PDF version: Report of the Committee (583 K)
Distribution limited WHC-97/CONF.208/17
27 February 1998
Original: English/French
ss
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-first session
Naples, Italy
1-6 December 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I. OPENING SESSION 1
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND TIMETABLE 3
III. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY ON THE ACTIVITIES 4
UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT SINCE THE
TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE
IV. REPORTS OF THE RAPPORTEURS ON THE SESSIONS 6
OF THE WORLD HERITAGE BUREAU
V. REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE'S 7
CONSULTATIVE BODY ON THE OVERALL
MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL REVIEW OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
CONVENTION
VI. DECISION OF THE 29TH GENERAL CONFERENCE 8
ON PERIODIC REPORTING
VII. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES 9
INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
VIII. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND 35
EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND
NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE
LIST AND LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
IX. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE GLOBAL STRATEGY 51
AND THEMATIC AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES
X. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE 54
XI. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND 55
AND APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 1998, AND
PRESENTATION OF A PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR
1999
XII. WORLD HERITAGE DOCUMENTATION, INFORMATION 60
AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
(i)
XIII. WORLD HERITAGE AND THE PREVENTION OF THE 67
ILLICIT TRAFFIC OF CULTURAL PROPERTY
XIV. DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE 68
TWENTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
XV. DATE AND PLACE OF THE TWENTY-SECOND SESSION 68
OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
XVI. OTHER BUSINESS 69
XVII. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT 70
XVIII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION 70
(ii)
LIST OF ANNEXES 
ANNEX I List of Participants
ANNEX II Speeches
ANNEX II.1
Speech by the Under-Secretary of State of
Foreign Affairs
ANNEX II.2
Speech by the Deputy Director-General of
UNESCO
ANNEX II.3
Speech by the Vice President of the Council
of Ministers and Minister of Cultural
Property and Environment
ANNEX II.4
Speech by the Chairperson of the World
Heritage Committee
ANNEX II.5
Speech by the Chairperson of the twentieth
session of the World Heritage Committee
ANNEX III Speech by the Chairperson of the twentieth session
of the Committee on the work of the Consultative
Body of the Committee concerning the overall financial
and administrative management of the World Heritage
Convention
ANNEX IV Statements concerning the Central Karakorum
National Park
ANNEX IV.1 Observer of India
ANNEX IV.2 Observer of Pakistan
ANNEX V Text of the resolution on periodic reporting adopted
by the 29th session of the General Conference
(iii)
ANNEX VI Statements concerning the inscription of cultural
heritage in Poland
ANNEX VI.1 Observer of Germany
ANNEX VI.2 Observer of Poland
ANNEX VII Statement of Italy concerning the co-operation between
the Italian Government, ROSTE, the World Heritage Centre
and ICCROM
ANNEX VIII Recommendation on Illicit Traffic affecting World Heritage
sites
ANNEX IX Provisional agenda of the twenty-second session of the Bureau
of the World Heritage Committee
ANNEX X Decisions of the twenty-first extraordinary session of Bureau
concerning international assistance requests
(iv)
*[1]
I. OPENING SESSION
I.1 The twenty-first session of the World Heritage
Committee was held in Naples, Italy, from 1 to 6 December
1997. It was attended by the following members of the World
Heritage Committee: Australia, Benin, Brazil, Canada, Cuba,
Ecuador, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan,
Lebanon, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Niger, Republic of Korea,
Thailand, United States of America and Zimbabwe.
I.2 The following States Parties to the Convention which
are not members of the Committee were represented as
observers: Albania, Austria, Argentina, Belarus, Belgium,
Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Holy See, India,
Indonesia, Latvia, Malawi, Netherlands, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru,
Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino,
Saudi Arabia, Spain, South Africa, Switzerland, United
Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam.
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 representatives of the Arab League
Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization, the
International Federation of Landscape Architects, the World
Heritage Cities Organization and the Getty Conservation
Institute. The complete list of participants is provided in
Annex I.
I.4 The twenty-first session of the World Heritage
Committee was opened by the Mayor of Naples, Mr. Bassolino,
who welcomed the participants and stated that it was an honour
for Naples to host this event which coincides with the twenty-
fifth anniversary of the World Heritage Convention. In
referring to the historic centre of Naples, which was placed
on the World Heritage List in 1995, he emphasised that it is
an outstanding example of a city of many different
civilisations which in the past played an important role in
international history. In his endeavour to safeguard and
protect the cultural heritage of Naples he expressed his
support to the World Heritage Convention and offered to join
efforts in safeguarding the heritage of humanity.
I.5 The opening ceremony was presided over by the Under-
Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs, Ms Patrizia Toia, who
in her speech highlighted Italy's commitment to the World
Heritage Convention, recalling that in 1983 Italy had hosted
the Committee meeting in Florence. She recalled the many
milestones which have been passed since the origin of the
Convention and particularly highlighted Italy's initiative
with regard to the UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illicit
exported cultural assets (June 1995) as well as its close
involvement in the UNESCO Committee for the return of cultural
property to their country of origin. She hoped that the World
Heritage Committee would address the issues of illicit traffic
of cultural goods pertaining to sites protected by the 1972
Convention. Ms Toia concluded by stating that Italy views the
protection and enhancement of the cultural and natural
heritage of the people of the world as an extraordinary
instrument for intercultural communication and for peace
(Speech annexed as Annex II.1).
I.6 The Deputy Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Adnan
Badran, began his speech by expressing his thanks and
gratitude to Italy, for its continuing important contribution
*[2]
to UNESCO and for having organized the Committee session in
such a tremendously rich cultural environment, the Palazzo
Reale.
I.7 He announced that on the occasion of the silver
jubilee of the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of
the World Cultural and Natural Heritage a Financial Audit of
the World Heritage Fund and a Management Review of the World
Heritage Convention had been carried out by the Office of the
Auditor General of Canada, the External Auditor of UNESCO.
I.8 In referring to the fact that the Committee would be
discussing the state of conservation of the twenty-two World
Heritage sites in Danger, he noted that conflicts between
World Heritage conservation and economic development are
intensifying and that resolution of these conflicts require
interventions at the highest level of the executive and
legislative authorities in States Parties.
I.9 He recalled the foresight and vision of UNESCO in
creating, 25 years ago, a unique international Convention that
simultaneously provided a legal framework for the preservation
of both cultural as well as natural heritage of outstanding
universal significance. However, he raised a number of
questions frequently posed by those who wish to sustain the
reputation of the Convention:
How can we improve the universality of the World Heritage List
so that it reflects a balanced representation of all regions
and cultures in the world and at the same time prevent a rapid
rise in the total number of sites inscribed on the List?
How can we ensure that monitoring and conservation of
properties become as important as identification, nomination
and inscription; and
How can we best meet the rapidly growing demand for
information, public education, documentation, promotion and
fund-raising for World Heritage conservation?
I.10 In conclusion, he emphasised that the World Heritage
Convention is UNESCO's premier international legal instrument
for the protection of heritage, promoting co-operation between
its Member States and pursuing an on-going, inter-cultural
dialogue that encourages a climate of tolerance and lays the
foundations for a culture of peace (Speech annexed as Annex
II.2).
I.11 The Vice-President of the Council of Ministers and
Minister of Cultural Property and Environment, Mr. Walter
Veltroni, expressed his keen interest in the Committee's
mission which is of universal interest and stressed that the
Italian Government was profoundly and actively committed to
the protection of the cultural heritage in Italy. In this
respect he mentioned that innovative measures had been taken
for generating additional funding for heritage protection and
conservation and mentioned, as an example, the National
Lottery. He also mentioned the initiative of decentralisation
of management which had been successfully realised in Pompeii.
The Minister made further reference to a new structure within
the Ministry which ensures the integration of cultural
heritage with environmental protection. In this context he
informed the participants that Florence has been chosen by the
Council of Europe as the venue for the adoption of the
European Landscape Convention. In carrying out its policy for
safeguarding the cultural heritage and promoting its meaning
on an international level, Italy has been inspired by UNESCO.
In conclusion, Mr. Veltroni reiterated Italy's wholehearted
support for UNESCO (Speech annexed as Annex II.3).
*[3]
I.12 The Chairperson of the Committee, Professor
Francesco Francioni, took the floor and congratulated and
welcomed the new members of the World Heritage Committee who
were elected by the eleventh General Assembly of States
Parties in October 1997: Finland, Greece, Hungary, Korea
(Republic of), Mexico, Thailand, and Zimbabwe. He thanked the
Committee for having elected him as Chair and spoke of the
strengths and weaknesses of the World Heritage Convention. He
mentioned in particular the capacity of the Convention to
raise awareness of the importance of the cultural and natural
heritage as an element to reinforce identity and civic pride.
He also referred to the need for a balance between cultural
and natural heritage which should mutually reinforce each
other. Furthermore, the Chairperson recalled the compromise
that was reached in Berlin in 1995 with regard to the issue of
monitoring and reporting.
I.13 The Chairperson further addressed the issues that
were discussed during the twentieth session of the World
Heritage Committee pertaining to the future role and operation
of the World Heritage Centre and stressed that the time had
come to begin on a course of institutional confidence.
Finally, Professor Francioni, stressed the need for further
coordination between the World Heritage Convention and other
international instruments in the field of protection of
cultural property (Speech annexed as Annex II.4).
I.14 The Chairperson then asked Ms Maria-Teresa Franco,
the Chairperson of the twentieth World Heritage Committee and
the twenty-first Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, to
take the floor. He thanked her for her commitment to the World
Heritage Convention during this year.
I.15 Ms Franco thanked the Committee for the honour they
had bestowed upon her by electing her as Chairperson a year
ago in Merida, Mexico. She continued by highlighting the need
to apply the concept of universality even though there is a
growing tendency towards the promotion of local identity and
singularity. She stressed the need to keep in mind the
principle of outstanding universal value to ensure the
credibility of the Convention. She presented an analysis of
the World Heritage List which showed the continuing accent on
European sites. She continued by emphasising that preparatory
assistance, available under the World Heritage Fund, is the
most suitable tool for the preparation of nominations from
regions currently underrepresented on the List. She referred
to the Financial Audit of the World Heritage Fund of 1996 and
the Management Review that have been carried out to increase
the efficiency of the implementation of the Convention. She
commented that it had shed light on several issues including
the need for transparency of the budgetary and financial
information and the need for the Centre to establish closer
relations with other Sectors of UNESCO. In conclusion, Ms
Franco expressed the belief that these efforts should continue
in the future (Speech annexed as Annex II.5).
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND TIMETABLE
II.1 The Chairperson presented the documents related to
the adoption of the agenda and the timetable, (Working
Documents WHC-97/CONF.208/1,WHC-97/CONF.208/2.Rev and WHC-
97/CONF.208/3). The Agenda and timetable were adopted without
any changes.
*[3]
III. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN
BY THE SECRETARIAT SINCE THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF
THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
III.1 Mr Bernd von Droste, Director of the World Heritage
Centre, reported in his capacity as Secretary of the
Committee, on the activities undertaken by the Secretariat
since the twentieth session of the Committee. He referred to
Information Document WHC-97/CONF.208/INF.5 and made an
audiovisual presentation which highlighted the main lines of
activities undertaken by the Centre in co-operation with
States Parties, the advisory bodies (ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN),
other Sectors of UNESCO and other partner.
III.2 The Director began his presentation by outlining the
statutory meetings and meetings with the advisory bodies held
in 1997. He then presented a summary of the six main lines of
actions that were adopted as part of the Programme and Budget
of UNESCO for 1998-1999. He also made reference to the
creation of a Consultative Body by the Committee at its
twentieth session in December 1996 and to the Financial Audit
and Management Review performed by the External Auditors of
UNESCO, the Auditor-General of Canada. He commented that the
recommendations of the Audit and the Management Review would
be useful for planning the work of the Centre in the future
and would also ensure greater effectiveness and visibility of
the Convention. He thanked the Auditors for their support and
advice during the year.
III.3 The Director welcomed the following new States
Parties to the Convention: Andorra, the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, South Africa, Papua New Guinea and
Suriname. He informed the Committee that there are now a
total of 152 States Parties and that the number is steadily
increasing. Of these States Parties, only 84 have submitted
tentative lists (a list of properties they intend to nominate
in the future) in the correct format. The Director informed
the Committee that the Centre has prepared a tentative list
database on the basis of information submitted by States
Parties. The database currently includes more than 1000
properties.
III.4 The Director presented an analysis of the World
Heritage List, noting that of the 506 properties currently
inscribed on the List, nearly fifty per cent are from Europe
and North America, whilst properties from Africa, the Arab
States, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean
remain, in comparison, poorly represented. He reported that
for the nominations to be considered by the Committee at its
twenty-first session, the majority are also from Europe. He
commented that for the first time from Dominica, Estonia,
Kenya, Latvia and Myanmar have submitted nomination dossiers.
III.5 The Director of the Centre reported that the global
strategy was being implemented to address these serious
imbalances and obtain a balanced and representative List. He
noted a number of Global Strategy activities undertaken in
1997, notably the Global Strategy meeting for the Pacific held
in Suva, Fiji, which had discussed the "inseparable connection
between the outstanding seascapes and landscapes" and the
diversity of the cultural heritage of the region which is
"bound through voyaging, kinship, trade and other
relationships." For natural heritage he made particular
reference to the identification of potential World Heritage
sites in the Nordic region and to the study entitled "Nordic
World Heritage" published by the Nordic Council of Ministers.
*[5]
III.6 The Director referred to the adoption of a
resolution adopted by the twenty-ninth General Conference of
UNESCO on the periodic reporting by the States Parties on the
legislative and administrative provisions and other actions
which they have taken for the application of the Convention,
including the state of conservation of the World Heritage
properties located on its territories. He reminded the
Committee that it needed to now define the periodicity,
format, nature and extent of the periodic reporting on the
state of conservation of World Heritage properties and to
examine and respond to these reports while respecting the
principle of State sovereignty.
III.7 With reference to state of conservation reports, the
Director noted that a total of 130 will have been presented to
the Bureau and to the Committee during 1997. Most notably,
the Committee will examine reports concerning four natural
World Heritage properties in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Manas National Park in India, Ichkeul National Park in
Tunisia, Galapagos National Park in Ecuador and Butrinti in
Albania.
III.8 The Director made brief reference to co-operation
projects for the safeguarding and sustainable development of
World Heritage cities in Asia through agreements between the
local authorities of Asia and countries such as France and the
United Kingdom. He reported that a Conference of Mayors of
Historic Cities in China will be held in 1998.
III.9 The Director referred to a number of natural and
cultural heritage training activities, including those
undertaken in partnership with ICCROM, that had been organized
in 1997. He reported on the celebration of the twenty-fifth
anniversary of the Convention referring in particular to
events in France and the United Kingdom and to inscription
ceremonies such as the one recently held in Salzburg, Austria.
III.10 The Director reported that more than 100 World
Heritage films had now been prepared in co-operation with
media partners mainly in Germany and Japan. He informed the
Committee that the World Heritage Review was currently
published in English, French and Spanish and that next year it
would be published in Japanese and Korean. He referred
briefly to the availability of World Heritage information
materials including the World Heritage map and Newsletter. He
reported that the Centre's web site was very successful with
more than 16,000 hits per week in October 1997. He announced
that the web site had recently received an international award
in recognition of its popularity and content.
III.11 Finally, the Director referred to the continuation
of the Young People's World Heritage Education Project and to
the support provided to the project by NORAD and the Rhone-
Poulenc Foundation. He reported that the World Heritage
Teacher's Education Resource Kit would be distributed to
schools in 1998 in English and French for testing and that
other language versions would follow. He thanked the Chinese
authorities for having recently hosted a World Heritage
Education Youth Forum in Beijing. In closing, Mr von Droste
called upon the Committee to exercise its intergenerational
responsibility for the future of young people and for the
conservation of the World Heritage.
III.12 In response to the report given by the Director of
the World Heritage Centre, the Delegate of Japan made
reference to the Annual Report of the Nordic World Heritage
Office in Oslo (WHC-97/CONF.208/INF.10) and posed the question
as to what approach should be taken by the Committee with
regard to the establishment of other similar regional offices.
He made reference to the rapid growth of the World Heritage
List and the diversity and increase in
*[6]
the work of the Committee and the World Heritage Centre and
inquired whether the regionalisation of the work could
strengthen the implementation of the Convention. He expressed
Japan's interest in playing a role in Asia and recognized the
need to have Committee consensus on this matter. He called for
the Committee to take a clear decision and to adopt a strategy
on this very important topic.
III.13 The Delegate of the Republic of Korea expressed his
pleasure at his recent election as a member of the World
Heritage Committee and announced that Korea also wishes to
contribute to regionally based conservation and monitoring of
World Heritage sites.
III.14 With reference to the Eurocentricity demonstrated by
the imbalances on the World Heritage List, the Delegate of
Benin raised the issue of the role played by the Third World
in the establishment of the World Heritage List. He commented
that decentralisation through regional centres may be a way of
achieving better balance of the World Heritage List. He also
emphasised the need for the advisory bodies to involve
advisory experts with appropriate cultural sensitivities in
the evaluation of nominations.
IV. REPORTS OF THE RAPPORTEURS ON THE SESSIONS OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE BUREAU
IV.1 In the absence of the Rapporteur of the twenty-first
session of the Bureau, Mr. Lambert Messan (Niger), the
Chairperson invited the Committee to take note of the report
(WHC-97/CONF.204/11).
IV.2 The Rapporteur of the Committee presented his report
on the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau of the
World Heritage Committee, held on 28 and 29 November 1997 in
Naples which has been prepared in three parts according to the
agenda items. The Committee took note of the report.
IV.3 The Observer of Pakistan drew the attention of the
Committee to paragraphs V.6 to V.10 and Annex IV of the Report
of the Rapporteur of the twenty-first session of the Bureau
(Document WHC-97/CONF.208/4A) regarding the nomination of
Central Karakorum National Park (N 802) as a World Heritage
site. He requested the Chairperson to bring this matter
"concerning this Park of Pakistan" to the attention of the
Committee, stressing that this nomination should be decided
upon merits and objective criteria, stating that "the
political status of the territory should have no relevance to
the Committee's decision". He furthermore stated that "even
though Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory as recognized
by the United Nations, the Northern Areas are under the
complete control of the Government of Pakistan". He also
requested the Committee to send an IUCN mission to proceed
with the evaluation of this nomination as soon as possible, as
the mission did not take place in August 1997 as a result of
the decision taken by the Bureau at its twenty-first session.
IV.4 The Observer of India thereafter took the floor
stating that in view of the location of the site, the IUCN
evaluation should not proceed in the absence of a formal
nomination from the sovereign state of the territory, "that is
India, since the site legally is part of India".
*[7]
IV.5 The Chairperson took note of these interventions,
and decided to bring this matter to the attention of the
Committee during the discussions for Agenda Item 8.
V. REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE'S CONSULTATIVE
BODY ON THE OVERALL MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL
REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
CONVENTION
V.1 The Chairperson opened Item 5 of the Agenda by
thanking Ms T. Franco (Mexico) for her work as the Chairperson
of the Committee's Consultative Body and inviting her to make
an oral report on their work.
V.2 Ms Franco referred to the Committee's decision at
its twentieth session to establish a Consultative Body to
review the way in which the Secretariat has assisted the
Committee in implementing the Convention. She informed the
Committee that the work had been undertaken in two steps - a
financial audit of the World Heritage Fund for the year ended
31 December 1996, and a management review of the Centre. She
reported that the Consultative Body had met five times during
the year, including a productive workshop with the staff of
the Secretariat at the end of October.
V.3 Ms Franco commented that in view of the short time
given to study the management report, the next logical step
seemed to be a thorough examination of the recommendations
contained in this report. This management review could be
performed by a sub-group of the Committee or by the existing
Consultative Body if its mandate was to be extended. She also
identified other issues (for example, the use of the World
Heritage emblem and quality control issues) that could be
further examined by the Consultative Body should its mandate
be extended. Ms Franco concluded her report by expressing her
gratitude to the Director and staff of the Centre, to the
advisory bodies, the External Auditor of UNESCO, to States
Parties and most particularly to the Director-General of
UNESCO. The text of Ms Franco's speech is included in this
report as Annex III.
V.4 Mrs Bonnie Miller and Ms Esther Stern from the
office of the Auditor General of Canada and External Auditor
of UNESCO, gave a presentation on the main findings of the
Management Review Report. Their report was structured
according to the main headings and recommendations in the
"Report of the External Auditor to the Director-General of
UNESCO on the Management Review of the World Heritage
Convention" (Annex B of WHC-97/CONF.208/5). The External
Auditors thanked Ms Franco, the Consultative Body, and the
Director of the World Heritage Centre for their help during
the year. The Chairperson thanked the External Auditors for
their clear and comprehensive report.
V.5 Several members of the Committee commented on the
detail and complexity of the Management Review Report, noting
that it would take time to analyse it in-depth. Furthermore,
several members of the Committee questioned whether the Report
went beyond the mandate given to the External Auditors. The
Delegate of Italy also noted that the Report did not fully
address "certain questions raised by the Consultative Body at
its April 1997 meeting" (Recommendation 177 of the Report).
Several members of the Committee mentioned particular issues,
such as the use of the emblem, the fund-raising guidelines and
content validation which required further examination.
*[8]
V.6 The Committee decided to prolong the work of the
Consultative Body, to be chaired by the President of the World
Heritage Committee, Professor F. Francioni (Italy). The
Delegate of Australia stated that the Director of the Centre
should also be closely involved in the work of the
Consultative Body. It was decided that the Consultative Body
would report initially to the twenty-second session of the
Bureau and then to the twenty-second session of the Committee.
The Committee asked that the Consultative Body analyse the
Management Review Report, further study the use of the emblem
and fund-raising guidelines and investigate the balance
between the Centre's work on promotion compared to that on the
management of World Heritage properties.
VI. DECISION OF THE 29TH GENERAL CONFERENCE ON PERIODIC
REPORTING
VI.1 The Committee took note of the resolution adopted by
the twenty-ninth General Conference of UNESCO on the periodic
reporting by the States Parties on the legislative and
administrative provisions and other actions which they have
taken for the application of the Convention, including the
state of conservation of the World Heritage properties located
on its territories. The Committee noted, in particular, points
14, 15 and 16 of the resolution in which the General
Conference:
Invites the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to
submit in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention,
through the World Heritage Committee, via its Secretariat the
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, reports on the legislative and
administrative provisions and other actions which they have
taken for the application of the Convention, including the
state of conservation of the World Heritage properties located
on its territories;
and
Requests the World Heritage Committee to define the
periodicity, form, nature and extent of the periodic reporting
on the application of the World Heritage Convention and on the
state of conservation of World Heritage properties and to
examine and respond to these reports while respecting the
principle of State sovereignty;
and
Requests the World Heritage Committee to include in its
reports to the General Conference, presented in accordance
with article 29.3 of the Convention, its findings as regard to
the application of the Convention by the States Parties.
VI.2 The full text of the resolution adopted by the
General Conference is included in Annex V.
*[9]
VII. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST
A. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC REPORTING
VII.1 The Committee considered the manner in which to
implement the decision of the General Conference on the basis
of some initial reflections that were presented by the
Secretariat in Working Document WHC-97/CONF.208/7.
VII.2 While recognizing the need for the States
Parties to report on the legislative and administrative
provisions which they have taken for the application of the
Convention, the Committee stressed the importance of periodic
reporting as a mechanism for exchange of information and
experiences between States Parties. In this context, the
attention was drawn to Article 29.1 of the Convention in which
States Parties are requested to report also on other actions,
together with details of the experience acquired.
VII.3 A regional approach for the examination of the
periodic reports by the Committee, as already proposed in
paragraph 72 of the Operational Guidelines, was supported as a
means to promote regional co-operation and to identify
specific needs.
VII.4 As to the format of the periodic reports, the
Committee stressed that this should be practical and simple
with due consideration given to the specific characteristics
of different types of cultural and natural heritage
properties. It should, furthermore, focus on the main issue,
which is the maintenance of the World Heritage values of the
site and the identification of indicators for its measurement.
VII.5 The Committee reviewed different options for
the periodicity of the periodic reporting, i.e. four, five or
six years. Although these options will have to be studied in
more detail, a great number of Committee members expressed
their preference for a six-year cycle, whereas some others
were of the opinion that a four- or five-year cycle would be
preferable.
VII.6 There was general agreement that the decision-
making on periodic reporting would not affect the importance
and continuing role of reactive monitoring that is foreseen in
the procedures for the eventual deletion of properties from
the World Heritage List, and in reference to properties
inscribed, or to be inscribed, on the List of World Heritage
in Danger.
VII.7 Finally, a suggestion was made to look into the
relation between the allocation of international assistance
and compliance with the periodic reporting requirement.
VII.8 Concluding the debate, the Committee, having
examined the resolution adopted by the 29th General Conference
of UNESCO, as well as Working Document WHC-97/CONF.208/7:
1. requested the Secretariat jointly with the advisory
bodies to prepare, on the basis of the observations made by
the Committee, for consideration by the twenty-second session
of the Bureau in 1998, a draft format for the periodic
reporting by the States Parties on the application of the
World Heritage Convention and on the state of conservation of
World Heritage properties;
*[10]
2. requested the Secretariat to submit, for consideration by
the twenty-second session of the Bureau in 1998, proposals for
the handling and the examination and response by the Committee
to the periodic reports;
3. requested the Secretariat to prepare, on the basis of the
discussions at the twenty-second session of the Bureau, a
draft revision of Section II of the Operational Guidelines for
consideration by the twenty-second session of the World
Heritage Committee.
B. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES
INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
VII.9 The Committee examined reports on the state of
conservation of twenty properties inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger as submitted in Working Document WHC-
97/CONF.208/8A and complemented with information provided by
the Secretariat and the advisory bodies during the session.
NATURAL HERITAGE
VII.10 The observations and recommendations of the
Bureau at its twenty-first session (see WHC-97/CONF.208/4)
were transmitted to the respective States Parties. The
Committee took note of the integrated report provided by IUCN
and the World Heritage Centre contained in Working Document
WHC-97/CONF.208/8A and of updated information presented during
the session.
VII.11 Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
The Committee recalled that at its nineteenth session (Berlin,
1995) it requested the Bulgarian authorities to submit a
threat-mitigation status report in 1998.
The Committee requested the State Party to submit, before 1
September 1998, a status report on measures taken to mitigate
threats to the site. The Committee requested IUCN to review
that report and to recommend measures to the consideration of
the Committee at its next session. The Committee decided to
retain Srebarna in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.12 Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)
The Committee recalled that at its last session (Merida,
1996), it decided to retain this site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger due to damage to the Park infrastructure
and possible negative impacts due to over-visitation. The
Bureau, at its twenty-first ordinary session held in June
1997, commended the Park authorities for having increased the
total area of the Park to include the entire underground basin
supplying the Park's lakes and streams. The Park had admitted
and managed 270,000 visitors, using educational guided tours.
The construction of a new sewage system will commence soon.
The Director's view that Plitvice Lakes should no longer
remain in the List of World Heritage in Danger, had been
endorsed, via a letter dated 18 September 1997, by the
Croatian Permanent Delegate to UNESCO.
The Committee commended the Croatian authorities for having
undertaken measures to repair damage to the Park's
infrastructure. The Committee decided to remove Plitvice from
the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested
the Park management to expedite the *[11] reconstruction of
the sewage system. In accordance with paragraph 66 of the
Operational Guidelines, the Committee invited Croatia
to nominate the extension of 100 km2, using standard nomination
procedures as set out in paragraph 64 of the Operational Guidelines.
VII.13 Virunga National Park (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
IUCN provided a detailed report, including a map showing
locations of major areas of armed conflict, refugee camps and
rebel activity in relation to Virunga and three other World
Heritage sites in the eastern parts of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. The situation in and around Virunga is unstable
with militia groups threatening human population and wildlife.
Aerial census of wildlife has not been undertaken since 1995;
there are frequent reports of deforestation, poaching and
illegal gold mining in the Park. Many automatic weapons left
behind by fleeing soldiers have been claimed by local
inhabitants and poachers and greatly endanger the life of the
small number of Park personnel attempting to carry out anti-
poaching activities. IUCN has listed fourteen recommendations
for restoring the Park; however, it has noted that the high-
level mission to Kinshasa, recommended by the Bureau at its
June 1997 session, to remind the national authorities of their
responsibilities under the Convention and determine the policy
of the new Government on nature conservation, is the most
urgent priority action needed at this time.
The Committee decided to retain Virunga in the List of World
Heritage in Danger and requested the Director-General of
UNESCO to send a high-level mission to the Democratic Republic
of the Congo as soon as possible.
VII.14 Garamba National Park (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
Since the Committee included this property in the List of
World Heritage in Danger, at its last session in December
1996, the eastern regions of the country where this site is
located have become further destabilised. Infrastructure of
the Park has been damaged and wildlife poached. The
uncertainty surrounding the new policy as regards nature
conservation puts all World Heritage sites in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo under threat.
The Committee decided to retain Garamba in the List of World
Heritage in Danger and requested the Director-General of
UNESCO to send a high-level mission to the Democratic Republic
of the Congo as soon as possible.
VII.15 Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
At its last session (Merida, 1996), the Committee reiterated
its concerns regarding road construction, poaching and
colonisation and its call for an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) of the road construction project. The Bureau,
at its twenty-first session in June 1997, was informed that
colonisation, and small scale mining activities had been
stopped, a new management plan was nearing finalisation and
that several conservation projects funded by WWF had begun.
The Committee decided to retain Sangay National Park in the
List of World Heritage in Danger and urged the Centre, in
collaboration with IUCN, agreement with the State Party and
possible support from WWF, to plan and organise a site visit
to address the problem of the Guamote Macas road construction
and other threats to the integrity of the site.
*[12]
The Delegate of Ecuador welcomed the decision by the Committee
to field a mission to the site and stated that the
construction of the road is currently paralyzed and that the
impact studies still have to be completed.
VII.16 Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
The Committee recalled that at its last session (Merida,
1996), it included this site in the List of World Heritage in
Danger, on the basis of the findings of a technical mission to
the site and IUCN reports, and approved a sum of US$ 30,000
for a meeting with stakeholders and donors, scheduled to be
held in April 1997. The Bureau, at its twenty-first session in
June 1997, learnt that the Regional Authorities in Bahr Dar,
where Simen National Park is located, had disagreed with the
Committee's decision to declare Simen as a World Heritage site
in Danger; hence, they had indefinitely postponed the meeting
of the stakeholders and donors and called upon the Central
Government authorities in Addis Ababa to organise a discussion
forum with UNESCO with a view to reversing the Committee's
decision.
The Centre discussed the matter with the Ambassador of
Ethiopia to France and the Permanent Delegate of Ethiopia to
UNESCO, and sought his assistance in encouraging the Ethiopian
authorities to view the Committee's decision in a positive
light and to proceed with the convening of the meeting of the
stakeholders and donors. The Permanent Delegate was in
agreement with the fact that the Committee's decision must be
viewed positively, and had agreed to discuss the matter with
relevant authorities during his visit to Ethiopia during
September-October 1997. No written information was received by
the Centre, the Permanent Delegate however informed Centre
staff orally that there had been no change in the views of the
Regional Government in Bahr Dar to date.
In the absence of any further information, the Committee
decided to retain Simen National Park in the List of World
Heritage in Danger and urged the Centre to continue to pursue
its efforts to resolve this deadlock.
VII.17 Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire)
The Committee recalled that at the time of its last session
(Merida, 1996), UNESCO's Office of International Standards and
Legal Affairs Office was considering a proposal for setting up
an "International Foundation for Mount Nimba". The Bureau, at
its twenty-first session in June, 1997, was informed that such
a foundation cannot be created by UNESCO but could be set up
under the national legislation of a suitable State Party,
following the example of the Foundation established for the
Banc d'Arguin, (Mauritania) in Switzerland. However, the
Bureau noted that the mining companies expected to contribute
to the Fund are not yet ready to launch the initiative and the
Minister of Environment of Guinea had requested that Mount
Nimba be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The
Committee furthermore noted that technical assistance for an
amount of US$ 20,000 was provided to the site in 1997.
The Committee decided to retain Mount Nimba in the List of
World Heritage in Danger and requested the State Party and the
Centre to contact relevant mining companies to know more
details of their interest and willingness to set up an
international foundation.
*[13]
VII.18 Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
The Committee, at its last session (Merida, 1996), included
this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger, and
requested the State Party to implement the eleven-point
corrective action plan that had been endorsed by the Minister
for the Environment of Honduras. The Sub-Secretary for the
Environment of Honduras, via letter of 12 September 1997, has
provided a description of the proposed use of the US$ 30,000
approved by the Bureau in 1996. These funds will form a
component of the larger GTZ-KFW (Germany) project, which in
its first year preparatory phase foresees the elaboration of a
management plan as a priority activity.
The Committee commended Honduras, with support from the GTZ
and WWF, for launching a large scale programme for
strengthening the conservation of Rio Platano. The Committee
retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger and
requested the Centre, in collaboration with IUCN, to plan a
site visit during early 1999 to review the state of
conservation of Rio Platano.
VII.19 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The Committee took note of the site visit to Manas, jointly
undertaken by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF)
of India and the World Heritage Centre, between 20 and 23
January 1997 and of the report on the state of conservation
submitted to the Bureau at its twenty-first session in June
1997. MOEF and the State Government of Assam had elaborated a
2-3 year rehabilitation plan, at a total cost of US$
2,135,000, of which US$ 235,000 was requested as emergency
assistance from the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau at its
twenty-first session approved an initial grant of US$ 75,000,
for the purchase of three vehicles, two boats and 55 wireless
communication sets and recommended that the Committee consider
approving additional amounts of the US$ 235,000 requested by
the Indian authorities subject to satisfactory use of the US$
75,000 provided, and written documentation on counterpart
Indian funds disbursed for strengthening the conservation of
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary. The Centre and the Observer of India
informed the Committee that this information has been provided
by facsimile of 10 November 1997.
The Committee took note of this information on progress with
regard to the implementation of the emergency assistance
project and referred the discussion concerning the approval of
additional amounts of the US$ 235,000 requested by the Indian
authorities as emergency assistance to Item 10 of the
Provisional Agenda (International Assistance). The Committee
decided to retain Manas Wildlife Sanctuary in the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
VII.20 Air-and-Ténéré Reserve (Niger)
The Committee recalled that the Delegate of Niger, at the
twenty-first session of the Bureau, was of the view that the
state of conservation of the site had considerably improved
and the site may be removed from the List of World Heritage in
Danger and that a monitoring mission to the site was foreseen
for autumn 1997. The Centre informed the Committee that this
mission did not take place due to time constraints. IUCN
informed the Committee that a number of activities are
underway to resume the IUCN/Danish/Swiss Cooperation project
at this site.
*[14]
In the absence of further information, the Committee decided
to retain Air-and-Ténéré Reserve in the List of World Heritage
in Danger.
VII.21 Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)
The Committee recalled that at its last session (Merida,
1996), it found that the construction of two dams had limited
freshwater flow, dramatically increased the salinity of the
lake and marshes and led to sharp reductions of migratory bird
populations. In 1996, the Committee decided to declare Ichkeul
as a World Heritage site in Danger and requested the Tunisian
authorities to provide a programme of corrective measures to
reverse the degradation of the site and alerted them to the
possibility of the deletion of Ichkeul from the World Heritage
List, if rehabilitation of the site is not possible. IUCN
informed the Bureau at its twenty-first session in June, 1997,
of the following recommendations of a Ramsar mission to the
site in January 1997: Tunisian authorities provide a clear
indication of the measures they plan to take based on several
scientific studies already carried out; establishment of an
agreement on the release of water from the dams; setting up of
a central authority addressing all management issues,
including the long term management of the Tindja sluice;
repair of the sluices; filling up of the Joumine Canal to
restore the Joumine Marsh; and continuous scientific
monitoring of the Park's ecology. The Bureau at its twenty-
first session recommended that the Committee establish a
three-year time table to review efforts of the restoration of
Ichkeul and, in the meantime, retain the site in the List of
the World Heritage in Danger.
The Centre informed the Committee that on 14 October 1997 a
"Report on the action programme for the safeguarding of
Ichkeul National Park" was provided by the "Ministere de
l'environnement et de l'amenagement du territoire" and was
transmitted to IUCN and the Ramsar Convention Secretariat for
review. IUCN informed the Committee that this report does not
provide a sufficient response to the recommendations of the
Ramsar mission indicated above and that the serious threats to
the integrity of the site are not adequately addressed.
The Committee decided to retain Ichkeul in the List of World
Heritage in Danger and requested the Centre to write a letter
urging the State Party to implement the recommendations of the
Ramsar mission and submit a threat mitigation status report to
the twenty-third session of the Committee, in 1999.
VII.22 Everglades National Park (United States of America)
The Committee recalled that at its last session (Merida,
1996), it noted significant progress made with regard to
acquisition of land, refinement of ecological indicators, and
generous Federal and State allocations of financial and human
resources, but decided to retain this site in the List of
World Heritage in Danger due to continued prevalence of
threats. In response to the Committee's call to the State
Party to share knowledge and experience gained through the
restorative effort, the Park authorities convened an
international seminar, in November 1997, to which all western
hemisphere World Heritage site managers were invited.
The Centre informed the Committee that a site monitoring
report on the Everglades National Park was provided by the
State Party on 25 November 1997, which indicated progress in
the organization, planning and implementation of the ecosystem
restoration projects in the region since the last report
reviewed by the Committee in December 1996. In addition,
*[15]
significant amounts for ecological research and the purchase
of land were made available by the Government.
After discussing whether the site could be removed from the
List of World Heritage in Danger, the Committee noted that the
Delegate of the United States of America indicated that the
site is still under threat despite significant progress made.
The Committee congratulated the Government of the United
States on its progress and commitment and decided to retain
Everglades National Park in the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
VII.23 Yellowstone National Park (United States of America)
The Committee recalled that at its last session (Merida,
1996), it commended the initiative of the President of the
State Party to remove the potential mining threat to
Yellowstone National Park, by offering a mutually agreed upon
trade of land valued at US$ 65 million, and requested the
State Party to outline, before 15 September 1997, the steps
and schedule for threat mitigation which could be followed.
Since then a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Proposed Cooke City Mineral Withdrawal was issued and
circulated for public comment. The Final Version of the EIS
and its Summary were published in July 1997. Subsequently, the
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Lands and Minerals
Management and the Under Secretary of Agriculture, Natural
Resources and the Environment have both signed, on 12 August
1997, the decision authorising the withdrawal of a mineral
permit from 22,065 acres near Cooke City, Montana.
The Centre informed the Committee that a report was received
on 25 November 1997, which indicates that significant progress
has been made on some of the issues noted by the Committee in
December 1995, such as the proposed mine. However, there
remain serious threats to the natural resources and values.
The Delegate of the United States informed the Committee that
US$ 65 million have been made available to acquire the Crown
Butte mining interests and to preserve the Park.
The Committee commended the Government of the United States on
its progress and commitment. Following discussion as to
whether the site could be removed from the Danger List, the
Committee decided to retain Yellowstone National Park in the
List of World Heritage in Danger.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
VII.24 Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin)
Having taken note of the amount of work accomplished at the
site:
i) collection and analysis of documentation;
ii) elaboration of a maintenance plan for the buildings;
iii) training of craftsmen in co-operation with
representatives of the Royal families;
iv) consideration of the anthropological dimension of the
site;
v) site of living culture, international meeting "Present-
Past-Future" on the Royal Palaces of Abomey which was held in
Abomey in September 1997, bringing together international and
governmental organizations;
*[16]
vi) request for international assistance presented by Benin
in November 1997 for the elaboration of the conservation
plan,
the Committee invited the Benin authorities on the one hand,
to continue their efforts to present to the twenty-second
session of the Committee the draft conservation and
enhancement plan of the whole site, taking into account the
report's recommendations and conclusions of the above-
mentioned meeting, and on the other, to co-ordinate
international technical and financial support from which the
site could still benefit.
VII.25 Angkor (Cambodia)
The Secretariat reported on the efforts made by the Royal
Government of Cambodia and progress made in the safeguarding
activities of this site, including those co-ordinated by
UNESCO and funded by France, Indonesia, Italy and Japan. The
Secretariat reported that the safeguarding activities, which
had been interrupted due to the unrest in the region of Angkor
in July 1997, had recommenced and were progressing normally.
The Delegate of Japan indicated that the second phase of the
Japanese project for the safeguarding of Angkor would begin
upon the completion of the first phase in November 1998.
With regard to the continuation of the looting of monuments
and illegal traffic in cultural property in the region, the
necessity to strengthen international support was emphasized.
Although international support from UNESCO, ICOM and the media
has resulted in many stolen objects being returned to
Cambodia, international pressure is still necessary to dry up
the market for stolen and looted cultural property.
The Chairperson expressed the wish of the Committee for
enforcement of existing legal instruments to strengthen the
capacity of the Cambodian Local Authorities in their efforts
to protect the cultural heritage of Angkor and in their fight
against illicit traffic of cultural properties. The Committee
expressed its gratitude to the Cambodian Authorities, the
International Co-ordination Committee for the Safeguarding and
Development of the Historic Area of Angkor, and UNESCO for
their efforts deployed for the safeguarding of Angkor. In
order to increase the international support to the site of
Angkor, the Committee decided to maintain the site on the List
of the World Heritage in Danger.
VII.26 Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia)
The Delegate of Croatia informed the Committee that
considerable progress had been made in the reconstruction and
restoration of Dubrovnik and that an expert committee will
meet in January 1998 to review the state of conservation of
the city and that the Croatian authorities will inform the
Bureau and the Committee of its findings.
The Committee decided to defer the examination of the state of
conservation of Dubrovnik and requested the Croatian
authorities to submit a report on the state of conservation by
15 April 1998 for examination by the twenty-second session of
the Bureau.
*[17]
VII.27 Timbuktu (Mali)
Mosques of Sankoré, Djingareyber, Side Yahia
In accordance with paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines
for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, the
Committee invited the Mali authorities to:
i) co-ordinate international aid for the mosques and the
City of Timbuktu;
ii) inform the World Heritage Committee, through the UNESCO
Secretariat of their intentions to undertake or authorize
in a zone protected by the Convention, major restoration
work or new constructions, which could modify the value of the
World Heritage site, and
iii) evaluate in co-operation with the World Heritage
Centre the effectiveness and sustainability of the work
undertaken on the three mosques;
iv) prepare a conservation plan for the three mosques;
v) report to the Committee as its twenty-second session.
VII.28 Bahla Fort (Oman)
The Committee decided that full information on the work
undertaken would be submitted to the Bureau, in June 1998,
based on the report of the expert mission which visited the
site in October 1997.
VII.29 Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)
The Secretariat informed the Committee that it had received,
on 27 November 1997, a report from the Peruvian authorities on
the actions and programmes implemented between 1985 and 1997
for the conservation and management of the site, as well as on
tourism infrastructure and educational activities. It also
informed the Committee of the recommendations of an ICOMOS
expert mission regarding the need to establish a management
plan, the importance of the Earthen Architecture Research
Centre at Chan Chan and the need to carefully monitor the
phenomenon El Nino and its impact on the site.
The Delegate of Peru stressed that all actions undertaken by
his Government were performed in accordance to national law
and the Government's commitments under Article 5.d. of the
World Heritage Convention. With regard to recovery of the
intangible zone, he reported that the re-location of illegal
occupants was well underway. On the preventive emergency
measures vis-à-vis the El Nino phenomenon , he informed that
the Government of Peru had allocated a special fund of US$
200,000 for this purpose. In this context, he thanked the
Committee for the emergency assistance of US$ 50,000 that had
been approved by the Chairperson as a contribution to these
measures.
ICCROM stressed its interest in a continued collaboration with
the Peruvian Government in the preservation and management of
the site as a follow-up to the course on the conservation and
management of earthen architectural and archaeological
heritage that took place in Chan Chan in 1996 in co-operation
with ICCROM, the Getty Conservation Institute, CRATerre and
the National Institute for Culture, and which developed a new
approach to the management of adobe sites.
*[18]
The Committee took note of the information provided by the
Secretariat and the Delegate of Peru. It expressed its concern
about the possible impact that the El Nino phenomenon might
have on this fragile site and commended and supported the
efforts of the Peruvian Government to take the necessary
emergency measures for its protection.
The Committee urged the Government of Peru to proceed with the
preparation of a management plan for Chan Chan and to submit a
progress report by 15 April 1998 for examination by the Bureau
at its twenty-second session.
The Committee decided to retain the Chan Chan Archaeological
Zone on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.30 Wieliczka Salt Mines (Poland)
The Committee noted that the installation of the dehumidifying
equipment for the site, for which the Committee allocated an
amount of US$ 100,000 in 1994, was being completed. The
Delegate of Poland thanked the World Heritage Committee and
the Government of the United States of America for their
support to safeguard the salt mines and informed the Committee
that the effectiveness of the dehumidifying system could only
be assessed in the second half of 1998. An assessment report
will be presented to the next Committee session.
The Committee decided to retain the Wieliczka Salt Mines on
the. List of World Heritage in Danger awaiting the assessment
report from the Polish authorities.
C. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES
INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
VII.31 The Bureau at its twenty-first extraordinary
session examined reports on the state of conservation of
fifty-one properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
(nineteen natural, three mixed and twenty-nine cultural). The
Committee examined twenty-one of them (nine natural, one mixed
and eleven cultural properties) and noted the decisions of the
twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau on the
remaining properties as reflected in working documents WHC-
97/CONF.208/4B (Report of the Bureau) and WHC-
97/CONF.208/8B.Rev.
NATURAL HERITAGE
a) Natural Properties which the Committee decided to
inscribe on the List of World Heritage in Danger
VII.32 Manovo-Gounda-St.Floris National Park (Central
African Republic)
The Committee recalled that it inscribed this property on the
World Heritage List in 1988, following assurances given by the
State Party in respect of its commitment to improve the
conditions of integrity of the Park, notably with regard to
poaching and illegal grazing. A 10-year project, financed by
the European Union (EU) at a cost of US$ 27 million, and
launched soon after the inscription of this site on the World
Heritage List, was expected to show positive results in the
future.
*[19]
The Committee was seriously concerned that uncontrolled
poaching by heavily armed groups, from within and outside of
CAR has resulted in security problem, leading to the deaths of
four Park staff in early 1997. According to IUCN, 80% of the
Park's wildlife has been illegally harvested for commercial
purposes. Deteriorating security conditions have brought
tourism to a halt and the 10-year EC Project appears to have
generated very few tangible benefits for the conservation of
the site. The efforts of the Government of CAR to assign site
management responsibility to a private Foundation were
welcomed and the Foundation was encouraged to continue its
efforts to raise funds and strengthen management of this vast
World Heritage area.
The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger and requested the Centre and IUCN to
contact the State Party and the private Foundation to prepare
a detailed state of conservation report and a rehabilitation
plan for this site.
Democratic Republic of the Congo:
VII.33 Okapi Faunal Reserve
At its last session in June 1997, the Bureau, noted that
equipment and facilities in this site had been looted and
wildlife poached. Fortunately, the staff in this site did not
suffer any harm although they had not been receiving any
salaries. The Bureau was informed by IUCN that recently a US-
based conservation foundation has come forward with financial
assistance to pay staff salaries. There are reports of illegal
gold mining in the Park occupied by the militia, and the staff
have neither facilities nor resources to manage the Park.
VII.34 Kahuzi Biega National Park
The Committee recalled the fact that this site has been
significantly impacted by the influx of refugees. There are
reports of a large presence of militia groups and illegal
settlers in the Park which has led to fires, increased
poaching, illegal removal and burning of timber. IUCN informed
the Bureau at its twenty-first session that it has received
several pleas from the staff of the Park for international aid
for rebuilding Park infrastructure and staff morale. The
Bureau noted that IUCN's monitoring report on this site
included fifteen measures for implementation in and around the
Park and eight actions for co-operation among international
conservation organisations, which together could form a basis
for the future rehabilitation of the Park.
In the light of the serious threats to the integrity of these
two sites of the Democratic Republic of the Congo which have
arisen as a consequence of armed conflict in the eastern parts
of the country, the Bureau, at its twenty-first session in
June 1997, recommended that the Committee include both Okapi
and Kahuzi Biega in the List of World Heritage in Danger and
requested UNESCO to undertake a high-level mission to the
country. The Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation
and Tourism of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has
invited a high-level UNESCO mission to his country. UNESCO is
intending to field such a mission as soon as the security
conditions permit.
Furthermore, the Minister has submitted an emergency
assistance request to the consideration of the Committee for
purchasing one field vehicle for each of the four endangered
sites of the Democratic Republic of the Congo: i.e. the Okapi
Faunal Reserve and the Kahuzi Biega National Park and the
other two sites of Virunga and Garamba National Parks, already
*[20]
included by the Committee in the List of World Heritage in
Danger. The Committee noted that IUCN's Regional Office for
Central Africa is also planning site visits in 1998.
Preoccupied by the serious threats and dangers affecting these
sites and the urgent measures required, the Committee included
both Okapi Faunal Reserve and the Kahuzi Biega National Park
in the List of World Heritage in Danger, and invited the
Director-General of UNESCO to write to the President of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, calling for his direct
intervention to enable UNESCO to undertake the proposed high-
level mission and plan rehabilitation measures for all World
Heritage sites in Danger. The Committee requested UNESCO to
field a mission, and invited the Chairperson to lead it, to
the capital city of Kinshasa for meetings with the high-level
authorities, even if visits to sites are deemed impossible due
to the prevailing security situation in the eastern parts of
the country. The Committee took note of the emergency
assistance requests by the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(see Section International Assistance of this Report) and
requested the Centre to co-operate with international NGOs in
rehabilitating the endangered World Heritage sites of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
b) Reports on the state of conservation of natural
properties examined by the Committee
VII.35 Iguacu National Park (Brazil)
The Bureau at its twenty-first session learned that a local
organisation had started a campaign to re-open a road, closed
in 1986 to strengthen protection of the Park, and that in
early May 1997, 800 people had invaded the Park and set up
camp to begin unauthorised work to clear that road. IUCN
informed the Bureau that the road has been closed, but plans
to rehabilitate damaged areas were uncertain and political
pressure to re-open the road still prevailed.
The Centre informed the Committee that a facsimile was
received from the Brazilian authorities on 28 November 1997
with information from the Brazilian Institute for the
Protection of the Environment (IBAMA) concerning the state of
conservation of the site. The Delegate of Brazil stated that
several actions have been undertaken, including socio-economic
studies in the buffer zone, environmental awareness programmes
and a revision of the Master Plan of the Park.
The Committee requested the Centre to write to the Brazilian
authorities to invite the Government to continue its efforts
with regard to the permanent closure of the road and future
steps for rehabilitating damaged areas.
VII.36 Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
The Committee noted with concern that logging activities,
carried out under commercial, as well as sustainable forestry
schemes, are contributing to the growing biological isolation
of the Reserve and are not welcome by the local people. An
IUCN project is aiming to minimise the degree of the Reserve's
isolation through the establishment of a buffer zone and a
protected corridor linking Dja with adjacent forests. New
logging roads facilitate access for hunters, and
concessionaires have logged forests up to the boundary of the
Reserve. Staff belonging to some foreign logging companies had
threatened Reserve staff with violence when apprehended inside
*[21]
the Reserve for transporting poached wildlife. Conservationists
in Cameroon have called for a moratorium on logging in the area
and on the opening up of new access roads.
The Committee invited the State Party to study the extent to
which sustainable and commercial forestry schemes around Dja
are leading to the biological isolation of the reserve and to
increased poaching of Dja's wildlife. The Committee supported
the request for financial assistance, submitted by Cameroon,
for organising an in-situ workshop, and encouraged the State
Party to use the workshop as a forum for discussing, with
representatives of donors sponsoring commercial and
sustainable forestry activities, IUCN and others concerned,
ways and means to minimise the possibility that such
activities would isolate Dja from adjacent forests. The
Committee invited the Centre and IUCN to report on the
recommendations of the workshop, and advise the next session
of the Bureau, in mid-1998, whether or not Dja needs to be
declared as World Heritage in Danger.
VII.37 Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)
The Committee noted with concern the potential threats to the
integrity of this site due to the proposed Cheviot Mine
Project, designed to exploit a large, open-pit coal mine,
located 1.8 km from the Jasper National Park portion of this
World Heritage area. Despite the fact that during the
environmental assessment process conservation organizations
and Parks Canada expressed concern regarding the negative
impacts, e.g. loss or alienation of wildlife habitat, impacts
on essential wildlife travel corridors etc., which the
proposed mining project would have on the integrity of the
World Heritage site, the Federal Government of Canada and the
Provincial Government of Alberta subsequently approved the
project and published a full EIA in favour of the project. At
present the proposed mining project is being legally
challenged by conservation groups. IUCN stressed that an
increasing number of World Heritage sites (a total of nine,
including this case) are threatened by proposed mining
projects.
The Committee expressed its serious concerns regarding the
impacts that the proposed mining project would have on the
integrity of the Canadian Rocky Mountain National Parks and
invited the Federal Government of Canada to consult with the
Provincial Government of Alberta and to re-consider the
decision on the proposed mining project with a view to seeking
alternative sites in the region which would have less damaging
effects. The Committee requested the Canadian authorities to
provide detailed information on the proposed mining project,
its expected impacts on the World Heritage site, and proposed
measures for mitigating those impacts, to the Centre, before 1
May 1998, for review by the Bureau at its next session in mid-
1998. The Delegate of Canada indicated that his Government
would be happy to provide such a report.
VII.38 Galapagos National Park (Ecuador)
The Committee took note of the detailed report provided by the
Government of Ecuador on 15 November 1997 concerning the
situation of the Galapagos Islands as well as of further
information by IUCN. The Committee decided the following:
1) Noting the relevant decisions taken by the World Heritage
Committee at its 19th and 20th sessions, and by the Bureau
of the Committee at its 20th and 21st sessions in June 1996
and June 1997 respectively;
*[22]
2) Commending the recent efforts and commitment of the
Government of Ecuador to address the complex threats to the
integrity of the Galapagos World Heritage site and Marine
Area;
3) Noting that the draft "Special Galapagos Law" currently
before the Ecuadorean Congress, where it has been approved in
a first debate, is the centrepiece of an effective
conservation strategy for the site;
4) Invited the Government of Ecuador to notify in a timely
fashion the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee of the
final enactment and entering into force of the law referred to
above;
5) Decided not to inscribe the Galapagos World Heritage site
on the List of World Heritage in Danger, at this time;
6) Decided that if, by the opening date of the next
scheduled session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee, the Government of Ecuador has not notified the
Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee of the enactment
and entry into force of the Galapagos Special Law as
stipulated in Paragraph 4 above, Galapagos Islands be
inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
7) Requested the State Party, in accordance with the
recommendation made by IUCN at the June 1997 meeting of the
Bureau, to provide the Committee with an annual progress
report up to the end of 2002.
VII.39 Kamchatka Volcanoes (Russian Federation)
IUCN summarised its recent report, prepared by two experts who
visited this site at the invitation of the Russian Federation
for Environmental Protection. IUCN reviewed a proposed mining
project, whose location was determined to be about 5 km
outside of the World Heritage area. The location of the mine
may not pose a major environmental or aesthetic problem but
would disrupt migratory wildlife of the region and fisheries
resources. While the question of whether or not mining and
conservation can co-exist in the area is yet to be answered,
the Organization financing the mining company has placed the
maintenance of the integrity of the World Heritage site as one
of the conditions for the granting of the loan for the mining
operations to commence. The Committee noted with interest that
the setting up of an International Review Panel to monitor the
environmental impacts of the proposed mining project had been
proposed by IUCN.
The Committee invited the State Party to provide detailed
information on the proposed mining project, EIAs carried out
and other pertinent information and requested IUCN and the
Centre to maintain links with the proponents of the mining
project and the regional authorities to explore opportunities
to link the proposed mining project's environmental impact
mitigation actions to the conservation and management of
Kamchatka Volcanoes World Heritage site.
VII.40 Canaima National Park (Venezuela)
The Committee recalled that, when it inscribed this site on
the World Heritage List in 1994, it requested that IUCN and
the State Party discuss and agree upon boundaries for the
World Heritage site. Since then, although the boundaries of
the World Heritage site still remain to be finalised, the
*[23]
national electricity company (EDELCA) has proposed to erect a
series of power transmission lines across about 160 km of the
Park. An adequate environmental impact study has not been
conducted and traditional Pemon communities inhabiting the
area are opposed to the project. The Venezuelan authorities
have declined the Bureau's recommendation, made at its last
session in June 1997, to invite a high level UNESCO mission to
discuss alternative routes for erecting the power lines and
resolve the question of the boundary of the World Heritage
site. The IUCN Representative noted that the proposed
transmission lines will cut through parts of undisturbed
forests and that alternative routes, along a highway which
will be less damaging, can be proposed for the erection of the
lines.
The Committee invited the Director-General of UNESCO to write
to the President of the State Party asking for his
intervention to search for possible alternative routes for the
erection of the power transmission lines and to initiate
negotiations with IUCN and the Centre to determine the
appropriate boundaries of the World Heritage site.
c) Reports on the state of conservation of natural
properties noted by the Committee
VII.41 The Committee noted the decisions of the
twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau as reflected
in the Report of the Bureau session (Working Document WHC-
97/CONF.208/4B Section III.A.c), on the following natural
properties:
Great Barrier Reef (Australia)
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves/La Amistad National Park
(Costa Rica/Panama)
Shirakami Sanchi and Yakushima Island (Japan)
Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico)
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
Virgin Komi Forests (Russian Federation)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Durmitor National Park (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia
and Montenegro)).
MIXED (NATURAL AND CULTURAL) PROPERTIES
a) Reports on the state of conservation of mixed properties
examined by the Committee
VII.42 Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
The Committee, having examined the report of IUCN and ICOMOS,
expressed its concern about the deficient management
arrangements for the Sanctuary and urged the Peruvian
authorities to establish an adequate management structure for
the site. It furthermore recommended them to prepare a
comprehensive master plan as an overall guiding instrument for
conservation, planning, infrastructural interventions, tourism
development, etc.
The Committee requested the Peruvian authorities to examine
the report with great attention and to transmit its views, and
follow-up actions foreseen in response to the conclusions and
*[24]
recommendations contained therein, to the Secretariat by 15
April 1998 at the latest, for examination by the Bureau at its
twenty-second session.
b) Reports on the state of conservation of mixed properties
noted by the Committee
VII.43 The Committee noted the decisions of the
twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau as reflected
in the Report of the Bureau session (Working Document WHC-
97/CONF.208/4B Section III.B.c), on the following mixed
properties:
Kakadu National Park (Australia)
Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia).
CULTURAL HERITAGE
a) Cultural property which the Committee decided to inscribe
on the List of World Heritage in Danger
VII.44 Butrinti (Albania)
The Committee took note of the report of the UNESCO-ICOMOS-
Butrint Foundation assessment mission to the World Heritage
site of Butrinti, Albania. It expressed its serious concern
about the damages caused to the World Heritage site and about
its conditions in terms of protection, management and
conservation.
The Committee noted that the Minister of Culture of Albania,
by letter dated 20 November, fully endorsed the report and
requested the World Heritage Committee to inscribe Butrinti on
the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee welcomed
the Minister's assurance that the Albanian Government is
deeply concerned and committed to the preservation of the
site.
The Committee, considering that the criteria that are
stipulated in paragraph 78 of the Operational Guidelines were
met, decided to inscribe Butrinti on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
The Committee requested the Secretariat to collaborate with
the Albanian Government in the development of a programme of
corrective action and to undertake the necessary co-ordination
with the Government of Albania, other international
organizations and agencies such as the World Bank and the
European Union and non-governmental organizations,
particularly the Butrint Foundation, for its implementation.
The Committee allocated an amount of US$ 100,000 as emergency
assistance, of which an amount of US$ 47,000 to be used for
the implementation of the immediate actions proposed in the
mission report. The remaining funds are to be allocated, in
consultation with the Chairperson of the Committee, for the
development and implementation of the programme of corrective
action.
*[25]
The Committee requested the Secretariat to submit a progress
report on the actions taken to the twenty-second session of
the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.
*[26]
b) Reports on the state of conservation of cultural
properties examined by the Committee
VII.45 Islamic Cairo (Egypt)
Al-Azhar Mosque
Anxious to preserve the authenticity of the Al Azhar Mosque in
Cairo, the Committee recommended
1) that the concerned national authorities immediately halt
all work in the Mosque;
2) that UNESCO seeks the co-operation of the Organization
for the Islamic Conference;
3) that the World Heritage Centre in agreement with the
national authorities concerned designate an expert to
identify the conservation activities to be undertaken; and
4) that a meeting be organized to sensitize the persons
responsible for the management of the religious monuments of
the region:
- on the importance of the properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List for humankind, and
- on the importance of maintaining their authenticity.
VII.46 Rock-hewn Churches of Lalibela (Ethiopia)
At the request of the Chairperson, the consultant who visited
the site in April-May 1997, provided a synthetic report on the
situation at this site, which is the object of an
international safeguarding campaign. Recalling the principal
characteristics of the Rock-hewn Churches of Lalibela which
should be considered with an overall approach, he emphasized
the importance given to their preservation and informed the
Committee that the European Commission is prepared to release
important funds for the construction of temporary shelters to
protect the five churches from degradation due to heavy rains.
In this respect, he underlined the need to find temporary
solutions which safeguard the integrity of this monolithic
ensemble in the framework of an integrated overall
conservation plan. Furthermore, as this site is the object of
increased tourism development, a long-term management plan
will also have to be foreseen. The Director of the Division
of Cultural Heritage expressed UNESCO's appreciation for the
contributions from the European Commission which shall
initiate hydro-geological, geophysical, geological and
structural studies, and from Finland (FINIDA) for Lalibela.
He also recalled the interest of the Observer of Germany,
former Chairperson of the Committee and former Ambassador to
Ethiopia, in this site. Mr Winkelmann confirmed the
continuing interest of the Committee with regard to the
conservation and enhancement of the whole site which deserves
also full attention from both the local population and
international opinion. He emphasized the temporary character
of the shelters which shall be constructed, and supported the
conservation plan which would be in accordance with
traditional techniques.
The Committee
1) thanked the Ethiopian authorities for having requested
the European Union to inform the World Heritage Centre of the
International Competition foreseen for the erection of five
shelters in Lalibela;
*[27]
2) noted the results of the meeting held on 30 September
1997 at UNESCO between the European Union, the World Heritage
Centre and UNESCO's Division of Cultural Heritage;
3) recommended that the Competition File be reviewed to
integrate the points of view of the World Heritage Centre
consultant and ICOMOS with a view to preserving the World
Heritage value of the site;
4) endorsed the conservation programme prepared by the
UNESCO-WHC consultant;
5) underlined the importance of an integrated preservation
and long-term management plan on a site endangered by new
environmental contingencies and requested the World Heritage
Centre to organise a mission to Lalibela before the end of
January 1998, to review the situation with the Ethiopian
authorities and the European Union, in order to: (a) ensure a
long-term protection of the monuments within the context of
the ecosystem; (b) integrate the problems of the growth of
Lalibela and, (c) draw up a plan of action of the approved
conservation programme which should be requested by the
Ethiopian authorities under the European Union 'Programme to
support initiatives in the conservation field (PSIC).
VII.47 Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin
(Germany)
The Committee examined in detail the third report on the state
of conservation of Potsdam submitted by the Minister for
Science, Research and Culture of the Land Brandenburg.
The Committee also listened to the observations made by the
UNESCO expert who undertook various missions to Potsdam for
extensive discussions with German authorities on the Federal,
Land and local levels. The expert informed the Committee that
when he started the discussions, the planning for the so-
called 'Postdam Center' was already concluded. The expert
considered the concept agreed upon by the City of Potsdam,
responsible authorities and investors to be contradictory to
the main features of the Potsdam cultural landscape. After
extensive discussions, the German authorities accepted to
tender an international competition for the area (with the
exception of the building areas 9-12 where construction was
halted at ground zero level) to elaborate a new and more
adequate concept. The winning project respects in a better way
the characteristics of the Potsdam topography and history. The
expert analysed the effectiveness of different means of
protecting a vast zone, e.g. through monument protection or
through a planning mechanism such as a master plan. He
concluded that a master plan for the City of Potsdam including
the protected areas, would be the most effective and should be
elaborated in a constructive dialogue between the German
authorities and the World Heritage Committee. The expert
stressed the effectiveness of the involvement of the World
Heritage Committee and the Centre in planning processes such
as for Potsdam, particularly if they would be involved in the
early planning phases as stated in the Operational Guidelines.
The Committee made the following observations on the various
issues addressed in the reports.
1. Extension of the World Heritage site
The Committee noted with satisfaction that the German
authorities would proceed with the application for the
extension of the site and that, as informed by the Observer of
Germany, this would be submitted at the beginning of next
year. The Committee regretted, however, that, contrary to the
original proposal (as submitted in the first report on Potsdam
*[28]
to the Committee at its twentieth session) this extension
would include only a small part of the « Städtchen » between
the Pfingstberg and the New Garden in the World Heritage site.
The Committee urged the authorities to reconsider this matter.
The Committee welcomed the inclusion of the village of
Bornstedt as an integral part of the World Heritage site, but
was concerned that the rural character might further be
affected pending the extension and the adoption of a master
plan. The Committee strongly recommended that measures be
taken to avoid further negative developments.
2.Elaboration of a master plan for the Potsdam cultural
landscape
The Committee commended the commitment of the city of Potsdam
to elaborate a master plan for the Potsdam cultural landscape
and expressed the hope that it will provide an adequate
mechanism and provisions for the protection of the World
Heritage site and the Potsdam cultural landscape. It
understood that a certain time will be required for the
preparation of a master plan if it is to reflect a proper
urban vision. In the meantime, the Committee requested that a
first phase of such a plan be submitted to the Bureau at its
twenty-second session. The Committee invited the authorities
not to take any irreversible measures which could have a
damaging impact on the Potsdam cultural landscape until the
entry in force of the master plan.
3.Results of the urban development competition « Grüne Mitte-
Alter Markt/Lustgarten »
The Committee welcomed the competition and its outcome.
However, it considered that further steps be taken to rebuild
the historic centre and to define its role. The Committee
encouraged the City of Potsdam to continue this process.
4. Results of the urban development competition for the «
Quartier am Bahnhof »
The Committee commended the German authorities and investors
for having reversed the decisions concerning the so-called «
Potsdam-Center », which would have had a severe impact on the
Potsdam World Heritage site. The Committee considered the
winning design of the urban competition for this area, which
is now called « Quartier am Bahnhof », to be an acceptable
compromise that will allow for the project to be better
integrated into the cultural landscape of Potsdam. It expected
that the plans for the building areas 9-12 will be reviewed in
the light of their compatibility with the results of the
competition.
5. Other building projects
The Committee reiterated its concern that other building
projects pose potential threats to the Potsdam urban and
cultural landscape, especially new buildings in Babelsberg («
Potsdam Fenster »), Gewoba-Buildings (Alt-Nowawes), and
housing and business buildings at the Ribbeckstrasse,
Bornstedt.
6. Conclusion
According to the recommendation of the Bureau made at its
twenty-first session, the Committee examined if the threats to
the World Heritage site still persist. The Committee concluded
that although considerable improvements have been made,
threats were still persisting. Therefore, the Committee
decided to defer the discussion whether or not Potsdam should
be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger until its
*[29]
next session. The Committee requested the German authorities
to submit a new report on the above issues by 15 September
1998 for examination by the Committee at its twenty-second
session.
VII.48 Roman Monuments, Cathedral and Liebfrauen
Church in Trier(Germany)
As requested by the Bureau at its twenty-first session, the
Minister for Culture, Youth, Family and Women of the Land
Rheinland-Pfalz submitted a report on the protection and
management mechanisms for the Roman Amphitheatre and its
surroundings.
The Committee took note of the report given by the
Representative of ICOMOS concerning a workshop which took
place in Trier on 28 November 1997 concerning the
archaeological remains and current construction works in the
vicinity of the Roman amphitheatre.
The Committee welcomed the initiative of the German
authorities for extending the protected area to include the
vineyards at the east side of the Amphitheatre.
The Committee expressed serious concerns about new adjacent
constructions north of the theatre which may affect its
authenticity, and urges the City of Trier to negotiate with
the investors the location and density of the envisaged
constructions.
The Committee expressed its interest in the results of the
archaeological excavations which have revealed a part of the
Roman wall and a water system. These precious remains should
not be destroyed and the Committee hoped that it would be
possible to revise the plan so that these remains can be
harmoniously integrated.
The Committee requested the State Party to submit by 15 April
1998 a report on the following issues:
- revision of the plans respecting the authenticity of the
monument;
- conservation and integration of recently discovered Roman
remains;
- adoption of an enlarged protective zone.
VII.49 Collegiate Church, Castle and Old Town in
Quedlinburg (Germany)
In response to the request of the World Heritage Bureau, the
Ministry of Education and Culture of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt
submitted a report on the state of conservation and
development plans for the City of Quedlinburg. At the same
time and as requested by the Bureau, ICOMOS undertook a
mission to Quedlinburg.
The mission reported favourably on the effectiveness of the
measures already in place and the competence and commitment of
those responsible for the management of the historic town. It
also stressed the importance of the preparation and
implementation without delay of a management plan for the
World Heritage site.
*[30]
The Committee commended the Ministry of the Federal State of
Sachsen-Anhalt for the first report on the state of
conservation of this World Heritage site.
The Committee commended the German authorities and
institutions - especially the City of Quedlinburg - for their
strong commitment to save this unique World Heritage site from
destruction and further demolition despite a dramatic economic
situation.
Being aware of these tremendous economic difficulties and of
the need of attracting investors, the Committee nevertheless
urged the respective authorities not to permit any new
building which could damage or destroy the historic ensemble
of Quedlinburg.
It took note furthermore of the architectural competition for
six open areas and the development of a master plan which
shall also reflect the boundaries of the World Heritage site.
The Committee recommended its Chairperson to offer technical
assistance on request for the completion of the master plan.
Having thoroughly examined the report submitted by the
Representative of ICOMOS, the Committee requested the German
authorities to submit by 15 September 1998 for examination by
the twenty-second session of the Committee, a second report on
the: (1) progress made in safeguarding the historic heritage;
(2) results of the architectural competition and (3) adoption
of the urban master plan.
VII.50 Sun Temple of Konarak (India)
The Committee took note of the report of the Secretariat and
requested the Government of India to report on the findings of
the structural studies to be undertaken with the World
Heritage Fund emergency assistance grant at its twenty-second
session of the Bureau in June/July 1998. Furthermore, it
requested the Government of India to keep the Secretariat
informed in the meantime, to enable UNESCO to mobilize
additional international co-operation to ascertain the present
condition of the property to undertake corrective measures as
required.
The Observer of India, thanked the Committee for its support
in the efforts made by the Government of India and the
Department for Archaeology in safeguarding this site, and
assured the Committee that the report on the structural
studies would be submitted, as requested.
VII.51 Tyre (Lebanon)
Noting that the Directorate General of Antiquities had already
carried out a series of conservation activities, but concerned
with regard to existing threats, the Committee commended the
Lebanese authorities for the quality of the protection work
carried out successfully and recommended that particular
attention be paid to the rapid preparation of a master plan
covering all the archaeological zones of Tyre and its
surroundings, including the City of Tyre. The Committee
reminded the Lebanese authorities that the Secretariat had
already stated its willingness to contribute technically to
the preparation of similar master plans for all other World
Heritage sites in Lebanon.
*[31]
VII.52 Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
The World Heritage Committee at its seventeenth session in
1993 expressed deep concern over the state of conservation of
the Kathmandu Valley site and considered the possibility of
placing this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger,
following discussions on the findings of the 1993 Joint
UNESCO-ICOMOS Review Mission (hereafter referred to as the
1993 Mission).
Since then, H.M. Government of Nepal has given priority to
responding to the sixteen points of concern raised by the 1993
Mission. However, the Bureau, at its twenty-first session
(June 1997), decided to consider recommending the inscription
of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its
twenty-first extraordinary session (November 1997), in view of
the continued deterioration of the monument zones of
Bauddhanath and of Kathmandu (two of the seven monument zones
protected under the Convention).
The Committee examined the state of conservation report
submitted by H.M. Government of Nepal, summarized together
with comments from the UNESCO International Technical Advisor
in WHC-97/CONF.208/INF.14. This report provides full
information on the progress made on each of the sixteen points
of the 1993 Mission recommendations.
The Committee emphasized the need for addressing the problems
faced in the preservation of urban historic fabric, such as
those of Kathmandu Valley, in the context of rapid urban
development in Asia and urged the World Heritage Centre to
take initiatives in conducting a research in this field, in
co-operation with ICOMOS and ICCROM.
The Observer of Nepal, the Honourable Minister of Youth,
Sports and Culture, thanked the Committee and the Secretariat
for their consistent support since 1993. He expressed
appreciation for the Committee's recognition of the great
efforts made by the Government, particularly the Department of
Archaeology and the municipalities of Bhaktapur and Patan
(Latipur), and stated that his Government is taking strong
actions to address the outstanding problems in the Kathmandu
and Bauddhanath monument zones. He welcomed the
recommendation for a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS-Nepali Government
mission to conduct a thorough study and to elaborate a
programme of corrective measures for safeguarding Kathmandu
Valley. He also shared the view concerning the need to
address the problems of preserving historic cities in rapidly
developing Asian cities.
The Committee took note of the information provided by H.M.
Government of Nepal and the Secretariat concerning the
implementation of the sixteen-point recommendation of the 1993
UNESCO-ICOMOS Review Mission.
The Committee expressed appreciation to H.M. Government of
Nepal in establishing the Development Control Unit and in its
efforts to ensure enhanced management of the Kathmandu Valley
site as well as in mobilizing international assistance from
the World Heritage Fund and other sources. The Committee took
note of the special efforts made by the Municipalities of
Bhaktapur and Patan in safeguarding the monument zones under
their authority.
However, in view of the continued deterioration of the World
Heritage values in the Bauddhanath and Kathmandu monument
zones, affecting the integrity and inherent characteristics of
the site, the Committee requested the Secretariat, in
*[32]
collaboration with ICOMOS and H.M. Government of Nepal, to
study the possibility of deleting selected areas within some
monument zones, without jeopardizing the universal
significance and value of the site as a whole. This review
should take into consideration the intention of H.M.
Government to nominate Kokhana as an additional monument zone.
The Committee authorized up to US $ 35,000, from the World
Heritage Fund technical co-operation budget for a joint
UNESCO-ICOMOS-H.M. Government of Nepal team to conduct a
thorough study and to elaborate a programme for corrective
measures in accordance with paragraphs 82-89 of the
Operational Guidelines. The detailed budget for this activity
is to be submitted to the Chairperson for approval.
Furthermore, the Committee requested H.M. Government of Nepal
to submit a report to the Secretariat for presentation to the
Bureau at its twenty-second session in June/July 1998, on the
progress made with the on-going or new international
assistance projects funded by the World Heritage Fund and
other sources, and on further progress in implementing the
sixteen-point recommendation.
Based upon the information from the study and the report from
H.M. Government, and recommendations from the Bureau, the
Committee could consider whether or not to inscribe this site
on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its twenty-second
session.
VII.53 Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzin, Grenada
(Spain)
Following the session of the Bureau in June 1997, the work on
the Rey Chico festivities hall situated between the Alhambra
and the Albayzin on the left bank of the Rio Darro had been
halted and a UNESCO-ICOMOS mission was undertaken in November
1997.
The conclusions of the mission were the following:
1. the building as such does not pose major problems,
2. however, the use of the building as a festivities hall
for 1000 people is incompatible with the site (access roads,
traffic, noise etc.). It is recommended, therefore, that the
use of the building be reviewed;
3. areas adjacent to the building should be declared 'non-
constructable' to enable an appropriate landscaping of the
valley of the Rio Darro;
4. the management plan for the Alhambra, the Generalife and
Albaycin should be revised and incorporated in an overall
comprehensive management plan for the site. This should
be supervised by a scientific committee involving UNESCO,
as was recommended by the Bureau at its session June
1997.
Having examined the above information, the Committee endorsed
the recommendations made by the UNESCO-ICOMOS mission and
urged the Spanish authorities to implement them. The Committee
requested the Spanish authorities to submit a report on the
progress made in their implementation by 15 April 1998 for
examination by the twenty-second session of the Bureau.
VII.54 Complex of Hué Monuments (Vietnam)
The Committee took note of the information provided by the
Secretariat concerning damage caused by the 24 September 1997
typhoon to the historic buildings of Hué; and of continued
*[33]
building violations in the buffer zones which may undermine
the integrity of this site. The Committee expressed its
appreciation for the agreement for decentralized co-operation
between the Province of Hué, the City of Lille and UNESCO,
which should enable a thorough review of the land-use and
building regulations of the protected area and the buffer
zones of the site and the establishment of the Heritage House
- an advisory service for the local population attached to the
provincial municipal urban planning office. The Committee
requested the Government to submit to the twenty-second
session of the Committee, a written report on the options
being considered for the upgrading and construction of roads
affecting Hué, and on measures being undertaken to stop
building violations. The Committee also requested the
Government to provide the Secretariat with a technical report
on the impact of the typhoon on the site.
c) Reports on the state of conservation of cultural
properties noted by the Committee
VII.55 The Committee noted the decisions of the
twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau on the
following cultural properties as reflected in the report of
the Bureau session, Working Documents WHC-97/CONF.208/4B
Section III.C.c):
Joya de Ceren Archaeological Site (El Salvador)
Le Canal du Midi (France)
Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France)
Ashanti Traditional Buildings (Ghana)
Maya Site of Copan (Honduras)
Agra Fort, Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri (India)
Quseir Amra (Jordan)
Town of Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic)
Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan (Mexico)
Ilha de Mozambique (Mozambique)
Moenjodaro (Pakistan)
Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Philippines)
Old Town of Segovia and its Aqueduct (Spain)
Cultural World Heritage sites in Sri Lanka
Ancient City of Damascus (Syrian Arab Republic)
Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)
Itchan Kala, Historic Centre of Bukhara (Uzbekistan)
Shibam and Zabid (Yemen).
VII.56 During the examination of the state of
conservation, delegates raised the question of delisting
properties from the World Heritage List. The Committee noted
that while the procedure for the eventual deletion was
outlined in paragraphs 46 to 56 of the Operational Guidelines,
more detailed criteria would be required to evaluate if a
property has lost all the values for which it was inscribed.
VII.57 The Delegate of Zimbabwe observed that the
number of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger
is increasing and that many of them are located in Africa.
Many of them were inscribed in the seventies and eighties when
proper management plans were not always in place. He wondered
what pro-active actions could be taken to solve the problems
at
*[34]
these sites. He suggested that assistance be provided for the
preparation of management plans and that more emphasis should
be placed on capacity-building even before sites are
nominated.
VII.58 The Delegate of Japan expressed his great
concern about the safety of the cultural properties in
Afghanistan. With regard to threats to the cultural heritage
of Afghanistan, the Committee unanimously adopted the
following resolution submitted by Italy:
The World Heritage Committee, convened in Naples from 1 to 6
December 1997 at its twenty-first session,
Concerned at news reports about threats to the cultural and
natural heritage of Afghanistan, particularly the Buddhist
statues in Bamyan,
Stressing the need to consider this heritage, for its
inestimable value, not only as part of the heritage of
Afghanistan but as part of the heritage of humankind,
Recalling the appeal made by the Director-General of UNESCO in
September 1997 in Islamabad for international solidarity for
the protection of the Afghan cultural heritage,
Bearing in mind the rights and duties of all State Parties to
the Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural
and natural heritage,
1. Reaffirms the sovereign rights and responsibilities,
towards the International Community, of each State for the
protection of its own cultural and natural heritage;
2. Calls upon the International Community to provide all
the possible assistance needed to protect and conserve the
cultural and natural heritage of Afghanistan under threat;
3. Invites the authorities in Afghanistan to take
appropriate measures in order to safeguard the cultural and
natural heritage of the country;
4. Further invites the authorities in Afghanistan to co-
operate with UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee with a
view to ensuring effective protection of its cultural and
natural heritage;
5. Requests the Secretariat of UNESCO to take appropriate
steps to foster international awareness of the outstanding
value of Afghan cultural and natural heritage and to co-
operate with the SPACH (Society for Preservation of Cultural
Heritage of Afghanistan) and other partners for safeguarding
that heritage;
6. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.
*[35]
III. 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
A. NATURAL PROPERTIES
VIII.1 The Committee examined eight natural
nominations and two mixed sites received for review by IUCN.
The Committee noted that two sites had been withdrawn by
States Parties: Fossil Forest of Dunarobba (Italy) and
Vodlozero National Park (Russian Federation) before the
twenty-first session of the Bureau. The Committee recalled
that the Bureau at its twenty-first session had decided not to
examine the nomination of Biogradska Gora National Park (No.
838) submitted by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia
and Montenegro) as well as the nomination of Central Karakorum
National Park (No. 802) submitted by Pakistan.
VIII.2 Concerning the nomination of Central Karakorum
National Park (No. 802), the Committee recalled that the
Bureau at its twenty-first session had deferred the
examination of this nomination and had requested IUCN not to
proceed with the evaluation.
VIII.3 The Observer of Pakistan requested the
Committee to take up this matter and to send an IUCN
evaluation mission to the site. His full statement is
contained in Annex IV.1. The Observer of India explained that
the site is located in an area which is legally a part of
India and that the question should be first solved by the two
countries. His full statement is contained in Annex IV.2. The
Committee considered the matter and decided to send a letter
to the Permanent Delegations of Pakistan and India to the
effect that the Committee has decided to bring up and decide
about this matter at the next session of the Bureau.
A.1 Properties included on the List of World Heritage in Danger
VIII.4 The Committee examined the state of
conservation reports contained in Working Document WHC-
97/CONF.208/8BRev and decided to include the following natural
properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
- Okapi Faunal Reserve (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
- Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
- Manovo-Gounda St. Floris National Park (Central African Republic)
A.2 Property removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger
VIII.5 The Committee examined the state of
conservation reports contained in Working Document WHC-
97/CONF.208/8A and decided to remove the following natural
property from the List of World Heritage in Danger:
- Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)
*[36]
A.3 Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identi- State Party Criteria
fication having submitted
number the nomination in
accordance with
Article 11 of the Convention
Heard and McDonald 577Rev. Australia N(i)(ii)
Islands
The Committee inscribed this property under criteria (i) and
(ii). It noted that this site is the only volcanically active
sub-Antarctic island and illustrates ongoing geomorphic
processes and glacial dynamics in the coastal and submarine
environment and sub-Antarctic flora and fauna, with no record
of alien species. The Committee repeated its request by the
sixteenth session for further documentation on the marine
resources of the site.
Macquarie Island 629 Rev. Australia N(i)(iii)
The Committee recalled that it had referred this nomination
back to Australia in order that new material can be assessed.
In presenting its revised evaluation, IUCN stated that the
nomination had been submitted for its geological and not for
its biological values, and that the sixteenth session of the
Committee declined the nomination requesting Australia to
consider Macquarie Island for its biological values and had
noted its potential as part of an international World Heritage
site with the Subantarctic Islands of New Zealand. Australia
reported that it had consulted with New Zealand in 1996 and
had found that New Zealand was not ready for a joint
nomination. The Committee was informed that New Zealand had
subsequently nominated its Subantarctic Islands for review by
the twenty-second session of the Bureau. IUCN felt that the
basis for the nomination of Macquarie Island was too narrow
and recommended deferral of the nomination.
The Committee recalled that the Bureau discussed: (1)
geological and biological values; (2) the sovereignty of
States Parties to nominate properties and (3) the outstanding
universal value of the nominated property, and that the Bureau
by consensus decided to recommend the Committee to inscribe
the property under criteria (i) and (iii).
The Committee decided that the site provides an unique example
of exposure of the ocean crust above the sea level and of
geological evidence for sea-floor spreading, and is an
exposure of the oceanic plate boundary between the Pacific and
Australian/Indian plates, exposed with active faults and
ongoing tectonic movements.
The Committee decided to inscribe the site under criteria (i)
and (iii) and took note of the reservations expressed by the
Delegate of Thailand concerning criterion (iii). The Committee
encouraged the Australian authorities to consider for the
future a renomination with the Subantarctic Islands of New
Zealand and to consider adding biological criteria in a future
renomination. Australia indicated that the Australian
Government was willing to consider both proposals.
*[37]
Sundarbans 798 Bangladesh N(ii)(iv)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau had suggested that the
initial nomination was of insufficient size and encouraged the
authorities of Bangladesh to consider enlarging the nomination
to include the Sundarbans East and South Wildlife Sanctuaries.
It commended the Government of Bangladesh for responding to
this request to extend the boundaries of the site to now
include all three wildlife sanctuaries.
The Committee inscribed the site under criteria (ii) and (iv)
as one of the largest remaining areas of mangroves in the
world, which supports an exceptional biodiversity with a wide
range of flora and fauna, including the Bengal Tiger and
provides a significant example of on-going ecological
processes (monsoon rains, flooding, delta formation, tidal
influence and plant colonisation).
The Committee furthermore encouraged the authorities of
Bangladesh and of India to discuss the possibility for
creating a transfrontier site with the adjoining Sundarbans
National Park and World Heritage site (India).
Cocos Island 820 Costa Rica N(ii)(iv)
National Park
The Committee inscribed Cocos Island National Park under
natural criteria (ii) and (iv) because of the critical
habitats the site provides for marine wildlife including large
pelagic species, especially sharks. The Committee commended
the Government of Costa Rica for its initiative to incorporate
the marine environment into the Park and encouraged it to
extend management from 8km to the 15km legal limit around the
island.
Morne Trois Pitons 814 Dominica N(i)(iv)
National Park
The Committee inscribed the Morne Trois Pitons National Park
on the basis of natural criteria (i) and (iv) for its diverse
flora with endemic species of vascular plants, its volcanoes,
rivers and waterfalls, illustrating ongoing geo-morphological
processes with high scenic value.
The Committee commended the authorities of Dominica for their
response to the Bureau's request to provide a time frame for
the revision of the management plan and for having submitted a
technical assistance request for this revision. The Committee
took note of the answer provided by the Dominican authorities
that they have no plans for further hydroelectric power
development in the Park and act to eliminate private holdings
in the Park.
Mount Kenya National Park/ 800 Kenya N(ii)(iii)
Natural Forest
The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its twenty-first
session expressed concern about illegal deforestation and
encroachment on the slopes of Mt. Kenya and had recommended
that the Kenyan authorities reduce the size of the nominated
area by excluding heavily impacted forests. The Committee
*[38]
commended the Kenyan authorities for their response to the
Bureau's request and the details provided on actions to be
taken to improve the management of the forest zone and a map
of the revised boundaries of the property. The Committee
encouraged the State Party to continue its efforts to better
protect the Forest Reserve.
The Committee inscribed this property under natural criteria
(ii) and (iii) as one of the most impressive landscapes of
Eastern Africa with its rugged glacier-clad summits, Afro-
alpine moor lands and diverse forests, which illustrate
outstanding ecological processes.
Sibiloi/Central Island National 801 Kenya N(i)(iv)
Parks
The Committee inscribed this property on the basis of natural
criteria (i) and (iv) for the discoveries of mammal fossil
remains in the site which led to the scientific reconstruction
of the palaeo-environment of the entire Turkana Lake basin of
the Quarternary Period. The Lake Turkana ecosystem with its
diverse bird life and desert environment offers an exceptional
laboratory for studies of plant and animal communities. The
Committee expressed its concern and drew the attention of the
Kenyan authorities to illegal grazing by large herds of
domestic livestock in the Parks.
Concerning cultural criteria, the Committee noted that the
comparative study of fossil hominid sites by ICOMOS has been
completed and that it gives highest importance to Koobi Fora.
The Committee, however, decided to defer the nomination under
cultural criteria to allow the State Party to clearly
delineate the cultural part of this nomination, which does not
concern the same area as the natural part.
A.4 Property which the Committee did not inscribe on the World Heritage List
The Valley of Vinales Pinar 840 Cuba
del Rio
The Committee noted that the site does not meet the natural
criteria, lacked clearly defined boundaries and does not have
sufficient legal protection. Hence, the Committee decided not
to inscribe this site on the List. The Committee noted that
the Cuban authorities may wish to consider nominating the area
as a cultural landscape.
*[39]
A.5 Property which the Committee deferred
Natural Reserve El Triunfo 807 Mexico
The Committee noted that the twenty-first extraordinary
session of the Bureau decided, after having heard the
evaluation by IUCN, to bring this nomination to the twenty-
first session of the Committee.
In presenting its evaluation, IUCN noted that the field
inspection originally planned for March had to be postponed
until November. The conclusions of the report were: (1) the
site is one of high importance for conservation within Mexico
but, however, in the regional context it is one of many cloud
forest protected areas; (2) the conditions of integrity are
not met; (3) the boundaries of the site should be revised to
exclude the buffer zone and the adjacent Pico El Loro-Paxtal
forest be added; (4) a transfrontier nomination with the cloud
forest park of Sierra de las Minas in Guatemala, which was
deferred by the Bureau in 1993, should be considered as one
unit in a Mesoamerican Biological Corridor.
After having heard IUCN's evaluation report and taking account
of the ambiguities contained therein as well as the delay in
presenting the report (28 November 1997), not allowing time
for a satisfactory analysis by the Bureau, during its June
session nor during its extraordinary session on 28 and 29
November 1997, or the Committee, from 1 to 3 December 1997,
the Delegation of Mexico requested that the analysis of the
natural site of "El Triunfo, Chiapas" be deferred. The
Committee accepted this request.
B. MIXED PROPERTY
B.1 Property inscribed on the World Heritage List
Pyrénées - Mount Perdu 773 France/Spain N(i)(iii)
C(iii)(iv)(v)
The Committee inscribed the site under natural criteria (i)
and (iii). The calcareous massif of the Mount Perdu displays
classic geological land forms, including deep canyons and
spectacular cirque walls. It is also an outstanding scenic
landscape with meadows, lakes, caves and forests on mountain
slopes. In addition, the area is of high interest to science
and conservation.
Concerning cultural values, the Committee inscribed the
property on the basis of criteria (iii), (iv) and (v): The
Pyrénées-Mont Perdu area between France and Spain is an
outstanding cultural landscape which combines scenic beauty
with a socio-economic structure that has its roots in the past
and illustrates a mountain way of life that has become rare in
Europe.
The Committee furthermore encouraged France to consider
including the village of Bestué and its environs, including
its spectacular flights of terraced fields.
The Delegate of the Republic of Korea made the following
statement: "The Republic of Korea is very sensitive to issues
of a transfrontier or joint nature and admires not only the
beauty of the cultural landscape but also the beauty of the
*[40]
spirit of entente cordiale which exists between the two
different communities of France and Spain".
C. CULTURAL HERITAGE
VIII.6 The Committee was informed that all the
cultural properties submitted for inscription were included in
the Tentative Lists of the respective States Parties.
VIII.7 In introducing the cultural properties
nominated to the World Heritage List, the Representative of
ICOMOS explained the procedure used for the evaluation of
these properties. This involved the International Scientific
and National Committees of ICOMOS, its individual members and
associated scientific bodies. The large number of nominations
that ICOMOS was currently being called upon to evaluate was
imposing severe stress on its international Secretariat, given
the present level of funding from the World Heritage Fund.
VIII.8 On behalf of IUCN and ICOMOS, the
Representative of ICOMOS formally requested the Committee to
give consideration to promoting the presentation of new
nominations to a higher place in the agenda of its meetings,
so as to allow adequate time to be allocated for this purpose.
At recent meetings, discussions on earlier agenda items had
overrun, with the result that the presentations of new
nominations had been severely curtailed.
VIII.9 The Committee examined and inscribed thirty-
eight cultural properties.
C.1 Property included on the List of World Heritage in Danger
The Committee examined the state of conservation reports
contained in Working Document WHC-97/CONF.208/8BRev and
decided to include the following cultural property on the List
of World Heritage in Danger:
- Butrinti (Albania)
C.2 Properties which the Committee inscribed on the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identi- State Party Criteria
fication having submitted
number the nomination
in accordance
with Article 11 of
the Convention
Hallstatt-Dachstein/ 806 Austria C(iii)(iv)
Salzkammergut
Cultural Landscape
The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the basis of
criteria (iii) and (iv), considering that the Hallstatt-
Dachstein/Salzkammergut alpine region is an outstanding
example of a natural landscape of great beauty and scientific
interest which also contains evidence of a fundamental human
*[41]
economic activity, the whole integrated in a harmonious and
mutually beneficial manner.
The Historic Centre of 821 Brazil C(iii)(iv)(v)
Sao Luis
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis
of criteria (iii), (iv) and (v), considering that the Historic
Centre of São Luis do Maranhão is an outstanding example of a
Portuguese colonial town that adapted successfully to the
climatic conditions in equatorial South America and which has
preserved its urban fabric, harmoniously integrated with its
natural setting, to an exceptional degree.
The Old Town of Lijiang 811 China C(ii)(iv)(v)
The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the basis of
cultural criteria (ii), (iv) and (v). Lijiang is an
exceptional ancient town set in a dramatic landscape which
represents the harmonious fusion of different cultural
traditions to produce an urban landscape of outstanding
quality.
The Ancient City of 812 China C(ii)(iii)(iv)
Ping Yao
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis
of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv), considering that the Ancient
City of Ping Yao is an outstanding example of a Han Chinese
city of the Ming and Qing Dynasties (14th-20th centuries) that
has retained all its features to an exceptional degree and in
doing so provides a remarkably complete picture of cultural,
social, economic, and religious development during one of the
most seminal periods of Chinese history.
The Classical Gardens 813 China C(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)
of Suzhou
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis
of criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v), considering that
the four classical gardens of Suzhou are masterpieces of
Chinese landscape garden design in which art, nature, and
ideas are integrated perfectly to create ensembles of great
beauty and peaceful harmony, and four gardens are integral to
the entire historic urban plan. The Committee, however,
recommended that the State Party submit a nomination to extend
the World Heritage protection to cover