Distribution limited WHC-95/CONF.203/16
31 January 1996
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Nineteenth session
Berlin, Germany
4-9 December 1995
REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I. OPENING SESSION 1
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2
III. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR
AND VICE-CHAIRPRSONS 3
IV. REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE
SECRETARIAT SINCE THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION
OF THE COMMITTEE 3
V. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE NINETEENTH
SESSION HELD IN 1995 BY THE BUREAU OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND THE REPORT
OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE TENTH SESSION
OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES 6
VI. SETTING UP OF WORKING GROUPS 7
VII. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF
THE WORLD HERITAGE CULTURAL AND NATURAL
PROPERTIES 7
VIII. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND
EXAMINATION OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL
PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND
LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER 37
IX. REPORT ON THE DECISIONS OF THE TENTH
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE
CONVENTION AND THE DECISIONS OF THE 28TH
GENERAL CONFERENCE 49
X. BALANCED REPRESENTATION OF NATURAL AND
CULTURAL HERITAGE ON THE WORLD HERITAGE
LIST 50
XI. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE "GLOBAL STRATEGY AND THEMATIC STUDIES" 53
XII. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED TRAINING STRATEGY 55
XIII. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE 59
XIV. PROMOTIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES 63
XV. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND,
AND APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 1996 AND
PRESENTATION OF A PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR
1997 66
XVI. IMPROVEMENT OF THE WORKING METHODS OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 70
XVII. REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES 72
XVIII. DATE AND PLACE OF THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF
THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 76
XIX. DATE AND PLACE OF THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF
THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (DECEMBER 1996) 77
XX. OTHER BUSINESS 77
XXI. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE AND
CLOSURE OF THE SESSION 77
ANNEXES
I. List of participants
II. Address by Mr Helmut Schäfer, Minister of State
III. Message of the Director-General of UNESCO
IV. Provisional agenda of the twentieth session of
the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
*[1]
I. OPENING SESSION
I.1 The nineteenth ordinary session of the World
Heritage Committee was held in Berlin, Germany, from 4 to
9 December 1995. It was attended by the following members
of the Committee: Australia, Benin, Brazil, Canada, China,
Cuba, Cyprus, Ecuador, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Lebanon, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Niger, Philippines, Spain
and United States of America.
I.2 The following States Parties to the Convention
which are not members of the Committee were represented as
observers: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Austria,
Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Holy See, Hungary,
India, Indonesia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal,
Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland,
Thailand, Turkey and Uruguay.
I.3 Representatives of the International Centre for
the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of the
Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation
Union (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity.
The meeting was also attended by the representatives of the
the Arid Climate Adaptation and Cultural Innovation in
Africa (ACACIA), International Federation of Landscape
Architects (IFLA), the Islamic Conference Organization
(ICO), the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (ISESCO), The J. Paul Getty Trust, the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), the Organization of
World Heritage Cities (OWHC), the Union Internationale des
architectes (UIA) and the World Monuments Fund (WMF). 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, Dr
Adul Wichiencharoen, (Thailand) opened the session by
thanking the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany,
namely the Minister of State of the German Federal Foreign
Office, Mr Helmut Schäfer, for its generous invitation to
host the nineteenth session of the Committee in Berlin. He
then invited Mr Schäfer to address the Committee on behalf
of the Government of Germany.
I.5 The Minister of State, Mr Helmut Schäfer,
welcomed the delegates and other participants on behalf of
the Federal Government to the nation's capital Berlin and,
more specifically, to the "House of the World's Cultures"
in which the session took place. This building, which was
offered to Berlin by the American people, and the purpose
of which was to familiarize the general public with the
cultural achievements of other nations, was recognized by
UNESCO as Germany's contribution to the World Decade for
*[2]
Cultural Development. Having pointed out its closeness to
some of the city's historical places, the Reichstag and the
Brandenburg Gate, Mr Schäfer stated that nowhere else was
the historical transformation, the end of the Cold War and
the division of Germany and Europe, as tangible and graphic
as it was here.
I.6 Having expressed his belief that the preservation
of the world's cultural and natural heritage is one of
UNESCO's best-known programmes, the Minister of State
pointed out that the German media and public take a keen
interest in these activities. This is reflected, among
other, in the new German television series which presents
100 of the world's outstanding cultural properties through
15-minute programmes. It is also reflected in the
attention given to the World Heritage properties located in
Germany such as the Schloss Sanssouci and Cecilienhof, the
Völklingen Ironworks and other. Protecting the natural
heritage, however, is an area covered by the World Heritage
Convention whose importance is easily underrated and should
therefore become increasingly the focus of the Committee's
attention. It is essential to understand in this sense, Mr
Schäfer underlined, that a culture of peace could be
achieved only through sustainable development. Such
development, however, requires a sparing use of our ever
scarcer natural resources. In view of that, concluded the
Minister of State, Germany sees the Committee's activities
as a central responsibility of UNESCO. The text of Mr
Schäfer's intervention is given in Annex II.
I.7 The Director of the World Heritage Centre, Mr
Bernd von Droste, in his capacity as the Representative of
the Director-General of UNESCO, thanked the Government of
Germany for the excellent arrangements and proceded to read
out the message of the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr
Federico Mayor, addressed to the nineteenth session of the
World Heritage Committee. The full text of the message is
given in Annex III.
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II.1 The Committee adopted the provisional agenda as
amended by the Delegate of Niger, and endorsed by Malta,
proposing that item 6 of the provisional agenda
(Constitution of working groups to examine specific items
on the Committee's agenda) be replaced by a new item:
Report on the decisions taken by the General Assembly of
the States Parties (Tenth session) and by the General
Conference of UNESCO at its 28th session.
*[3]
III. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-
CHAIRPERSONS
III.1 As proposed by the Delegate of the United States
of America, and endorsed by the Delegates of Niger, Japan,
Italy, Lebanon, Canada and France, Mr Horst Winkelmann
(Germany) was elected by acclamation as Chairperson of the
Committee. Mr Lambert Messan (Niger) was elected also by
acclamation as Rapporteur, and the following members of the
Committee were elected as Vice-Chairpersons: Australia,
Italy, Japan, Lebanon and Mexico.
III.2 The newly-elected Chairperson thanked warmly the
outgoing Chairperson, Dr Adul Wichiencharoen, for his
dedicated work in the past year. Having underlined Dr
Wichiencharoen's great experience and passionate commitment
to World Heritage, Dr Winkelmann then outlined the
challenges that lie ahead of the Committee and which can be
met only through a coordinated effort of all parties
concerned. The full text of his speech is given in Annex
III.
IV. REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE
SECRETARIAT SINCE THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION OF THE
COMMITTEE
IV.1 Mr Bernd von Droste, Director of the World
Heritage Centre, reported in his capacity as Secretary of
the Committee on the activities undertaken since the
eighteenth session of the Committee. Referring to
information document WHC-95/CONF.203/INF.5, he limited
himself to highlighting some of the achievements as well as
some of the problems encountered by the Secretariat in the
past twelve months.
IV.2 He first mentioned the adherence of three new
States Parties since the Committee's eighteenth session,
namely those of Latvia, Dominica and the Kyrgyz Republic,
which has brought the total number of States Parties to
143. He touched briefly upon the Centre's co-operation with
the Secretariats of related international conventions,
which is developing successfully. He furthermore mentioned
the situation regarding the tentative lists; the progress
of the work on a global strategy; the situation of the
seventeen sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger; the efforts undertaken by the Centre and a number
of States Parties to develop systematic monitoring and
reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage
properties with full respect for the sovereignty of each
State Party; training, international assistance and
emergency assistance provided in the past year.
IV.3 Highlighting some of the projects undertaken in
each of the regions, Mr von Droste mentioned particularly
the agreement signed in June 1995 by the Director-General
*[4]
of UNESCO and the Government of Norway by which the World
Heritage Office for Nordic countries has been established
with staffing and funding provided by the Nordic countries.
Other promising initiatives include the restoration of the
Old Town of Vilnius in Lithuania, the preparation of a
restoration master plan for the World Heritage sites in
Georgia.
IV.4 In Asia, the application of the Geographical
Information System (GIS) as a tool to enhance site
management; the sustainable tourism development workshop in
Hue, VietNam; the adoption of World Heritage preservation
by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) as a
part of its tourism development programme, as well as the
completion of systematic monitoring carried out in eight
States Parties were reported.
IV.5 The first meeting of Directors of Cultural
Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean, was organized
by the Colombian Institute for Culture (COLCULTURA) and is
developing into a permanent networking on the regional
level, as well as the meeting of site managers of natural
World Heritage sites in collaboration with FAO in October
1995 at the La Amistad World Heritage site in Costa Rica.
IV.6 As regards the Arab States, Mr von Droste
underlined the holding of the seminar "Heritage and
Urbanism", organized in Fez, in January 1995, which was
instrumental in addressing the problems caused by certain
road projects in the Medina. Another successful undertaking
was the expert mission to Egypt to assist the Egyptian
authorities in defining a new route in order to avoid the
Pyramides from Guizeh to Dahshur. The third training
seminar for natural heritage preservation in the Arab
region, held at the Cairo University (Egypt) in June 1995
and attended by experts and managers from sixteen Arab
countries, was also cited as a successful undertaking.
IV.7 Finally, as regards Africa, Mr von Droste stated
that the Centre had been more active than ever. Its efforts
had focused particularly on the preparation of tentative
lists and the ratification process. Lists have now been
submitted by Gambia and Nigeria, and sixteen more were
expected in 1996. He also mentioned the satisfactory
progress of some of the projects such as the restoration of
the three mosques in Timbuktu, Mali, and the conservation
and management of the Royal Palaces of Abomey, Benin.
Likewise, the promotion of regional monitoring for natural
heritage focused in 1995 on the African region as a follow-
up to the meeting for site managers which gathered at
Krüger National Park, in South Africa, in October 1994.
IV.8 Speaking of the budget and financial issues, Mr
von Droste drew the Committee's attention to document WHC-
95/CONF.203/12, the interim financial statement, which
shows that the payment of obligatory contributions under
*[5]
the World Heritage Fund raises considerable concern.
The total outstanding arrears in obligatory and voluntary
contributions amount to more than US$ 3 million. As for the
expenditures of the current biennium, nearly 100% of the
authorized budget had been spent on implementing the
programme. He then paid special tribute to the Centre's
partners in the developing countries for their efforts in
meeting emergency situations affecting cultural and natural
sites. In this regard, Mr von Droste mentioned the Fund's
Emergency Reserve which made it possible to give catalytic
funds to assist the States Parties in mitigating the
damages caused by natural and man-made disasters. However,
this Reserve, which had one million US $ when it was
created by the World Heritage Committee (Cartagena, 1993),
has now gone down to US $ 316,840 and therefore needs
urgent replenishment. Concluding this part of his
presentation, Mr von Droste expressed special gratitude for
the voluntary contributions, over and above the assessed
amount, provided this past year by China, Norway, the
Republic of Korea and Thailand. Appreciation was also
expressed to the non-governmental and private sector
donors, namely the Soka Gakkai of Japan, the American
Express Foundation, the Kobi Graphics of Japan and the
Rhône-Poulenc Foundation.
IV.9 Regarding staff resources, Mr von Droste reminded
the Committee that approximately 60% of the staff costs of
the World Heritage Centre (10 professional posts and 3
General Service posts) are financed under UNESCO's Regular
Programme budget while some 25% of it is covered through
the World Heritage Fund. The remaining 15% are financed
from other sources (mostly the Associate Expert scheme). As
regards those financed by the Fund, he recalled the
Committee's decision, at its session in Phuket, to approve
financing for one year for one senior specialist for
Natural Heritage given the fact that the Centre had so far
only one P-3 post for Natural Heritage. The term of this
senior post had now come to its end. Speaking further, he
acknowledged gratefully the provision of two young
Associate Experts, from Sweden and Japan respectfully, one
Associate Expert (3 months) from the Netherlands and the
funds provided by Austria for a P-3 level specialist for 12
months.
IV.10 Before concluding his report, Mr von Droste
presented briefly also the Centre's achievements in World
Heritage promotion and education. He underlined the success
of the "Young People's Participation in World Heritage
Preservation and Promotion" six-year project, which was
undertaken jointly with the Education Sector and other
partners, such as the Rhône-Poulenc Foundation, ICOMOS,
IUCN and the Organization of World Heritage Cities (WHCO).
He also mentioned accomplishments in the audio-visual area
and in publications such as the ZDF/ARD/NFP and Brockhaus'
104 TV-films, the World Heritage series of books by the
German Stuttgart Verlaghaus and the Spanish-Italian firm
*[6]
Planeta, various publications by INCAFO, the National
Panasonic calendar and other. In this context, Mr von
Droste briefed the Committee also on the results of the
Centre's consultations with the advisory bodies and other
organizations regarding the development of a consolidated
World Heritage Information Network. The Centre's basic
documents are now available on Internet and the World Wide
Web, while they continue to be distributed worldwide also
by conventional means. A detailed report on this was
available to the Committee in Document WHC-
95/CONF.203/INF.10.
V. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE NINETEENTH SESSION
HELD IN 1995 BY THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE, AND THE REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE
TENTH SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES
PARTIES
V.1 In the absence of Mr ZHANG Chongli (China) who
was the Rapporteur of the nineteenth session of the Bureau,
which took place in Paris from 3 to 8 July 1995, the former
Chairperson of the Committee, Dr Adul Wichiencharoen,
accepted to present briefly this report to the Committee.
As the detailed report was available in document WHC-
95/CONF.203/3, he limited himself to outlining the items
discussed by the Bureau, namely: the draft report of the
World Heritage Committee that was presented to the General
Conference of UNESCO at its 28th session; the draft
workplan proposed by the World Heritage Centre for 1996-
1997; the state of conservation reports; examination of the
new proposals for nomination; examination of the World
Heritage Fund: accounts for 1994, and provisions for 1995;
international assistance requests; proposals for improved
working methods of the Committee, revision of the
operational guidelines and items pertaining to the
preparation of the nineteenth session of the Committee.
V.2 The Report of the Tenth session of the General
Assembly of States Parties, held in Paris on 2 and 3
November 1995 was presented by the Rapporteur of the
General Assembly, Mr Janos Jelen (Hungary). A particular
emphasis was placed on paragraph 31 of the Report of the
Tenth General Assembly of States Parties:
"31. As a conclusion, the General Assembly decided to
continue the debate on the systematic monitoring and
reporting on the state of conservation of World
Heritage properties at the eleventh General Assembly
of States Parties that will be held in 1997. The
General Assembly requested the World Heritage
Committee to prepare a report and a proposed
resolution for the eleventh session of the General
Assembly of States Parties taking into acocunt the
discussions and experiences gained over the past years
*[7]
as well as the documents that had been presented to
the Tenth General Assembly and the discussions
thereon."
Mr Jelen, however, underlined that the delicate
relationship between the Committee and the General Assembly
should be handled with care during the implementation of
the decision of the General Assembly.
VI. SETTING UP OF WORKING GROUPS
VI.1 The Chairperson having suggested the setting up
of possibly two working groups in order to facilitate the
work, the Committee decided, on the proposal of Italy
which was endorsed by Japan, Mexico and Niger, to set up
a working group to discuss the International Assistance
requests, and to organize, if necessary, the Committee's
debate on the budget. It was likewise decided that this, as
any other working group, would be open to all delegates and
observers alike.
VI.2 The Committee also decided to create a working
group which would prepare sub-items (a), (b), (c) and (d)
of Agenda item 7 (reports on the state of conservation) for
their subsequent discussion in the Committee in light of
the debate at the Tenth session of the General Assembly of
States Parties. It was also agreed that this working group,
as proposed by Australia, would prepare for the Committee
a set of options on the policy and methodology of
systematic monitoring.
VII. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES
VII.1 The Committee having decided to have during this
session a working group on monitoring and reporting, this
item is reported in two parts:
- Reports on the state of conservation of specific
properties;
- Report of the working group on monitoring and
reporting.
This question also appears in Chapter IX in the framework
of the presentation of the Report of the General Assembly
of States Parties.
REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
VII.2 The Committee examined reports on the state of
conservation of eight natural and seven cultural properties
inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
*[8]
Furthermore, the Committee examined state of conservation
reports on thirteen natural, one mixed cultural and natural
site and nineteen cultural World Heritage sites.
A. NATURAL HERITAGE
A.1 Natural Properties on the List of World Heritage in
Danger
VII.3 Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the
List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 and that the
Bureau at its nineteenth session examined a substantive
state of conservation report, prepared by the Ministry of
Environment of the Republic of Bulgaria.
The Representative of IUCN informed the Committee that a
monitoring mission was undertaken by the Secretariat of the
Ramsar Convention and a detailed monitoring report was
prepared. This report indicates that the new water control
structure allows an inflow of water on a small scale, and
that a small colony of the Dalmatian Pelican had been
reestablished. The integrity of the site, however, has not
yet been adequately restored.
The Committee took note of the report received from the
Ramsar Secretariat and the comments made by IUCN. The
Delegate of France supported the report presented.
The Committee encouraged the Bulgarian authorities in their
continuing efforts to restore the site, including
increasing the water intake and the preparation of a
management plan for the site. The Committee furthermore
requested that a status report be presented in three years
time. Meanwhile, the Committee decided to retain the site
on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.4 Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)
The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the
List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 and that
information was received from both the Permanent Delegation
of the Republic of Croatia to UNESCO and the Croatian
National Commission for UNESCO, indicating that damage from
the period of occupation was evident. The Committee
furthermore noted that the site was reopened to the public
on 10 August 1995 and that the Chairperson of the World
Heritage Committee approved a request for emergency
assistance (communications equipment) for an amount of US$
30,000. Upon the granting of US$ 30,000, the State Party
agreed to provide a contribution of US$ 60,000 for a total
of US$ 90,000. The Centre informed the Committee that a
management and planning meeting for the Park is scheduled
for spring 1996.
*[9]
The Committee took note of the report presented by the
Secretariat and commended the State Party for its special
contribution and endorsed the management and planning
meeting for the Park scheduled for spring 1996. The
Committee decided to retain the site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger until the region stabilizes.
VII.5 Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1983 and placed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger in 1992 due to threats from poachers,
boundary encroachment and unplanned road construction. It
took note of the preliminary report by INEFAN (Instituto
Ecuatoriano Forestal y de Areas Naturales y Vida Silvestre)
on the environmental impact of the construction of the
Guamote-Macas road in the Park, and an extensive report of
October 1995 provided by the IUCN Office in Ecuador. This
report indicates that the road continues to be the main
threat and has caused irreversible damage to the natural
environment, both through direct (pollution, dynamite use,
loss of biological corridors etc.) and indirect impacts
(new settlements, poaching, cattle ranching etc.).
The Delegate of Ecuador provided further information on the
situation at the site, underlining that measures are being
taken to modify the situation and to reduce the impacts. He
emphasised that the State Party will make more efforts to
halt the damage in the future.
The Committee commended the State Party for the reports
provided, however, expressed its continuing concerns about
the construction work causing negative environmental
impacts. It requested the Centre to send a letter to the
Minister for the Environment for an environmental impact
study and to urge the State Party to take steps to ensure
much stricter environmental regulations. The Committee
furthermore, requested the Centre to write to INEFAN
commending them for their actions for modifications of the
road, the tenure study and the initiative for an updated
management plan. The Committee decided to retain on the
List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.6 Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte
d'Ivoire)
The Committee recalled that the site was included on the
List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 because of
negative impacts from a proposed iron-ore mining project
and threats due to the arrival of a large number of
refugees from neighbouring countries. It furthermore
recalled that an extensive report was presented to the
Bureau at its nineteenth session in July 1995.
*[10]
The Committee noted that in response to the Bureau's
request for clarifications on the legal protection and
classification of the site, the Ministry for Energy and
Environment, by letter of 15 September 1995, indicated that
the Government had taken several measures to develop and
protect the site. This included the creation of a
Management Centre, "Centre de Gestion de l'Environnement
des Monts Nimba (CEGEN)", responsible for all environmental
and legal questions, as well as the international
classification of the site, the monitoring of the water
quality in the region and integrated rural development and
socio-economic studies.
The Committee commended the States Parties for their
efforts. Given the uncertainties and the shortcomings in
on-site management, the Committee decided to retain the
site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.7 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The IUCN Representative informed the Committee that recent
information on the site indicates that the civil unrest
continues to restrict management efforts. Habitat
conditions in a portion of Manas were still intact, but
numbers of large fauna species were particularly low due to
commercial poaching.
The Committee recalled that it had on numerous occasions
expressed its concerns on the state of conservation of the
site and requested the State Party to provide detailed
information.
The Committee took note of the intervention by the Observer
of India regarding Manas Wildlife Sanctuary and welcomed
the offer of the Government of India to provide a detailed
report on the state of conservation of the site. The
Committee recalled and thanked the Government of India for
its invitation to representatives of the World Heritage
Committee to undertake a mission to New Delhi, Assam and
Manas, for discussions and to visit the site. The Committee
requested the Centre to cooperate with the Indian
authorities in arranging for this visit as soon as possible
and report back to the twentieth session of the World
Heritage Committee.
VII.8 Aïr-et-Ténéré Reserve (Niger)
The Committee recalled that at the request of the Niger
authorities, the site was inscribed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger in 1992 as it was affected by civil
disturbances. A Peace Accord was signed in October 1994.
The Delegate of Niger took the floor and recommended that
an evaluation mission be organized to review the situation
at the site.
*[11]
Meanwhile, the Committee decided that the site would remain
on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The situation
will be reviewed by the Committee at its twentieth session
in the light of information provided by the mission.
VII.9 Everglades National Park (United States of
America)
The Committee recalled that 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 World Heritage List in 1979 and that
Federal State and local governments, as well as private
foundations, had joined forces in providing significant
financial support for the management of the site and its
long-term restoration.
The World Heritage Centre presented a monitoring report,
received from the State Party in November 1995, indicating
that the rehabilitation of the Everglades ecosystem
(restoration of water regime) would take 17 years at a cost
of US$ 2 billion. The Committee commended the State Party
for the actions taken to redress the situation.
The Committee, however, concluded that the site remains
seriously threatened and decided that it be retained on the
List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.10 Virunga National Park (Zaire)
The Committee recalled that Virunga National Park was
included on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the
last session of the World Heritage Committee in December
1994, due to the tragic events in Rwanda and the subsequent
massive influx of refugees from that country. It noted that
the site is seriously threatened by the uncontrolled
arrival of refugees, causing deforestation and poaching at
the site.
The Committee took note of the reports provided both by the
Secretariat and IUCN, as well as the responses received by
the Ministry for the Environment of Zaire on the concerns
raised by the Bureau at its nineteenth session. The
Committee also took note that the European Union, the
International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP) and
UNHCR are currently carrying out projects mainly to
strengthen the management of the site.
The Committee, taking into account the presence of
thousands of refugees in and adjacent to Virunga, expressed
its serious concerns about the continuing degradation of
the Park and decided to retain the site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested the
Centre to support the work of IGCP and other organizations
*[12]
and asked both the Centre and IUCN to continue to liaise
with various donors and agencies. It requested the Centre
to organize a mission to the site and asked that a report
be provided to the twentieth session of the World Heritage
Bureau.
A.2. Natural Properties on the World Heritage List
VII.11 Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia)
The Committee recalled that this mixed site was inscribed
on the World Heritage List in 1982 and that the Bureau at
its eighteenth session in July 1994, discussed reports
received on logging operations in areas adjacent to the
World Heritage area. It furthermore recalled that two
concerns were raised: (a) that there is forested land
outside the site which may have World Heritage values, and
(b) that logging and roading activities adjacent to the
site could have an adverse impact on the existing World
Heritage site.
The Committee noted that the national authorities have
provided information to the effect that negotiations to
alleviate possible impacts are still underway.
The Committee, took note of the action by the State Party
to strengthen the protection of the site and that
negotiations were still underway, and requested the Centre
to contact the State Party to obtain a report on the
situation as soon as possible.
VII.12 Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)
The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed in 1984
(extension in 1990) and took note of the report presented
by IUCN. The report underlines the infrastructural
development of the "Bow Corridor", which is intensely used
and developed. The Canadian authorities have set up a task
force to look into this issue and the ecological integrity
of the site. The Delegate of Canada took the floor and
underlined that the Government of Canada recognizes the
importance to study the problem and invited IUCN to
cooperate with the task force by making submissions through
its Canadian office. She furthermore emphasized that the
results of the study will be brought to the attention of
the Committee.
The Committee requested IUCN and the Centre to cooperate
with the Canadian authorities and asked to be kept informed
of the findings of the Bow Valley Task Force and its
implication on the future of this part of the Canadian
Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage site.
*[13]
VII.13 Galapagos National Park (Ecuador)
The Committee took note of a report presented by IUCN on
the site. This report outlined, while acknowledging efforts
by the Ecuadorian authorities concerning legislation and
cooperation with local authorities, the threats this site
is currently facing. These are mainly:
(a) threats to the terrestrial biodiversity with the
introduction of species of vertebrate animals endangering
endemic flora and fauna, as well as the growing human
population, which has severe impacts for example for solid
waste disposal,
(b) threats to the marine biodiversity with illegal and
increasing export fisheries (lobsters, sea cucumbers,
sharks, tuna, etc.).
Action should be sought to solve the problems of
immigration, of introduction of foreign species, to obtain
more funding, to prepare a strong management strategy and
its effective implementation for both the terrestrial and
marine habitats as well as to control tourism.
The Representative of IUCN concluded that in light of the
serious threat of species introduction and increasing
population the Committee may wish to consider to place the
site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Delegate of Ecuador took the opportunity to explain the
situation at the site and presented a letter to the
Committee outlining the Ecuadorian position regarding the
situation of the Galapagos.
He underlined:
(a) the inadequate legal and administrative structure, the
population growth, the illegal fishing in the Marine
Resources Reserve of the Galapagos, unbalanced tourist
activities and the impact of foreign species introduced to
the island;
(b) that Galapagos - according to scientists - continues to
be an exceptional treasure of the world from which no
species has been lost;
(c) that the global community make a precise and objective
diagnostic of the situation in the light of available
information;
(d) that numerous measures to safeguard the Galapagos have
been taken, including constitutional reforms, management
plans and international assistance projects by GEF, UNDP,
USAID and others.
*[14]
He concluded that the site should not be placed on the List
of World Heritage in Danger.
The Director of the Centre offered that assistance be given
to the Galapagos National Park as one of the precious sites
of worldwide significance, which deserves special
attention. After considerable discussion on the issue of
placing the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger by
the Delegates of Germany, the United States, Canada, Niger,
Cuba and Australia, the Chairperson requested that the
Delegates of Australia and Ecuador work out a proposal to
be presented to the Committee.
The Committee reviewed the text proposed jointly by the
Delegates of Australia and Ecuador.
The Delegate of the United States recalled the Articles 77-
90 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of
the World Heritage Convention and underlined, while
recognizing the sensitivities of this question, the
Committee should consider the threats to the site. The
Delegate of Germany supported this remark and suggested to
create an ad hoc aid commission for the Galapagos as
international assistance would be needed. The Delegate of
Niger supported the suggestions made by the United States
and Germany, and underlined that international help would
be needed in this case. The Delegate of Japan proposed to
review point 3 of the text concerning actors operating in
the area.
The Delegate of Ecuador thanked the Delegate of Germany for
his suggestion of an aid committee, but however emphasized,
that this would be an issue to be decided by his
Government. Ecuador would be grateful for any help through
official channels. He furthermore underlined that the
proposed text was a consensus text and that it should be
adopted.
The Chairperson, taking note of the concerns raised by
Ecuador, asked the Committee to adopt the following text by
vote. (14 Delegates voted for the text and there were 5
abstentions):
1. The Committee notes the five greatest problems
threatening the conservation of the Galapagos Islands
identified in the statement presented by the Delegate
of Ecuador.
2. The Committee also notes the various legal and
technical efforts made by the State Party to overcome
these problems.
3. The Committee takes note of the State Party's opinion
that some of the threats to the Galapagos have been
caused by international factors, such as overfishing
*[15]
by foreign fleets for foreign markets, and seeks
international cooperation in reducing these threats.
4. The Committee also agrees with the State Party that
tourism to the site should focus on education,
photography, observation and appreciation of heritage
values.
5. The Committee recommends that the Director of the
World Heritage Centre accepts the invitation from the
State Party to visit the Galapagos Islands, with the
Chairperson of the Committee and appropriate technical
advisors, to discuss the pressures on and present
condition of the World Heritage site and to identify
steps to overcome the problems.
6. The Committee invites the State Party and the Director
to report on the outcome of the visit for further
consideration by the Bureau at its twentieth session,
including the question of whether or not the property
should, at that stage, be recommended for inclusion on
the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.14 Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its nineteenth
session took note of a report received from the Fundación
Rio Platano concerning the site, inscribed on the World
Heritage List in 1982. The report concerned the
agricultural intrusion at the south and western borders of
the site and on the land reform programme and its
implementation in north-eastern Honduras. The Bureau at its
nineteenth session requested IUCN to verify the situation
and to report back to the nineteenth session of the World
Heritage Committee. Subsequently, the Centre received a
letter from the Minister for the Environment requesting a
mission to the site to evaluate the situation.
The mission was carried out by the IUCN Regional Office
based in Costa Rica in November 1995. The report of the
mission outlines the major threats and concludes with
eleven follow-up actions, including the inscription of the
site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Committee took note of the report and requested the
Centre to contact the authorities to obtain an official
letter on the actions to be taken to protect the site.
VII.15 Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
The Committee took note that a mission to consider the
state of conservation of Komodo National Park took place in
July 1995 under the leadership of the Chair of the
Indonesian World Heritage Committee, accompanied by
*[16]
representatives of the national authorities and the UNESCO
Office in Jakarta. The Committee expressed its concern for
the four officials of the Indonesian World Heritage
Committee still missing at sea after a tragic accident
during the course of a monitoring mission to Komodo. The
Committee paid tribute to their dedication to the cause of
World Heritage protection and preservation.
VII.16 Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its last session
took note of the report on the site, presented by the IUCN
Representative, indicating that the Mitsubishi Corporation
in partnership with the Mexican Government, has a project
to convert a part of the lagoon into salt ponds for
industrial salt production. A one-mile long pier is
proposed, which could disturb the grey whales within the
lagoon. The Committee noted that no response has yet been
received to a letter written to the authorities indicating
the concerns raised at the nineteenth session of the
Bureau. The Delegate of Mexico took the floor and informed
the Committee that the project is still under study.
VII.17 Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
The Committee recalled that at its eighteenth session it
requested IUCN to present to the Bureau an evaluation of
the revised boundaries of this site, based on the report of
the consultant working on the plan for the area. The World
Heritage Centre informed the Committee that it has received
a "Preliminary Land Use and Management Plan" of November
1995 which the Centre has transmitted to IUCN for review.
VII.18 Tongariro National Park (New Zealand)
The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed under
natural criteria on the World Heritage List in 1990 and as
a cultural landscape in 1993. The Centre informed the
Committee that it received information from a member of the
local Maori community about the dropping of 1080 poison on
Mount Tongariro to combat the possum browse which threatens
indigenous flora, and that the Department of Conservation
had held consultations with the community, which agreed to
a time-limited operation, which would not contaminate
waterways. The Committee took note of the report.
VII.19 Huascaran National Park (Peru)
The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1985 and that a report on the site
was presented to the nineteenth session of the Bureau. In
addition, the IUCN Representative informed the Committee
*[17]
about (a) the need for an inventory of cultural heritage
within the Park to be undertaken, and (b) road proposals
which might become a serious threat to the integrity of the
World Heritage site.
The Committee thanked the Peruvian authorities for the
arrangements made to facilitate the IUCN mission to the
Huascaran National Park World Heritage site.
The Committee commended the commitment of the Chief of
Huascaran National Park and the Director-General of
Protected Natural Areas and Wildlife for their stewardship
of the site.
The Committee, however, expressed concern at the low level
of financial support for the site's management and urged
the authorities to allocate additional resources in
recognition of the importance of the Park as a World
Heritage site and its value for education and tourism.
The Committee recommended that an archaeological/historical
heritage inventory be compiled to facilitate conservation
of the cultural elements of the site.
The Committee noted with concern reports that there are
proposals to develop roads within the site and invited the
Peruvian authorities to provide clarification on this
issue.
VII.20 Skocjan Caves (Slovenia)
The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1986 and took note of the report by
IUCN on the field mission outlining that the size of the
site had been expanded from 200 to 400 ha to better control
the surface area of the underground caves. Actions by the
State Party included expenditure of US$ 22 million on
upstream pollution control, strengthening legislation,
consideration of a buffer zone and proposals for new park
offices and visitor facilities. The Delegate of Germany
asked for clarification concerning the extended boundaries
of the site.
The Committee commended the Slovenian authorities for
taking significant actions to protect the site. The
Committee requested the Centre to contact the authorities
to provide a map of the revised boundaries and to encourage
the State Party to finalize the new legislation and to
begin the preparation of a management plan.
VII.21 Redwood National Park (United States of America)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its nineteenth
session reviewed a preliminary monitoring report and
*[18]
further information on the proposed realignment of Highway
101 near Cushing Creek in Del Norte County to correct
safety and operational problems. The World Heritage Centre
informed the Committee about new information received from
the State Party that the proposed realignment of Highway
101 through Redwood National Park, as described in a new
alternative by the California Department of Transportation,
will result in the removal of no more than five coniferous
trees including redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) greater
than 36 inches in diameter. The modification of the
original proposal, in which 750 old-growth redwoods would
be removed, illustrates a success in protecting World
Heritage values and integrity.
The Committee commended the State Party for the action
taken to prevent the destruction of about 750 redwood trees
requested that the World Heritage Centre be kept informed
of future developments with respect to the project.
VII.22 Yellowstone National Park (United States of
America)
The Committee recalled that Yellowstone National Park was
inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1978 and that it is
the first National Park in the world. It furthermore
recalled that the Bureau discussed the potential threats to
Yellowstone at its last session in July 1995. The Bureau
had requested a joint mission to the site to review the
situation. The mission was carried out in September 1995 by
the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee,
representatives of the World Heritage Centre, and a
representative of IUCN's Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas (CNPPA). During this mission, three days of
public discussions took place and many technical reports
were received from industry, governments and NGOs.
The Representative of the United States noted that the
Assistant Secretary of the Interior, in a letter dated 27
June 1995, wrote that "the Committee should be informed
that the property as inscribed on the World Heritage List
is in danger." In a follow-up letter dated 1 December 1995,
the Assistant Secretary provided an update on the
situation. The Representative of the United States further
noted that the State Party is taking a number of positive
steps to address key issues. The National Environment
Policy Act (NEPA) requires a thorough and detailed
environmental impact study (EIS), of the mine proposal by
a multi-national corporate consortium.
At the moment nine possible alternatives are being
considered. The EIS draft is expected in late January 1996
and further public and government review will last another
year. He stated that the State Party does not consider
action by the Committee to be an intervention in domestic
law or policy. The State Party agreed to keep the Committee
fully informed with respect to actions to be taken.
*[19]
During the site visit it became clear that threats to the
Park were ascertained in relation to endemic Yellowstone
cut-throat trout as well as with respect to the sewage
leakage and wastes contamination in certain areas of the
Park. Other issues were related to road construction and
year-round visitor pressures. In addition, potential
threats included impacts on the quantity and quality of
surface and ground-water and other past and proposed mine-
related activities. A potential threat to the bison
population is related to proposed control measures to
eradicate brucellosis in the herds. The State Party noted
that all of these concerns would be thoroughly analyzed and
mitigation measures and management plans developed as
appropriate. Corrective actions will be taken as
necessary.
During the discussion it was noted that whether the State
Party should grant a permit to the mining company or not is
entirely a domestic decision of the State Party. It was
further stated that there is no wording in the Convention
or the Operational Guidelines which could lead to an
interference in sovereignty. It was also noted that even if
the State Party did not request action, the Committee still
had an independent responsibility to take action based on
the information it had gathered. The Convention was
referred to as an emergent tool to assist all States
Parties in conservation.
After considerable discussion the Committee decided the
following:
On the basis of both ascertained dangers and potential
dangers, the Committee decided that Yellowstone National
Park be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and
that the Committee should request continuing reports on the
results of the EIS and mitigating actions being taken to
ensure in due course the removal of the site from the List
of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.23 Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1994 and took note of a report
presented by IUCN. The report outlines two potential
threats to the site: (a) a new port is to be developed in
the Bay which would route large transport ships through the
site, and (b) a license for a large floating hotel at the
site which would have further impacts on the heavy tourist
pressures in the Bay.
The Delegate of Japan provided further information
concerning financial support for the project from Japanese
aid agencies for an amount of US$ 100 million. He
underlined that the case is still under consideration and
that ecological impacts of this project will be evaluated.
*[20]
The final decision has not been made, however, the project
is seen as important for the further economic development
of Vietnam. The Delegate of Canada outlined the problem of
private companies involved and referred to Article 6.3 of
the World Heritage Convention, that "Each State Party to
this Convention undertakes not to take any deliberate
measures which might damage directly or indirectly the
cultural and natural heritage ... situated on the territory
of other States Parties to this Convention." She inquired
if an intervention could be made to mitigate the threats to
the site.
The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to
contact the Vietnamese authorities for further information
on the potential threats and the measures being taken to
ensure that they are minimized.
B. MIXED NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
B.1 Mixed Natural and Cultural Properties on the World
Heritage List
VII.24 Willandra Lakes Region (Australia)
The Committee took note of a new boundary proposal which
will reduce the total area by about thirty percent. The
Committee decided to take this issue up under item VIII
"Nominations".
CULTURAL HERITAGE
C.1 Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger
VII.25 Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin)
In accordance with the recommendation adopted by the Bureau
at its eighteenth session in July 1995, the Committee was
informed of a mission organized by the World Heritage
Centre to Abomey to complete and update the nomination
documents and prepare a state of conservation report. The
mission recommended to the authorities concerned:
1) to identify more precisely the boundaries of the
site and enhance the respect of the buffer zone
which should take into account the enclosing
walls and the old entrance doors;
2) establish a global conservation and management
plan which should take account of the fragility
of the material and immaterial structures;
3) foresee a management structure under the
authority of the Cultural Heritage Directorate
*[21]
and in which the partners involved in the
enhancement of the site, notably representatives
of the Royal families and the development
associations would be participating.
The Committee took note of the recommendations contained in
the report and commended the Benin authorities and invited
them to prepare, in cooperation with CRATerre - EAG and
ICCROM, a conservation and management plan to be presented
to the World Heritage Committee at its twentieth session
(December 1997) at the latest. The Committee decided to
maintain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.26 Angkor (Cambodia)
The Secretariat recalled that at the time of inscription of
Angkor on the List of World Heritage and on the List in
Danger at the sixteenth session of the World Heritage
Committee in Santa Fe, on 14 December 1992, the Committee
set forth five obligations it requested the Cambodian
authorities to fulfil within a period of three years. This
period coming to its term at the end of December this year,
H.E. Mr Vann Molyvann, Minister of State of the Royal
Government of Cambodia, took the floor at the invitation of
the Chairperson to inform the Committee on the progress
made in the fulfillment of these commitments since his last
detailed report to the eighteenth session of the Committee
last year.
Noting that three of the Committee's requests, i.e. the
establishment of permanent boundaries; establishment of
meaningful buffer zones; and establishment of monitoring
and the coordination of international conservation effort,
have been accomplished in 1994, the Minister reported that
in 1995, the Authority for the Protection of the Site and
the Development of the region of Angkor (APSARA) was
officially established by Royal Kret (decree) on 19
February 1995. Having thus completed the fourth request set
out by the Committee, Mr Vann Molyvann, stated that the
last obligation, that of the enactment of adequate
protective legislation will soon be met. A very complete
corpus of laws on cultural protection and related matters
drawn up with the support of UNESCO and other international
partners, which have been approved by the Council of
Ministers, is expected to be enacted by the National
Assembly before the end of December.
The Committee thanked the Observer from Cambodia for his
detailed report and congratulated the Cambodian authorities
on the progress which has been made, under difficult
circumstances, to safeguard the Angkor World Heritage Site
and to meet the recommendations made by the Committee in
this regard during its 16th Session in Sante Fe (1992).
The Committee also recognized the contribution made by
those States Parties which have responded to the UNESCO
*[22]
Director-General's appeal for the safeguarding of Angkor.
In particular the Committee commended the achievements made
to date to define precise boundaries for the site and its
buffer zones, to establish a national protection authority
and to set-up a mechanism for the coordination of
international assistance. The Committee noted that the
legal protection which has been given to the site under
Royal Decree has been adopted by the Royal Cambodian
Government and is under consideration by Parliament. The
Committee invited the Cambodian authorities to provide
information at its next session of the follow-up to the
legal process. Recognizing the still-prevailing
exceptional conditions at the site, the Committee decided
to retain Angkor on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.27 Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia)
The Committee, having taken note of the difficulties which
hindered the execution of the programme for which it had
approved funds in 1994, requested the Secretariat to
continue monitoring its implementation and to present a
progress report to the Bureau at its twentieth session. The
Committee decided to retain this property on the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
VII.28 Timbuktu (Mali)
The Committee was informed of the state of progress of the
pilot project for the preservation of the three mosques of
Timbuktu inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The first phase, which was carried out by the national
authorities, will be followed in 1995 by the intervention
of experts from ICCROM and CRATerre - EAG. This second
phase should receive support from the World Heritage Fund.
Having noted that the Mali authorities granted emergency
assistance from the national budget to finance conservation
work, the Committee endorsed the launching of a pilot
project. It commended the Mali Government for its
commitment in defining a coherent conservation policy,
adapted to each one of the mosques, and for having financed
emergency work. The Committee decided to maintain this
property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.29 Bahla Fort (Oman)
The Committee was informed that since its eighteenth
session two expert missions had visited the site. The
observations and recommendations of the first mission are
set out in a Consolidated Report transmitted to the
national authorities, confirming that the work being
carried out was of a clearly "renovation" type, risking to
irremediably compromise the authenticity of this historic
*[23]
monument. The second mission, carried out from 27 May to
11 June 1995, with the financial support of Oman, by a
specialist in mud-brick architecture, provided valuable
advice on the methods and choice of material to be used. It
also noted the involvement of the national authorities in
the safeguarding of the authenticity of the monument and
the neighbouring buildings.
The Committee thanked the Omani authorities for their
active collaboration with UNESCO towards the preservation
of Bahla Fort. They particularly appreciated their
willingness to follow the advice of the experts,
specialists in mud-brick architecture, who were sent to the
site. This action seemed to be the only way to preserve
the authenticity of the monument, to which continued
importance is accorded. It thanked the authorities for
their financial support towards the safeguarding of this
heritage and recommended that the outer mosque and the
ancient residence of the Governor be also considered for
restoration in accordance with the international
recommendations for the preservation of authenticity.
The Committee suggested to the Omani authorities that a
further mission of two experts be organized in 1996 under
the same cost-sharing conditions, in order to evaluate the
work and the state of conservation of the monument and to
examine whether Bahla Fort may be removed from the List of
World Heritage in Danger in the future. The Committee
requested the Secretariat to present a report on this at
its twentieth session.
VII.30 Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)
The Committee decided to wait for the results of the
assessment of the conservation policies and practices at
the Chan Chan Archaeological Zone, to be undertaken in the
context of the course on adobe conservation that will be
held at Chan Chan, in late 1996. The Committee decided to
retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.31 Wieliczka Salt Mines (Poland)
The Committee took note of the information provided by the
Secretariat that UNESCO had taken all the necessary
measures for the implementation of the technical
cooperation project that was approved by the World Heritage
Committee at its eighteenth session but that it had not
received to date the consent of the Polish authorities as
to UNESCO's proposals regarding the purchase of the
equipment. In the absence of any further clarification from
the State Party concerned, the Delegate of the United
States of America informed the Committee that the Polish
authorities had just recently communicated to his country
that they had received additional funds from the Marie
*[24]
Curie Fund and that the purchase of the equipment would
soon be forthcoming. The Committee thereupon requested the
Secretariat to take the necessary measures for the prompt
implementation of the assistance and to keep the Committee
informed of its results. The Committee decided to retain
the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger until the
results and a report of the impact of the equipment on the
conditions of the site are known.
C.2 Cultural Properties on the World Heritage List
VII.32 Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria)
The Committee was informed of the Algerian authorities'
firm intention to continue their efforts in preserving the
World Heritage values of the Kasbah of Algiers, and that
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had sent to the World
Heritage Centre a "Report on the Actions for the
Safeguarding of the Kasbah for 1995", in accordance with
the request of the Committee during the inscription of the
site in 1992.
The Committee thanked the Algerian Government for having
provided the information concerning the high priority given
to this site and the actions foreseen for its restoration.
VII.33 City of Potosi (Bolivia)
The Committee took note of the information provided by the
Secretariat on the potential degradation of the Cerro Rico
mountain by continued mining operations. Considering that
the Cerro Rico forms an integral part of the World Heritage
site, the Committee invited the Bolivian authorities to
inform the Secretariat of the measures it has taken for its
preservation and management.
VII.34 Memphis and its Necropolis -- the Pyramid Fields
from Giza to Dahshur (Egypt)
It was recalled that the Committee had been informed during
its eighteenth session in Phuket of the very serious
problems which threatened the site. Following an exchange
of correspondence between the Director-General of UNESCO,
the Government of Egypt and the World Heritage Committee,
a UNESCO expert mission visited Egypt from 1 to 6 April
1995, at the invitation of the national authorities. Its
terms of reference were to propose safeguarding measures
for the World Heritage site of the Pyramid Fields from Giza
to Dahshur, after studying with the Egyptian authorities
the possibilities of adopting a new route for the motorway
under construction, which at that time cut across the site,
as well as for other threats.
*[25]
The Committee was informed that after in-depth discussions
and field visits, an agreement was reached with all parties
concerned with regard to the choice of a new route for the
motorway completely avoiding the World Heritage site, the
suppression of the two refuse dumps, the halting of all new
housing constructions at Kafr-el-Gabal and the suppression
of numerous encroachments on the site and its buffer zone.
The UNESCO mission report was transmitted to the Bureau
during its nineteenth session in July 1995.
Following the proposal of the Delegate of Germany, the
Committee decided to write to the Egyptian authorities
regarding this World Heritage site and that of Islamic
Cairo. This text appears further in this report.
VII.35 Islamic Cairo (Egypt)
The Committee was informed that precise and concordant
information from several sources was brought to the
attention of UNESCO that the restoration work at the three
Fatimid mosques of Al Aqmar, Al-Guyushi and Lu-lu-a (among
the most ancient in Cairo dating from the 11th and 12th
centuries), carried out by the Bohra community had in fact
resulted in the destruction of most of their historic
elements and an almost total reconstruction, causing the
loss of their authenticity and World Heritage values. In
fact, the plaster, woodwork and ancient painted walls,
inside and outside, have been destroyed and replaced by new
material, concrete has been used as a substitute for the
old structures, and even the shape and configuration of the
monuments have been completely transformed, in breadth and
height, through the addition of levels and rooms.
Furthermore, the traditional techniques have been totally
ignored.
A report was requested in June 1995 from the Supreme
Council of Antiquities, but had not been received by the
beginning of the nineteenth session of the Committee.
The Committee therefore requested the Secretariat to
transmit to the Egyptian authorities the forllowing text
concerning the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur and the
Islamic Cairo:
Having noted the results of the mission of the UNESCO
experts invited by the Government of Egypt, from 1 to 6
April 1995, to assist in identifying measures to ensure the
conservation of the World Heritage site of the Pyramid
Fields from Giza to Dahshur, the Committee congratulated
and thanked the Egyptian authorities for the decisions
taken to date and for the action already undertaken:
1) the choice of a new route passing north of the
World Heritage site for the highway link to the
*[26]
ring-road, which will follow, once the necessary
detailed studies are available, either the
Mariouteyya Canal, the Mansoureyya Canal, or both
of them;
2) work already undertaken to improve one of the
rubbish dumps and the work foreseen to abolish
the second;
3) actions to halt all further housing construction
at Kafr-el-Gabal and to eliminate, in the coming
years, the unauthorized buildings and roads
encroaching on the buffer zone of the World
Heritage site.
It requested them to examine carefully, with the
authorities concerned, the relocation of the different
military camps and army factories which encroach upon the
site and its buffer zone.
It requested the Egyptian authorities to keep the Committee
informed, through its Secretariat, of the progress made in
the implementation of the safeguarding measures already
undertaken or foreseen, amd more particularly the question
concerning the encroachment of military camps on the World
Heritage site and its buffer zone.
However, the Committee regarded the renovation and
reconstruction works which have destroyed the authenticity
of the three Fatimid mosques of Al Aqmar, Al-Guyushi and
Lu-lu-a, situated within the World Heritage site of Islamic
Cairo, with grave concern. It drew the attention of the
Egyptian authorities to Articles 4 and 5 of the World
Heritage Convention by which States Parties should
endeavour to ensure the protection and conservation of
their heritage, and that this conservation should be
carried out in accordance with international standards,
such as the Charter of Venice, in order to ensure respect
of authenticity. It also recalled Article 24(b) of the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention regarding the respect of authenticity
of inscribed properties, and requested that, in the future,
the authorities should conform to Article 58, inviting
States Parties to inform the Committee, through the UNESCO
Secretariat, of their intention to undertake or to
authorize in an area protected under the Convention, major
restorations or new constructions.
It finally reminded the Egyptian authorities that UNESCO is
always willing to provide, whenever necessary,
international expert advice prior to any restoration work
and those who are sent on a regular basis to the site, are
at their entire disposal to provide advice whenever
necessary.
*[27]
VII.36 Churches of Lalibela (Ethiopia)
The project for the "Restoration and Preservation of the
Churches of Lalibela" was conceived and formulated in the
framework of the International Campaign for the
Conservation and Preservation of the Monuments of Ethiopia,
and implemented by the Division of Cultural Heritage. It
illustrates the complementarity and the dynamism of the
activities carried out for heritage by the UNESCO
Secretariat as a whole. This project, which receives
support from the European Union and the Finnish Ministry of
the Environment, will establish on the basis of extremely
precise diagnostics, a conservation and maintenance
programme for each of the churches and will propose a plan
for the rehabilitation and preservation of the entire site.
This project will also define an action programme which
will take into account its environmental dimension.
The Committee congratulated the Ethiopian authorities for
their efforts which have led to a restoration and
conservation project for the entire site, which takes
account of its environmental dimension.
VII.37 Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
The Committee took note of the report provided by the
Secretariat and invited the German authorities to provide
a full state of conservation report on the site, including
statements concerning legal protection, current planning
and development of Potsdam, as well as information on
possible extensions of the site and/or buffer zones
adjacent to the site.
VII.38 Borobudur (Indonesia)
The Committee noted with appreciation the submission of the
state of conservation reports on Borobudur and Prambanan,
both inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1991 and
commended the Indonesian World Heritage Committee for the
importance it has attached to the systematic monitoring
exercise and rapid completion of the state of conservation
reports on the cultural properties.
With regard to Borobudur, the Committee expressed its wish
to receive the detailed plan of the "sound and light"
theatre at this site, prior to its construction in view of
the important universal cultural values that need to be
maintained at this World Heritage site.
VII.39 Meidan Emam of Isfahan (Iran)
The Secretariat informed the Committee that it received the
draft report of a mission carried out in September 1995 to
*[28]
assess the state of conservation of the Meidan Eman of
Isfahan by the Iranian Cultural Organization in association
with ICCROM following the concern raised by the Bureau in
July 1995 on the impact of the new road projects on this
site. The Committee took note of this and decided to study
the reports at the next Bureau meeting before formulating
its recommendations.
VII.40 Petra (Jordan)
The Secretariat recalled that during its eighteenth
session, the Committee was informed of the different
threats (hotel constructions near the site, insufficient
waste water evacuation systems, uncontrolled urban
development, proliferation of shops) menacing the
preservation of the integrity of the site.
It informed the Committee that by letter of 13 March, the
Permanent Delegation of Jordan had sent the Centre a
proposal for an extension of the site under the name Petra
Natural and Archaeological Park, which was subsequently
withdrawn pending completion of the proposal. Furthermore,
by letter of 18 March, the Minister of Tourism and
Antiquities had informed the Centre of a certain number of
measures undertaken to improve the protection of the site:
limiting the daily intake of visitors and horses,
improvement of sanitary arrangements, regrouping of street
stalls, recruitment of a refuse team, creation of a centre
for stone conservation and a team to study rock erosion,
the improvement of some sites through descriptive panels
and trails, establishment of a special bureau to follow up
these different projects.
On 14 September the Director of the UNESCO Office in Amman
was informed by the Ministry of Antiquities and Tourism,
that the Jordanian authorities were also fully aware of the
problems caused by the construction of new hotels and that
the deliverance of building permits had been halted. The
Minister had emphasized the importance of establishing
zoning regulations and guidelines for constructions at Wadi
Musa which would be prepared with assistance from The World
Bank.
If several of the short-term recommendations contained in
the Management Plan had already been implemented, the long-
term recommendations will be the subject of further
studies. A Regional Planning Council for the Petra Region
was established, chaired by the Minister of Antiquities and
Tourism. It is responsible for all action in the region,
including that for Petra. A Technical Committee was
established to draw up the zoning regulations, as the first
step towards the creation of an independent authority for
the site.
*[29]
The Committee thanked the Jordanian authorities and in
particular the Minister of Antiquities and Tourism, for all
their efforts and the measures undertaken to ensure the
long-term preservation of Petra. It gave them its full
approval to proceed as quickly as possible with the
establishment of zoning regulations and construction
guidelines in order to avoid the proliferation of hotels
and buildings, as well as the setting up of an independent
local protection and management body endowed with the
necessary authority. It invited them to continue to devote
their efforts towards the active implementation of the
Petra Management Plan prepared with the help of UNESCO
experts, and to the extension of this World Heritage site,
with the necessary means for ensuring its preservation. It
invited the national authorities to keep the Committee
informed by April next, through its Secretariat, of
progress accomplished.
VII.41 Vilnius Historic Centre (Lithuania)
The Committee took note of the report on the comprehensive
rehabilitation programme for the City. It commended the
Government of Lithuania and the municipal authorities of
Vilnius for their timely and appropriate initiative.
VII.42 Ihle de Mozambique (Mozambique)
The Committee was informed that the World Heritage Centre
undertook a mission last July in order to:
- define the necessary measures to prepare an
integrated rehabilitation programme for the Ihle;
- establish the list of urgent conservation work.
The report of this mission was discussed last November in
Paris, with the Minister of Culture who asked the Director-
General of UNESCO for a Funds-in-Trust to be administered
in Maputo by a Steering Committee. The UNESCO
Representative in Mozambique would be a member of this
Committee. The Mozambique authorities and UNESCO plans to
allocate resources which will be used to implement the
integrated rehabilitation programme defined in the report.
The Committee noted the creation of a Fund-in-Trust to
finance conservation projects in the framework of the
rehabilitation programme of the Ihla as prepared by UNESCO.
The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to
prepare in colllaboration with the authorities of
Mozambique conservaion projects with cost estimates in
order to submit them to potential donors.
*[30]
VII.43 Tyr (Lebanon)
The Committee was informed of a land fill project in part
of the bay adjacent to the old port north of Tyr, in the
immediate vicinity of the World Heritage site, in order to
build a tourist complex. If implemented, such a project
would irremediably destroy the underwater archaeological
remains located near the old port and would be a major
threat to the immediate vicinity of the listed site.
UNESCO organized a mission of two experts to the site;
however, the results of this mission had not been received
at the beginning of December.
The Committee thanked Mr Michel Eddé, Minister of Culture
and Higher Education for his letter dated 20 November 1995,
in which he reiterated the will of the Lebanese Government
to preserve the site of Tyr and its cultural and natural
environment.
It took note of the information of an earlier UNESCO
mission which visited Beirut from 27 November to 2 December
1995 and welcomed the decisions taken by the Lebanese
authorities to postpone this land fill project which would
have destroyed the underwater archaeological remains of
this area, and would have been a major threat to the
immediate environment of the World Heritage site.
Furthermore, the Committee requested that the results of
the mission of the two experts to Tyr be communicated by
UNESCO.
Finally, the Committee requested the Lebanese authorities
to provide all information concerning the protection of the
archaeological site of Tyr, for which an International
Safeguarding Campaign has also been launched.
VII.44 Megalithic Temples (Malta)
Hal Saflieni Hypogeum (Malta)
The Committee was informed, during its eighteenth session,
and the Bureau at its nineteenth session, of the very
serious situation with regard to these monuments.
The Secretariat informed the Committee that since that
time, the Permanent Delegation of Malta had transmitted a
detailed report dated 4 September 1995 from the Director of
the Museums Department of Malta on all the measures already
undertaken or foreseen to ensure the long-term safeguarding
of these sites, and indicating that high-level funding had
been provided by the Government to finance this work.
The Committee thanked the Government of Malta and in
particular the Minister of Culture, for the considerable
financial and human commitment undertaken for the
preservation of these prehistoric and protohistoric sites
*[31]
inscribed on the List, as well as to the Museums Department
for its continued commitment and for the quality and
success of its work. It congratulated the authorities on
the complete and coherent management plan being undertaken
and that the Megalithic temples are going to benefit from
long-term preservation measures, whilst the Hal Saflieni
Hypogeum should soon be reopened to the public. It invited
the Maltese authorities to keep the Centre informed of
progress accomplished, by 1 April 1996.
VII.45 Medina of Fez (Morocco)
The Committee followed with interest the Moroccan
Government's efforts for the preservation of the Medina of
Fez, which made it a model for the protection of Islamic
cities.
Nevertheless, according to the Secretariat's report, it
appears that the urban development projects undertaken in
1994 and 1995 and which consist among others of demolishing
parts of the Medina to make way for tarmac roads,
completely ignore the principles for preservation as
defined in the World Heritage Convention. Consequently,
the Committee expressed its grave concern with regard to
these projects which appear still to be underway and for
the destruction of the Ain Azliten area.
Having taken note of the oral information given by the
Delegate of Morocco according to whom no other action of
this kind has since been carried out, the Committee
recalled the terms of the Declaration of Fez, adopted
during the 146th closing session of the Executive Board of
UNESCO, held in Fez, on 3 and 4 June 1995, which stressed
that too many examples throughout the world have
unfortunately shown that the brutal intrusion of the
automobile has had an irremediably destructive effect on
the social and urban fabric of historic cities.
Consequently, the Committee expressed its wish that the
national authorities would undertake all necessary measures
to immediately halt all new demolition projects. It
announced its willingness to encourage the setting up, with
the help of international experts if necessary, of an
integrated plan which would take account of the different
cultural, architectural, sociological, technical and
financial aspects for urban rehabilitation, and measuring
the potential impacts on the multiple aspects of world
heritage values in the Medina.
The Committee invited the national authorities to keep them
informed, through its Secretariat, before 1 April 1996, of
the situation and the measures undertaken to ensure the
long-term preservation of the cultural heritage in all its
dimensions in the Medina of Fez.
*[32]
VII.46 Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
The Secretariat reported that the technical cooperation
grant approved by the Committee at its eighteenth session
in December 1994, enabled the deployment in October 1995 of
an International Technical Adviser (ITA) to Kathmandu for
a period of five months to assist the authorities in the
preparation of project proposals for international funding
and to establish a development control unit within the
Department of Archaeology. In addition to the three
national professionals who will be trained as development
control officers by the ITA, three persons are also being
trained as documentalists.
The Committee noted that the official gazette of the
revised boundaries of the monuments zones has not yet been
issued despite repeated indication by the Department of
Archaeology of its imminent publication and expressed its
concern over the continued demolition of and inappropriate
alterations to historic buildings within the World Heritage
protected zones.
The Committee reiterated the Bureau's request to His
Majesty's Government of Nepal to provide a report on the
progress in the implementation of the November 1993
UNESCO/ICOMOS recommendations.
VII.47 Taxila (Pakistan)
The Committee noted that the Bureau at its nineteenth
session requested the Department of Archaeology & Museums,
in cooperation with the World Heritage Centre, to (i) carry
out the required scientific studies on vegetation control
to minimize the damage to the masonry and structure of the
monuments, and (ii) appraise the impact of the heavy
industries and the stone quarrying in the Taxila Valley
areas, identified during the systematic monitoring mission
carried out in March-April 1995.
It noted that the Government of Pakistan submitted a
technical cooperation request to carry out the vegetation
control study and that the Centre had assisted the DOAM to
prepare a project proposal to address the issues referred
to under (ii) above which includes activities to redefine
if necessary, the boundaries of the Taxila World Heritage
Site and a thorough study of the legal regimes protecting
the Taxila Valley.
The Committee commended the Department of Archaeology and
Museums and other concerned bodies of the Government of
Pakistan for their enthusiastic undertaking of the
systematic monitoring exercise which enabled the joint
DOAM-UNESCO teams to complete within 1995, the state of
conservation draft reports on five of the six World
Heritage cultural properties in Pakistan. It invited the
*[33]
Pakistani authorities to submit a proposed revision
of the Taxila site in due course.
VII.48 Taos Pueblo (United States of America)
The Committee recalled that the potential impact of the
extension of the Taos Airport on the World Heritage site of
Taos Pueblo was discussed at various Bureau and Committee
meetings and that the Committee's concerns were transmitted
to the United States authorities. The Secretariat informed
the Committee that it had received preliminary monitoring
reports notably from the US National Park Service. These
reports indicated that the major issue was the size of the
area determined to be affected by the proposed airport
extension. It was reported that this area was defined by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) without
consultations with the Taos Pueblo or the United States
National Park Service (USNPS) and did include the Taos
Pueblo Land Tracts immediately surrounding the proposed
flight routes, whereas the Blue Lake Wilderness, a
federally protected area for tribal religious activity, was
excluded. Most of the Taos Pueblo's complaints about
expected impacts related to this sensitive area.
The Committee recommended to the authorities of the United
States that an impartial professional review of the area
defined by the Federal Aviation Administration for the
impact study be carried out in cooperation with ICOMOS and
IUCN, and that a report be submitted to the twentieth
session of the World Heritage Committee. The Committee also
invited the State Party to consider the possible extension
of the World Heritage site to include the culturally
valuable areas related to the Taos Pueblo under the
cultural landscape criteria.
VII.49 Hue (VietNam)
The Committee noted with satisfaction the Secretariat's
report on the considerable efforts made by the Vietnamese
authorities in the conservation of the Complex of Hue
Monuments and the achievements made by the Hue-UNESCO
Working Group in revitalizing the International Campaign
for the Safeguarding of the Hue World Heritage Site.
The Secretariat reported on the formation by the Vietnamese
authorities of an inter-ministerial coordination mechanism
to monitor and ensure the safeguarding of Hue and the
Committee shared the Vietnamese authorities' concern that
rapid economic, infrastructure and tourism development
could adversely affect the site.
The Committee took note of the strategic Workshop on World
Heritage Preservation and Sustainable Tourism Development-
Planning for Hue, organized in May 1995 by the Government
*[34]
in cooperation with the UNESCO Bangkok Office and the
World Heritage Centre with funding support from UNDP,
Norwegian Development Agency (NORAD) and the UNESCO Regular
Programme.
The Committee received with satisfaction the assurance from
the Vietnamese authorities, as reported by the Secretariat,
that the many projects proposed for the upgrading and
construction of new roads in, around and through the Hue
area will in no way intrude on or otherwise negatively
affect the area protected as the World Heritage site.
The Committee expressed its concern over the future
possible impact of road upgrading and rapid tourism
development on the Hue World Heritage site and commended
the Vietnamese Government for the integrated development
approach it is adopting to address both the safeguarding
and development concerns of the region.
REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON MONITORING AND REPORTING
VII.50 The Working Group on monitoring and reporting was
chaired by Mr Barry Jones (Australia). Mr Harald Plachter
(Germany) served as the Rapporteur of this Working Group.
VII.51 The report of the Working Group was presented by
its Chairperson to the Committee's plenary session on
Friday, 8 December 1995. He informed the Committee that the
Working Group recognized that the issue under consideration
consists of two steps:
1. the monitoring by the States Parties of the state
of their World Heritage sites;
2. the regular reporting on the state of these sites
in accordance with the Convention.
VII.52 He furthermore indicated that a small group of
States Parties (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hungary
and India) upon the proposal of the Delegate of Cyprus, had
prepared a preliminary version of a draft resolution for
the eleventh General Assembly. This text was discussed at
length and amended accordingly, with important suggestions
made by the Delegates of Hungary and Italy. A final draft
was prepared for discussion at the plenary session of the
Committee which read as follows:
The General Assembly,
1. Noting that the 1972 Convention concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage has recognized that the cultural and
natural heritage 'are increasingly threatened
with destruction, not only by traditional causes
of decay, but also by changing social and
*[35]
economic conditions which aggravate the situation
with even more formidable phenomena of damage or
destruction';
2. Reaffirms that 'deterioration or disappearance of
any item of the cultural or natural heritage
constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the
heritage of all the nations of the world';
3. Considers that the Convention should be
interpreted in the light of twenty-three years of
experience in its implementation.
4. Considers that such interpretation recognizes the
sovereign right of the State Party concerned over
the World Heritage sites situated on its
territory;
5. Considers that a well-reflected and formulated
common policy for the protection of cultural and
natural heritage is likely to create a continuing
interaction between States Parties;
6. Emphasizes the interest of each State Party to be
informed of the experience of others with regard
to conservation methods and the possibilities so
offered, through voluntary international
cooperation, for the general improvement of all
actions undertaken;
7. Reaffirms its role and the role of the World
Heritage Committee as standard setting
organizations;
8. Concludes that monitoring is the responsibility
of the State Party concerned and that the
committment to provide regular reports on the
state of the site is consistent with the
principles set out in the Convention in
(i) the first, second, sixth, seventh and
eighth preambular clauses,
(ii) Art. 4
(iii) Art. 6.1. and 6.2.
(iv) Art. 7
(v) Art. 10
(vi) Art. 11
(vii) Art. 13
(viii) Art. 15
(ix) Art. 21.3
(x) Art. 29;
9. Emphasizes that monitoring by the State Party is
part of the site management which remains the
responsibility of the States Parties where the
*[36]
site is located, and that regular reports may be
submitted in accordance with Article 29 of the
Convention;
10. Recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides
that 'Each State Party....recognizes that the
duty of ensuring the identification, protection,
conservation, presentation and transmission to
future generations of the cultural and natural
heritage...situated on its territory, belongs
primarily to that State'.
11. Recalls that Article 6 lays down the concept of
world heritage 'for whose protection it is the
duty of the international community as a whole to
co-operate', and that Article 7 requires the
establishment of a 'system of international co-
operation' and assistance 'designed to support
States Parties' efforts to conserve and identify
that heritage.
12. Emphasizes that regular reporting should be part
of a consultative process and not treated as a
sanction or a coercive mechanism;
13. Notes that within the broad responsibility of the
World Heritage Committee in standards setting,
the form, nature and extent of the regular
reporting must respect the principles of State
sovereignty.
The involvement of the Committee, through its
Secretariat or advisory bodies, in the
preparation of the regular reports would be with
the agreement of the State Party concerned. The
States Parties may request expert advice from the
Secretariat or the advisory bodies. The
Secretariat may also commission expert advice
with the agreement of the States Parties.
14. Suggests the General Conference of UNESCO to
activate the procedures in Art. 29 of the
Convention and to refer to the World Heritage
Committee the responsibility to respond to the
reports.
15. Encourages States Parties to take advantage of
shared information and experience on World
Heritage matters;
16. Invites other States to become States Parties to
the Convention.
VII.53 The Committee adopted the draft resolution by
acclamation and decided that the Committee at its twentieth
*[37]
session should examine and adopt a report prepared by the
Bureau for submission to the eleventh General Assembly of
States Parties. The Committee also decided to include it
in its Report to the 29th session of the General Conference
of UNESCO.
VII.54 As regards points A ('Revised nomination form'),
B (Format for periodic World Heritage state of conservation
reports'), C (Work plan for the implementation of regional
monitoring programmes and the examination of regional
synthesis reports by the World Heritage Committee') and D
('Progress report on the preparation of regional synthesis
reports') of the agenda item, the Committee decided to
defer its decision until the next session and invited the
States Parties to comment in writing on the appropriate
working documents on each point.
VIII. 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
VIII.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-
95/CONF.203/INF.7. The Delegates of Germany and Niger
stated that they had recently sent up-dated tentative lists
which, however, had not been taken in to account in
document INF.7.
VIII.2 Upon the proposal of the Delegate of Canada, the
Committee decided that the presentation of the cultural
sites should include citations, as is the case with the
presentation of the natural sites.
A. NATURAL HERITAGE
VIII.3 The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its
last session in July 1995 examined ten natural nominations
and referred three properties back to the States Parties
and one to IUCN.
VIII.4 The Bureau examined at its December session four
nominations of natural properties, of which it recommended
the inscription of two properties. Two nominations were
deferred as further information was needed. The Committee
also discussed one proposed extension to a World Heritage
site and one revision of the boundaries of a World Heritage
site.
*[38]
A.1 Properties 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)
Waterton 354Rev Canada/United N(ii)(iii)
Glacier States of America
International
Peace Park
The Committee took note of the evaluation presented by IUCN
and that the site meets criteria (ii) and (iii) because of
its distinctive climate, physiographic setting,
mountain/prairie interface and tri-ocean hydrographical
divide as well as its scenic values and the cultural
importance of its International Peace Park designation.
IUCN further recommended that a single "Biosphere Reserve"
should be created from the three Biosphere Reserves already
existing in the area.
The Committee decided that the site be listed under
criteria (ii) and (iii) and requested the World Heritage
Centre to write to the States Parties with respect to the
Biosphere Reserve proposal. In addition, the Committee
recommended that the site be eventually expanded to include
the adjacent protected area in the Akamina/Kishinena.
Messel Pit Fossil 720 Germany N(i)
site
The Committee inscribed the nominated property on the basis
of criterion (i), considering that the site is of
outstanding universal value as the single best site which
contributes to the understanding of the Eocene, when
mammals became firmly established in all principal land
ecosystems. Furthermore, the Committee commended the German
Government for their support of the high standards of
paloeontological research undertaken.
The Caves of the 725 Hungary/ N(i)
Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Republic
the Slovak Karst
The Committee inscribed the nominated property on the basis
of criterion (i), considering that the site is an
outstanding example of on-going geological processes and a
significant geomorphic feature. The karst formations and
112 caves contain the geologic history of the last several
*[39]
millions of years with an unusual combination of climatic
effects and paleokarst features.
The Committee requested the Centre to write to the national
authorities to recommended that control is needed over
surface activities such as agricultural pollution,
deforestation and soil erosion that could effect the
independent resources.
The Virgin Komi 719 Russian N(ii)(iii)
Forests Federation
The Committee inscribed the nominated property on the basis
of criteria (ii) and (iii), considering the site among the
most important natural sites in the boreal forest region.
The site has pristine boreal forests and is an important
site for scientific research including climate change.
The Committee decided to inscribe an area of 3.28 million
ha, which is fully protected as a National Park, Zapovednik
and buffer zone. It requested the Centre to write to the
national authorities to encourage them to upgrade the legal
status of an additional 700,000 ha so that this adjacent
area could be incorporated in the site. It furthermore
commended the national authorities for their conservation
efforts as well as those of Greenpeace, WWF and the Swiss
Government for their assistance in strengthening the
management of this area.
Gough Island 740 United Kingdom N(iii)(iv)
Wildlife Reserve
The Committee noted that the British authorities had
confirmed that the marine area (three nautical miles) is
included in the nomination and the site is to be known as
the "Gough Island Wildlife Reserve", of which 6,500 ha is
terrestrial area.
The Committee decided to inscribe the site under criteria
(iii) and (iv) as one of the least disturbed major cool-
temperate island ecosystems in the South Atlantic, one of
the most important seabird colonies in the world and high
scenic qualities with spectacular sea-cliffs. The Committee
noted the existence of a commercial fishery in the marine
area and requested the Centre to write to the State Party
with respect to the need for continuous monitoring to
ensure that the fishery is sustainable and respects the
World Heritage values.
Carlsbad Caverns 721 United States N(i)(iii)
National Park of America
The Committee inscribed the nominated property on the basis
of criteria (i) and (iii), considering that the site is of
*[40]
outstanding universal value with exceptional geological
features, unique reef and rock formations, and containing
major cave formations, gypsum chandelier speleothems,
aragonite 'christmas trees' and hydromagnesite balloons.
The Committee also wished to encourage the authorities in
their efforts to establish a cave protection zone to the
north of the Park.
A.2 Property which the Committee did not inscribe on the
World Heritage List
Wildlife Reserve 693 Congo
of Conkouati
The Committee did not inscribe the nominated property, as
the site is considered of national importance and does not
possess distinguishing features of universal value. It
noted, furthermore, that the site has been degraded over
the past ten years.
A.3 Property which the Committee deferred
Odzala National 692 Congo
Park (and annexes)
The Committee discussed whether or not the site is of only
national importance and whether it possesses distinguishing
features of outstanding universal value.
After a discussion with contributions from the Delegates of
Niger, Benin, France and Germany, the Committee decided to
defer consideration of the nominated site and to encourage
the State Party to further investigate the site in relation
to Ndoki National Park to the north as a potential site for
nomination and agreed to invite the State Party to seek
preparatory assistance for the purpose. The Committee
noted IUCN's remarks on the potential of the Ndoki region
in relation to the Convention. The Committee further noted
that human population living within a site should not be
considered incompatible with a World Heritage listing.
A.4 Extension to a World Heritage site deferred by the
Committee
Galapagos Marine 1bis Ecuador
Reserve
(Extension of the
Galapagos Islands)
The Committee recalled that it deferred the inscription of
the Galapagos Marine Reserve at its eighteenth session due
to serious threats to the site and in accordance with the
IUCN recommendation and the wish of the Observer of
Ecuador.
*[41]
The Delegate from Ecuador requested that the marine
extension of the site be deferred until the twentieth
session of the Committee. This was agreed by the Committee.
A.5 Property inscribed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger by the Committee
During its examination of monitoring reports, the Committee
noted threats to Yellowstone National Park (United States
of America). On the basis of both ascertained dangers and
potential dangers, the Committee decided that Yellowstone
National Park be placed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
B. MIXED NATURAL AND CULTURAL PROPERTIES ON THE WORLD
HERITAGE LIST
B.1 Revision of boundaries of a World Heritage site
adopted by the Committee
Willandra Lakes 167 Rev. Australia N(i)C(iii)
Region
The Committee recalled that the site was included on the
World Heritage List as a mixed site in 1981. The Committee
took note of the new boundary proposal and the information
by the Delegate of Australia that the reduction in the size
of the area would enhance the World Heritage values of the
site.
The Committee, furthermore, having taken note of the fact
that the new boundary will reduce the total area by about
thirty percent, adopted the revised boundaries, as they
better define the area containing the World Heritage values
and will considerably facilitate the management of the
property.
C. CULTURAL HERITAGE
VIII.5 After having examined at its nineteenth session
in July 1995, 28 nominations for inscription of cultural
properties and one for a mixed property, the Bureau
recommended the inscription of 17 properties. Four
nominations had been referred back and six were deferred.
The Bureau had also decided to postpone the debate on one
proposal for inscription until the session of the out-going
Bureau.
VIII.6 In December 1995, eight nominations of cultural
properties were examined by the Bureau, of which six were
recommended for inscription. One nomination was not
recommended and another deferred.
*[42]
VIII.7 The Committee decided to inscribe 23 properties
on the World Heritage List.
C.1 Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
Name of Identifi- State Party Criteria
Property cation having submitted
No. the nomination
in accordance
with Article 11
of the Convention
Lunenburg 741 Canada C(iv)(v)
Old Town
The Committee concluded that Lunenburg Old Town is an
outstanding example of the planned European colonial
settlement in North America, in terms both of its
conception and its remarkable level of conservation.
The Committee decided to inscribe Lunenburg Old Town on
the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iv) and
(v).
Rapa Nui 715 Chile C(i)(iii)
National Park (v)
The Committee concluded that Rapa Nui National Park
contains one of the most remarkable cultural phenomena in
the world. An artistic and architectural tradition of great
power and imagination was developed by a society that was
completely isolated from external cultural influences of
any kind for over a millennium. The substantial remains of
this culture blend with their natural surroundings to
create an unparalleled cultural landscape.
The Committee decided to inscribe the Rapa Nui National
Park on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria
(i), (iii) and (v).
The Historic 742 Colombia C(iv)(v)
Centre of Santa
Cruz de Mompox
The Committee concluded that the Historic Centre of Santa
Cruz de Mompox is an outstanding example of a Spanish
colonial settlement established on the banks of a major
river and serving an important strategic and commercial
role which has survived to a remarkable level of intactness
to the present day.
*[43]
The Committee decided to inscribe the Historic Centre of
Santa Cruz de Mompox on the World Heritage List on the
basis of criteria (iv) and (v).
National 743 Colombia C(iii)
Archaeological
Park of
Tierradentro
The Committee concluded that the hypogea of the National
Archaeological Park of Tierradentro are unique testimony to
the everyday life, ritual, and burial customs of a
developed and stable prehispanic society in the northern
Andean region of South America.
The Committee decided to inscribe the National
Archaeological Park of Tierradentro on the World Heritage
List on the basis of criterion (iii).
San Agustin 744 Colombia C(iii)
Archaeological
Park
The Committee concluded that the wealth of megalithic
statuary from the archaeological sites in San Agustin
Archaeological Park bears vivid witness to the artistic
creativity and imagination of a prehispanic culture that
flowered in the hostile tropical environment of the
Northern Andes.
The Committee decided to inscribe the San Agustin
Archaeological Park on the World Heritage List on the basis
of criterion (iii).
Kutná Hora: The 732 Czech C(ii)(iv)
Historical Town Centre Republic
with the Church of St.
Barbara and the
Cathedral of Our Lady
at Sedlec
The Committee decided to inscribe the site under criteria
(ii) and (iv) as an outstanding example of the medieval
town whose wealth and prosperity was based on its silver
mines. The Church of Saint Barbara and other buildings
were underlined as having particular architectural and
artistic quality and as having had a profound influence on
subsequent developments in the architecture of Central
Europe.
*[44]
Roskilde 695Rev. Denmark C(ii)(iv)
Cathedral
The Committee decided to inscribe this property under
criteria (ii) and (iv) as Roskilde Cathedral is in many
ways the most important ecclesiastical building built of
red brick in northern Europe and had a profound influence
on the spread of brick for this purpose over the whole
region.
The Committee drew the attention of the Danish authorities
to the interest of the canonical and episcopal quarter
which surrounds the Roskilde Cathedral and encouraged them
to take all necessary steps for the safeguarding of this
exceptional site.
The Historic 228Rev France C(i)(ii)(iv)
Centre of
Avignon
The Committee decided to inscribe the site under criteria
(i), (ii) and (iv), considering that this monumental
ensemble in the historic centre of Avignon is an
outstanding example of late medieval ecclesiastical,
administrative and military architecture, which played a
significant role in the development and diffusion of a
characteristic form of culture over a wide area of Europe,
at a time of critical importance for the development of
lasting relationships between the Papacy and the civil
powers.
It also decided to inscribed the site under the name
"Historic Centre of Avignon".
The Delegate of the Holy See congratulated the Government
of France for the inscription of this site on the World
Heritage List.
The Historic 717 Italy C(i)(ii)(iv)
Centre of Siena
The Committee decided to inscribe the property on the basis
of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv), considering that Siena is
an outstanding medieval city that has preserved its
character and quality. The city is a work of dedication and
imagination in which the buildings have been designed to
fit into the overall planned urban fabric, and also to form
a whole with the surrounding cultural landscape.
*[45]
The Historic 726 Italy C(ii)(iv)
Centre of
Naples
The Committee decided to inscribe the property on the basis
of criteria (ii) and (iv), considering that the site is of
exceptional value. It is one of the most ancient cities in
Europe, whose contemporary urban fabric preserves the
elements of its long and eventful history. Its setting on
the Bay of Naples gives it an outstanding universal value
which has had a profound influence in many parts of Europe
and beyond.
Crespi d'Adda 730 Italy C(iv)(v)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the
World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iv) and (v),
considering that it is an exceptional example of a working
village of Europe and North America, dating back to the
19th and 20th centuries, and reflecting the predominant
philosophy of enlightened industrialists with respect to
their employees. Although the evolution of economic and
social conditions constituted an inevitable threat to the
survival of Crespi d'Adda, its integrity is remarkable and
it has partly conserved its industrial activity.
It also congratulated the Italian authorities for the
coherence of its conservation programme which had preserved
the architectural and social qualities of this property.
Ferrara: City 733 Italy C(ii)(iv)(vi)
of the
Renaissance
The Committee decided to inscribe the property on the basis
of criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi) considering that the site
is of outstanding universal value, being a Renaissance
city, remarkably planned, which has retained its urban
fabric virtually intact. The developments in town planning
expressed in Ferrara were to have a profound influence on
the development of urban design throughout the succeeding
centuries.
The Historic 734 Japan C(iv)(v)
Villages of
Shirakawa-go
and Gokayama
The Committee decided to inscribe the site under criteria
(iv) and (v) as the villages are outstanding examples of a
traditional human settlement that is perfectly adapted to
its environment. The Committee noted the successful
adaptation to economic changes and that survival can only
*[46]
be assured through constant vigilence on both sides,
the Government authorities and the inhabitants.
The Town of 479Rev. Lao People's C(ii)(iv)
Luang Prabang Democratic (v)
Republic
The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the World
Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (v).
Luang Prabang represents, to an exceptional extent, the
successful fusion of the traditional architectural and
urban structures and those of the European colonial rulers
of the 19th and 20th centuries. Its unique townscape is
remarkably well preserved, illustrating a key stage in the
blending of two distinct cultural traditions.
Schokland and 739 Netherlands C(iii)(v)
its surroundings
The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the basis of
criteria (iii) and (v), considering that Schokland and its
surroundings preserve the last surviving evidence of a
prehistoric and early historic society that had adapted to
the precarious life of wetland setlements under the
constant threat of temporary or permanent incursions by the
sea. Schokland is included in the agricultural landscape
created by the reclamation of the former Zuyder Zee, part
of the never-ceasing struggle of the people of the
Netherlands against water, and one of the greatest and most
visionary human achievements of the twentieth century.
The Rice Terraces 722 Philippines C(iii)(iv)
of the Philippine (v)
Cordilleras
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the
World Heritage List under criteria (iii), (iv) and (v),
based on the joint evaluation by ICOMOS and IUCN. The
rice terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras are outstanding
examples of living cultural landscapes. They illustrate
the traditional techniques and a remarkable harmony between
humankind and the natural environment.
The Committee also congratulated the Philippine authorities
for having proposed this example of a cultural landscape,
thereby contributing towards improving the representative
nature of this type of property on the World Heritage List.
*[47]
Sintra 723 Portugal C(ii)(iv)
Cultural (v)
Landscape
The Committee considered that the site is of outstanding
universal value as it represents a pioneering approach to
Romantic landscaping which had an outstanding influence on
develoments elswhere in Europe. It is an unique example of
the cultural occupation of a specific location that has
maintained its essential integrity as the representation of
diverse successive cultures.
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the
basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (v) and under the
following name: The Cultural Landscape of Sintra.
Sokkuram 736 Republic of C(i)(iv)
Grotto Korea
The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the World
Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i) and (iv) as a
masterpiece of Far Eastern Buddhist art. The complex that
it forms with Pulguksa Temple is an outstanding example of
the religious architecture of the region and of the
material expression of Buddhist belief.
Haeinsa Temple 737 Republic of C(iv)(vi)
Changgyong P'ango, Korea
the Depositories for
the Koreana Woodblocks
The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the World
Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iv) and (vi), in
recognition that the Korean version of the Buddhist
scriptures (Tripitaka Koreana) at the Haeinsa Temple is one
of the most important and most complete corpus of Buddhist
doctrinal texts in the world, and is also outstanding for
the high aesthetic quality of its workmanship. The
buildings in which the scriptures are housed are unique
both in terms of their antiquity so far as this specialized
type of structure is concerned, and also for the remarkably
effective solutions developed in the 15th century to the
problems posed by the need to preserve woodblocks against
deterioration.
Chongmyo Shrine 738 Republic of C(iv)
Korea
The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the World
Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv), as an
outstanding example of the Confucian royal ancestral
*[48]
shrine, which has survived relatively intact since
the 16th century, the importance of which is enhanced by the
persistence there of an important element of the intangible
cultural heritage in the form of traditional ritual
practices and forms.
The Delegate of Japan congratulated the Government of the
Republic Korea for the inscription of the three cultural
properties on the World Heritage List, and stated that they
contribute to enhancing the representative nature of the
List.
The Hanseatic 731 Sweden C(iv)(v)
Town of Visby
The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the basis of
criteria (iv) and (v) considering its outstanding universal
value, representing a unique example of a north European
medieval walled town which preserves with remarkable
completeness a townscape and assemblage of high-quality
ancient buildings.
It also congratulated the Swedish authorities for the
conservation programme undertaken over the past few years
safeguarding the outer walls and preserving the
authenticity of the property.
The Old and 728 United C(ii)(iv)
New Towns of Kingdom
Edinburgh
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the
basis of criteria (ii) and (iv) as it represents a
remarkable blend of the two urban phenomena: the organic
medieval growth and 18th and 19th century town planning.
The Historic 747 Uruguay C(iv)
Quarter of the
City of Colonia
del Sacramento
The Committee concluded that the historic quarter of the
City of Colonia del Sacramento bears remarkable testimony
in its layout and its buildings to the nature and
objectives of European colonial settlement, in particular
during the seminal period at the end of the 17th century.
The Committee decided to inscribe the Historic Quarter of
the City of Colonia del Sacramento on the World Heritage
List on the basis of criterion (iv).
*[49]
IX. REPORT ON THE DECISIONS OF THE TENTH GENERAL
ASSEMBLY OF THE STATES PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION,
AND THE DECISIONS OF THE 28TH SESSION OF THE
GENERAL CONFERENCE
IX.1 Upon the request of the Delegate of Malta, the
Chairperson of the Committee asked the Rapporteur of the
Tenth session of the General Assembly of States Parties to
the Convention (Paris, 2-3 November 1995) to present again
the summary of the report adopted by the General Assembly.
The Rapporteur, Mr Janos Jelen (Hungary), outlined the
major trends characterizing the discussion during the
General Assembly and the consequences of the decision
adopted regarding monitoring (see paragaph 31 of Document
WHC-95/CONF.203/INF.6). A summary of this figures in
paragraph V.2 of this report.
IX.2 In the ensuing debate, the Delegate of France
underlined that although the General Assembly expects to
receive from the Committee, for its Eleventh session in
1997, a report on systematic monitoring and reporting on
the state of conservation of World Heritage properties,
there is no immediate urgency. It is, above all, of
fundamental importance that a consensus be reached on this
matter before presenting it to the General Assembly.
IX.3 This view was fully shared by the Chairperson of
the Committee and Mr. Jelen, as Rapporteur. However, the
Chairperson stressed the need that the Committee gives
appropriate political and procedural guidance in the period
between the two sessions of the General Assembly to those
who will be preparing the proposals for the General
Assembly.
IX.4 The Delegate of Australia, being also the
Chairperson of the Committee's ad hoc drafting group on
monitoring, endorsed the clarification made by the
Chairperson. Responding to the suggestion made by the
Delegate of Cyprus regarding the possible setting up of a
ad hoc drafting group on this subject, he informed the
Committee that he had undertaken individual consultations
with members of the ad hoc working group on this matter and
that some progress had been made to produce a written text
containing draft proposals to that end.
IX.5 The Delegate of Germany endorsed the proposal
made by Cyprus to create an ad hoc drafting group. The
Delegate of Benin, on the other hand, wondered if it was
not premature to set up such a group. The Observer of
Algeria, having underlined that the Committee already had
at its disposal at least two important documents on this
issue, produced by the delegates and the President of the
Tenth General Assembly, and expressed the wish that if an
ad hoc drafting group is created, it should reflect all the
different views that exist on this subject among the States
Parties.
*[50]
IX.6 Concluding the debate on this topic, the
Chairperson reassured the Committee once again that
everything will be fully discussed and in total
transparency. The Committee, however, should try to define
at this session some general guidelines on how to proceed,
so that a report and a proposed resolution could be
prepared for the next session of the General Assembly.
IX.7 The Chairperson then invited the Committee to
examine the decisions taken by the General Conference of
UNESCO, at its 28th session, regarding the status and the
Workplan of the World Heritage Centre. The delegates
received to that effect copies of the following texts, as
amended and approved by the General Conference of UNESCO,
and as transmitted by the office of the Assistant Director-
General of Bureau Studies, Programming and Evaluation:
Resolution 3.1; Resolution 3.10 and paragraphs 03101 to
03112 of the Draft Programme and Budget for 1996-1997.
IX.8 The Committee, having heard a brief explanation
of these documents by the Director of the World Heritage
Centre, took note of them without discussion.
X. BALANCED REPRESENTATION OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL
HERITAGE ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
X.1 The Committee examined the working document
prepared by the Secretariat and recalled paragraph 122 of
the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention reflecting previous discussions
held at sessions of the Committee and its Bureau, which
focused on:
- the concept of universal value and standards to be
applied;
- the interpretation of universal value by the advisory
bodies;
- the number of natural and cultural specialists present
at sessions of the Committee and its Bureau;
- priorities for granting international assistance.
X.2 The Committee furthermore recalled that the
question of balance relates also to the "Strategic Goals
for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention"
adopted by the sixteenth session of the Committee. It also
recalled that at the same session the categories for
cultural landscapes were adopted which are considered under
the cultural criteria only.
X.3 Several delegates raised concerns about the
imbalance between natural and cultural heritage. The
Delegate of Australia underlined the concerns with regard
to the natural heritage posts within the Centre and
recommended that this should be outlined in the strongest
terms.
*[51]
X.4 The Delegate of Germany, supporting the position
of Australia, emphasized that this has also an impact on
the relations with the States Parties. He furthermore
underlined that awareness-building among States Parties is
crucial and said that his Delegation would welcome an
overall Global Strategy.
X.5 The Delegate of Niger also raised the question of
a Global Strategy for Natural Heritage. He furthermore
added a number of items to be considered, including the
number of sites rejected by the advisory bodies, the
difference of the application of the criteria of both
advisory bodies, the question of an inventory for natural
heritage and the harmonization between the natural and
cultural part.
X.6 The Delegate of Canada highlighted the importance
of this item and the interest of her country in encouraging
more nominations of natural heritage properties. She asked
other States Parties to send natural heritage specialists
to Committee sessions and emphasized that the Global
Strategy should be seen as one overall action.
X.7 The Chairperson, taking up the recommendation to
strengthen natural heritage within the Centre, underlined
that he would like to meet with the Director-General to
discuss this item.
X.8 The Delegate of Benin stressed that "the balance
should not be analysed from a purely statistical aspect, as
the objective is not to envisage an equal number of
cultural and natural sites.
For all that, even with regard to cultural properties, it
may be noted that certain regions, such as Africa, are not
well represented on the World Heritage List.
In order to remedy the situation with regard to this
continent, improved training for specialists of this
continent should be assured, as well as the attendance at
the Committee sessions by those countries which are elected
members, represented by a delegation of two specialists, in
accordance with the Convention".
X.9 The Delegate of France indicated that "the
balance between natural and cultural properties was of no
significance as they were not comparable. Criterion (ii)
concerning "the interaction between man and nature" had
been very rarely used and was deleted during the sixteenth
session at Santa Fe. During the same session, the notion
of cultural landscapes which include important natural
elements, was adopted by the Committee. The fundamental
objective of the Convention was to protect the properties
of greatest importance, the loss of which would affect all
humanity. In his view, in order to end this unproductive
competition, a list of common criteria might be envisaged
*[52]
covering cultural properties, cultural landscapes and
natural sites."
He renewed the invitation of his country to host in 1996 an
expert meeting on integrity and other related questions."
X.10 The Delegate of Lebanon raised the question of
whether the natural criteria are applied too strictly, in
particular with regard to the conditions of integrity. The
Delegate of Cyprus recalled the large size of most natural
World Heritage sites.
X.11 The Delegate of Malta suggested "that more
emphasis should be given to natural site nominations by the
Centre to rectify the imbalance".
X.12 The Delegate of Italy recalled "that 'the
balance' is an old debate, that this question could not be
considered on a numerical basis and, in his view, the
advisory bodies apply the criteria in an objective manner."
X.13 The Delegate of Japan shared the concerns of
other delegates of how to remedy the imbalance, adding that
the question regarding imbalance should be discussed
elsewhere.
X.14 The Delegate of China supported the idea of an
integrated notion of cultural and natural heritage as
outlined in the Convention.
X.15 The Representative of IUCN thanked the
Secretariat for the background document and welcomed the
lively debate by the delegates. He emphasized that the
States Parties have to identify properties and that IUCN
can play an important role of promoting the Convention
through its networks. He recalled that the cooperation with
ICOMOS is already strengthened through a number of regional
thematic meetings and the cultural landscapes nominations
and that a global overview is needed, as the 1982
publication is outdated. He welcomed the French proposal
for an expert meeting and suggested that this could provide
a forum for an overall discussion.
X.16 The Representative of ICOMOS recalled the
criteria set out in the Operational Guidelines and their
objective application. He underlined that the balance
between different parts of the world is important as well
as the harmonization of applications. He indicated that an
overall Global Strategy is a good starting point, as nature
and culture cannot be separated, in particular in Africa.
X.17 The Chairperson welcomed the lively and positive
debate on this issue and asked for the adoption of the
recommendations set up in Document WHC-95/CONF.203/7 with
changes suggested by several delegates.
*[53]
The Committee, in the light of earlier discussions:
- invites States Parties to nominate types of sites
presently under-represented on the World Heritage
List;
- invites States Parties attending the World Heritage
Committee and its Bureau to be represented by both
cultural and natural heritage specialists ;
- requests States Parties to communicate regularly to
the Centre updated addresses of the national
institutions primarily responsible for cultural and
natural heritage;
- asks the World Heritage Centre to undertake efforts to
strengthen the links to natural heritage institutions
in States Parties to the Convention;
- requests the Centre to work on an overall global
strategy for natural heritage in close cooperation
with IUCN and ICOMOS;
- prior to the establishment of a post, by UNESCO, of at
least one specialist for natural heritage in the World
Heritage Centre and considering the importance of this
field, the Committee requested the Chairperson to
emphasize to the Director-General of UNESCO the need
to strengthen cooperation between the Centre and the
Division of Ecological Sciences;
- requests both advisory bodies to adhere to strict and
harmonized evaluation procedures in order to ensure
representivity of the World Heritage List for the
diversity of the world's heritage;
- commends the French authorities for their efforts to
host a small natural heritage specialists meeting on
the "notion of integrity", and requested that this
meeting reviews the Global Strategy for Natural
Heritage and the question of a global indicative
inventory.
XI. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
"GLOBAL STATEGY AND THEMATIC STUDIES"
XI.1 The Delegate of Malta underlined the positive
reactions of the Committee to the initiatives undertaken by
the Secretariat in 1995 and the proposals for 1996 in the
field of Global Strategy and thematic studies.
A. CULTURAL HERITAGE
1. Global Strategy
XI.2 The Secretariat presented the results of the
first subregional meeting on Global Strategy organized with
ICOMOS, in Harare (Zimbabwe) from 11 to 13 October 1995.
This meeting, prepared with the assistance of the NMMZ,
brought together 35 African experts from thirteen States
Parties and States not yet party to the Convention, from
the region and helped to define and identify the types of
*[54]
African cultural properties little or not represented on
the World Heritage List, and to initiate the preparation of
new tentative lists.
XI.3 The Committee considered that in 1996 priority
should continue to be given to African cultural heritage
and a second subregional meeting would be held in Ethiopia
concentrating on the Sudano-sahelian world and the Horn of
Africa. The Committee took note that in 1997, the cultural
heritage of the Caribbean would be the subject of a
subregional meeting.
XI.4 The Delegate of Benin greatly appreciated the
report on the Harare meeting. The report of the
Secretariat clearly indicated the manner in which the
question of balance betwen cultural and natural heritage
should be envisaged, but also demonstrates that in cultural
heritage there exists also an imbalance in the
representation of the types of properties and cultures,
which must be remedied. He fully endorsed the Harare
meeting as well as the second meeting foreseen in Ethiopia
in 1996 and suggested that IUCN be associated.
XI.5 The Representative of ICOMOS made three remarks:
he was pleased with the excellent collaboration established
between the Centre and ICOMOS, particularly for the Harare
meeting. He supported collaboration in the framework of
the Global Strategy between natural and cultural heritage
specialists, as proposed by the Representative of IUCN. He
insisted that efforts should continue to be made for Africa
and strongly supported the holding of the second
subregional meeting proposed by the Secretariat in Ethiopia
in 1996.
XI.6 The Chairperson agreed to the importance of
continuously recognizing African cultural heritage.
2. Thematic studies
XI.7 The Secretariat presented the regional thematic
studies carried out in 1995 and the Committee took note of
the detailed reports contained in information documents
INF.8 and INF.9.
_ "Regional Thematic Study Meeting on Asian Rice Culture
and its Terrace Landscapes (Philippines, 28 March to
4 April 1995)
_ "Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on Associative
Cultural Landscapes " (Australia, 27 to 29 April
1995).
The Secretariat informed the Committee that a meeting on
European cultural landscapes will be held in Vienna in
April 1996, and that future meetings will be organized for
the Andean region, and on the theme of Sacred Mountains in
the Asia-Pacific region.
*[55]
XI.8 The Delegate of Italy emphasized that the
specialists in his country wished to participate in the
meeting foreseen in Vienna (Austria) in April 1996 on
European cultural landscapes.
XI.9 The Delegate of Lebanon underlined his interest
in the Secretariat's report on the Harare Meeting. He
asked when the Harare report would be available and hoped
that it would be widely distributed. He thought that more
attention should be given to thematic studies on non-
European cultural heritage, for example terrace cultures.
B. NATURAL HERITAGE
XI.10 The Committee took note of the action taken by
both the Secretariat and IUCN concerning fossil and
geological heritage within an overall Global Strategy for
natural heritage. The Committee furthermore took note of a
"World Heritage session" foreseen during the International
Geological Congress to be held in Beijing in 1996. Several
delegates noted the importance of linking the Global
Stategy for natural and cultural heritage.
XI.11 The Representative of IUCN supported these
projects. He remarked that the Caribbean and Pacific
region (in evoking an international assistance request
presented by Fiji for a regional meeting) is composed of
numerous States many of which are not yet party to the
Convention, and where there also cultural heritage should
be considered as being closely linked to nature. The
participation of natural heritage specialists would
therefore be useful during Global Strategy meetings.
XI.12 The Delegate of France recalled that his country
will host an expert meeting on integrity and issues related
to the Global Stategy for natural heritage, and that both
advisory bodies should be associated in these reflections.
In addition, the Delegate of Niger highlighted the links
between cultural and biological diversity.
XII. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED TRAINING STRATEGY
XII.1 The Centre presented Document WHC-95/CONF.203/9
in which Section A focused on Natural Heritage and Section
B focused on Cultural Heritage sites.
A. Natural Heritage
XII.2 An Information Document "Strategy for Training in
the Field of Natural Heritage" WHC-95/CONF.203/INF.11A was
tabled. The session began with a background statement
referring to State Party responsibilities in Article 5 (e)
of the Convention and to the assistance available for
training in Article 22(c). Training is defined as a
*[56]
broadly encompassing term that includes education,
training and promotion.
XII.3 The Centre noted that while there has been
general satisfaction with Convention-sponsored training
programmes there was a need to put forward a coherent and
pro-active programme. The purpose and objectives were
established as follows:
"the purposes and objectives of the natural heritage
training strategy is to enhance the capacity of all
States Parties to identify, protect, conserve and
present the natural heritage."
Five objectives were noted.
XII.4 The Centre presented four strategic actions which
are spelt out in detail in Document WHC-95/CONF.203/9. It
was noted that curricula and other training materials were
the major shortcoming in the field of natural heritage.
During the discussion it was further noted that there was
a need to train teachers and to train the trainers, so as
to gain maximum effectiveness. There was also an
expression for the need to address the integration of
cultural and natural values in training programmes. An
additional point was the need for regular, regionally-based
seminars, and the Delegate of Niger made a proposal for
such a seminar in Africa.
XII.5 A concern was also expressed that care should be
taken to ensure a geographic balance in training
commitments. There was further concern that training
modules must address consideration of ethical,
environmental, economic and social relationships between
nature conservation, sustainable resource use and local
peoples. A text was prepared on this subject and agreed to
by the State Parties concerned.
XII.6 At the close of the session the strategy was
adopted as a basis for future development of the programme
in cooperation with the advisory bodies. A budgetary
proposal was presented and was considered under that item
of the agenda.
B. Cultural Heritage
XII.7 When presenting the Document WHC-95/CONF.203/9,
it was recalled that at the request of the World Heritage
Committee, the Bureau during its eighteenth session (July
1994) examined expenditure incurred in the field of
training from 1988 to 1992 and concluded that the World
Heritage Centre should organize an evaluation seminar to
define a new training strategy in the field of cultural
heritage conservation. However, no budgetary provisions
had been foreseen for this activity and the World Heritage
Committee, during its eighteenth session in December 1994,
*[57]
did not recommend this proposal, although it had approved
US$ 30,000 for the preparation of a training strategy for
managers of cultural sites.
XII.8 Faced with this situation, the Director of the
Centre asked ICCROM to prepare a proposal, which was
distributed during the nineteenth session of the Bureau in
July 1995, then transmitted to a certain number of partners
of ICCROM and the Centre. The Document WHC-
95/CONF.203/INF.11B, which reflects the results of these
consultations, establishes the conceptual and
methodological framework which will serve as a basis for
the elaboration of a training strategy. It analyses the
content of the training programme and career structures, in
relation to the types of properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List, without however proposing platforms for
actions adapted to each geocultural region. However, the
Centre and ICCROM considered that the training strategy for
cultural properties should take account of the analysis of
the specificities of each region and should be based on an
evaluation of their needs. It therefore proposes to begin
in 1996 an information gathering process at the national
and regional levels, in order to better identify the
priorities and the regional and sub-regional institutions
with which partnership links could be established.
XII.9 In his presentation, the Representative of ICCROM
emphasized the complexity of the field of conservation of
cultural heritage which is due to its great diversity of
cultural heritage in the different parts of the world and
which was discussed during the Nara meeting on authenticity
in 1994. Among the target groups that should be involved in
education and training programmes, he mentioned
conservation professionals, technicians and craftpersons,
politicians and decision-makers, as well as the public at
large and the media, particularly television and the press.
XII.10 He emphasized the necessity to ensure the
participation of the States Parties through a process which
should include a survey that would be carried out by the
States Parties, of their training needs, as well as
discussions on regional meetings in order to identify the
role of international collaboration in this context. The
current programme of ICCROM aims, in fact, at the capacity-
building of institutions and professional networks all over
the world. ICCROM's aim is to identify areas with similar
problems and concerns in order to launch thematic
programmes. An example is a programme being developed by
ICCROM on the conservation managment of historic towns; an
international training programme on the conservation of
World Heritage Cities shall be organized in 1997.
XII.11. During the course of the debate thirteen members
of the Committee and the Representative of ICOMOS
intervened and expressed their satisfaction with both
documents, prepared respectively by the World Heritage
*[58]
Centre and ICCROM. They underlined the importance of
training, being a necessary and indispensable condition for
the conservation of cultural heritage and approved the
regional and thematic approach that was being proposed.
Having regretted the imbalance of training programmes
between Europe and the rest of the world, they expressed
their concern that this situation be remedied, which in the
view of one member of the Committee, is one of the reasons
of the weak representation of Africa on the World Heritage
List. Two delegates requested that the Mediterranean as a
region should receive greater attention. Some speakers
also mentioned the complementarity of international courses
for the training of trainers, regional courses for
conservators, architects and other specialists and national
courses for the training of technical personnel. They
encouraged the Centre to pursue the in situ training and to
include the craftsmen who are the holders of precious and
indispensable knowledge in conservation of more fragile
structures, such as earth or wood. Some interventions
highlighted the use of educational videos and long-distance
teaching.
XII.12 The Committee supported the proposals for the
establishment of an inventory of conservation needs based
on questionnaires which will be sent to national
authorities responsible for heritage protection, and
requested that regional training institutes be identified
and participate in the elaboration of programmes which
combine theoretical and practical approaches adapted to
local realities. Moreover, the Committee requested the
Centre to adopt an "integrated" approach, and elaborate
training programmes for both managers of natural and
cultural sites. This reflection should be carried out in
cooperation with the advisory bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS and
ICCROM). A member of the Committee, having noted that the
World Heritage Fund was unable to respond to all the
training needs, requested that efforts be made to seek
additional funding for training activities. The Committee
supported the proposals for 1996 and expressed the wish
that a budgetary allocation be made for the implementation
of this strategy.
XII.13 At the end of the debate, the Chairperson
requested the Director of the Centre to rectify the
imbalance in the field of training, and to grant
substantial assistance to African States Parties. The
Director of the Centre undertook to request the advisory
bodies, during the meeting which will be held in February
1996 at the Centre, in Paris, to make proposals for
training programmes for managers of cultural and natural
sites. He said that a budgetary line would be foreseen to
implement a veritable training strategy for cultural
properties.
*[59]
XIII. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
Upon considering the financial accounts as at 31 October
1995 and the cash flow situation, the Committee decided to
increase the budgetary allocation for international
assistance to US$ 1,500,000 with the following breakdown:
* US$ 175,000 for preparatory assistance;
* US$ 685,000 for technical cooperation,
1/3 for natural and 2/3 for cultural heritage;
* US$ 550,000 for training,
half for natural and half for cultural heritage.
The Centre informed the Committee that out of the 51
requests, 14 cases (3 for natural heritage and 11 for
cultural heritage) were for sums above US$ 30,000, for the
Committee's examination. In addition, there are 10
preparatory assistance, 2 training and 4 technical
cooperation requests for examination by the Chairperson;
and another 9 training and 10 technical cooperation
requests for decision by the Bureau.
A. NATURAL HERITAGE
A.1 Requests approved by the Committee
A.1.1 Technical Cooperation
Komodo National Park (Indonesia) (US$ 64,500 requested)
The Committee reviewed the request for the purchase of a
fibreglass catamaran boat and additional accessories for
the GIS system for a total of US$ 64,500. However, in the
light of the amount of funds already provided for the
purchase of boats for the site, the Committee approved this
project for a reduced amount of US$ 30,000, under the
condition that the Indonesian authorities find an
additional US$ 30,000 from other sources for its purchase.
It furthermore suggested that the boat be insured by the
Indonesian authorities as a matter of general policy.
Lake Malawi National Park (Malawi) (US$ 30,000 requested)
The Committee approved US$ 30,000 for a technical
assistance project for the site. The project includes a
comprehensive biological inventory of the Park, which
contributes to the preparation of a new management plan,
local awareness programmes and community projects, boat
purchase and refurbishment, and an alternative income-
generating study for the local population.
*[60]
A.1.2 Training
College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka (Tanzania)
(US$ 30,000 requested)
The Committee approved an amount of US$ 30,000 for three
students to attend the one-year course (1996/97) at the
College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, Tanzania,
and requested the Centre to contact the Principal of the
School to provide a detailed financial breakdown for each
of the students.
B. CULTURAL HERITAGE
B.1 Requests approved by the Committee
B.1.1 Technical Cooperation
Preparation of Guidelines for Risk Preparedness for World
Heritage Sites (request presented by ICOMOS) (US$ 30,000
requested)
The Committee approved the request of US$ 30,000 for the
preparation and publication of the "Guidelines for Risk
Preparedness for World Cultural Heritage Sites" in 1,000
copies. IUCN should be associated. US$ 15,000 would be
provided to ICOMOS from the 1996 budget and the remaining
amount would be included in the 1997 budget.
Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos (Bolivia) (US$ 30,000
requested)
The Committee approved an amount of US$ 30,000 for the
preparation of a strategic plan and the formulation of
projects for the Missions (US$ 22,000) and for urgent
technical advice (US$ 8,000). The Centre, in cooperation
with the Bolivian authorities, was requested to seek
additional funding for this project from donors.
Purchase of equipment to improve the security of the site
Museum of the Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples of
Chengde (China) (US$ 34,150 requested)
The Committee approved an amount of US$ 34,150 for the
purchase of equipment in the framework of a co-financing
programme on the understanding that the training request
for US$ 20,000 for the same site be sought from other
sources.
*[61]
Thracian Tomb of Kazanlak, Madara Rider, Boyana Church,
Rock-hewn Churches of Ivanovo, Rila Monastery, Ancient City
of Nessebar, Thracian Tomb of Sveshtari (Bulgaria) (US$
39,000 requested)
The Committee approved this request for an amount of US$
30,000. The Secretariat was requested to contact the State
Party to reexamine the list of equipment in the light of
the approved amount.
Islamic Cairo (Egypt) (US$ 50,000 requested)
Although the restoration of an isolated monument may not be
considered as a priority when taking account of other needs
expressed this year, the Committee recognized the high
quality of restoration work already carried out during the
first stage of the project serving as an example and
inspiration for other ongoing restoration activities at
this site, and therefore approved US$30,000 for this
activity which perfectly illustrates UNESCO's mission in
mobilising national and international, public and private
funds for the safeguarding of heritage.
Timbuktu (Mali) (List of World Heritage in Danger) (US$
41,850 requested)
Given the commitment of the Mali authorities, the quality
of the ICCROM/CRATere partnership and the innovative
character of the project which had received the
recommendation of the Committee at its eighteenth session,
the Committee approved an amount of US$ 40,000 for this
project.
Historical Centre of Mompox (Colombia) (US$ 30,000
requested)
The Committee approved the requested amount of US$ 30,000
for a study on the impact of tourism on this site on the
understanding that this would be contracted on the basis of
a tender.
B.1.2 Training
Inter-regional Postgraduate Course in the Conservation of
Monuments and the Rehabilitation of Historical Cities
(CECRE) (Salvador de Bahia, Brazil, March-December 1996):
Request for international professors submitted by Brazil
(US$ 45,000 requested)
The Committee approved an amount of US$ 30,000 for six
international professors.
*[62]
Inter-regional Postgraduate Course in the Conservation of
Monuments and the Rehabilitation of Historical Cities
(CECRE) (Salvador de Bahia, Brazil, March-December 1996):
Request for fellowships for ten international students
submitted by Brazil (US$ 70,000 requested)
The Committee approved an amount of US$ 35,000 for
international fellowships.
James Island and Albreda, Juffure, San Domingo:
Prehistoric Stone Circle [sites inscribed on the Tentative
List] (The Gambia) (US$ 98,000 requested)
Pending the formal inscription, the Committee approved US$
10,000. ICCROM was requested to be associated with the
implementation of this project to reevaluate the training
needs, both in situ and abroad.
Central America: Training Seminar for Site Managers of
Archaeological World Heritage Sites in Central America
(Tegucigalpa/Copan, Honduras, 1996) (request submitted by
Honduras) (US$ 35,000 requested)
The Committee approved an amount of US$ 35,000 for this
training workshop/seminar.
C. OTHER REQUESTS APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE
While noting that the authority for approving international
assistance requests under US$ 30,000 is delegated to the
Bureau and those under US$ 20,000 to the Chairperson, the
Committee also approved the following training requests
discussed during the session:
C.1 Training (Cultural Heritage)
Master Programme in Heritage Conservation (Request
submitted by Argentina) (US$ 20,000)
The Committee approved the requested amount of US$ 20,000
to finance the participation of six international experts
in a series of six workshops to be organized in 1996 by the
International Centre for Heritage Conservation in several
locations in Argentina.
C.2 Training (general)
The Committee accepted the Secretariat's proposal to
include the amount of US$ 20,000 to finalize the training
strategy for cultural heritage in close cooperation with
ICCROM to be presented to the Committee at its 20th
*[63]
session. A sum of US$ 50,000 was also approved for the
production of a video film on the World Heritage Convention
for training purposes.
XIV. PROMOTIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
XIV.1 Introducing this item, the Secretariat recalled
Chapter VI (Educational Programmes) of the Convention
concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage, the goal of which is to alert and educate the
public in favour of the preservation of World Heritage
properties. The work of the Centre is organized around
three major axes: (i) World Heritage information networks;
(ii) production of promotional material, and (iii) the use
of national education systems and other networks of young
people in favour of World Heritage goals. As this was
explained in more detail in the working documents received
by the delegates, notably the WHC-95/CONF.203/11 and the
WHC-95/CONF.203/INF.10, limiting itself to underlining only
some of the salient points.
XIV.2 As regards the first axis, the Secretariat drew
the Committee's attention to the report of the first
meeting of experts on a World Heritage Information Network
(Document WHC-95/CONF.203/INF.10), which was organized by
the Centre in September 1995 in cooperation with other
units of the UNESCO Secretariat, the advisory bodies and
several other international organizations. In this regard,
the Committee was informed that by now all the basic World
Heritage documents have been made available on INTERNET and
the World Wide Web. Furthermore, the Centre plans to
produce in 1996 in cooperation with the advisory bodies a
"starter kit", addressed to site managers and national
focal points for World Heritage, in order to help them
connect to the system. The Committee's attention was drawn
to paragraphs 20 and 21 of WHC-95/CONF.203/INF.10 in which
a number of important issues have been raised by the Group
of Experts, notably questions regarding confidentiality,
copyright and decentralization of information. These issues
continue to be discussed by the Group through electronic
means, and a set of proposals is expected to be addressed
to the Bureau of the Committee for its next meeting (Summer
1996).
XIV.3 The production of World Heritage promotion
material covers a wide range: it includes the production of
photo exhibits, two of them within the framework of
UNESCO's 50th anniversary; a CD-ROM to be launched in
January 1996; contributions on World Heritage in a number
of popular journals and on TV programmes (Jeune Afrique,
Paris-Match, CNN World Report, ZDF, etc.); calendars with
a large distribution (National Panasonic, Rhône-Poulenc,
UNESCO ASP Calendar, UNESCO's World Heritage Diary);
publications such as the two encyclopedias (Spain and
Germany); cooperation with Patrimonio 2001. While the past
*[64]
year was rather fruitful in these regards, there is
urgent need to improve the situation regarding the sign-plates
(plaques) at World Heritage sites. These, the Secretariat
reminded, are the responsibility of each State Party. While
at some sites the local/national authorities have put up
excellent signs, there are still many sites that have none.
The Secretariat hopes to redress this situation in 1996 and
would welcome suggestions on that account from the
Committee. Likewise, the Committee was requested to give
the Secretariat their comments in the next few weeks on the
draft text of the basic, easily adjustable World Heritage
Information Kit, prepared by the Centre and UNESCO's Office
of Public Information and distributed at this session.
XIV.4 Finally, regarding the third axis (World Heritage
education) the Secretariat drew the Committee's attention
to the detailed report on UNESCO's First World Heritage
Youth Forum (presented as Annex I of WHC-95/CONF.203/11)
which took place in Bergen, Norway, in June 1995. The
success of this project, which was undertaken jointly with
the Education Sector, the Norwegian National Commission for
UNESCO, the City of Bergen, the Organization of World
Heritage Cities and the Rhône-Poulenc Foundation, along
with a number of other partners, has prompted several other
initiatives, which have been approved by the General
Conference of UNESCO at its 28th session. Namely, the
production of a World Heritage Teaching Kit for secondary-
school teachers, to be done in cooperation with ICCROM,
ICOMOS and the IUCN, and the organization of regional
meetings for students, teachers, conservation specialists
and policy-makers ("mini-Bergens") to be held in Europe,
Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Arab States in the next
two-three years.
XIV.5 The Committee was informed by the Director of the
Division for Physical Heritage, Culture Sector, on the
progress of the preparation of an exhibit "From Abu Simbel
to Angkor", which was planned as part of the 50th
anniversary events, and for which the Committee had
approved US$ 45,000 at its eighteenth session.
XIV.6 In the ensuing debate, the Delegate of Niger,
having congratulated the Centre on its work, wished to know
what benefits the Centre received when, as in the case of
the National Panasonic calendar, a private firm is allowed
to use the World Heritage logo. The Director of the World
Heritage Centre responded that all such income is clearly
marked in the budget document. He invited Niger to
participate in the promotional and communication activities
of the Centre regarding African countries given his
competence. The Delegate of Brazil, "having congratulated
the Centre for developing World Heritage education,
expressed the belief that the logo could be used for
didactic purposes by teachers in classrooms and therefore
proposed that their point of view be debated in the
teachers' meetings mentioned in paragraph XIV.4 above." The
*[65]
Brazilian Delegation also suggested that an article by
the author of the logo, Mr Michel Olyff, or an interview with
him, be published in one of the issues of the World
Heritage Newsletter.
XIV.7 The Delegate of France stressed the importance of
the cooperation established in the past year between the
Centre, the Education Sector and the Social Sciences
Sector. He wished, however, that such relations be
strengthened also with the other Sectors. Underlining his
Delegation's satisfaction with the World Heritage
Newsletter, which is appreciated by a large number of
readers, including site managers, he expressed his wish
that the Newsletter continues in the future. As for the
World Heritage Information Network, he expressed his
concern that "this may lead to a two-speed (à deux vitesse)
World Heritage information service, and marginalize the
technologically less advanced countries. He also expressed
his concern regarding a possible rigidity in the way WHIN
is applied, as could be seen in the case of the proposed
form for monitoring. In that case, he advised, one should
strive for the provision of minimum rather than maximum
information; all research should be on an experimental and
non-prescriptive basis."
XIV.8 The Delegate of Germany addressed the question of
site inscription plates, mentioned in the introductory
statement. These are necessary and, indeed, the
responsibility of local authorities. However, as they are
quite expensive, it is not surprising that many sites do
not have one. He therefore endorsed the Secretariat's view
that something should be done to encourage States Parties
to put up inscription plates. On another subject, he asked
the Centre to be more careful when dealing with publishers
in order to avoid the use of wrong photos.
XIV.9 The Delegate of China, having thanked the
Secretariat for the detailed report, and having expressed
full support for the Centre's orientation in this area,
proposed that the report include also an information on the
current project of the Chinese television PTV, which
received support from the World Heritage Fund. Finally, he
congratulated the Centre on the success of the first World
Heritage Youth Forum, held in Bergen in 1995.
XIV.10 Referring to the comment made by France regarding
WHIN, the Delegate of the Philippines emphasized the
importance of reading and books as tools for education.
Expressing her wariness regarding the use of the electronic
media in education, she concluded that it was not an
"either-or" situation, but rather a need to use both
possibilities.
XIV.11 The Delegate of Malta, having endorsed the
statements by the Delegates of France and the Philippines
respectively, stated that the WHC-95/CONF.203/INF.10
*[66]
document was a good step towards greater visibility of
World Heritage. She furthermore expressed her satisfaction
with the draft text to be used in the basic Information
Kit. Having expressed her regret that the World Heritage
logo was missing as background decoration at this session,
she suggested that this be done for future sessions.
Finally, she questioned whether UNESCO had the copyright
for the World Heritage logo and whether the drawing of the
"Patrimonito"-logo, made by students at the Bergen Forum,
was legal.
XIV.12 The Delegate of Lebanon, having pointed out that
the name of the site in Lebanon, which figures in the ASP
World Heritage calendar for 1996, was wrong and required
correction, nonetheless expressed his satisfaction that two
Lebanese students participated at the Bergen Forum. In
conclusion, he expressed concern regarding the "promotional
flagship projects" mentioned in document WHC-
95/CONF.203/11. Such concern was expressed also by the
Delegate of Benin, who asked the Secretariat for
clarification.
XIV.13 Having heard all the comments, including that of
the Delegate of Italy who suggested that a review be made
first in the States Parties of the activities that already
exist for young people regarding World Heritage, the
Chairperson thanked the Secretariat for its thorough
presentation and asked it to take into account all the
comments and suggestions made during the discussion of this
item.
XV. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND, AND
APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 1996 AND PRESENTATION
OF A PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR 1997
XV.1 The Committee approved the report of the Working
Group on the World Heritage Fund, and after considerable
discussion the 1996 budget was established at US$
3,000,000. Suggested revisions to the budget format and
financial statement were noted and the Centre was requested
to continue its efforts to develop more transparency in the
presentations. The Committee decided to replenish the
Emergency Reserve Fund to US$ 500,000 at 1 January 1996 and
1 January 1997. The Committee, at its closing session,
took note of an indicative budget for Chapters II to V for
1997 amounting to US$2,520,000.
XV.2 On more specific items, the Committee decided
the following:
a) The Committee agreed, that depending upon the balance
remaining in the Emergency Reserve Fund at the end of the
fiscal year, the amount required to replenish this Fund to
US$ 500,000 at the beginning of the year be transferred
from the Operating Reserve. Upon evaluating the actual
*[67] emergency actions in 1996, the Committee noted that
this ceiling of the Emergency Reserve for 1997 would be
increased if needed.
b) For Chapter I of the budget, "Overall functioning of
the World Heritage Convention", the Committee agreed to
increase the appropriation for attendance of experts of
developing countries to the statutory meetings to US$
80,000 to ensure the participation of two experts (one
cultural and one natural) from States Parties requiring
financial support and that in the future, this
appropriation will be fixed on the basis of actual costs
depending on the composition of the Committee and the
Bureau, and the lieu of the statutory meetings.
c) "The Committee reiterated that the resources of the
World Heritage Fund should be used solely for the purposes
for which they were intended, such as international
assistance, and not for financial support for personnel or
functioning of the Secretariat. Nevertheless, it did
approve an amount of US$ 360,000 as an exceptional measure,
to cover the costs of seven full-time secretarial posts and
the remaining balance could partially finance a
documentalist. Concerning the Secretariat's request for the
continued funding of the P-5 post for a natural heritage
specialist, the Committee refused to meet this request.
Recalling that it was the responsibility of UNESCO to
provide the personnel of the Secretariat in accordance with
Article 14 of the Convention, the Committee requested the
Chairperson to take this matter up with the Director-
General of UNESCO on their behalf. The Committee stressed
that the staff of the Centre are to enjoy the same status
as any other member of the UNESCO Secretariat. It was
noted, furthermore, that the resources of the World
Heritage Fund should be used for the stated purposes, such
as for international assistance and not to finance the
administrative support cost of the Secretariat.
d) The Director of the Centre pledged to scrupulously
respect the directives of the Committee to use these funds
for seven temporary General Service posts in accordance
with the terms of the UNESCO Staff Rules and Regulations
and that he would provide a detailed report on the real
costs and the actual use of these funds. One delegate
requested that the Director also report on the standards or
ratios of secretaries to professional officers practiced at
UNESCO.
e) The budgetary appropriation under Chapter II,
"Establishment of the World Heritage List" was approved as
proposed, up to US$ 592,000.
f) For Chapter III, the Committee noted that the
International Assistance budget should continue to respect
the decision taken at its session in Phuket with regard to
the approval of requests, that is, to allocate at least
*[68]
one-third for natural heritage (US$ 228,333) and
two-thirds for cultural heritage (US$ 456,667) for technical
cooperation; and equal division between the two types of
properties for training, up to US$ 550,000.
g) Following the adoption of the report of the Working
Group on Monitoring, the Committee agreed to a new title
for systematic monitoring under Chapter IV of the budget
proposal, "Support to States Parties for Monitoring and
Reporting". In order to reflect the decisions on this
matter in the budgetary appropriations, the proposed
Meeting of Experts on Monitoring and the activity on
Methodological Development were not approved. However, to
provide support to States Parties wishing to carry out the
monitoring and reporting activities on voluntary basis, the
Committee approved the budget for the proposed regional
activities. Consequently, the budget was decreased to US$
260,000.
h) In the debate on Chapter V on Budget, the Delegate of
Lebanon proposed the creation, under "Promotion and
Education", which would be increased by US$ 20,000, a
budget sub-line for the extension to Africa and the Arab
States of the Niger expertise in electronic communication,
in order to create an electronic network of World Heritage
sites and focal points in these two regions. The Committee
decided therefore that out of the total of US$ 298,000, US$
50,000 should be attributed to this project.
i) Noting the relative failure in fund-raising efforts,
which resulted in the collection of very limited funds, the
Committee stressed the need for the Director of the Centre
to concentrate efforts to obtain the payment of the
considerable arrears in States Parties' contributions and
to report on the results to the twentieth session of the
World Heritage Committee.
j) After considerable discussion with respect to the
necessary coordination between the use of the World
Heritage Fund and the budget of the UNESCO Regular
Programme, it was agreed that the Centre would provide
information to the Bureau at its next session on World
Heritage activities undertaken by other sectors and units
of UNESCO which are financed under the Regular Programme
budget and by extrabudgetary contributions and that
information be provided on the use of the Regular
Programme.
k) The Committee congratulated Norway for its financial
and moral commitment to world heritage. Some members of
the Committee expressed strong concern about the creation
of a network of World Heritage offices and invited the
Director of the Centre to provide information on the
creation of this type of office in Norway. The
Chairperson, with the agreement of the Committee, invited
the Observer of Norway to provide clarifications.
*[69]
The Observer stated that the Office was established as a
three-year pilot project on the basis of an agreement
between the Government of the Kingdom of Norway and the
Director-General of UNESCO. This office will be funded
primarily by Norway with the support of other Nordic
countries. The modest contribution from the UNESCO Regular
Programme is to be used for joint operational projects to
be undertaken by this Office and the World Heritage Centre.
It was further noted that the Office was staffed by three
Norwegian Public Service officers. Finally it was stated
that the project would be re-evaluated in two-and-a-half
years.
At the conclusion of the discusssions a copy of the
agreement was made available to the members of the
Committee; but they did not have the opportunity to express
their views on this text. The Director of the World
Heritage Centre agreed to prepare a report for the next
session of the Bureau on the subject of decentralization as
it relates to World Heritage.
*[inserted pages 69 bis and 69 ter, Synoptic Overview of
the Budget, omitted]
*[70]
XVI. IMPROVEMENT OF THE WORKING METHODS OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE
XVI.1 The Chairperson introduced this item of the
agenda on the basis of a discussion document prepared, upon
his initiative, by three members of the Bureau, namely, the
Delegates of Australia, Japan and Lebanon.
XVI.2 Having underlined the necessity to modify the
existing working methods of the Committee in light of the
ever increasing number of States Parties to the Convention
and the number of the inscribed World Heritage sites, the
Delegate of Germany stated that the proposals in the
discussion paper were a substantial contribution in that
direction.
XVI.3 In the ensuing debate in which the Delegates of
France, Italy, Australia, Niger, Brazil and Malta took
part, it became evident that the positions were too diverse
to lead to a concensus. The Chairperson therefore decided
to entrust the preparation of a second draft of the
proposal to an ad hoc group made up of the Delegates of
Australia, Japan, Lebanon, France, Germany, Malta and
Niger.
XVI.4 The second draft was examined by the Committee a
day later. The Delegate of Germany proposed a modification
of the text from paragraph 5 onwards, so that it reads as
a decision by the Committee. The Delegate of Benin
supported the proposed text as amended by Germany.
XVI.5 Having reiterated that the proposed modifications
of the Committee's working methods was to be considered
only as a first step in the process, the Chairperson
thereupon declared the consensus text adopted as amended by
Germany.
XVI.6 The adopted text reads as follows:
"Working methods of the World Heritage Committee
1. Following discussions at its meeting in July 1995 the
Bureau agreed that the matter of improving the working
methods of the Committee should be considered by the
Committee at its nineteenth session. The growing number of
items on the agenda was considered to require a more
rational use of the time available to the Committee.
2. It is recognised that any change to the working methods
of the Committee are likely to also impact on the
operations of the Bureau, the World Heritage Centre and the
advisory bodies. However, it is also recognised that the
Committee is the primary decision-making body; the role of
the Bureau is to coordinate the work of the Committee (to
prepare the ground). In order to improve and streamline the
*[71]
implementation of the Convention, it is necessary that
the Committee decides first how its wishes to discharge its
responsibilities.
3. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the Committee,
in the limited time available at its annual meeting, to
conscientiously discharge its responsibilities to :
(i) examine and evaluate nominations to the World
Heritage List;
(ii) decide on an appropriate response to the
increasing number of state of conservation reports;
(iii) discuss and determine the budgetary allocations
for the coming year; and
(iv) refine and further develop procedures for the
efficient implementation of the Convention.
4. Whatever mechanism the Committee chooses to adopt to
improve its working methods it should take into account the
need for :
(i) transparency of process, such that States Parties
and interested organizations are afforded every
opportunity to observe and participate in the debate;
(ii) the Committee to be seen to take seriously its
responsibilities for inscription of properties and
consideration of reports on their state of
conservation;
(iii) the time between submission of a nomination and
a decision by the Committee not to be unnecessarily
prolonged.
5. The Committee therefore decided that the following
measures be applied at future meetings:
(i) "the working documents concerning the agenda
items must be rapidly prepared and distributed. They
must be concise, complete and readily understandable.
(ii) "in order to keep to the timetable, notably the
dates set for debates, speakers must be concise in
their presentations, not reading lengthy
recommendations which members of the Committee have
before them in their documents. They should make use
of good quality visual aids such as slides and
overhead transparencies.
(iii) Delegations with minor corrections to the text
of resolutions should submit these in writing to the
Rapporteur, rather than making interventions during
the debate."
*[72]
6. The aspect of the Committee's work which is expanding
most rapidly and can be expected to continue to increase is
the consideration of state of conservation reports. One
approach to streamlining how these reports are dealt with
could be for the Committee to consider only those reports
which deal with properties on the World Heritage List in
Danger or proposed to be added to that List, with written
reports on other sites being provided for the Committee for
noting.
7. During the discussion of the budget at the current
meeting it has been suggested that the decision-making
process would be improved if the Committee was presented
with well documented and clearly argued proposals for its
consideration."
XVII. REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
XVII.1 The Secretariat introduced the Working Document
and recalled that the Committee at its eighteenth session
decided that the following specific revisions of the
Operational Guidelines should be examined by the Bureau at
its nineteenth session.
A. Chapter I, Section C of the Operational Guidelines:
CRITERIA FOR THE INCLUSION OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES IN
THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST (DEFINITION OF AND CRITERIA
FOR CULTURAL PROPERTIES)
Based upon the results of four regional and thematic
expert meetings that were held in 1994 and 1995 on
'Heritage Canals' (Canada, 15-19 September 1994), 'Routes
as a Part of our Cultural Heritage' (Spain, 24-25 November
1994), 'Asian Rice Culture and its Terraced Landscapes'
(Philippines, 28 March to 4 April 1995) and 'Identifying
and Assessing World Heritage Cultural Landscapes
(Associative Landscapes)' (Australia, 26 to 28 April 1995),
the Bureau recommended the Committee to introduce revisions
on the following items:
A.1. The role of the local people in the nomination process
(paragraph 14)
Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the
Committee adopted the following revised text to replace the
existing paragraph 14:
14. Participation of local people in the
nomination process is essential to make them feel
a shared responsibility with the State Party in
the maintenance of the site.
*[73]
A.2. Criteria for the inclusion of cultural properties in
the World Heritage List
The Committee endorsed the recommendations made by the
Bureau and revised paragraph 24.(a) as follows:
24. (a) (i) (unchanged)
(ii) exhibit an important interchange of human
values, over a span of time or within a cultural
area of the world, on developments in
architecture or technology, monumental arts,
town-planning or landscape design; or
(iii) (unchanged)
(iv) be an outstanding example of a type of
building or architectural or technological
ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a)
significant stage(s) in human history; or
(v) (unchanged)
(vi) (unchanged).
In view of the extreme importance of the criteria for
inscription, several of the delegates requested the
Secretariat to ensure the concordance of the above text in
the French and the English versions of the Operational
Guidelines.
In addition, it was recalled that at the eighteenth
session of the Committee the Delegate of Lebanon mentioned
several problems of syntax in the formulation of criterion
b(ii) of paragraph 24. The Delegate of France also
proposed to add the notion of contractural protection and
management. Consequently, the Committee decided to revise
the text as follows:
24. (b) (ii) have adequate legal and/or contractual
and/or traditional protection and management
mechanisms to ensure the conservation of the
nominated cultural properties or cultural
landscapes. The existence of protective
legislation at the national, provincial or
municipal level and/or a well-established
contractual or traditional protection as well as
of adequate management and/or planning control
mechanisms is therefore essential and, as is
clearly indicated in the following paragraph,
must be stated clearly on the nomination form.
Assurances of the effective implementation of
these laws and/or contractual and/or traditional
protection as well as of these management
mechanisms are also expected. Furthermore, in
order to preserve the integrity of cultural
*[74]
sites, particularly those open to large
numbers of visitors, the State Party concerned should
be able to provide evidence of suitable
administrative arrangements to cover the
management of the property, its conservation and
its accessibility to the public.
A.3. Explanatory notes on cultural landscapes
The expert meetings on canals and heritage routes had
proposed definitions of these types of linear cultural
properties. The Bureau recommended the Committee to make a
reference to these two types of cultural properties in
paragraph 40 of the Operational Guidelines and that a
glossary of terms be prepared as an annex to the
Operational Guidelines. The following definitions would
then be included in the glossary of terms:
'A canal is a human-engineered waterway. It may be of
outstanding universal value from the point of view of
history or technology, either intrinsically or as an
exceptional example representative of this category of
cultural property. The canal may be a monumental
work, the defining feature of a linear cultural
landscape, or an integral component of a complex
cultural landscape'.
'A heritage route is composed of tangible elements of
which the cultural significance comes from exchanges
and a multi-dimensional dialogue across countries or
regions, and that illustrate the interaction of
movement, along the route, in space and time'.
During the Committee's debate on the nature and
contents of a glossary of terms, the Delegate of Canada
stressed that the Operational Guidelines should provide a
framework to the States Parties on the different types of
properties that can be nominated for inscription on the
World Heritage List. The Delegate of France underlined that
such definitions evolve and that, in order to avoid
continuous revisions of the Guidelines, a glossary should
be kept apart from the Guidelines themselves. The Delegate
of Italy pointed out that, in any case, the preparation of
a glossary of terms could be very difficult and supported,
therefore, the opinion expressed by the Delegate of France.
Concluding the debate, the Committee decided to
request the Secretariat to initiate the preparation of a
glossary of terms independantly from the Operational
Guidelines.
*[75]
B. Chapter I, Section F: GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION
AND EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS (ROLE OF THE ADVISORY
BODIES IN THE EVALUATION OF NOMINATIONS)
In order to better describe the advisory bodies'
evaluation process of cultural and natural properties, the
Bureau recommended that the Committee deletes paragraphs 45
and 46 of the Operational Guidelines, which only describe
the process for natural properties, and to introduce a new
paragraph before paragraph 59 so as to fully describe the
evaluation process for both the natural and the cultural
properties. Following an intervention by the Delegate of
Cyprus, the Committee expressed its full confidence in the
work of the advisory bodies and decided not to describe in
detail the internal review procedures of the advisory
bodies. The Committee decided to delete paragraphs 45 and
46 of the Operational Guidelines and to introduce the
following before paragraph 59:
F. Guidelines for the evaluation and examination of
nominations
xx. The evaluation of whether or not individual sites
nominated by States Parties satisfy the criteria and
the conditions of authenticity/integrity will be
carried out by the International Council on Monuments
and Sites (ICOMOS) for cultural properties and by the
World Conservation Union (IUCN) for natural
properties. In the case of nominations of cultural
properties in the category of 'cultural landscapes',
as appropriate, the evaluation will be carried out in
consultation with the World Conservation Union (IUCN).
ICOMOS and IUCN present evaluation reports to the
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.
ICOMOS and IUCN, taking into account the decisions of
the Bureau and additional information that might have
been received from the nominating State Party, present
a final evaluation report to the World Heritage
Committee.
The report of the World Heritage Committee's session
will include its decision, the criteria under which
the nominated site has been inscribed, the
justification of their application as well as any
recommendation the Committee may wish to make on that
occasion.
*[76]
C. Chapter IV, Section A: DIFFERENT FORMS OF ASSISTANCE
AVAILABLE UNDER THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND (DEADLINES FOR
PRESENTATION OF REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE BUREAU AND THE COMMITTEE)
The Secretariat recalled that over the years, it had
become practice that a great number of requests which were
to be examined by the Bureau and the Committee, were
submitted shortly before their sessions.
To facilitate the work of the Secretariat and to
enable it to prepare the necessary documents well in
advance of the sessions of the Bureau and the Committee,
the Committee decided to introduce strict deadlines for the
submission of all requests for international assistance,
with the exception of requests for emergency assistance, at
1 May and 1 October respectively for examination at the
following session of the Bureau. The Committee decided to
delete paragraph 104, which only sets a deadline for large-
scale technical cooperation requests, and to introduce the
above deadlines in a new paragraph after paragraph 109, as
follows:
xx All requests for international assistance which
are to be examined by the Bureau, with the exception
of requests for emergency assistance, should be
submitted before 1 May and 1 October respectively for
consideration by the following session of the Bureau.
Large-scale requests (that is those exceeding US$
30,000) will be forwarded, with the Bureau's
recommendation, to the following session of the World
Heritage Committee for decision-making.
D. Chapter I, Section G: FORMAT AND CONTENTS OF
NOMINATIONS
In view of the Committee's decision to defer the
examination of the new nomination form to its twentieth
session, the Committee equally decided to defer the
revision of paragraph 65 of the Operational Guidelines
('Format and Content of Nominations').
XVIII. DATE AND PLACE OF THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
XVIII.1 The Committee decided that the twentieth session
of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee would be held
at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 24 to 29 June 1996,
pending confirmation of the availability of UNESCO
conference facilities for those dates.
XVIII.2 The Provisional Agenda for the twentieth session
of the Bureau as outlined in Document WHC-
*[77]
95/CONF.203.15Rev. was adopted without amendment and is
attached as Annex IV.
XIX. DATE AND PLACE OF THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE (DECEMBER 1996)
XIX.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre
informed the Committee that the Governments of Italy and
Mexico have both officially expressed their readiness to
host the Committee in 1996, while the Government of Finland
would like to host such a meeting in 1998.
XIX.2 The Delegate of Italy thereupon reiterated his
Government's invitation to the Committee, indicating
however that should the Committee hold its next meeting in
Mexico, the 1997 session could possibly be held in Naples.
The Delegate of Italy will inform the World Heritage Centre
as soon as possible of the agreement of the Government of
Italy.
XIX.3 The Delegate of Mexico likewise reiterated his
Government's invitation to host the twentieth session of
the Committee. Thereupon, the Committee decided that its
next session will take place from 2 to 7 December 1996, and
will be held, in principle, in Cancun, Quintana Rao, which
is close to Sian Ka'an, a natural, and Chichen Itza, a
cultural site, both inscribed on the World Heritage List.
The Delegate of Mexico will confirm the venue of the
meeting before mid-February 1996.
XIX.4 The Delegate of Niger informed the Committee that
his country would like to host the Committee in 1998.
XX. OTHER BUSINESS
XX.1 Upon the request of the Delegate of Italy, the
Committee decided to include in the provisional agenda of
the twentieth session of the World Heritage Committee an
item on how to assure, after each General Assembly of the
States Parties, the concordance of the outgoing Bureau and
the newly elected Committee.
XXI. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE AND
CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
XXI.1 Before proceeding to the examination and adoption
of the draft report, the Chairperson, with the approval of
the Committee, invited the Observer of Afghanistan to take
the floor. In thanking the Committee for the emergency
assistance granted by the Chairperson for the Minaret of
Jam, he referred to the cultural properties of Afghanistan
on the tentative list which continue to be threatened by
war and illicit traffic. On behalf of his Government, he
*[78]
expressed his hope that these sites could one day be
inscribed on the World Heritage List and appealed for
international protection for their safeguarding.
XXI.2 Thereupon, the Chairperson gave the floor to the
Observer of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Muhamed Hamidovic,
Director of the Institute for Protection of Cultural,
Historical and Natural Heritage of the Republic of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, who informed the Committee that more than
2,500 cultural and historical monuments of his country have
been recently destroyed by war. This, he said, has
endangered a cultural identity that is more than one
thousand years old. Having stressed that the heritage of
Bosnia and Herzegovina was inadequately treated in former
Yugoslavia, he informed the Committee of the documentary
preparations undertaken by his country's authorities in
order to propose several properties for possible
inscription on the World Heritage List. This would include:
Old Sarajevo, the Historical Centre of Mostar and three
natural sites. The first two nomination files are being
prepared with the help of the UNESCO Office in Sarajevo. He
concluded his statement by expressing his country's
disappointment that the World Heritage Committee has so far
done so little to help preserve the monuments and the
culture of his country.
XXI.3 Following a four-hour examination of the draft
report, the Committee adopted it with the amendments noted
during the debate. In order to provide as faithful an
account as possible, all of the amendments that were
received in writing have been included as quotes in the
final version.
XXI.4 The Rapporteur of the Committee expressed, in the
name of the States Parties members of the World Heritage
Committee, the States Parties having attended the
nineteenth session of the Committee as Observers, and the
representatives of the advisory bodies his thanks to the
Government of Germany for its generous hospitality and the
excellent arrangements which allowed the Committee to
accomplish its work in a most satisfactory way.
XXI.5 Before adjourning the meeting, the Chairperson
thanked warmly all of the delegates and observers for their
valuable contributions to the debates. Particular thanks
were addressed to the members of the Bureau and, above all,
the Rapporteur. Finally, the Chairperson also thanked the
Director of the World Heritage Centre, Mr Bernd von Droste,
and the interpreters.
====================================================================
ANNEX I/ANNEXE I
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
The Hon. Barry JONES
Member of Parliament
Parliament House
CANBERRA, ACT 260
Dr David KAY
Assistant Secretary
World Heritage and Biodiversity Branch
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA City 2601
Ms Joan DOMICELJ
Vice-President, ICOMOS
101/102 Alfred Street
Milsons Point 2061
SYDNEY
BENIN
M. Isidore MONSI
Conseiller
Délégation du Bénin auprès de l'UNESCO
Maison de l 'UNESCO
PARIS
BRAZIL/BRESIL
M. Glauco CAMPELLO
Président du Patrimoine historique et artistique national (IPHAN)
Rua da Imprensa, 16
RIO DE JANEIRO
Mme Maria Dolores PENNA DE ALMEIDA CUNHA
Deuxième Secrétaire d'Ambassade
Ministère des Relations extérieures
Esplanada dos Ministérios Palacio do Itamaraty
BRASILIA
*[ANNEX I/2]
CANADA
Ms Christina CAMERON
Director General
National Historic Sites, Parks Canada
Department of Canadian Heritage
25 Eddy Street
HULL, Quebec K1A OM5
M. Murray McCOMB
Chief of Strategic Studies
National Parks Directorate
Parks Canada
Department of Canadian Heritage
25 Eddy Street
HULL, Quebec K1A OM5
Mme Gisèle CANTIN
Chef des Affaires internationales
Parcs Canada, Ministère du patrimoine canadien
25, rue Eddy
HULL, Québec K1A OM5
Mme Gisèle TRUBEY
Chargée de programme, Culture, Communication et information
Commission canadienne pour l 'UNESCO
C.P. 1047
OTTAWA,
Ontario KIP 5V8
CHINA/ CHINE
Mr CHENG Xiaolin
Director
Division of General Policy, Culture & Communication
Chinese National Commission for UNESCO
37 Damucang Hutong Xidan
BEIJING 100816
Mr ZHAO Jianrong
Deputy Director
Division of Landscape Architecture
Ministry of Construction
BEIJING
Mr GUO Zhan
Director of Cultural Relics, First Section
The State Bureau of Cultural Property
29, Wusi Street
BEIJING 100009
*[ANNEX I/3]
CUBA
Dr Marta ARJONA
Présidente
Conseil du patrimoine culturel
Calle 4 y 11, Vedado
LA HABANA
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Mr Christos CASSIMATIS
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Cyprus to UNESCO
UNESCO House
PARIS
Dr Sophocles HADJISAWAS
Curator of Ancient Monuments
Department of Antiquities
Ministry of Communications and Works
ECUADOR/EQUATEUR
Dr Filoteo SAMANIEGO
Director del Instituto Nacional del
Patrimonio Cultural
Calle Colon y 10 de Agosto (la Circasiana)
QUITO
Ing. Luis CARRERA de la TORRE
Presidente de la Comision Asesora Ambiental
del Ecuador
10, de Agosto y Canion
QUITO
Lic. Diego MOREJON
Consul General del Ecuador en Berlin
Clara Zetkin Street, 89
10117 BERLIN
FRANCE
Mme Françoise BERCE
Inspecteur général du patrimoine
Ministère de la Culture
65, rue de Richelieu
75001 PARIS
Mme Anne LEWIS-LOUBIGNAC
Conseiller technique
Commission nationale française pour l 'UNESCO
34-36, rue La Pérouse
75775 PARIS Cedex 16
*[ANNEX I/4]
M. Jean-Louis PONS
Chargé de mission à la Direction de la nature et des paysages
Ministère de l' Environnement
20, avenue de Ségur
75007 PARIS
M. Léon PRESSOUYRE
Vice-Président de l'Université de Paris I
Vice-Président du Comité Culture de la Commission
nationale francaise pour l'UNESCO
17, rue de la Sorbonne
75231 PARIS Cedex 05
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Ambassador Dr Horst WINKELMANN
Federal Foreign Office
BONN
Deputy Delegates
Dr Hans CASPARY
Office for the Conservation of Historic Monuments
of the Land Rhineland-Palatinate
Gottelmannstrasse, 17
D-55130 MAINZ
Prof. Dr Harald PLACHTER
University of Marburg
Department of Biology
Karl-von-Frisch-Strasse
D-35032 MARBURG
Mr Heiner MODEL
Counsellor
Federal Foreign Office
Postfach 1148
D-53001 BONN
Mr Thilo KÖHLER
Counsellor
Federal Foreign Office
Postfach 1148
D-53001 BONN
Advisors
Professor Peter P. CANISIUS
President of the German National Commission
for UNESCO
BONN
*[ANNEX I/5]
Mr Hartmut DORGERLOH
Ministry of Science, Research & Culture
of the Land Brandenburg
POTSDAM
Dr Hans-Dieter DYROFF
German National Commission for UNESCO
BONN
Professor Hans-J. GIERSBERG
Foundation for Castles and Gardens
of Potsdam-Sanssouci
POTSDAM
Professor Dr Detlef KARG
Office for the Conservation of Historic Monuments
of the Land Brandenburg
BERLIN
Mr Klaus von KROSIGK
Senate Administration for City Development
and Environmental Protection
BERLIN
Mr Dieter OFFENHÄUSSER
German National Commission for UNESCO
BONN
Professor Dr Michael PETZET
President,
German National Committee of ICOMOS
MUNICH
Experts
Mr Reinhard DIETRICH
Ministry for Science and Arts of the Land Hesse
WIESBADEN
Dr Florian FIEDLER
German National Committee of ICOMOS
MUNICH
Ms GESCHWINDE
German National Commission for UNESCO
BONN
Mr Jörg MEYER-SCHOLTEN
Messel GmbH
WIESBADEN
Mrs Annegret PETSCHAT-MARTENS
German National Commission for UNESCO
BONN
*[ANNEX I/6]
Dr Stefan SCHAAL
Senckenberg Research Institute
FRANKFURT
Dr Traugott SCHÖFTHALER
Secretary-General,
German National Commission for UNESCO
BONN
Mr Martin SCHWARZ
Federal Foreign Office
BONN
Dr (Mrs) Sabine SOLF
German National Commission for UNESCO
BONN
Mr Jörg-Ingo WEBER
Senate Administration for Culture
BERLIN
Mrs Sieglinde WEBER
Protocol of the Berlin Senate
BERLIN
Mr Niels GUTSCHOW
Member of the German Delegation
Dr Hans LEISEN
Professor, University
KÖLN
Dr Jaroslav PONCAR
Professor, University
Alteburger Wall 31
50678 KÖLN
Dr Helmut ENGEL
Professor
Landeskonservator
Senate Administration for City Development
and Environment Protection
BERLIN
Ms Karin FRANK
Assistant to the Chairperson
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
BONN
*[ANNEX I/7]
ITALY/ITALIE
S. Exc. M. Giancarlo LEO
Ambassadeur
Délégation permanente de l'Italie auprès de l 'UNESCO
Maison de l 'UNESCO
PARIS
M. M. Francesco FRANCIONI
Professeur de droit International
Université de Sienne
Mme Margherita SABATINI
Attachée au Secteur UNESCO de la Direction générale
des Relations culturelles
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
Piazzale della Farnesina
ROME
M. Pasquale Bruno MALARA
Surintendant de l' Environnement et de l'Architecture
TURIN
M. Luciano MARCHETTI
Architecte-Directeur
Surintendance de l' Environnement et de l'Architecture
Piazza Pitti 1
FLORENCE
Mme Roberta ALBEROTANZA
Cabinet du Ministre des Biens culturels
Service des Relations internationales
27, via del Collegio Romano
ROME
JAPAN/JAPON
Mr Akio KAWATO
Deputy Director-General
Cultural Affairs Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2-2-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO
Mr Yasufumi SAKITANI
Director-General
Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs
3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO 100
*[ANNEX I/8]
Mr Kazunobu ASADA
Deputy Director
Monuments and Sites Division
Agency for Cultural Affairs
3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO
Dr Makoto MOTONAKA
Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties
Monuments and Sites Division
Agency for Cultural Affairs
3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO 100
Dr Nobuko INABA
Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties
Architecture Division
Agency for Cultural Affairs
3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO 100
Ms Tokuko NABESHIMA
Third Secretary
Permanent Delegation of Japan to UNESCO
UNESCO House
PARIS
Dr Hidetoshi SAITO
Professor in Tokyo National University of Arts
12-8 Ueno-Koen, Taito-ku
TOKYO 100
Mr Masahiko YASUMURO
Assistant Director, Management Planning Division
National Forest Management Department
Forestry Agency
1-2-1 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO 100
Mr Tetsuro UESUGI
Assistant Director, Planning Division
Nature Conservation Bureau
Environment Agency
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO 100
LEBANON/LIBAN
M. Noël FATTAL
Conseiller
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation permanente du Liban auprès de l 'UNESCO
Maison de l 'UNESCO
PARIS
*[ANNEX I/9]
MALTA/MALTE
Ms Tanya VELLA
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Malta to UNESCO
Ambassade de Malte
Avenue des Champs Elysées
75008 PARIS
MEXICO/MEXIQUE
Mr Salvador DIAZ-BERRIO
Deputy Director
Technical Support and Training (INAH)
CORDOBA 45
MEXICO D.F. 06700
MOROCCO/MAROC
M. Abdelaziz TOURI
Directeur du patrimoine culturel
17, rue Michlifen
RABAT
NIGER
S. Exc. M. Lambert MESSAN
Ambassadeur
Délégation permanente du Niger auprès de l' UNESCO
Maison de l 'UNESCO
PARIS
M. Michel LE BERRE
Conseiller
Université Claude Bernard/IASBSE
Socio-écologie et Conservation
43, boulevard du 11 novembre 1918
F-69622 VILLEURBANNE Cedex
PHILIPPINES
Ms Virginia MORENO
Chairperson Culture Committee
UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines
1718 Vasquez, Malae
MANILA
*[ANNEX I/10]
SPAIN/ ESPAGNE
Mr D. Félix BENITO
Arquitecto del Instituto de
Conservacion y Restauracion de Bienes Culturales
Ministerio de Cultura
C/Greco n°4
28040 MADRID
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mr John REYNOLDS
Deputy Director
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20013
Mr Robert MILNE
Special Advisor, Office of International Affairs
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20013
Mr E. Blaine CLIVER
Chief, Preservation Technology
National Park Service
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON DC 20013-7127
Mr William McILHENNY
Permanent Observer
Permanent Mission to UNESCO
American Embassy in Paris
PARIS
II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY
CAPACITY/ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE
RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES
POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS
(ICCROM)
Mr Jukka JOKILEHTO
Assistant to the Director General
Via di San Michele, 13
00153 ROME
Italy
*[ANNEX I/11]
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUNENTS AND SITES/CONSEIL
INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS)
Mr Jean-Louis LUXEN
Secretary General
75 rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
Ms Carmen ANON FELIU
President of the Executive Committee
Puerto Santamaria 49
MADRID 28043
Spain
Mr Henry CLEERE
World Heritage Coordinator
75, rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
Prof. Dr. Michael PETZET
President ICOMOS-Germany
80539 MUNCHEN
Ms Regina DURIGHELLO
Assistant to the World Heritage Coordinator
75, rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
Mr Florian FIEDLER
Deutsche National Committee
GERMANY
Ms Irmela SPELSBERG
ICOMOS/Germany
14199 BERLIN
Prof. Hans Munk HANSEN
Architect
Mr Peter STOTT
ICOMOS-US
23, Bellevue Street
MEDFORD MA 02155
USA
THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)/UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE
(UICN)
Dr James THORSELL
Senior Advisor - Natural Heritage
Rue Mauverney, 28
CH-1196 GLAND
Switzerland
*[ANNEX I/12]
Mr Adrian PHILLIPS
Chair, IUCN Commission on National Parks
and Protected Areas (CNPPA)
2 The Old Rectory
DUMBLETON
near Evesham
WR11 6TG
United Kingdom
Mr P.H.C. (Bing) LUCAS
Vice-Chair, World Heritage
IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA)
1/268 Main Road, Tawa,
WELLINGTON
New Zealand 6006
Mr James PAINE
Senior Research Officer
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC)
219 Huntingdon Road
CAMBRIDGE CB22 AL
United Kingdom
Mr Ole HAMANN
Member of IUCN Delegation in Demnark
Baunegårdsves 22
2820 GENTOFTE (Denmark)
III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS
AFGHANISTAN
Mr Homayun PARVANTA
Lecturer
KABUL University
ALGERIA/ALGERIE
Mme Faouzia BOUMAIZA
Déléguée permanente adjointe
Délégation permanente de l'Algérie auprès de l'UNESCO
Maison de l'UNESCO
PARIS
Mme Houria BOUHIRED
Présidente,
Association "Sauvons la Casbah"
9, rue Buffon
St Raphaël El Biar
ALGER
*[ANNEX I/13]
M. Mohammed BENGHERABI
Expert
ALGER
ARGENTINA/ARGENTINE
M. Juan Carlos POLI
Vice-Président de la Commission nationale des Monuments,
des Musées et des Sites historiques
Av. Callao 1405 (4°F)
1024 BUENOS AIRES
Mme Marla Susana PATARO
Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente de l'Argentine auprès de l'UNESCO
Maison de l'UNESCO, Paris
AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE
Mr Ernst BACHER
General Conservator
Bundesdenkmalamt
Hofburg, Saulenstiege
A-1010 WIEN
Mr Hans HORCICKA
Director
Minoritenplatz 5
Federal Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs
A-1014 WIEN
BAHRAIN/BAHREIN
Mr Abdul Wahab ALKHAJA
Curator of Popular Heritage
Ministry of Information
P.O. Box 2119
BAHRAIN
BELARUS
Mr Vladimir SKVORTSOV
Counsellor
Fritz-Scheiffer Str. 20
53113 BONN
BOLIVIA/BOLIVIE
Dr. Waldo ROSS
Professor, Montreal University
LA PAZ
*[ANNEX I/14]
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE HERZEGOVINE
Professor Mehmed HAMIDOVIC
Director of the Federal and Republic Institute
for the Protection of Cultural-Historical
and Natural Properties of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti
Bistrik 7
71.000 SARAJEVO
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Mr Gueorgui GUROV
Ambassador
Department of International Cultural Policy
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2, rue Al-Gendov
SOFIA
CAMBODIA/CAMBODGE
Mr VANN MOLYVANN
Minister of State in charge of Culture & Fine Arts
Government of Cambodia
CHILE/CHILI
Mr Rodolfo BERLINGER LANDA
Consul
Consultat général du Chili à Berlin
BERLIN
COLOMBIA/COLOMBIE
H.E. Mr Pablo Gabriel OBREGON
Ambassador
Permanent Delegation of Colombia to UNESCO
UNESCO House
PARIS
Ms Isabel VERNAZA
First Secretary
Permanent Delegation of Colombia to UNESCO
UNESCO House
PARIS
*[ANNEX I/15]
CROATIA/CROATIE
Mr Vjekoslav VIERDA
Director
Institute for the Restoration of Dubrovnik
C. Zuzoric 6
20000 DUBROVNIK
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Mr Michal BENES
Secretary for Cultural Affairs of UNESCO
Ministry of Culture
110 00 PRAHA 1
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Ms Margaretha EHRSTROM
Researcher
National Board of Antiquities
Department of Monuments and Sites
P.O. Box 187
00171 HELSINKI
Mr Jaakko ANTTI-POIKA
Director
The Governing Body of Suomenlinna
00190 HELSINKI
Mr Eero NIINIKOSKI
Chairman, Ticcih-Finland
DENMARK/DANEMARK
Professor Hans Munk HANSEN
Architect
Chairperson, National Committee of ICOMOS
Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole
Kongens Nytorv 1
1050 COPENHAGEN
GREECE/GRECE
Mme Hélène METHODIOU
Conseiller culturel
Délégation permanente de la Grèce auprès de l 'UNESCO
Maison de l'UNESCO
PARIS
*[ANNEX I/16]
HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE
H.E. Mr Ernesto GALLINA
Archbishop, Apostolic Nuncio
Delegate for International
Governmental Organizations
Vatican City
ROME
Dr Christine GOETZ
Archevêché de BERLIN
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Mr Janos TARDY
Secrétaire d' Etat adjoint
Ministère de l' Environnement et de l'Aménagement
du Territoire
BUDAPEST
Mr Janos JELEN
Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Office of the State Secretary
BUDAPEST
* (Rapporteur of the 10th General Assembly)/(Rapporteur de la
10ème Assemblée générale)
Mr Zoltan SZILASSY
Sous-directeur
Ministère de l' Environnement et de l'Aménagement
du Territoire
H-1121 Költo u 21
1121 BUDAPEST
Mme Kinga SZEKELY
Chef de département
Ministère de l' Environnement et de l'Aménagement
du Territoire
H-1121 Költo u 21
1121 BUDAPEST
Mr Gabor BAROSS
Directeur
Parc National d'Aggtelek
INDIA/INDE
H.E. Mrs Nina SIBAL
Ambassador
Permanent Delegation of India to UNESCO
UNESCO House
PARIS
*[ANNEX I/17]
INDONESIA/INDONESIE
Mr Kria Fahmi PASARIBU
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Indonesia to UNESCO
UNESCO House
PARIS
LITHUANIA/LITUANIE
Mr Jonas GLEMZA
Director of the Department of Cultural Heritage Protection
& Secretary of the Ministry of Culture
SNIPISKIU 3, VILNIUS 2Q05
MALAYSIA/MALAYSIE
Mr Mohd. Ariff BIN YUSOF
Head of Culture Division
Ministry of Culture, Art and Tourism
KUALA LUMPUR
MONGOLIA/MONGOLIE
Mr Dolgoryn SUKHBAATAR
Head,
Foreign Relations Department
Ministry of Culture
ULAN BATOR 11
NEPAL
Mr Shyamanand Das SUMAN
Minister Counsellor
Royal Nepalese Embassy
45 bis, rue des Acacias
75017 PARIS
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Prof. Dr. Oivind LUNDE
Riksantikvar
Directorate for Cultural Heritage
Dronningens-gt. 13
Postboks 8196 Dep
N-0034 OSLO
*[ANNEX I/18]
Ms Anne-Kristin ENDRESEN
Deputy Director
Ministry of Environment
P.O. Box 8013 Dep.
N-0030 OSLO
Mr Amund SINDING-LARSEN
Senior Advisor, International Affairs
Directorate for Cultural Heritage
P.O. Box 8196 DEP
N-0034 OSLO
Ms Ingunn KVISTEROY
Deputy Secretary-General
Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO
P.O. Box 1507 VIKA
N-0117 OSLO
PAKISTAN
Mr Arshad SAMI KHAN
Secretary for Culture, Government of Pakistan
ISLAMABAD
H.E. Khwaja Shahid HOSAIN
Ambassador
Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO
UNESCO House
PARIS
PERU/PEROU
José Antonio DOIG ALBERDI
Consul général
Consulat général du Pérou à Berlin
Schadowstr. 6
10117 BERLIN
POLAND/POLOGNE
Prof. Dr Andrzej TOMASZEWSKI
Chief Conservator of Monuments of Poland
Generalny Konserwator Zabytkow
ul. Ksawerow, 13
02-656 WARSAW
*[ANNEX I/19]
PORTUGAL
M. José Antonio Moya RIBERA
Ambassadeur
Délégation permanente du Portugal auprès de 1' UNESCO
Maison de 1'UNESCO
PARIS
M. Joao Estevao LOPES SERRADO
Secrétaire exécutif
Commission portugaise pour 1'UNESCO
Avenida Infante Sante 42-5°
1350 LISBOA
M. Paulo PEREIRA
Vice-Présidente
Institut portugais du patrimoine archéologique
et architectural (IPPAR)
Ministère de la Culture
Palacio da Ajuda
ALA NORTE
Mr Edite ESTRELA
Mayor of Sintra
Mr Mario de FIGUEIREDO
Deputy Mayor of Sintra
Mr José Cardim RIBEIRO
Chief, Culture Division
Camara Municipal de Sintra
Largo Virgilio Horta
2710 SINTRA
REPUBLIC OF KOREA/REPUBLIQUE DU COREE
H.E. Mr Hyun-Gon KIM
Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to UNESCO
91, avenue Henri Martin
75016 PARIS
Mr Jin-Moo KIM
Director-General
Office of Cultural Properties
Ministry of Culture and Sports
Jung Gu Jung Dong
SEOUL
Mr Yong-Gi SHIN
Consul
Consultate General of the Republic of Korea in Berlin
BERLIN
*[ANNEX I/20]
Mr Woo Chang HAN
Consul
Consultate General of the Republic of Korea
BERLIN
Mr Kwon HUH
Director of Culture
Korean National Commission for UNESCO
SEOUL
Mr Jae-Soo KANG
Assistant Director
Tangible Cultural Properties Division
Ministry of Culture and Sports
SEOUL
M. Won-Sik LEE
Mayor of Kyong Ju
KYONG JU City Hall
Mr Chang-Hwan KIM
Assistant to the Mayor of Kyong Ju
KYONG JU City Hall
Mr Chui-Ho MIN
KYONG JU City Hall
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Mr Cristian MOISESCU
Directeur général,
Direction générale du patrimoine culturel
Ministère de la culture
RUSSIAN FEDERATION/FEDERATION DE RUSSIE
Mr Ioulia SOUKHAREVA
Premier Secrétaire du Ministère
des Affaires étrangères
Commission nationale de la Fédération de Russie
pour l'UNESCO
9, Vozdvijenka
MOSCOU 121019
SAUDI ARABIA/ARABIE SAOUDITE
Mr Nasser AbdulKarim AL-ARIFI
Archaeological Researcher
Ministry of Education
Department of Antiquities and Museums
P.O. 22028
RIYADH 11495
*[ANNEX I/21
SENEGAL
M. Mbaye Bassine DIENG
Directeur
Patrimoine historique et ethnographique
B.P. 4001
DAKAR
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Dr Jozef KLINDA
Head of the Environmental Conception,
Law and Organisation Division
Ministry of the Environment
BRATISLAVA
Mr Pavel TOMA
Head of Environmental Planning and Conception Department
Ministry of the Environment
BRATISLAVA
Mr Peter KRAJCOVIC
Expert, Ministry of Environment
BRATISLAVA
Ms Viera DVORAKOVA
Head of Division for Architecture & Urbanism
Institute for Monuments
BRATISLAVA
Mr Jozef HLAVAC
Director
Slovak Caves Management
Mr Pavel BELLA
Slovak Caves Management
SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE
Mr Joze OSTERMAN
State Secretary
Ministry of Culture
Cankarjeva 5
61000 LJUBLJANA
SRI LANKA
Mr W. Ran Banda RAJAKARUNA
Secretary
Ministry of Cultural & Religious Affairs
*[ANNEX I/22]
SWEDEN/SUEDE
Ms Birgitta HOBERG
International Officer
Central Board of National Antiquities
P.O. Box 5405
S-11484 STOCKHOLM
Mr Lars-Erik ESPING
Former Director
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
S-10648 STOCKHOLM
Ms Marita JONSSON
Director
The County Administration
Province of Gotland
Mr Per-Olof JACOBSSON
Member of Planning and Heritage Committee
GOTLAND
Ms Sonja LANDIN
Vice Mayor
Municipality of Gotland
62181 VISBY
Mr Björn ERICSSON
Chief, Executive Finance
Municipality of Gotland
62181 VISBY
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Dr. H. Aldo ANTONIETTI
Vice-Directeur et Chef de la Division principale
de la protection de la nature et du paysage
Office fédéral de l'environnement, des forêts et du paysage
Département fédéral de l'intérieur
3003 BERNE
Mme Hanna WIDRIG
Conseillère d'Ambassade
Chargée des Affaires culturelles
Ambassade de Suisse - Bureau de Berlin
Furst Bismarckstrasse 4
10557 BERLIN
*[ANNEX I/23]
THAILAND/THAILANDE
Dr Adul WICHIENCHAROEN
Chairman
National Committee for Protection of the
World Cultural & Natural Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy & Planning
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
60/1 Phibulwattana 7, Rama VI Road
BANGKOK 10400
Ms Srinoi POVATONG
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Thailand to UNESCO
UNESCO House
Mr Weera SAKULTAB
Director
Public Education and Extension Division
Department of Environmental Quality Promotion
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
114 soi Tibordee, Pracharas II
BANGKOK 10800
Mr Borvornvej RUNGRUJEE
Director, Ayutthaya Historic City Project
Office Ayutthaya Province
Fine Arts Department
Ministry of Education
BANGKOK 10300
Mr Tawee NOOTONG
Forest Technical Officer
Royal Forest Department
Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives
Paholyothin Road
BANGKOK 10900
Mrs Usa KIATCHAIPIPAT
Secretariat Officer
National Committee for Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
60/1 Phibulwattana 7, Rama VI Road
BANGKOK 10400
TURKEY/TURQUIE
M. Ercan OZTEN
Vice-Consul
General Consultate of Turkey in Berlin
Johann Georg Str. 12
BERLIN
*[ANNEX I/24]
URUGUAY
Mr Antonio CRAVOTTO
Membre de la Commission du patrimoine historique,
artistique et culturel de la nation
Av. Sarmiento, 2360
11306 MONTEVIDEO
M. Carlos MOREIRA REISCH
Intendente
Rivera 213
COLONIA
IV. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ORGANISATIONS NON-
GOUVERNEMENTALES
ARID CLIMATE, ADAPTION AND CULTURAL INNOVATION IN AFRICA (ACACIA)
Mr Stefan KRÖPELIN
Expert on Saharan Protected Areas
Paleomonsoons Project Office
Podbielskiallee 62
D-14195 BERLIN
COUNCIL OF EUROPE/CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE
Mme Françoise BAUER
67000 STRASBOURG
THE J. PAUL GETTY TRUST/FONDATION J. PAUL GETTY
Ms Margaret MAC LEAN
The Getty Conservation Institute
Director, Documentation Program
4503 Glencoe Ave.
MARINA DEL REY, California
United States of America
Mr Timothy P. WHALEN
The Getty Grant Program
Senior Program Officer
401 Wilshire Boulevard,
Suite 1000
SANTA MONICA, California 90401-1455
United States of America
*[ANNEX I/25]
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS/FEDERATION
INTERNATIONALE DES ARCHITECTES-PAYSAGISTES (IFLA)
Mr Hans DORN
First Vice-President
4, rue Hardy - R.P. n° 914
78009 VERSAILLES - CEDEX
Mr George ANAGNOSTOPOULOS
President
30 Rigillis St.
GR-10674 ATHENS
ISLAMIC CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION/ORGANISATION DE LA CONFERENCE
ISLAMIQUE (OIC)
Mr Ahmed LAJIMI
Research Centre for Islamic History, Art and Culture/
Centre de Recherches sur l'Histoire, l'Art et la
Culture Islamiques (IRCICA)
ISTANBUL (Turkey)
ISLAMIC EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION/
ORGANISATION ISLAMIQUE POUR L'EDUCATION, LES SCIENCES ET LA
CULTURE (ISESCO)
Dr Omar EL KADY
Department of Culture and Communication
RABAT
Maroc
ORGANIZATION OF WORLD HERITAGE CITIES (OWHC)/ORGANISATION DES
VILLES DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL (OVPM)
M. Marcel JUNIUS
Secretaire général
56, rue St. Pierre
QUEBEC G1K 4A1
Canada
Dr Céline SAUCIER
Directrice des Projets spéciaux
56, rue St. Pierre
QUEBEC G1K 4A1
Canada
*[ANNEX I/26]
UNION INTERNATIONALE DES ARCHITECTES/ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE
DES ARCHITECTES (UIA)
M. Alberto GARCIA GIL
Coordinateur des GT régionaux de l'UIA
"Architecte et patrimoine"
c/o Section espagnole de l'UIA
Paseo de la Castellana, 12, 4°
28046 MADRID
Espagne
Mme Magdalena PEREZ-MINGUEZ GUTIERREZ-SOLANA
Paseo de la Castellana, 12, 4°
28046 MADRID
Espagne
WORLD MONUNENTS FUND (WMF)
Mr John STUBBS
Director of Programs
949 Park Avenue
NEW YORK
New York
N.Y. 10028
United States of America
V. PRESS/PRESSE
Ms Ana Maria SCHARFF
Diario Hoy (Bolivia)
Kurfurstendamm 75
10709 BERLIN
Ms Marika VILLA
Estrische Medien
BERLIN
Mr Jona AKAIKE
Mainichi Broadcasting System (Japan)
Urbanstr. 50
BERLIN
Mr Jiro MINAMIKAWA
Mainichi Broadcasting System (Japan)
BERLIN
Mr Itsuo KUMAKURA
Tokyo Jhimbun (Japan)
53113 BONN
*[ANNEX I/27]
Mr Maik Hendrik SPROTTE
Tokyo Jhimbun (Japan)
53113 BONN
Mr Mohammed ASADULLAH
Asian Times (London)
Alexdanerstr. 4
10179 BERLIN
M. Francisco ASSUNÇAO
Correspondant
Lusa News Agency (Portugal)
10365 BERLIN
M. Luis Filipo SEBASTIAO
Journalist (Portugal)
Rua Amilcar Cabral, 1
LISBOA
Portugal
Mr Johnny TARIGAN
Antara News Agency (Indonesia)
Hochetr. 15 A
BERLIN
Mr Wolfgang KUMM
Photograph
10113 BERLIN
VI. SECRETARIAT
Mr. Bernd von DROSTE
Director
World Heritage Centre
Mr Mounir BOUCHENAKI
Director, Division of Cultural Heritage
Culture Sector
Mr Richard A. ENGELHARDT
Regional Advisor for Culture in Asia & Pacific
920 Sukhumvit Road
BANGKOK (Thaïland)
Mr Daniel de SAN
Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs/
Office des Normes internationales et des Affaires juridiques
UNESCO
Ms Breda PAVLIC
World Heritage Centre/Centre du patrimoine mondial
*[ANNEX I/28]
Ms Minja YANG
World Heritage Centre/Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mr Mark WARREN
Accounts Division/Division de la comptabilité
Bureau of the Comptroller/Bureau du Contrôleur financier
Mr Harold EIDSVIK
World Heritage Centre/Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mr Laurent LEVI-STRAUSS
World Heritage Centre/Centre du patrimoine mondial
Ms Galia SAOUMA-FORERO
World Heritage Centre/Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mr Herman van HOOFF
World Heritage Centre/Centre du patrimoine mondial
Ms Mechtild RÖSSLER
World Heritage Centre/Centre du patrimoine mondial
Ms Maria PERERS
World Heritage Centre/Centre du patrimoine mondial
Ms Jane DEGEORGES
World Heritage Centre/Centre du patrimoine mondial
Ms Jocelyne POUTEAU
World Heritage Centre/Centre du patrimoine mondial
Ms Marianne RAABE
World Heritage Centre/Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mr David MARTEL
World Heritage Centre/Centre du patrimoine mondial
===================================================================
ANNEX II
Speech by
Mr Helmut Schäfer,
Minister of State,
German Federal Foreign Office,
at the nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee
Berlin, 4 December 1995
*[ANNEX II/2]
Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
I am both honoured and delighted to welcome you, on behalf of the
Federal Government, here in the "House of the World's Cultures" in
the nation's capital, Berlin.
The purpose of this house is to familiarize the general public with
the cultural achievements of other nations. It has been recognized by
UNESCO as Germany's contribution to the World Decade for
Cultural Development. Part of that contribution is the house radio
station named "SFB 4 - Multikulti", which transmits foreign-language
programmes for Berlin's foreign community.
This building is closely associated with the city's post-war era. It is a
gift to Berlin from the American people, who played a crucial part in
ensuring the city's survival after the war and in safeguarding the
freedom of what was then West Berlin. It was handed over to us on
condition that we would use it as an international centre, and that we
are doing.
Here we are right in the centre of Berlin, not far from the Reichstag
and the Brandenburg Gate. Seven years ago the wall and barbed-
wire still formed the barrier between two worlds. Nowhere else was
the historical transformation, the ending of the Cold War and the
division of Germany and Europe, as tangible and graphic as it was
here.
*[ANNEX II/3]
On Friday you will be visiting other testimonies to Germany's and
Europe's past. We want to show you the World Heritage monument
of Schloss Sanssouci, as well as the Cecilienhof, the venue of the
Potsdam Conference, which set the seal on the postwar order in
Europe.
There is, as you will notice, an air of expectancy in Berlin. The
decision to transfer the seat of parliament and government from
Bonn to Berlin is a huge challenge for the city's planners. A city
divided for decades must now grow into one again and recapture the
image and status of a capital and European metropolis.
Berlin's cultural and economic relevance will increase as the nations
of Europe grow closer together. In the next few years the city will be
a hive of activity, and Potsdamer Platz is already Europe's biggest
building site. lt will be the location of some of the world's leading
corporations.
I am told you will be having an opportunity later this week to learn
about the problems of planning on such a huge scale and also the
opportunities afforded by this unique situation. But I would also
suggest that you explore Berlin for yourselves and sample some of
its impressive cultural and culinary attractions.
We are offering you an outline programme which also reflects the
country's federal structure. This evening you will be the guest of
Berlin's Governing Mayor, and on Friday of the Minister President,
*[ANNEX II/4]
the equivalent of a governor, of the state of Brandenburg. The
federal states are actively involved in our national efforts to achieve
the aims of the World Heritage Convention.
Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
Preserving the world's cultural and natural heritage is one of
UNESCO's best-known programmes. The German media and public
take a keen interest in the activities of the World Heritage Centre and
in the decisions of this Committee. German television is currently
showing a series of programmes prepared in cooperation with the
Centre. It consists of 15-minute programmes introducing 100 of the
world's outstanding cultural monuments. This is also a welcome
publicity boost for UNESCO activities.
In my recent address to the 28th General Conference in Paris, I
urged UNESCO to keep on giving priority to world heritage
preservation. Germany is trying to make a tangible and creative
contribution. The Committee has included the Völklingen Ironworks
in the World Cultural Heritage List, the first time it has conferred this
distinction on an industrial monument. We have also requested that
the Bauhaus buildings in Dessau and Weimar be included in order to
give more prominence to modern architecture. In the longer term we
would also like to see more cultural monuments in eastern Germany
forming part of Germany's world cultural heritage.
*[ANNEX II/5]
Protecting the natural heritage is one area covered by the World
Heritage Convention whose importance is easily underrated and
which should therefore increasingly become the focus of our
attention. Many of the priorities which UNESCO has identified in its
Medium-Term Plan for the period 1996 to 2001 are also reflected in
the World Heritage Convention. One of the main conclusions is that
we can only achieve a culture of peace through sustainable
development. But such development requires us to use our ever
scarcer natural resources sparingly.
None of the Committee's achievements in protecting natural
resources is an end in itself. Mankind as a whole, including future
generations, benefit from them. Germany sees the Committee's
activities as a central responsibility of UNESCO.
I extend a cordial welcome to both the staff of the World Heritage
Centre and to Mr Mayor's representative. This session's workload is,
I believe, greater than ever. I hope the Committee will be able to
master the growing challenge. We all feel strongly committed to the
objectives of the World Heritage Convention. I am confident that this
Berlin session will produce good and far-sighted decisions.
I wish your conference every success and hope you have a pleasant
stay in Berlin.
=========================================================================
ANNEX III
MESSAGE A LA 19EME SESSION DU
COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
(Berlin, 4-9 décembre 1995)
Comme je l'ai rappelé encore tout récemment lors de la vingt-
huitième session de la Conférence générale, tous les programmes de
l'UNESCO convergent vers un seul but: la constuction de la paix.
Toute notre action - qu'il s'agisse d'éducation, de science, de
culture ou de communication - tend à faire progresser, par
l'échange, le dialogue, la diffusion du savoir, la compréhension
des identités, le respect mutuel et le partage, la culture de la
paix dont les péres fondateurs de l'Organisation avaient si bien
pressenti 'a nécessité.
Cette Maison des cultures du monde où vous vous réunissez
concrétise la vocation même de l'UNESCO. Et Berlin, capitale de
l'Allemagne unifiée, bâtie sur les décombres d'un mur symbole de
la fracture du monde, est bien aujourd'hui le signe tangible qu'au
delà d'idéologies longtemps affrontées, les esprits peuvent se
rejoindre.
Protéger le patrimoine mondial, c'est identifier et préserver
les trésors inestimables que nous ont légués depuis des millénaires
la nature et les cultures. Toute action en ce sens mérite la plus
grande reconnaissance et, à cet égard, parmi tous les pays qui ont
participé généreusement et efficacement à la protection de notre
patrimoine commun, l'Allemagne doit être particulièrement
distinguée et remerciée. Mais la sauvegarde du patrimoine mondial
*[ANNEX III/2]
n'est pas seulement une entreprise contribuant à la conservation ou
à la restauration du patrimolue physique. C'est aussi, et peut-être
avant tout, l'un des axes majeurs de la construction de la paix. Il
faut donc agir. Considérer que le patrimoine de chacun est aussi le
patrimoine de tous, organiser la solidarité nationale pour le
protéger, chercher à rassembler en une même Liste ce que la
diversité de l'humanité a produit de plus remarquable à partir de
ses aspirations matérielles et spirituelles, de ses techniques, de
ses modes de vie, de ses organisations sociales, de ses croyances,
de ses esthétiques. La Conventlon du patrimolne mondial n'est pas
seulement un instrument de protection internationale de la qualité
physique des biens. C'est aussi un outil intellectuel, scientifique
et philosophique, dont deux initiatives récentes du Secrétariat
illustrent bien la fonction.
L'une est la Stratégie globale établie pour améliorer la
représentativité de la Liste du patrimoine mondial. Je souhaite
vivement que la mise en oeuvre en soit efficace, car elle peut
ouvrir de nouvelles perspectives à l'avenir de la Convention. Pour
que celle-ci remplisse véritablement sa fonction, il faut en effet
qu'elle vise vraiment à l'universalité, non seulement par le nombre
d'Etats parties, mais aussi du point de vue de la reconnaissance
mutuelle des cultures et des biens culturels dans toute la
diversité de leurs formes.
L'autre initiative est le programme d'éducation des jeunes à
la préservation du patrimoine et à la promotion de ses valeurs. En
mobilisant les jeunes par l'intermédiaire des écoles et des
associations, en leur faisant découvrir la richesse et la fragilité
*[ANNEX III/3]
du patrimoine, en les faisant parler, réfléchir, échanger, nous
contribuans à construire un avénir porté par une jeunesse plus
consciente des impératifs de tolérance, de compréhension et de
paix.
Convaincu que vous n'épargnerez aucun effort, au cours de
cette 19ème session, pour faire avancer l'oeuvre commune, je vous
adresse mes plus sincères voeux de succès dans vos travaux.
[signed]
Federico Mayor
==================================================================
ANNEX IV
Limited distribution WHC-95/CONF.203/15Rev.
Berlin, 9 December 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
Nineteenth session
Berlin, Germany
4-9 December 1996
Item 17 on the Provisional Agenda: Provisional agenda of the
twentieth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
1. Opening of the session
2. Adoption of the agenda and the timetable
3. Report by the Secretary of the World Heritage
Committee
4. State of conservation of properties inscribed on the
World Heritage List:
4.1 Methodology and Procedures for the state of
conservation
4.2 Reports on the state of conservation of specific
properties
5. Information on tentative lists and the examination of
nominations of cultural and natural properties to the
World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in
Danger
6. Progress report on thematic and comparative studies
7. Synoptic presentation of the budget, including full
information on World Heritage activities within the
UNESCO Secretariat
8. Decentralization of World Heritage activities
9. Requests for International Assistance
10. Draft agenda for the extraordinary session of the
Bureau (December 1996)
*[ANNEX IV/2]
11. Preparation of the twentieth session of the World
Heritage Committee, including the draft agenda
(December 1996)
12. Other business
13. Closure of the session.
*[EOF]