress on coordinating the Centre's
activities with those of other units in the Organization.
He reminded that the Director-General had created to that
effect a Steering Committee, chaired by the Assistant
Director-General for Culture in the absence of the
Director-General, the purpose of which is to provide
guidance to the Centre and other units in matters of
heritage protection. The Centre is under the authority of
the Director-General and its staff is appointed by him in
conformity with Article 14 of the Convention. Should there
be any changes, these can be carried out only in strict
respect of the Convention. He confirmed readiness to
*[12]
prepare an indepth study on the question and proposed to
contact the Representatives of, for example, Italy, France,
China and the United States of America, in order to see how
the Centre's functioning could be improved. He also
suggested that the Centre prepare a detailed document which
would express the different views expressed by the States
Parties. Finally, Mr von Droste reiterated that the Centre
has been created within UNESCO to coordinate World Heritage
activities, and that some progress has been achieved in
this sense. What is now important is that the General
Conference at its 28th session approves a staffing table
for the World Heritage Centre which would make it
unnecessary to use the World Heritage Fund for supporting
staff positions.
VIII.9 Following this statement, the Chairman of the
Work Group, Mr Rob Milne, proposed that the Group express
its appreciation to the Director-General for having
strengthened the staff of the Centre in response to the
Committee's request expressed last year at the session in
Cartagena.
VIII.10 The Committee addressed this item in plenary when
discussing the proposals made by Work Group 1. The Italian
Delegation, endorsed by many other delegations, underlined
that it was favourable to the stregthening of the Centre,
provided that it is kept in mind that its autonomy is
already defined by the World Heritage Convention, which
expresses the sovereign will of the States Parties.
Arguments of legal, administrative and philosophical nature
can be made against the proposal for the Centre's future as
defined, among others by items 8 and 15 of the Agenda.
However, given the time constraints, the Delegation of
Italy expressed in plenary only the juridical (legal)
aspects. In order to define the status of the Centre and
the Secretariat one has to consider the following elements:
creation, composition and functions. The Delegate of Italy
then stated the following:
- "Foremost, Article 14 of the Convention affirms that
the Committee is assisted by a Secretariat appointed
by the Director-General of UNESCO;
- Secondly, the Centre, created at a later stage by the
Director-General in order to assure the functions of
the Secretariat to the Committee, has been made up of
staff coming from two UNESCO sectors (Science and
Culture) which are already entrusted the
responsibility of the Convention's implementation;
- Finally, the same Committee has entrusted its
Secretariat, through the World Heritage Centre, to
ensure the coordination and information between the
Committee and other UNESCO conventions concerned with
the conservation of cultural and natural heritage.
*[13]
The above-stated three elements reveal that the Centre
is an integral part of the organization and of the
Secretariat of UNESCO, and that any change of its legal
status requires a new manifestation of the States Parties'
will, which must be embodied in a new international
agreement for the revision of the Convention.
A decision by the Committee therefore cannot be
regarded as sufficient."
IX. MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES
IX.1 The Committee examined the working documents that had
been prepared for this agenda item by the Secretariat, the
advisory bodies IUCN and ICOMOS, and by the UNDP/UNESCO
Regional Project for the Cultural, Urban and Environmental
Heritage for Latin America and the Caribbean.
SYSTEMATIC MONITORING AND REPORTING
IX.2 In introducing this item the Secretariat recalled
that Article 3 of the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention stipulates
that one of the essential functions of the World Heritage
Committee is to "monitor the state of conservation of
properties inscribed on the World Heritage List." However,
provisions had been made only for regular monitoring of the
sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and
where sites were threatened. At the request of the
Committee, therefore, the Secretariat and the advisory
bodies, in consultation with the States Parties and
individual experts, proceeded to develop a concept and
framework of systematic monitoring and reporting.
IX.3 It was recalled that the initial discussions were held
at the Committee's seventeenth session in December 1993 and
that further proposals were endorsed by the Bureau at its
eighteenth session in July 1994. On that occasion, the
Bureau requested the Secretariat to prepare a draft text on
monitoring for inclusion in the Operational Guidelines.
IX.4 The Secretariat presented the Committee, in Working
Documents WHC-94/CONF.003/6 and 003/9Rev., a detailed
description of the proposed systematic monitoring
methodology. The draft text on monitoring for the
Operational Guidelines was presented under the
corresponding agenda item (see Section XIV of this report).
IX.5 The Committee commended the Secretariat for the
progress made in defining the framework for the
implementation of this important function of the Committee.
It emphasized that one of the principal aims of monitoring
was to assess if the values, on the basis of which the site
was inscribed on the World Heritage List, have remained
*[14]
intact. It also stressed that a monitoring methodology
should be flexible and adaptable to regional and national
characteristics, as well as to the natural and cultural
specificities of the sites. Furthermore, it expressed the
need to involve external advice in the periodic reporting
through the non-governmental advisory bodies and/or the
existing decentralized UNESCO structures. The Delegate of
Italy insisted on clarifying that "writing of Reports with
the participation of experts should be finalized in order
to ensure better the monitoring in the management of
properties". The Delegate of Italy also drew attention to
the positive experiences in his country in involving the
authorities from different levels and sectors as well as
the civic community in the conservation and management of
the sites.
IX.6 The Observer of India informed the Committee of his
Government's position that according to the World Heritage
Convention's explicit stipulation it is the State Party
which decides what measures are to be taken to ensure the
preservation and protection of the World Heritage sites on
its territory, and that monitoring procedures should not
affect the decision-making prerogative of the States
Parties. He also emphasized that any involvement of
outside agencies in the monitoring process could be done
only on the specific request and consent of the State Party
concerned.
IX.7 The Representative of ICOMOS introduced this
organization's experiences in monitoring and offered its
assistance in monitoring, World Heritage information
management and the identification of needs for preventive
action and its implementation. He drew particular attention
to the need to develop guidelines for site specific
monitoring and the identification of the World Heritage
values of each site. He stressed that in his opinion the
key to meaningful monitoring is the understanding of what
impact time and circumstances have had upon these values.
IX.8 The Representative of IUCN stressed that his
organization had been monitoring World Heritage natural
sites since 1983 and that, following the Operational
Guidelines (para. 57), this is one of the functions
attributed to it by the Committee.
IX.9 Following the discussion, the Committee adopted the
proposals presented in Document WHC-94/CONF.003/6, Section
A, as the general framework for monitoring and reporting.
The Committee also adopted a text on monitoring and
reporting to be included in the Operational Guidelines. The
adopted text is included in Section XIV of this report.
IX.10 In order to implement its decisions regarding
systematic monitoring, the Committee invited the
Secretariat to undertake the following actions:
*[15]
(a) Prepare a revised nomination format for
presentation to the nineteenth sessions of the
Bureau and the Committee, so as to provide
adequate baseline information at the time of
inscription of properties on the World Heritage
List.
(b) Organize in early 1995, with the participation of
the advisory bodies and other relevant
institutions, a meeting of experts on World
Heritage information management, in order to
develop guidelines for the establishment of a
World Heritage Data Base.
(c) Inform the States Parties of the decisions of the
Committee, invite them to put monitoring
structures in place and to report on the state of
conservation of the property to the Committee on
a 5-year basis.
(d) Prepare workplans for and implement regional
programmes to provide advice and assistance to
the States Parties in setting up adequate
monitoring and management systems, to promote the
preparation of 5-year state of conservation
reports, to handle and analyse these reports and
to present 5-year Regional State of the World
Heritage Reports to the World Heritage Committee.
(e) Incorporate monitoring as a management tool in
World Heritage training courses and other
activities.
(f) Report to the nineteenth session of the Bureau on
the implementation of the decisions of the
Committee and on the application of the new
monitoring and reporting procedures.
IX.11 Following the recommendations of Work Group 2,
the Committee also invited the Secretariat in collaboration
with the advisory bodies, to:
(a) present to the nineteenth session of the Bureau a
workplan for the implementation of regional monitoring
programmes so that States Parties will have sufficient
time to prepare the state of conservation reports;
(b) develop a format for monitoring reporting as an aid to
the States Parties and to facilitate the processing of
the reports and the information contained in them
through a computerized data base.
*[16]
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MONITORING INITIATIVES
IX.12 As regards systematic monitoring and reporting,
the Committee drew heavily on the positive experiences
provided by different monitoring models that had been
applied during the past years on an experimental basis. The
Committee took note of monitoring reports prepared by
States Parties (e.g. Mexico), non-governmental
organizations at the invitation of the States Parties
concerned (ICOMOS's involvement in monitoring of World
Heritage sites in the United Kingdom, Norway and Sri Lanka)
and through existing United Nations structures such as the
UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project for the Cultural, Urban and
Environmental Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The Committee concluded that all of these models had
resulted in credible monitoring reports and that the
framework for systematic monitoring should allow for these
models to be applied, depending on the wishes of the States
Parties and the particular conditions of the countries and
the regions.
Latin America and the Caribbean
IX.13 The Director of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project,
recalling that in 1991 the Committee commissioned the
project to undertake a pilot monitoring programme in Latin
America and the Caribbean and that since 1991 site specific
monitoring reports had been presented at the annual
sessions of the Committee, presented to the Committee the
final report of this monitoring programme.
IX.14 This synthesis report, entitled 'Systematic
Monitoring Exercise, World Heritage Sites Latin America,
the Caribbean and Mozambique: Findings and International
Perspectives' contains an assessment of the implementation
of the Convention in the region and describes in detail the
methodology and modalities applied in undertaking the
monitoring programme. It also provides an analysis of the
trends and threats relevant to the conservation of historic
sites in the region, seven essays on specific case studies
that illustrates different types of World Heritage sites,
as well as individual synthesis reports of thirty-one
properties.
IX.15 The Director presented to the Committee the
recommendations on policies and guidelines for future
action which emmanated from the monitoring programme. He
confirmed that on-site monitoring arrangements are
indispensable as well as sound baseline information on each
of the sites, if credible reporting is to take place on a
periodic basis. In this sense monitoring should be seen as
a management tool, whereas the reporting should be the
basis of decision-making by the Committee and its Bureau
regarding requests for technical cooperation, regional
policies and action plans. He strongly advocated a regional
*[17]
approach to monitoring through the existing UNESCO
structures to facilitate regional cooperation and
networking.
IX.16 The Committee and the advisory bodies unanimously
commended the Regional Project's Director for the holistic
and at the same time practical approach to monitoring and
for the excellent presentation of its results in the
synthesis report.
Mexico
IX.17 As requested by the Bureau at its eighteenth
session, ICOMOS reviewed the report prepared by the
Government of Mexico on the state of conservation of ten
cultural World Heritage sites in Mexico. ICOMOS informed
the Committee that it is very impressed by the high
standard of these reports. They are objective and do not
seek to disguise problems where these exist. The format
adopted corresponds very closely with that proposed for the
systematic monitoring programme.
ICOMOS' involvement in monitoring in Europe and Asia
IX.18 ICOMOS informed the Committee of several
initiatives in Europe and Asia where ICOMOS was invited by
the State Party concerned to collaborate in the monitoring
of the World Heritage sites on their territories. Such
monitoring had been undertaken in 1994 in Norway, the
United Kingdom and in the Asian region.
IX.19 The chief characteristics of the approach used in
monitoring in Sri Lanka were its preparation through a
survey of conservation issues and concerns in Asia with the
aim to provide a broad framework within which to examine
issues specific to Sri Lanka, followed by the mission of a
monitoring team. This team included three external experts,
three Sri Lankan experts and a team concerned with
documentation issues. A series of seminars on conservation
and World Heritage was also included in the mission
programme.
REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
INTRODUCTION
IX.20 The Committee recalled that the World Heritage
Committee at its seventeenth session and the Bureau at its
eighteenth session examined reports on the state of
conservation of seven natural and six cultural properties
inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and on
seventeen natural and fifty-nine cultural properties on the
World Heritage List.
*[18]
IX.21 The Committee commended the States Parties which
had responded to its recommendations or observations and
urged the States Parties which had not done this, to do so.
In this context, the Committee emphasized that, according
to the Operational Guidelines, one of the essential
functions of the Committee is to monitor the state of
conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage
List and that a continuous communication between the
Committee and the States Parties regarding the state of
conservation of the World Heritage sites is indispensable
in this respect.
IX.22 The Committee examined the state of conservation
reports prepared by the secretariat and the advisory bodies
and concluded the following:
NATURAL HERITAGE
Natural Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
The Committee was informed that the Secretariat is
continuously in contact with the Bulgarian authorities,
which presented a report on their restoration efforts at
the last session of the Bureau and have recently updated
this report.
The Committee confirmed the decision of the Bureau at its
eighteenth session that a detailed report on conservation
measures should be presented to the nineteenth session of
the Bureau in 1995. The Committee decided to retain this
site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)
The site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger in 1992. Missions to the site were carried out in
1992 and 1993. Given the fact that there had been a recent
outbreak in fighting in the Bihac region, the situation
remains critical. The Committee decided, therefore, that
another fact-finding mission to this area, particularly to
the Korkaova Uvala Virgin forest should take place. The
Committee decided to retain the site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
The site was inscribed in 1983 and added to the List of
World Heritage in Danger in 1992 due to threats from
poachers, boundary encroachment and unplanned road
construction. The situation at the site was discussed
between a representative of the President of Ecuador and
World Heritage Centre staff and the Committee's continuous
*[19]
concerns were brought to the attention of the Government of
Ecuador.
The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger and that another fact-finding
mission should be carried out.
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire)
The site was included on the List of World Heritage in
Danger in 1992 because of a proposed iron-ore mining
project and threats due to the arrival of a large number of
refugees. An expert mission was undertaken in 1993 and
proposals to revise the boundaries of the site were
endorsed by the seventeenth session of the Committee in
1993. An international assistance project under the World
Heritage Fund was carried out in 1994. The Committee was
informed that the French Ministry of Cooperation and the
Ministry of the Environment in cooperation with IUCN France
is carrying out a study and review of the site with regard
to potential future investment. A report on this project is
expected in due course.
The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger and requested that the Bureau at
its nineteenth session be informed of the results of the
French mission.
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
At its eighteenth session, the World Heritage Bureau took
note of the response by the Indian Government concerning
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary which was inscribed on the List of
World Heritage In Danger in 1992.
The Committee was informed that the Secretariat received a
report on the conditions of the site from WWF-India. The
report emphasises the critical situation in the area.
Furthermore, the Government of India has indicated its
interest in a joint mission to the site by World Heritage
Centre staff and local NGOs.
The Committee commended the Indian authorities on this
initiative and recommended that this mission be undertaken
when conditions in the area are sufficiently stable. The
Committee decided to retain Manas Wildlife Sanctuary on the
List of World Heritage in Danger.
Aïr-Ténéré Natural Nature Reserves (Niger)
The Committee was informed that the wildlife in this
site has been decimated due to the consequences of the
conflict between the Resistance Army of the Tuaregs and
Government forces. Hence, the Committee was encouraged to
*[20]
note that the warring parties had signed a peace accord on
9 October 1994. The implementation of this accord by the
new Government is however an essential prerequisite for the
conservation of this site. The Committee requested the
Centre to write to the new Government, recalling Niger's
international obligations under the Convention to safeguard
the Aïr and Ténéré Reserves and encourage them to implement
the peace accord. The Committee also wished that the Centre
inform the Niger authorities that the continuous
implementation of the peace accord will permit an
assessment of the current status of wildlife populations
and the resumption of the IUCN/WWF Project, funded by
Denmark and Switzerland.
Everglades National Park (United States of America)
The site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger in 1993 due to an increasing number of threats since
the date of its inscription on the List in 1979. The State
and Federal Governments and the Agricultural Industry are
providing significant financial support for the management
of the site and for its long-term restoration in the order
of hundreds of millions of dollars. The American
authorities had prepared a report for the eighteenth
session of the Committee.
The Committee decided to retain the site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
Virunga National Park (Zaire): The Committee recalled that
at its last session it was deeply concerned about the civil
unrest in Zaire which led to donors (EEC and USAID)
suspending their support to this site. Many Park staff had
not been remunerated for almost a year. Despite the fact
the Bureau granted emergency assistance of US$ 20,000 to
meet costs of field operations, poaching of wildlife has
continued and the capability of staff to patrol the 650 km
long boundary of the Park remains far below desirable
levels. Human population in the fishing village near Lake
Idi Amin has grown several fold and poses a serious threat
to the integrity of the Park. Since July 1994, the threats
to the Park have exacerbated several fold by the influx of
almost 1 million refugees, fleeing the war in Rwanda,
adjacent to the southern parts of the Park. The fuelwood
demand of the refugees camped inside the Park, estimated at
600 metric tons/day, is leading to widespread depletion of
forests in the lowlands; the Mountain Gorilla and its
habitats at higher elevations, fortunately, have not been
impacted so far.
The Committee was informed by the Representative of IUCN
that the Director of the Zairois Institute for the
Conservation of Nature has verbally indicated his agreement
to IUCN's suggestion of placing this site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger. Accordingly, the Committee
*[21]
included Virunga National Park on the List of World
Heritage in Danger. The Committee recognized that a major
effort over the next decade will be needed to rehabilitate
and strengthen management of Virunga and obtain local
support for its conservation. Furthermore, the Committee
requested the Centre to communicate its decision to UNHCR
and other agencies involved in the management of refugee
camps in and around Virunga and express its concern over
depletion of forest resources in the Park, stressing that
utmost care be taken to avoid establishment of refugee
camps in or near national parks. The Committee also asked
the Centre to inform the Government of Zaire of its
willingness to co-operate with IUCN as well as WWF, World
Bank, UNDP, UNHCR and GTZ and provide technical cooperation
and training assistance to address threats to the integrity
of Virunga.
Natural Properties on the World Heritage List
Great Barrier Reef National Park (Australia)
The Committee was informed that the Minister of
Environment, Australia, has temporarily halted a 1500-bed,
resort development project immediately adjacent to the
boundary of this site to allow for a study of potential
impacts on the World Heritage site. The Committee requested
the Centre to write to the Minister of Environment,
Australia, expressing support for his efforts to protect
this site from the impacts of the proposed large scale
tourism development project.
Shark Bay (Australia)
The Committee recalled that at the time of inscription of
this site it requested IUCN to report back on the progress
with respect to (1) implementation of the
Commonwealth/State management agreement and (2) efforts to
achieve more effective conservation of the site.
As the Government of Australia had assured that the October
1990 agreement was to provide the management framework for
this site, the Committee was concerned that most of the
provisions of the agreement have not been operationalised.
Therefore, the Centre wrote to the Australian authorities
requesting positive and concrete action, and was informed
by the national authorities that a copy of the new
agreement would be available by early December. A report
from the Australian authorities is anticipated shortly.
Willandra Lakes Region (Australia)
The Committee was informed of IUCN's field evaluation
report on the state of conservation of this property. It
requested the Australian authorities to review the
*[22]
boundaries of the site and to continue their recent
progress in improving the management of the site.
Mount Athos (Greece)
A report prepared by WWF and Ecumenical Patriachate of
Constantinople (EPC) has pointed out that the ecology of
this site is being impacted by overgrazing, chemical
pollution and forestry activities. In early December the
World Heritage Centre received a letter from the Greek
authorities outlining the measures which are being
implemented to address these concerns. The Committee
requested that a field review together with the appropriate
Greek authorities be carried out to evaluate these
conflicting reports.
Keoladeo National Park (India)
The Committee recalled that this site was inscribed on the
World Heritage List because of its importance as a
wintering ground for the Siberian crane. At the time of
inscription in 1985, there were 41 cranes which wintered in
Keoladeo National Park. The Committee was informed that in
1994, no Siberian cranes wintered in Keolodeo; it was
thought that due to hunting along their migratory routes in
Afghanistan and Pakistan the population which used Keoladeo
for wintering appears to have been extirpated. The
Committee therefore requested that the Centre write to the
Indian authorities expressing its concern and requesting
that the status of the Siberian crane population be
monitored for another year. The Committee noted that in the
event that there are no signs of the return of the species
to Keoladeo in 1995, then it might consider the prospect of
delisting this site. In that case the Committee would
request IUCN to make a detailed presentation on the subject
at its next session.
Banc d'Arguin National Park (Mauritania)
The Committee recalled that IUCN reported to the Bureau at
its eighteenth session on a planned capture operation of
six monk seals from the sea population of the park.
Subsequently, the Centre was informed by the French
Ministry for the Environment that the experiment was
carefully planned and coordinated with IUCN's Species
Survival Commission and that the capture operation and
breeding experiment is under the direction of the "Comité
scientifique international pour le suivi du programme
francais de sauvegarde du phoque moine". The Committee
took note of the above information.
*[23]
Te Wahipounamu (New Zealand)
In July 1994 the Bureau was advised of threats to the
integrity of this site arising from cattle grazing in some
parts of the Park and the impact of potential logging
operations in Maori-owned coastal forests immediately
adjacent to the Park. As requested by the Bureau, the New
Zealand authorities have submitted a report outlining
measures being implemented for mitigating these threats.
IUCN has expressed satisfaction with these measures and no
further action is required at the present time.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) (Tanzania)
The Committee recalled that at its last session it
expressed serious concerns over the Tanzanian Government's
new policy to open NCA to agriculture. The Committee was
informed that, though cultivation is continuing to spread,
there appears to be some control preventing its random
expansion. Nevertheless, the Committee remained concerned
that the expansion of agriculture is taking away
traditional pastoral lands of the Masai who, as a last
resort to ensure their own food security, are being forced
to clear lands for subsistence agriculture. The NCA is the
most profitable of all Tanzanian State enterprises earning
approximately US$ 4.5 million annually, of which the local
people receive only a marginal share at present.
Despite the concerns outlined above, the Committee was
satisfied to note that the NCA management and NCA Board are
actively seeking solutions to the issues and are
cooperating with IUCN in preparing a management plan. The
Committee requested the Centre to write to the Tanzanian
authorities, reminding them of the international
significance of, and the interest in NCA and encourage them
to take urgent measures, e.g. sharing tourism revenues,
which will ensure the conservation of natural resources and
the welfare of the Masai and minimize the need for
cultivating land within the vicinity of NCA. The Committee
requested IUCN to prepare, in cooperation with its Regional
Office in Nairobi, a follow-up report on the state of
conservation of NCA for its next session in 1995.
Serengeti National Park (Tanzania)
The Committee noted that the state of conservation of this
site has not been assessed since its inscription in 1981
and was pleased to note several improvements to the site
effected by the Tanzanian National Park Authority (TANAPA);
e.g. a management plan has been prepared and is now under
implementation; work on a new and creative visitor-
education centre is nearing completion; roads and other
infrastructure have been upgraded; and long-term wildlife
census, research and monitoring projects continue to
*[24]
operate. However, the Committee recognized that several
threats to Serengeti's integrity prevail; subsistence
poaching has reached commercial levels resulting from a
growing demand for meat and leading to significant
reductions in wildlife populations. The rapidly growing
human population (1.2 million at present) resident near the
western boundary of the Park and adjacent buffer zone pose
an ever-increasing demand for wildlife resources of
Serengeti and expose wildlife to risk of transmission of
disease from domestic stock and dogs. Poorly designed ad-
hoc tourism development projects, introduced into Serengeti
without consultation with the TANAPA, should be
discouraged. Coordination with the trans-border Masai Mara
Reserve in Kenya needs to be strengthened.
The Committee requested that the Centre write to the
Tanzanian National Park Authorities (TANAPA) commending
them for the improvements that they have implemented for
the management of Serengeti. At the same time the Committee
suggested that TANAPA be alerted to threats to the
integrity of Serengeti due to growing human population near
Serengeti's borders, increased demand and poaching for meat
and ad-hoc tourism development projects. The Committee also
suggested that the Centre contact the Kenyan authorites and
request them to consider nominating the Masai Mara Reserve
as an extension of the Serengeti World Heritage site.
Redwood National Park (United States of America)
The Committee was informed of a proposal of the California
Department of Transportation (CDT) regarding a road re-
alignment of the US Highway 101 in Del Norte County which
will result in the removal of about 200 trees in this World
Heritage site. Although CDT has prepared an environmental
impact statement (EIS), the Committee was informed that the
EIS made no mention of the World Heritage status of the
area. The Committee therefore requested the Centre to write
to the American authorities and suggest that the CDT
recognize the international significance of this site and
hence the special consideration it should receive vis-à-vis
potential impacts of the road re-alignment project. The
Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to report on this
matter at the next session of the Bureau.
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia and Zimbabwe)
The World Heritage Centre was informed by letter of 5
August 1994 from the National Heritage Conservation
Commission of Zambia that the proposal to build the Batoka
Dam was dropped. The Batoka Gorge Hydro Electric Scheme
would have had a major environmental impact on the World
Heritage site and would have flooded the Batoka Gorge of
the Zambezi River, a two million year old unique geological
and geomorphological formation.
*[25]
The Committee commended the Government of Zambia on the
decisions taken to ensure the integrity of this World
Heritage site.
Mana Pools, Sapi and Chewore Reserves (Zimbabwe)
The Committee regretted that with the relocation of the ten
remaining rhinos from this Park to an intensive protection
zone, this World Heritage site has lost one of its
"flagship" species. The Committee urged the Centre that in
order to protect populations of similar species in other
World Heritage sites, it should expand its cooperation with
IUCN's Species Survival Commission and the Secretariat of
the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species
(CITES).
NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE (MIXED SITES)
Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
The Committee was informed on proposed helicopter flights
from Cusco to the village of Aguas Calientes, which is only
two kilometers from the ruins of Machu Picchu,
authorization of which would be subject to the approval of
an environmental impact study by the National Institute for
Natural Resources (INRENA). IUCN informed that it was
finalizing the examination of the impact study and that it
will transmit its recommendations to the Secretariat as
soon as these are available.
The Committee requested that the Bureau at its forthcoming
nineteenth session be informed of the outcome of IUCN's
observations.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Palace of Abomey (Benin)
The Committee commended the Government of Benin and ICCROM
for the activities undertaken since 1992 in training in
preventive conservation and for the project for the
conservation and enhancement of the Royal Palaces of Abomey
which is foreseen for 1994-1996 in collaboration with
ICCROM and the Government of Italy. The Committee decided
to retaine this site on the List of World Heritage in
Danger and requested the Secretariat to ensure that a
monitoring mission be undertaken to Abomey to evaluate the
state of conservation of the eleven palaces that have not
yet been subject to restoration and to report on it to the
Bureau at its nineteenth session.
*[26]
Angkor (Cambodia)
The Committee noted that at its eighteenth session, the
Bureau expressed satisfaction with the progress
accomplished by the Royal Cambodian Government in response
to the requests formulated by the Committee at its
sixteenth session, when Angkor was inscribed on the World
Heritage List and List of World Heritage in Danger.
At the invitation of UNESCO and at the request of the
Chairperson of the Committee, the Minister of State of the
Kingdom of Cambodia, H.E. Mr Vann Molyvann, made a
presentation to Committee members, highlighting the main
tasks undertaken by the Royal Government to ensure the
safeguarding of Angkor (401 sq.km.) and the development of
its historical, archaelogical and anthropological heritage,
in the region of Siem Reap (10,000 sq.km).
In particular, he emphasized, the implementation of the
recommendations made in the framework of the UNESCO-
implemented project "Zoning and the Environmental
Management Plan for Angkor (ZEMP)", and which defined five
categories of protected zones:
i) monumental sites
ii) protected archaeological reserves
iii) protected cultural landscapes
iv) areas of archaeological, anthropological and
historical interest;
v) perimeter for socio-economic and cultural
development of the region of Siem-Reap.
The Minister of State also recalled that legislation
concerning the protection of cultural properties had been
prepared and that proposals had been submitted to the Royal
Government concerning the official establishment of a
management organism for Angkor (the so-called APSARA
Agency). Subsequently, he reviewed all actions undertaken
by donor countries in the framework of the programmes
implemented under the aegis of the International
Coordinating Committee for the Safeguard and the
Development of the Historic Site of Angkor (ICC), created
by the Intergovernmental Conference of Tokyo in October
1993 and co-chaired by France and Japan. Finally, after
having warmly thanked UNESCO and its Director-General, the
members of the ICC and their co-chairs, he addressed an
appeal to States Parties to the 1972 Convention concerning
the Protection of the World Heritage, requesting strong and
massive support to the Kingdom of Cambodia in its fights
against illicit traffic of cultural heritage.
Following this presentation, for which the Chairperson
warmly thanked the Representative of the Royal Government
of Cambodia, the Committee took note of the Report of
Activities for 1994 established by the ICC Secretariat and
presented by Mr A. Beschaouch.
*[27]
Action by the Committee: The Committee adopted the
following Declaration: Having taken note of the huge
efforts undertaken by the Cambodian authorities despite the
difficult conditions prevailing in the country, the
Committee congratulated the the Royal Goverment of Cambodia
for so far responding to the recommendations of the
sixteenth session of the Committee. On the one hand, the
Committee congratulated the International Coordinating
Committee for Angkor, co-chaired by France and Japan, and
on the other, UNESCO, which provides the Secretariat for
this Committee, for the successful mobilization of a vast
network of international aid for the safguarding action and
for devising the conceptual framework linking
archaeological conservation as an integral process in the
promotion of sustainable development of the Angkor-Siem
Reap region, as exemplified by the UNESCO-implemented
project "Zoning and Environmental Management Plan for
Angkor (ZEMP)".
The Committee urged the Royal Government of Cambodia and
its National Assembly to vote without delay the legislation
concerning the protection of cultural properties. The
Committee also requested the Royal Government of Cambodia
to approve the creation of a management organism to enforce
the application of the national legislation and regulations
concerning the protection of Angkor in view of its status
as a World Heritage property. The above-mentioned
legislative texts and the statuts of the management
organism for Angkor will be presented to the nineteenth
session of the Committee for information purposes, together
with cartographic data indicating the permanent boundaries
of the Angkor World Heritage area and its buffer zone.
Dubrovnik (Croatia)
The Committee was informed that the restoration of what is
called the fifth facade of the city -the roofs- was almost
completed and that there remained but a few insulae
awaiting repairs, and that important progress had been made
in the restoration of several of the most important
monuments of the city.
The Committee commended the Government of Croatia and
UNESCO on the progress made in the conservation and
restoration of Dubrovnik. It noted, however, that after the
priority needs had been taken care of, other works such as
the restoration of nine destroyed palaces and details of
Franciscan and Dominican cloisters needed to be undertaken.
The Committee decided, therefore, to retain this site on
the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Timbuktu (Mali)
The Committee was informed that the Government of Mali had
fully endorsed the recommendations of a UNESCO mission that
*[28]
was undertaken in early 1994 and which recommended a method
of intervention involving the local population which, since
the construction of the mosques, had been responsible for
their upkeep, thus perpetuating a living religious cultural
tradition. The Committee also endorsed this proposal and
decided that it would support its implementation, if and
when requested by the State Party. The Committee decided to
retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Bahla Fort (Oman)
The Committee recalled that it was informed during its
seventeenth session, that intensive restoration works were
being undertaken at this site and that it appeared probable
that the nature of the material used for the restoration
work, the rapidity with which the work was being carried
out and the methods used could raise a certain number of
questions with regard to conserving the authenticity of the
monument. The Committee was informed that the Director of
the World Heritage Centre, at the invitation of the
Government of Oman, undertook a mission to Oman in March
1994 during which he was able to examine the progress of
restoration work underway. Following this mission it was
agreed with the national authorities that an expert mission
would take place from 10 to 19 December 1994.
The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger and requested that the results of
this mission be presented to the nineteenth session of the
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 1995.
Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)
The Committee welcomed the initiative of the Government of
Peru to organise in October 1995, in collaboration with
ICCROM and CRATerre, a regional course on the conservation
of adobe, parallel to which the participants and
international experts would also evaluate the past
conservation practices and experiences in Chan Chan and
define new conservation policies for this site. The
Committee requested the authorities to submit the results
of the course and the assessment of the conservation
policies and practices to the Secretariat so that
recommendations for future actions can be presented at the
next session of the Committee. It decided that this site be
retained on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Wieliczka Salt Mine (Poland)
The Committee took note of the long-term conservation
strategy that had been developed for this site, which
included a project for ventilation and dehumidification.
The Committee encouraged the Polish authorities to
*[29]
implement this long-term conservation strategy and
requested to be kept informed of its implementation. It
decided that this site be retained on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
Cultural Properties on the World Heritage List
Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria)
The Observer of Algeria presented the annual report for
1994 entitled "The Results of the Interventions for the
Safeguard of the Kasbah of Algiers" which was addressed to
UNESCO in conformity with the request of the Committee at
the time of the site's inception. She announced that a
request for international assistance in order to ensure the
training of architects for the safeguard of the site will
shortly be addressed to the World Heritage Centre.
Serra da Capivara (Brazil)
The UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project presented a report on this
complex site that contains 380 sites of historical interest
and where the greatest threats come from fire and poaching.
Tourism, although in the increase, had not had a negative
impact on the site yet. A zoning plan was being introduced
which defined the degree of access to five different types
of area with various levels of access.
The monitoring mission recommended that:
- the zoning plan should be extended so as to cover the
whole area of the park and that buffer zones be established
to limit the threats form fires;
- barriers be constructed at the more accessible sites to
prevent visitors from damaging them and that interpretation
panels should also be installed.
Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid Fields from Giza
to Dahshur (Egypt)
The Committee studied the report of the Secretariat and the
information communicated by the Supreme Council of
Antiquities on the situation at the World Heritage site of
Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid Fields from Giza
to Dahshur concerning the following:
a) the ongoing construction of a highway cutting in
two the site of the World Heritage site at Zawyat
al-Eryan, at about 2 kms south of the Sphynx;
b) the ongoing construction of about 3,000 lodgings
in the buffer zone at Kafr el Gabal and of houses
on the site itself;
*[30]
c) the numerous and new encroachments of the
military camps on the listed site, notably at
Zawyat al-Eryan, Shabramant and Dahshur, as well
as pollution caused by an army factory at
Dahshur;
d) the construction of a tarmac road within the site
allowing access to the two large refuse dumps,
newly created, in the site.
Thereupon the Committee expressed its strong concern to the
Egyptian national authorities with regard to all of these
developments which gravely threaten the integrity of the
World Heritage site, its known and unknown archaeological
treasures, and cause irreparable damage if not halted.
Consequently, the Committee requested the Egyptian
authorities to take the necessary measures to immediately
halt these different activities and to repair the damage
already caused without delay. It also requested the
authorities to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 May
1995 a detailed report on the safeguarding activities
undertaken at the site, which will be presented to the
nineteenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee for examination and decision as to whether or not
to recommend placing this site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
It fully endorsed the Director-General's decision to thank
President Moubarak of Egypt for his intervention to halt
the work presently in progress. It also endorsed the
Director-General's request that the President continues to
be attentive to this matter and take action in order that
an alternative route be traced beyond the boundaries of the
World Heritage site and that the property be restored to
its former state.
Medieval City of Rhodes (Greece)
The Committee requested the Greek authorities for precise
information on the legal protection of the Medieval City as
well as to define a legal framework for the main principles
guiding the restoration of the buildings of the Medieval
City of Rhodes.
Quirigua (Guatemala)
The Committee took note of a report presented by the
UNDP/UNESCO Project which stated that the state of
conservation of the site is very good, but that it had been
demonstrated that the architecture and sculptures are
subject to continuous, low-level erosion. In the mid-
eighties thatch-roofed huts were built over the site's
sculptures to protect them from rainfall. These do not,
*[31]
however, protect the sculptures from wind-blown rainfall.
Furthermore, it was noted that the storage areas for
excavated objects do not meet minimal conservation
standards.
It was recommended:
- that the size of the thatched roofs be increased so as
to provide better protection to the sculptures;
- to examine the possibility of removing the sculptures
to a site museum and to replace them by copies. A
technical mission should be undertaken from Quirigua
to Copan, Honduras to consult with the Copan personnel
who recently successfully completed a similar effort;
- that the conditions of the storage areas be improved.
Florence (Italy)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee at its seventeenth session in 1993 was
informed of the severe damage caused by a car-bomb in the
historical centre of Florence in May 1993. The Delegate of
Italy informed the Committee of the actions the Government
of Italy had taken after the bombing. He confirmed that the
restoration works would be entirely concluded by mid-1995.
An analysis of the damages to the historical structures and
the art objects had provided important information on the
effectiveness of certain protection measures and new
instructions were to be issued to prevent the repetition of
such events or to limit damage.
Petra (Jordan)
The Committee was informed of the findings of the UNESCO
mission which took place in April 1994, concerning:
- impact of new hotels under construction in the
vicinity of the World Heritage site of Petra
- insufficiency or non-existence of sewage disposal
facilities
- uncontrolled development of villages in the vicinity
of the site
- proliferation of shops
- insufficient conservation of antiquities, and
- other encroachments upon the integrity of the site.
It was informed that the report has already been submitted
to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee during its
eighteenth session in July 1994 and that the Bureau had
already expressed its serious concern to the Jordanian
authorities regarding the preservation of the integrity of
the site (transmitted by the World Heritage Centre by
letter of 18 July 1994) and had approved a request for the
organization on site of a technical meeting associating the
*[32]
national authorities, national and international agencies
concerned, and the two UNESCO coordinators for the
Management Plan in order to accelerate the effective
implementation of the Petra National Management Plan.
The Committee was informed that this technical meeting was
held in Petra in October 1994 and that it had not resulted
in any concrete decisions ensuring the preservation of the
site, although the situation at the site had further
deteriorated, notably by beginning to build two new hotels
near the entrance of the site and the granting of building
permits for several others.
The Committee therefore expressed to the Jordanian
authorities its serious concern with regard to the
degradation of the site.
It requested them to urgently undertake the following:
1) by measure of conservation, the prohibition to
build any new hotel in the vicinity of the site;
2) the official creation of the Petra National Park
and the implementation of the Petra National Park
Management Plan established by UNESCO experts
upon request from the national authorities of
Jordan, which defines a precise perimeter for the
Park, and including the creation of eight
protected zones, the creation of a buffer zone in
order to control the development of building
construction, and establishment of a management
authority; and
3) to adddress the World Heritage Centre before 1
May 1995 a detailed report on the measures that
have been undertaken to be submitted to the
nineteenth session on the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee.
Megalithic Temples (Malta)
The Committee was informed by the Secretariat on the state
of conservation of the Megalithic Temples of Malta and the
very serious problems concerning the insufficient
surveillance, particularly in Mnajdra, Hagar Qim, Ta'Hagrat
and Skorba; the collapse of one of the walls of the Temple
of Mnajdra as a result of the 1994 April storms; the
exploitation of vast stone quarries in the immediate
vicinity of the monument and the serious dangers which this
activity imposes permanently upon the conservation of the
Temple and its environment, the very serious risks of
collapse of one part of the Ggantija Temple.
The Committee expressed to the national authorities of
Malta its very deep concerns and insisted that these
*[33]
serious problems be dealt with at governmental level and
that all necessary technical, budgetary, manpower and legal
means be immediately placed at the disposal of the national
authorities which have been entrusted with the conservation
in order to:
a) restore the Temple of Mnajdra according to the
recommendations of the Scientific Committee of the
Museums Department, and take the necessary steps,
especially regarding drainage, so that this type of
accident does not reoccur;
b) halt the exploitation of the quarries adjoining the
site without delay;
c) finish installing the Archaeological Park of Mnajdra
and Hagar Qim by providing a sufficent number of well-
qualified personnel;
d) undertake the necessary work on the Ggantija site to
avoid all risk of collapse, in accordance with the
project established by the Univesity of Florence;
e) provide the archaeological sites inscribed on the List
with sufficient guards to ensure effective
surveillance of the sites.
The Committee requested the Maltese authorities to prepare
a detailed report before 1 April 1995 on the progress made
regarding all of the points on conservation and management
of the site.
Hal Saflieni Hypogeum (Malta)
The Committee was informed by the Secretariat that the
Hypogeum of Hal Saflieni has now been closed for three
years and the air-conditioning works, partly financed by
the World Heritage Fund, which should have begun two years
ago, have not yet started. This situation is caused by the
permanent trickling of water inside the monument as a
result of the decayed sewage and water supply pipes layed
under the streets adjoining the site. This constant
dripping of water encourages the proliferation of micro-
organisms and of calcium carbonate deposits on the walls
which threaten to irreparable damage to the mural
paintings. The Committee expressed to the national
authorities of Malta its serious concerns and insisted that
these problems be treated at government level and that all
necessary technical, budgetary, manpower and legal means be
immediately placed at the disposal of the national
authorities entrusted with conservation in order to:
a) proceed with the necessary repairs to the sewage pipe
system to ensure that the Hypogeum is made impervious;
*[34]
b) continue and finish enhancing the site, especially the
work partially financed by the World Heritage Fund so
that the Hypogium can finally be reopened to the
public under conditions which will ensure its
conservation.
The Committee requested the authorities of Malta to submit
a detailed report before 1 April 1995 on the progress made
in the conservation and management of the site.
City of Valetta (Malta)
The Committee was informed that in the framework of UNDP's
Action Plan for the Mediterranean, the Programme
Coordinator for "100 Historical Sites of the Mediterranean"
carried out a mission to Malta at the request of the World
Heritage Centre. The Committee took note of the report and
endorsed the mission's recommendations that, faced with the
accelerated degradation affecting the historical buildings
of Valetta, the authorities of Malta should take
appropriate urgent measures so that:
- the team of the Valetta Rehabilitation Project
acquires legal recognition and may call upon a
Works Division for the maintenance and
restoration of the historical buildings of
Valetta;
- the Bill on the protection of Valetta can be
finalized as soon as possible in an appropriate
form, in keeping with the obligations for
inscription on the World Heritage List;
- a regulation on the signs, billboards and
commercial storefronts can be better formulated
and applied by the competent authorities, in
order to preserve the characteristics of the
historical buildings of Valetta.
Puebla (Mexico)
The Committee recalled that a rehabilitation plan for a
part of the World Heritage site of Puebla, the Rio de San
Francisco area, was briefly discussed at its seventeenth
session and that more detailed information was provided at
the eighteenth session of the Bureau on the basis of a
report from the Mexican National Institute of Anthropology
and History (INAH) and the report of a UNESCO expert in
urban rehabilitation and conservation who visited Puebla in
June 1994.
The Committee was informed that following the eighteenth
session of the Bureau and on the request of the Government
of Mexico, the same expert had undertaken a series of
*[35]
missions to Puebla to advise the authorities in the
preparation of the urban development plan for the Rio de
San Francisco area. The Committee commended the authorities
of Mexico, the State of Puebla and the Municipality of
Puebla on their positive response to the expert's advice,
and invited them to report on a regular basis to the
Secretariat on the further development of this project.
Island of Mozambique (Mozambique)
The Committee took note of a report presented by the
UNDP/UNESCO Project on the state of conservation of the
Island of Mozambique. It was reported that the stone city
on the island was in a precarious state of conservation, a
situation that was heavily aggravated by the cyclone Nadia
which occured in March 1994. The predominantly privately
owned houses in the macuti city were better maintained.
With the process of pacification and the possibilities of
a sound economic development of the region, the monitoring
mission recommended that:
- the recuperation of the island be undertaken within the
framework of an integral development project;
- UNESCO coordinates bilateral and inter/multilateral
cooperation for the island, particluarly in the field of
training;
- a mission be fielded of a funding specialist and a
conservation architect to oversee restoration.
Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
The Secretariat recalled the concern raised over the state
of conservation of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site
and the debate during the seventeenth session of the
Committee in December 1993 and the Bureau at its eighteenth
session in July 1994 on the possible inscription of the
site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and the
delisting of certain parts of the site damaged by
uncontrolled development. The 16-point recommendation of
the UNESCO/ICOMOS Review Mission of November 1993 and the
pledge made by the Representative of His Majesty's
Government at the seventeeth session of the Committee to
follow-up on these recommendations were also recalled.
The Committee was presented with a monitoring report
prepared by the Department of Archaeology on progress made
in the follow-up activities. In the absence of the Nepali
Representative, the Secretariat summarized the main points
of this report.
Actions reported include:
adoption of revised byelaws which came into effect in
February 1994 requiring prior permit for any
demolition within the core area of the city;
*[36]
submission to Parliament of the proposed Fifth
Amendment of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act
strengthening the enforcement mechanism of design and
development control within the World Heritage
protected zones which could not be passed due to the
dissolution of the Parliament;
approval by the Government of the redefined boundary
of Swayambunath and publication of this in the Nepal
Gazette;
completion of a map of the revised boundary of Patan
Darbar Square checked on the ground, house-by-house,
and agreed upon with the Municipality and other
relevant bodies which is to be gazetted in the near
future;
completion of maps of the revised boundaries of the
five other monument zones as recommended by the
UNESCO/ICOMOS mission which will soon be verified
through ground survey;
completion of the inventories of public and religious
monuments in Patan Darbar Square, Pashupati and
Bauddhanath;
publication of information pamphlets on the seven
World Heritage monument zones containing general
information on conservation norms, particularly the
ban since July 1994 of the use of cement mortar in the
repair of monuments;
initiation of computerized documentation and manual
recording of monuments zones;
removal of commercial advertisement panels from the
monument zones and the museum building of
Swayambunath.
The Secretariat also reported on the Nepal/UNESCO/ICOMOS
strategy meeting held in mid-November 1994 immediately
following the Kathmandu Valley International Campaign
Review Meeting and drew the attention of the Committee to
the action plan to be coordinated by an inter-ministerial
task force which the representatives of the various
ministries to the strategy meeting agreed to establish.
This action plan contained in the monitoring report
includes, inter alia, the development and publication of
guidelines on building and conservation practice with
graphic illustrations and establishment of a development
control unit in the Department of Archaeology to work
closely with the municipalities and town development
committees.
The Committee, having noted the efforts being made by the
Nepali authorities to rectify the damage caused to the
*[37]
Kathmandu Valley, requests UNESCO to support the Government
of Nepal in strengthening the mechanism of coordination of
all international conservation activities, whether
bilateral or multilateral, especially with regard to the
method of conservation to be applied. The Committee also
calls upon the Government of Nepal to take into
consideration, the recommendations made by the joint
UNESCO/ICOMOS mission of November 1993 in ensuring the
protection of the World Heritage Site from uncontrolled
development, especially by adopting a more stringent policy
in the granting of demolition and construction permits and
other landuse authorization in both the core area and the
buffer zone. Recognizing the limited national resources in
carrying out the variety of required activities, the
Committee requests UNESCO to assist the Nepali authorities
in preparing a package of projects to seek international
donor support including the documentation of the World
Heritage Site, to be undertaken as a priority. In this
connection, the Committee discussed the advantages of the
Kathmandu Valley being put on the List of World Heritage in
Danger to draw the priority attention of the international
community and urged the Government of Nepal to reconsider
this option.
Historical Centre of Lima (Peru)
The Committee took note of a report presented by the
UNDP/UNESCO Project in which it was stated that the overall
infrastructure presents a notorious state of degradation,
although the monuments and landmarks, e.g. the Convent of
San Francisco, are well maintained.
The monitoring mission recommended that:
- an integrated programme of rehabilitation and
conservation for the historical centre should be set up, in
which projects should be included for the readaptive use of
historical structures, housing and infrastructure;
- the technical assistance that was made available by the
Committee in 1993 be used to organise an interdisciplinary
workshop to design with the local authorities programmes of
integral conservation and funding mechanisms.
Rio Abiseo (Peru)
The UNDP/UNESCO Project reported that the most serious
threats to this mixed site are large-scale deforestation in
the western zone of the park and traditional burning of
fields for grazing in the higher areas. A limited number of
park guards control the park in the south from outside the
area. There is no regular vigilance and inspection and
valuable archaeological objects are deteriorating and
disappearing.
*[38]
The monitoring mission recommended the following:
. a coherent development plan for the Park, aiming at
conserving both its natural and cultural resources, should
be maintained;
. measures should be taken urgently to
stabilize/reinforce the archaeological remains, which are
deteriorating rapidly;
. it should be determined which security measures are
needed to protect each of the archaeological sites;
. a project should be implemented to avoid deforestation
together with the local communities;
. the remote nature of the site should have to be taken
into account to establish practical step-by-step
conservation activities.
Kremlin and Red Square (Russian Federation)
The Committee was informed that the Ambassador and
Permanent Delegate of the Russian Federation to UNESCO
informed the Director-General of UNESCO of a project
concerning the possible erection of a monument in honour of
Marshal G. Zoukhov on the Red Square. The Director-
General, in a letter to the mayor of Moscow dated 2
December 1994, underlined that the responsibility for
protecting a cultural property lies with the State Party
concerned, which should conserve it and avoid taking any
measures that would damage it. The Director-General
suggested in his letter that another appropriate location
be sought for the monument and requested that UNESCO be
consulted prior to undertaking any proposed work on the Red
Square and the Kremlin. The Committee fully endorsed this
position and requested to be kept informed on any
development in this World Heritage site.
Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation)
It was recalled that since 1991 ICOMOS had presented to the
Committee and the Bureau reports on its involvement in the
monitoring of this site and on the efforts to conserve and
restore its monuments. ICOMOS reported that the legal
protection of the monument and the buffer zone had been
considerably improved and that a conservation professional
had been assigned. The workplan for 1994 had been completed
and included:
- the installation of a system of lightning protection
as part of a major reworking of fire protection and
security at the site;
*[39]
- studies of wood deterioration conditions;
- measurement of deformations by hand and
photogrammetric techniques;
- analysis of defects to the iconostasis.
Completion of the structural analysis is scheduled for
the end of January 1995.
A short and a long-term budget and workplans had been
established and ICOMOS involvement was foreseen for its
implementation. In view of the financial constraints in the
Russian Federation, ICOMOS recommended the following:
- high priority be given to undertaking with the Russian
and other national authorities, a full discussion of
feasible alternative strategies for continued support and
activity in conjunction with the already planned March 1995
concept selection meeting;
- on-going monitoring activity be continued; and
- other funding sources be identified and coordinated with
the approved conservation plan and priority site needs.
The Committee endorsed these recommendations and requested
ICOMOS in consultation with the Secretariat to implement
them.
Burgos Cathedral (Spain)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its eighteenth
session congratulated the various Spanish organizations
involved in the actions taken for the conservation of
Burgos Cathedral and that it, at the same time, expressed
a desire to see those components of the total project which
were still under negotiation put into effect with the
minimum delay.
The Committee noted that in August 1994, a statue fell off
the façade of the cathedral and requested ICOMOS to
continue to monitor the state of conservation of the
cathedral and to report its findings to the nineteenth
session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.
Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)
The Committee was informed that problems with the project's
financing had caused some delays in the restoration of the
mosaics and that UNESCO's experts present on the site had
expressed their regret to the authorities responsible for
the work that, in spite of their recommendations, the
metallic covering of the Haghia Sophia was executed with a
material which was too thin and therefore fragile.
*[40]
Furthermore, it was informed that, according to the UNESCO
experts on site, reconstruction of long portions of the
Roman and Byzantine walls was being undertaken using new
stones without taking account of the advice of
archaeologists and art historians.
The Committee recommended to the Turkish authorities to
take the necessary steps to speed up the transfer of funds
approved under the World Heritage Fund for the restoration
of the mosaics in the Haghia Sophia to those responsible
for its conservation.
The Committee also requested that the Turkish authorities
immediately stop the reconstruction of the Roman and
Byzantine walls, and that they undertake their restoration,
in accordance with principles accepted by the international
community, and in collaboration with the Turkish
antiquities services.
Xanthos-Letoon (Turkey)
In the framework of the UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan, the
Coordinator of the Programme "100 Historical Sites of the
Mediterranean" carried out a mission to Turkey at the
request of the World Heritage Centre.
Having taken note of the extensive and detailed report,
which the Committee requested to be made available to the
Turkish authorities, the Committee recommended the Turkish
authorities:
- to transmit to the World Heritage Centre the
Protection Plan for the Development of the
Patra/Xanthos/Letoon site, which should have been
ready in 1992;
- to implement the measures for the diversion of
traffic on the roads crossing the sites of
Xanthos and Letoon;
- to review the construction of the superstructure
of the television relay installed at the summit
of the Xanthos Acropolis.
Pueblo de Taos (United States of America)
The Committee was informed by the Delegate of the United
States on the actions taken by the Taos Pueblo and the US
National Park Service to ensure the conservation and the
integrity of the site and that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be undertaken by the Federal Aviation
Administration. The Committee reiterated its concerns
about the airport extension plans and invited the
authorities of the United States of America to pay
*[41]
particular attention to the World Heritage values and
living traditions of Pueblo de Taos when preparing the
Environmental Impact Statement, and to report on this to
the Committee at its nineteenth session.
The Complex of Hue Monuments (Vietnam)
The Observer of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam informed
the Committee of the various measures undertaken in order
to conserve and enhance the site since its inscription on
the World Heritage List in 1993, and expressed the
gratitude of the Government of Vietnam to UNESCO for its
constant assistance.
He assured the Committee of the vigilance of the national
and local authorities of Vietnam for the preservation of
the integrity of the site and gave detailed assurance that
no new road would be constructed in the vicinity of the
site along the River of Perfumes.
IX.23 Following the examination of the state of
conservation reports, the Committee adopted the following
proposals for the monitoring and reporting on the state of
conservation of individual World Heritage properties in
1995 and invited the Secretariat to ensure their
implementation:
- The highest priority will be given to the monitoring
of and reporting on sites on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
- The Secretariat will again report to the Bureau at its
nineteenth session in 1995 on the state of
conservation of all sites on the List of World
Heritage in Danger with an assessment of the
appropriateness of their continued inclusion in this
List.
- The Secretariat, in collaboration with the advisory
bodies, will continue to undertake reactive monitoring
whenever deemed necessary.
X. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PREPARATION OF A GLOBAL
STRATEGY FOR A REPRESENTATIVE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
X.1 At its seventeenth session in Cartagena, the
Committee requested the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to
continue their efforts in preparing a conceptual framework
for "a global study, in order to advance in defining a
concept and a methodology which could be widely accepted by
the scientific community.
*[42]
X.2 Consequently, the Centre and ICOMOS organized jointly
at UNESCO, from 20 to 22 June 1994, a first meeting of
experts representing different regions of the world and
different disciplines concerned (specialists in cultural
heritage, anthropologists, art and architecture historians,
archaeologists, etc.) with the objective of reviewing the
issues and considering all the different approaches, and
especially all the work and contributions made to date, in
an attempt to define a conceptual framework, a methodology
and common goals.
X.3 The Vice-President of ICOMOS, Ms Joan Domicelj,
presented to the Bureau at its eighteenth session the
report of this meeting of experts, as well as a major
outline of its recommendations to the Committee, in order
to implement a Global strategy to ameliorate the
representativity of the List. These recommendations have
been included "in extenso" in document WHC-
94/CONF.003/INF.6.
X.4 Having taken note of the Secretariat's report
concerning the proposals made by the experts, and its
presentation of different thematic meetings which took
place in 1994 on Heritage Canals (Canada), Routes as a Part
of our Cultural Heritage (Spain) and Authenticity (Japan),
the Committee adopted the following three proposals
concerning work to be undertaken in 1995:
1) the revision of certain criteria for the
inscription of cultural properties on the World Heritage
List, based on Recommendation 7 proposed by the experts
(see Section XIV of the Report).
2) the participation of one member of the World
Heritage Centre or of ICOMOS at future regional or thematic
meetings, in order to present to them the substance of the
Global Strategy, place the discussions in the wider
framework of current scientific thought concerning the
concept of cultural heritage, and to identify potential
partners for future regional meetings of a specific nature;
3) the allocation of an amount of US $ 40.000 for
the organization, in cooperation with ICOMOS, and on a
regional basis, of a first scientific meeting in Africa
with States Parties and those that are not yet party to the
Convention, which would deal with African cultural heritage
and the Convention. The Committee agreed to allocate also
US $ 5.000 for the preparation of this meeting. This
meeting will deal with various types of cultural properties
which presently are not represented on the List or
inadequately so. The Committee also allocated an amount of
US $ 30.000 for the organization, in collaboration with the
National Commission of Philippines, ICOMOS, IUCN/ENPPA and
UNESCO Regional Offices, a regional meeting on cultural
landscapes of rice terraces of Asia and the Pacific.
*[43]
X.5 The representative of ICOMOS stated that its
cooperation with the Centre was excellent, particularly as
regards the meeting of experts held in June 1994. He
expressed his wish that the implementation of the Global
Strategy would be done jointly in 1995 by the two
institutions, as this action is for ICOMOS a part of a
global scientific programme which includes other themes for
reflection.
X.6 At the suggestion of the German Delegation, the
Committee adopted the following text as the basis for
future deliberations by the Committee on the Global
Strategy:
"As a follow-up of the decisions of the Committee during
the previous years, several initiatives were launched to
improve the implementation of the Convention with regard to
cultural properties. One of these initiatives was a
working group on the Global Strategy, taking place in Paris
in July 1994 (see working document CONF.003.INF.6.) For
the cultural sites this document stresses imbalances on the
List between regions of the world, types of monuments and
period but this is not reflected for the natural sites in
this working document. To reduce these imbalances for
natural properties as well, the following measures would
seem to be adequate:
1) expansion of Documents CONF.003/INF.6 and CONF. 003/6
to include an equal emphasis on natural properties;
2) adjustment of the formal and scientific criteria for
the evaluation of nominated cultural and natural sites
respectively, taking into consideration also the cultural
landscape approach;
3) giving priority to thematic studies on the main types
of ecosystems and developing strategies to implement the
results without delay;
4) reconsideration of the procedure for the assessment of
nominated natural sites with special respect to the term
"integrity."
To facilitate this, a specialists' meeting should be
organized in the first half of 1995."
X.7 The Chair asked the opinion of the Director of
the Centre if it would be possible to organize such a
expert meeting. The Director responded by warmly welcoming
this suggestion and noted that if the Centre had a budget
of USD 20,000 put at its disposal, it could organize such
a meeting. The Director also called to the Committee's
attention the relevance of such a study to Mixed Sites.
*[44]
X.8 The Delegate of France, explained that in order
to understand the concern expressed in the document
prepared by the German Delegation and which met with the
approval of the French Delegation, it must be recalled that
the imbalance noted is partly due to the decisions taken
during the sixteenth session of the Committee at Santa Fe:
- deletion of criterion (ii) for cultural properties
(interaction between man and nature) ;
- modification of cultural criteria to allow the
inscription of cultural landscapes, the recognition of
which had been strongly endorsed by France.
He indicated that the "natural" part of cultural landscapes
was not sufficiently taken into account and that it would
be appropriate to place more emphasis on paragraph 38 of
the Guidelines. He suggested that in the future ICOMOS and
IUCN proceed with a joint evaluation of properties proposed
for inscription as cultural landscapes.
X.9 Several other delegates, including those from the
United States of America, Japan, Italy and Niger expressed
their support for the German proposal for a expert working
group on natural and mixed sites. The United States
Delegate remarked on the importance of establishing
computerized data bases for sites. The Delegate from Niger
expressed his hope that, eventually, separate criteria for
Natural and Cultural Sites could be eliminated in favour of
an unified set of criteria applicable for all types of
World Heritage Sites.
X.10 Because of time constraints items D, E and F of this
agenda item could not be considered by the eighteenth
session of the Committee and were postponed for
consideration by the nineteenths session of the Bureau.
XI. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF
NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO
THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND LIST OF WORLD
HERITAGE IN DANGER
XI.1 The Secretariat informed the Committee that all
cultural properties nominated for inscription were included
in the tentative lists of the respective countries. The
Committee took note of information document WHC-
94/CONF.003.INF.7 in respect to tentative lists.
NATURAL HERITAGE
XI.2 The Committee inscribed eight properties on the
World Heritage List, including two sites referred or
deferred by the Committee in previous years. The Committee
*[45]
also approved extensions of two World Heritage sites and
deferred one proposal for extension of a property. The
Committee did not inscribe one nominated property.
Properties which the Committee inscribed on the World
Heritage List
Name of Identification State Party Criteria
Property Number having submitted
the nomination (in
accordance with
Article 11 of the
Convention)
Australian 698 Australia N (i)(ii)
Fossil Mammal
Sites
(Riversleigh/Naracoorte)
The Bureau had recommended the inscription of the site as
Riversleigh/Naracoorte Fossil site, excluding the site of
Murgon until its significance can be more convincingly
demonstrated. The Committee noted that Riversleigh provides
outstanding examples of middle to late Tertiary mammal
assemblages and one of the world's richest Oligo-Miocene
mammal records in a continent whose mammalian history has
been most isolated and distinctive, whereas Naracoorte
preserves an outstanding variety of terrestrial vertebrates
and illustrates faunal change spanning two ice ages.
Moreover, the Committee underlined that the inscription of
the fossil sites is a new challenge, as there are only very
few sites with fossil values on the List and that this
inscription is a major precedent for the work of the
Committee.
As suggested by the Australian authorities, the Committee
decided that this site shall be inscribed on the World
Heritage List as Australian Fossil Mammal Sites
(Riversleigh, Naracoorte).
Los Katios 711 Colombia N(ii)(iv)
National Park
The Committee inscribed this site, which adjoins Darien
World Heritage site in Panama, and represents a rich biota
comprising elements of both the North and the South America
and is a centre of endemism for flora and fauna. The
Committee commended both the Colombian and the Panamanian
Governments for the bilateral cooperative management
agreement and recommended that the two States Parties
consider the inscription of the transfrontier site as a
single entry on the List.
*[46]
Arabian Oryx 654 Oman N(iv)
Sanctuary
The Committee recalled that the nomination of Arabian Oryx
Sanctuary (then referred to as Jiddat-al-Harasis) was
originally submitted in August 1992 and deferred for
clarification of the legal structures, boundaries and
management plan. It noted that the area was renowned for
the success of the re-introduction of the White Oryx
Project and acknowledged that the Royal Decree No. 4/94 of
January 1994 concerning the legal responsibilities for the
management of the area was a partial response to an earlier
request of the Bureau for further strengthening the
conservation of the site. The Decree, however, requires
the issuance of appropriate byelaws and directives.
The Committee took note of Ambassador Musa Bin Jaafar Bin
Hassan's letter of 21 November 1994 which included a
preliminary response to the Bureau request for a Management
Plan. The framework of the Plan submitted was considered
to be technically sound and hence the Management Plan
should provide clarification of the boundaries, as well as
a zoning plan and improved management regime of the site.
The Committee was informed that due to the late arrival of
the letter and the framework plan, IUCN was unable to apply
its full evaluation process to the nomination but noted
that in the evaluation of the 1992 nomination IUCN had said
that the site had potential for World Heritage listing. The
Committee was satisfied with the new information provided
and the political will of the Omani Government to implement
a management regime and inscribed this site on the World
Heritage List under criterion (iv) which focuses on the
conservation of the site's biodiversity, including the
Arabian Oryx, the Houbara Bustard and other threatened
wildlife species inhabiting the Sanctuary. The map
representing the "essential values" of the Sanctuary
prepared for the original nomination, was accepted by the
Delegate of Oman in consultation with IUCN and a
representative of the World Heritage Centre, as the basis
for the inscription.
The Committee recommended that:
1) the Omani authorities continue to strengthen the
management of the site by passing the byelaws and
directives called for by the decree and appoint
additional field staff to implement the
management regime;
2) the consultant who will prepare the management
plan should clearly define the World Heritage
values in accordance with the Operational
Guidelines and should define the exact boundaries
of the area, including a zoning plan which
excludes any land uses that may be in conflict
with World Heritage values;
*[47]
3) the consultant should make clear recommendations
on the applicability of criterion (iii), by 1
April 1995;
4) that the IUCN should present at the nineteenth
session of the Bureau an evaluation of the
revised boundaries and additional World Heritage
criteria (if applicable), based on the
consultant's report and whatever further
information it required;
5) that the Bureau should review at its nineteenth
session the revised boundaries and additional
criteria in accordance with its normal
procedures.
Donaña National 685 Spain N(ii)(iii)
Park (iv)
The Committee inscribed this site as an exceptional example
of a large Mediterranean wetland with diverse habitats such
as marshes, forests, pristine beaches, dunes and lagoons,
which supports high faunal diversity, particularly large
numbers of migratory birds of the palearctic region.
The Committee complemented the Spanish authorities on
measures taken to improve protection of the site during the
past two years and their efforts to maintain the integrity
of the site. The Committee, however, alerted the Spanish
authorities to continuing threats to the integrity of the
site arising from hydrological projects and encouraged them
in their on-going efforts to restore disturbed parts of the
Park. The Committee requested that the Spanish authorities
submit a report on the site, particularly highlighting the
results of the project to regulate water supply by 1998.
Bwindi 682 Uganda N(iii)(iv)
Impenetrable
National Park
The Committee inscribed this site which has one of the
richest faunal communities in East Africa, including almost
half the population of the world's mountain gorillas, and
one of Africa's most important forests for butterflies and
bird diversity. The Committee commended the Government of
Uganda as well as the international donors for their
efforts in generating resources necessary for the
establishment of an effective management regime.
*[48]
Rwenzori 684 Uganda N(iii)(iv)
Mountains
National Park
The Committee inscribed this site, also known as "Mountains
of the Moon", for its aesthetic and scenic values and for
its significance as the habitat for an exceptional variety
of species, spanning the extraordinary altitudal range of
the Park.
Canaima National 701 Venezuela N(i)(ii)
Park (iii(iv)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its last session
held in June 1994, had requested the Venezuelan
authorities to revise the boundaries of the nominated area
in accordance with the recommendations of IUCN, i.e. to
exclude the savannah area which did not meet World Heritage
criteria. The Committee was informed that, although there
was no formal written response from the Venezuelan Park
authorities with respect to the Bureau's recommendation, a
senior staff member had verbally indicated that it would be
difficult to consider revising the boundaries of this site.
The Committee noted that a population of about 10,000 was
resident in the savannah (nearly 1 million ha of the 3
million ha area of the Park) and have not been consulted
regarding the nomination of the area. Nevertheless, the
Committee was satisfied that the area met all four natural
World Heritage criteria and decided to inscribe the site on
the World Heritage List. However, the Committee requested
the Centre and IUCN to cooperate with the State Party to
initiate a process to review the boundaries of the site,
taking into consideration the interests of the local people
and the need to focus the nomination on the tepui portion
(approximately 2 million ha) of the Park.
Ha Long Bay 672 Vietnam N(iii)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its last session
referred the consideration of this nomination pending the
establishment of a legal framework, a revision of the
boundaries of the proposed site and the initiation of a
managment programme. The Committee was satisfied to note
that the Vietnamese authorities have revised the boundaries
to nominate a smaller site which met natural heritage
criterion (iii), introduced a reasonably satisfactory
legislation and provided a boat and appointed a minimum
number of staff to patrol the area.
*[49]
The Committee therefore inscribed the site on the World
Heritage List and recommended that the Vietnamese
authorities cooperate with IUCN to:
a) review and further strengthen the legislation and
its applicability to the protection of the site;
b) initiate processes to prepare a management plan,
which will define, amongst others, objectives and a zoning
scheme;
c) implement management activities such as purchase of
basic equipment and appointing more staff to strengthen
management of the site and,
d) conduct surveys to monitor the growing number of
tourists visiting the area and plan regulatory measures.
Extensions to natural World Heritage Properties approved by
the Committee
Central Eastern 368bis Australia N(i)(ii)(iv)
Rainforest Reserves
(Australia)
(extension of the
Australian East Coast
Temperate & Sub-
tropical Rainforest
Park)
The Committee inscribed the extension proposed to this
site by the Australian authorities, noting that the
extension increased the size of the World Heritage site by
35%. The Committee commended the Australian Government for
acting on the recommendation of the Committee made in 1986
and agreeing to adopt the name "Central Eastern Rainforest
Reserves (Australia) for the enlarged property. The
Committee requested the Australian authorities to complete
the management plans of individual sites, particularly
those within Queensland.
Tatshenshini- 72bis/rev. Canada/USA N(ii)(iii)
Alsek Provincial (iv)
Wilderness Park
(extension of the
Glacier Bay/Wrangell/
St. Elias/Kluane site)
The Committee inscribed this site as an extension to the
Glacier Bay/Wrangell/St. Elias/Kluane World Heritage site.
The Committee commended the Government of British
Columbia/Canada on the action taken to protect the area and
it complimented the government agencies involved in moving
*[50]
towards the establishment of an International Advisory
Council. The Committee noted that the World Heritage
designation of this area does not prejudice the titles and
rights to land used by the Champagne-Aishihik First
Nations. The Committee suggested that the two States
Parties may consider proposing a new and shorter title,
e.g. "St. Elias Mountain Parks" to the site.
Property which the Committee did not inscribe on the World
Heritage List
Murchison Falls 683 Uganda
National Park
The Committee recognized Murchison Falls as an important
natural phenomena and as a habitat of elephants, giraffes
and Nile crocodile, though populations of these species
have been seriously reduced due to civil disturbances of
the past decade. However, the Committee decided not to
inscribe this site on the List because it considered its
international significance to be secondary in comparison to
similar sites in the region. The Committee, nevertheless,
commended and encouraged the Government of Uganda and the
GTZ for their efforts to restore the site and suggested
that the Ugandan Government may consider recognition of
this site as a core of a biosphere reserve.
Extension to a natural World Heritage site deferred by the
Committee
Galapagos Marine 1bis Ecuador
Reserve
(extension of the
Galapagos Islands)
The Committee recognized that the Marine Reserve met
natural heritage criteria. However, in accordance with the
recommendation of IUCN and the wish of the Observer of
Ecuador, it deferred the inclusion of the Galapagos Marine
Reserve as an extension of World Heritage site of
Galapagos. The Committee commended the Ecuadorean
authorities for their efforts to enlarge the World Heritage
property to include marine habitats extending to 15
nautical miles from the islands. It also noted the proposal
of the Ecuadorean authorities to extend marine habitats up
to 40 nautical miles. But the Committee was seriously
concerned that the proposed Marine Reserve and the
Galapagos Islands faced the following threats to their
integrity:
- overfishing and illegal fishing of a wide range
of species;
- human pressures from the local population
(growing at an estimated rate of 8.5% per year,
mainly due to immigration) and tourism on both
terrestrial and marine resources;
*[51]
- inadequate management capacity and
infrastructure;
- adverse impacts of introduced animals and plants;
These threats call for mitigative action vis-à-vis:
- augmenting management capacity;
- encouraging institutional cooperation;
- stepping up law enforcement, and
- conducting research on sustainability of resource
use in the Marine Reserve.
The Committee noted the commitment of the Ecuadorean
Government which, in cooperation with IUCN, the Centre and
a number of international conservation organizations, is
considering several measures to ensure protection of the
Marine Reserve and the Galapagos Islands. Furthermore, the
Committee was informed that the Ecuadorean Government was
considering a donors' conference in early 1995 to propose
a series of actions to mitigate the prevailing threats to
the integrity of the Marine Reserve and the Islands, as
well as a financial plan for the implementation of those
actions. Hence, the Committee requested IUCN and the
Centre to report back to the Bureau at its nineteenth
session on progress made to strengthen the conservation of
the Marine Reserve and the Islands.
Property inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
by the Committee
Virunga National Park (Zaire)
During