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 historic sectors of 
Suzhou and to take measures to maintain the integrity of this 
historic town, whose cultural value, marked by the linkage 
between its canal system and its gardens, extends beyond the 
four nominated gardens.  

*[42]

The Episcopal Complex of  809  Croatia   C(ii)(iii)(iv)
the Euphrasian Basilica in
the Historic Centre of Porec

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv), considering that the 
Episcopal complex of the Euphrasian Basilica in the historic 
centre of Porec is an outstanding example of an early 
Christian episcopal ensemble that is exceptional by virtue of 
its completeness and its unique Basilican cathedral.



The Historic City of  Trogir  810	Croatia		 C(ii)(iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (ii) and (iv), considering that Trogir is an 
excellent example of a medieval town built on and conforming 
with the layout of a Hellenistic and Roman city that has 
conserved its urban fabric to an exceptional degree and with 
the minimum of modern interventions, in which the trajectory 
of social and cultural development is clearly visible in every 
aspect of the townscape.



San Pedro de la Roca Castle,  841	Cuba      C(iv)(v)
Santiago de Cuba

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (iv) and (v), considering that the Castle of San 
Pedro de la Roca and its associated defensive works are of 
exceptional value because they constitute the largest and most 
comprehensive example of the principles of Renaissance 
military engineering adapted to the requirements of European 
colonial powers in the Caribbean.



The Historic Centre	    822       Estonia   C(ii)(iv)
(Old Town) of Tallinn

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (ii) and (iv), considering that Tallinn is an 
outstanding and exceptionally complete and well preserved 
example of a medieval northern European trading city that 
retains the salient features of this unique form of economic 
and social community to a remarkable degree.



The Historic Fortified  345rev.	  France    C(ii)(iv)
City of Carcassonne

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (ii) and (iv), considering that the historic town 
of Carcassonne is an excellent example of a medieval fortified 
town whose massive defences were constructed on walls dating 
from Late Antiquity. It is of exceptional importance by virtue 
of the restoration work carried out in the second half of the 
19th century by Viollet-le-Duc, which had a profound influence 
on subsequent developments in conservation principles and 
practice.


*[43]

The 18th Century Royal Palace	549rev Italy  C(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
at Caserta, with the Park, the 
Aqueduct of Vanvitelli,
and the San Leucio Complex

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), considering that the 
monumental complex at Caserta, whilst cast in the same mould 
as other 18th century royal establishments, is exceptional for 
the broad sweep of its design, incorporating not only an 
imposing palace and park, but also much of the surrounding 
natural landscape and an ambitious new town laid out according 
to the urban planning precepts of its time. The industrial 
complex of the Belvedere, designed to produce silk, is also of 
outstanding interest because of the idealistic principles that 
underlay its original conception and management.



Residences of the       823       Italy     C(i)(ii)(iv)(v)
Royal House of Savoy

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (i), (ii), (iv) and (v), considering that the 
Residences of the Royal House of Savoy in and around Turin 
represent a comprehensive overview of European monumental 
architecture in the 17th and 18th centuries, using style, 
dimensions, and space to illustrate in an exceptional way the 
prevailing doctrine of absolute monarchy in material terms.



The Botanical Garden    824       Italy		   C(ii)(iii)
(Orto Botanico), Padua

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (ii) and (iii), considering that the Botanical 
Garden of Padua is the original of all botanical gardens 
throughout the world, and represents the birth of science, of 
scientific exchanges, and understanding of the relationship 
between nature and culture. It has made a profound 
contribution to the development of many modern scientific 
disciplines, notably botany, medicine, chemistry, ecology, and 
pharmacy.



Portovenere, Cinque Terre,  826   Italy     C(ii)(iv)(v)
and the Islands (Palmaria, 
Tino and Tinetto)

The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the basis of 
criteria (ii), (iv) and (v), considering that the eastern 
Ligurian Riviera between Cinque Terre and Portovenere is a 
cultural site of outstanding value, representing the 
harmonious interaction between people and nature to produce a 
landscape of exceptional scenic quality that illustrates a 
traditional way of life that has existed for a thousand years 
and continues to play an important socio-economic role in the 
life of the community. 


*[44]


The Cathedral, Torre Civica	827   Italy     C(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
and Piazza Grande, Modena

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), considering that the 
joint creation of Lanfranco and Wiligelmo is a masterpiece of 
human creative genius in which a new dialectical relationship 
between architecture and sculpture was created in Romanesque 
art. The Modena complex bears exceptional witness to the 
cultural traditions of the 12th century and is one of the best 
examples of an architectural complex where religious and civic 
values are combined in a medieval Christian town.



The Archaeological Areas  829     Italy	    C(iii)(iv)(v)
of Pompei, Herculanum 
and Torre Annunziata

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (iii), (iv) and (v), considering that the 
impressive remains of the towns of Pompei and Herculaneum and 
their associated villas, buried by the eruption of Vesuvius in 
AD 79, provide a complete and vivid picture of society and 
daily life at a specific moment in the past that is without 
parallel anywhere in the world.

The Committee asked Italy to submit a progress report in time 
for the Bureau meeting in June 1998, on the management 
measures taken at Pompei, with particular reference to 
experience gained through planned partnerships between the 
State and private enterprises, as well as information 
concerning the protection of the environment surrounding the 
area. 



The Costiera Amalfitana  830      Italy     C(ii)(iv)(v)

The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the basis of 
criteria (ii), (iv) and (v), considering that the Costiera 
Amalfitana is an outstanding example of a Mediterranean 
landscape, with exceptional cultural and natural scenic values 
resulting from its dramatic topography and historical 
evolution.



The Archaeological Area  831      Italy     C(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
 of Agrigento

The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the basis of 
criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), considering that Agrigento 
was one of the greatest cities of the ancient Mediterranean 
world, and it has been preserved in an exceptionally intact 
condition. Its great row of Doric temples is one of the most 
outstanding monuments of Greek art and culture.

	

Villa Romana del        832       Italy     C(i)(ii)(iii)
Casale

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (i), (ii) and (iii), considering that the Villa 
del Casale at Piazza Armerina is the supreme example of a 
luxury *[45] Roman villa, which graphically illustrates the predominant 
social and economic structure of its age. The mosaics that 
decorate it are exceptional for their artistic quality and 
invention as well as their extent.

The Committee asked the State Party to provide a report on the 
conservation and management of the site and in particular on 
the monitoring of the climatic conditions within the 
protective structures and their impact on the archaeological 
remains. 



Su Nuraxi di Barumin    833       Italy     C(i)(iii)(iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of cultural criteria (i), (iii) and (iv), considering that the 
nuraghe of Sardinia, of which Su Nuraxi is the pre-eminent 
example, represent an exceptional response to political and 
social conditions, making an imaginative and innovative use of 
the materials and techniques available to a prehistoric island 
community.



The Ch'angdokkung       816       Korea     C(ii)(iii)(iv) 
Palace Complex                   (Republic of)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv), considering that the 
Ch'angdokkung Palace Compound is an outstanding example of Far 
Eastern palace architecture and garden design, exceptional for 
the way in which the buildings are integrated into and 
harmonized with the natural setting, adapting to the 
topography and retaining indigenous tree cover.



Hwasong Fortress        817       Korea     C(ii)(iii)                    					
                                 (Republic of)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (ii) and (iii), considering that the Hwasong 
Fortress is an outstanding example of early modern military 
architecture, incorporating the most highly developed features 
of that science from both east and west.

The Delegate of the Republic of Korea thanked the Committee 
for having decided to inscribe the above two sites on the 
World Heritage List.



The Historic Centre of  852       Latvia    C(i)(ii)
   Riga

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (i) and (ii), considering that the historic centre 
of Riga, while retaining its medieval and later urban fabric 
relatively intact, is of outstanding universal value by virtue 
of the quality and the quantity of its Art Nouveau/Jugendstil 
architecture, which is unparalleled anywhere in the world, and 
its 19th century architecture in wood.

*[46]

Hospicio Cabanas,       815       Mexico	   C(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
Guadalajara

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), considering that the 
Hospicio Cabañas is a unique architectural complex, designed 
to respond to social and economic requirements for housing the 
sick, the aged, the young, and the needy, which provides an 
outstanding solution of great subtlety and humanity. It also 
houses one of the acknowledged masterpieces of mural art.



The Archaeological Site 836       Morocco   C(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)
 of Volubili

The Committee decided to inscribe the Archaeological Site of 
Volubilis on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi), 
considering that this site is an exceptionally well preserved 
example of a large Roman colonial town on the fringes of the 
Empire.



The Medina of Tétouan   837       Morocco   C(ii)(iv)(v)
 (formerly known as Titawin)

The Committee decided to inscribe the Medina of Tétouan 
(formerly known as Titawin) on the basis of criteria (ii), 
(iv) and (v), considering that it is an exceptionally well 
preserved and complete example of this type of historic town, 
displaying all the features of the high Andalusian culture.



Lumbini, the Birthplace 666rev.   Nepal     C(iii)(vi)
of the Lord Buddha

The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the basis of 
criteria (iii) and (vi).  As the birthplace of the Lord 
Buddha, the sacred area of Lumbini is one of the holiest 
places of one of the world's great religions, and its remains 
contain important evidence about the nature of Buddhist 
pilgrimage centres from a very early period.

The Delegate of Thailand declared that apart from Lumbini, 
there are two other sites closely associated with Buddha which 
are in the process of preparation to be presented as serial 
nominations and that he hoped that the Committee would 
consider them in this context.



The Mill Network at	    818	      Netherlands	C(i)(ii)(iv)
Kinderdijk-Elshout

The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the basis of 
criteria (i), (ii) and (iv) considering that the Kinderdijk-
Elshout mill network is an outstanding man-made landscape that 
bears powerful testimony to human ingenuity and fortitude over 
nearly a millennium in draining and protecting an area by the 
development and application of hydraulic technology.

*[47]

The Historic Area of    819       Netherlands         C(ii)(iv)(v)
 Willemstad, Inner City 
and Harbour

The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the basis of 
cultural criteria (ii), (iv) and (v), considering that the 
Historic Area of Willemstad is a European colonial ensemble in 
the Caribbean of outstanding value and integrity, which 
illustrates the organic growth of a multicultural community 
over three centuries and preserves to a high degree 
significant elements of the many strands that came together to 
create it.


Rohtas Fort	            586rev    Pakistan	      C(ii)(iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (ii) and (iv), considering that the Rohtas Fort is 
an exceptional example of the Muslim military architecture of 
central and south Asia, which blends architectural and 
artistic traditions from Turkey and the Indian sub-continent 
to create the model for Mughal architecture and its subsequent 
refinements and adaptations.



Historic District of the Town 790  Panama	  C(ii)(iv)(vi)
 of Panama with the Salon Bolivar

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of cultural criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi), considering that 
Panamá was the first European settlement on the Pacific coast 
of the Americas, in 1519, and the Historic District preserves 
intact a street pattern, together with a substantial number of 
early domestic buildings, which are exceptional testimony to 
the nature of this early settlement.  The Salón Bolivar is of 
outstanding historical importance, as the venue for Simón 
Bolivar's visionary attempt in 1826 to create a Pan-American 
congress, more than a century before such institutions became 
a reality.

The Delegate of Thailand expressed his reservations on the 
application of criterion (vi).


The Medieval Town of Torun 835    Poland		 	C(ii)(iv)   

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (ii) and (iv), considering that Torun is a small 
historic trading city that preserves to a remarkable extent 
its original street pattern and outstanding early buildings, 
and which provides an exceptionally complete picture of the 
medieval way of life.



The Castle of the Teutonic 847    Poland    C(ii)(iii)(iv)
Order in Malbork

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv), considering that Malbork 
Castle is the supreme example of the medieval brick castle 
that characterizes the unique architecture of the Crusading 
Teutonic Order in eastern Europe.It is also of considerable

*[48] 
historical significance for the evidence that it provides of 
the evolution of the modern philosophy and practice of 
restoration and conservation.

Following the inscription of these two properties from Poland, 
the Observer of Germany congratulated the Polish Government 
for the nominations and inscriptions of the Town of Torun and 
the Castle of Malbork which are representative of the common 
history of these two nations and which may be regarded as 
concrete evidence of the increasing spirit of co-operation and 
friendship (Statement annexed as Annex VI.1).

The Observer of Poland expressed his thanks for the 
inscriptions and thanked the Observer of Germany for his kind 
intervention (Statement annexed as Annex V1.2).


Las Médulas             803       Spain	 		 C(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), considering that the 
Las Médulas gold-mining area is an outstanding example of 
innovative Roman technology, in which all the elements of the 
ancient landscape, both industrial and domestic, have survived 
to an exceptional degree.  

The Delegate of Thailand informed the Committee that he was 
unable to accept the inscription of this site as a cultural 
property as it did not correspond to the definitions given in 
Article 1 of the Convention.  Furthermore, in applying 
criterion (i), among others, to signify human creativity, he 
could only consider this site as a result of human destructive 
activities as well as harmful to the noble cause of 
environmental promotion and protection.  Germany and Finland 
agreed with the position of Thailand.



The Palau de la Musica and 804    Spain	    C(i)(ii)(iv)
the Hospital de Sant Pau, 
Barcelona

The Committee decided to inscribe these two properties on the 
basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv), considering that the 
Palau de la Música Catalana and the Hospital de Sant Pau in 
Barcelona are masterpieces of the imaginative and exuberant 
Art Nouveau that flowered in early 20th century Barcelona. 



San Millan Yuso and     805       Spain	    C(ii)(iv)(vi)
Suso Monasteries

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi), considering that the 
Monasteries of Suso and Yuso at San Millán de la Cogolla are 
exceptional testimony to the introduction and continuous 
survival of Christian monasticism, from the 6th century to the 
present day. The property is also of outstanding associative 
significance as the birthplace of the modern written and 
spoken Spanish language.


*[49]

Dougga/Thugga           794       Tunisia		 C(ii)(iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of criteria (ii) and (iii), considering that Dougga is the 
best preserved Roman small town in North Africa and as such 
provides an exceptional picture of everyday life in antiquity.



Maritime Greenwich      795       United Kingdom  C(i)(ii)(iv)(vi)
 										  

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis 
of cultural criteria (i), (ii), (iv) and (vi), considering 
that the public and private buildings and the Royal Park at 
Greenwich form an exceptional ensemble that bears witness to 
human artistic and scientific endeavour of the highest 
quality, to European architecture at an important stage of its 
evolution, and to the creation of a landscape that integrates 
nature and culture in a harmonious whole.

The Delegate of Morocco informed the Committee that he felt 
that the site did not justify criterion (i), and requested 
that it should not been mentioned.

VIII.10	Several delegates and observers thanked the 
Committee for the inscription on the World Heritage List of 
properties nominated by their governments.

VIII.11	Several speakers took the floor following the 
intervention of the Delegate of Greece with regard to the test 
of authenticity to which references were made concerning 
certain nominations analysed and recommended by ICOMOS.  The 
discussions concerned the validity of the principles contained 
in the Venice Charter of 1964, in particular on authenticity 
which presently serves as a reference text for all heritage 
specialists.  In this regard, emphasis was given the evolution 
of the doctrinal approach of this concept, which has been the 
subject of several specialized meetings and particularly that 
held in Nara, Japan, recommendations of which brought new 
light to a differentiated cultural approach.  Following 
valuable discussions on this important issue for the work of 
the Committee, the Chairperson requested the Delegate of 
Greece, to present a draft proposal.  The following resolution 
was submitted by Greece and supported by Finland, was adopted.

"The World Heritage Committee,

Emphasizing that the Constitutional Act of UNESCO which 
foresees that it will assist in maintaining, advancing and 
diffusing knowledge whilst protecting the conservation and 
safeguarding of universal heritage and in recommending to 
concerned peoples of international conventions to this effect,

Recalling that Article 1 of the Convention concerning the 
Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage considers as 
"cultural heritage" the monuments, groups of buildings and 
sites which are of outstanding universal value from the 
historical, aesthetic or  scientific points of view,

Taking into account the fact that the intergovernmental 
Committee for the protection of world cultural and natural 
heritage establishes a list of cultural and natural properties 
of outstanding universal value,

*[50]
Considering the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation 
of the World Heritage Convention and notably the relative 
criteria concerning the inscription of cultural heritage on 
the World Heritage List,

Invites the Consultative Body of the Committee to re-examine 
the criteria concerning the inscription of cultural heritage 
and notably criterion (i) as well as that of authenticity."

VIII.12	During the debate, the Zimbabwe Delegation noted 
with serious concern the growing geographical imbalance 
between countries that are already over-represented on the 
World Heritage List and those that are grossly 
underrepresented.  The fundamental problem is that despite the 
professed movement away from the emphasis on 'monumentality', 
criterion (i) is being used extensively.  With the emphasis on 
'masterpieces'  of human creative genius supported by other 
criteria that emphasize architectural ensemble, the Global 
Strategy adopted by the World Heritage Committee is seriously 
undermined.  A major achievement of the Global Strategy was 
that it sought the extension of the Convention to include the 
intangible heritage: in particular, criterion (vi), each 
property should be "directly or tangibly associated with 
events or living traditions, with ideas or with beliefs....". 
Moreover, the Delegate noted that while criterion (i) and 
other criteria are being used "willy-nilly", there is an 
injunction that criterion (vi) should be used sparingly.  
There is need for ICOMOS and the World Heritage Committee to 
refocus on the Global Strategy and to implement its provisions 
if the imbalance is to be corrected.

VIII.13	The Secretary General of ICOMOS noted that the 
discussions had raised several important questions.  He 
considered that these in-depth debates were valuable and 
highly desirable.  ICOMOS, in its capacity as advisory body to 
the Committee, was willing to contribute to these discussions 
with inputs from its professional network.  On the one hand, 
clarification of the positions regarding the test of 
authenticity, the application of nomination criteria, and in 
general, the reference standards (Venice Charter and other 
texts) should be decided upon. On the other, from the 
fundamental viewpoint, concrete measures should be taken to 
improve representivity of the List, along the lines of 
pertinent interventions made by the Delegate of Zimbabwe.  The 
questions were clearly posed and, in the framework of the 
Global Strategy, corrective measures have been taken.  
However, in reality, the proposals for nominations originating 
from States Parties continue, and even worsen, the imbalance.  
Other than the regional seminars to which ICOMOS is 
associated, it provides thematic studies of categories of 
under-represented properties  and studies the various measures 
to limit nominations for submission to the consideration of 
the Committee.

VIII.14	The Representative of IUCN indicated that IUCN has a 
broad regional representation of its own offices in Latin 
America, Africa and Asia which can assist countries in these 
regions.  In addition, he specifically noted that the Pacific 
Island nations should receive more attention.

VIII.15	The Chairperson announced that the issues raised 
during the debate will be examined by the Consultative Body, 
which will report to the twenty-second session of the Bureau 
in June 1998.



*[51]

IX.   PROGRESS REPORT ON THE GLOBAL STRATEGY AND 		
	THEMATIC AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES

The Committee took note of Information Documents WHC-
97/CONF.208/INF.7, WHC-97/CONF.208/INF.8, WHC-97/CONF.INF.12 
and WHC-97/CONF.208/INF.13.

IX.1	 The Global Strategy approved by the Committee in 
1994 aims at improving the representivity of cultural heritage 
on the World Heritage List and redressing the imbalance due to 
the pre-eminence of Europe, Christianity and monumental 
architecture, as well as to encourage the nomination of 
properties illustrating archaeological, industrial and 
technical heritage from non-European cultures and, in general, 
of all living cultures, particularly traditional societies and 
their many continuing interactions with their natural 
environment.

IX.2	 In its presentation, the Secretariat did not repeat 
the information contained in Document WHC-97/CONF.208/11 
relating to progress on the Global Strategy for cultural 
heritage, but took this opportunity to evaluate the activities 
undertaken in Africa since the adoption in 1994 of the Global 
Strategy.  From 1995 to 1997, the World Heritage Centre, in 
close co-operation with ICOMOS, organized two expert meetings 
to which representatives of States Parties and non-States 
Parties to the Convention were invited, as well as two 
workshops during which the participants were able to practise 
the preparation of tentative lists and proposals for the 
inscription of properties.  Although the methodology adopted 
had enhanced the knowledge of the procedures in force, and 
fifteen of the thirty States Parties had already prepared 
tentative lists and a calendar of proposals for inscription on 
the World Heritage List up until the year 2001 had been 
prepared, the Secretariat underlined the specificity of the 
situation and drew attention to the conditions for 
"preparatory assistance", for which many countries from the 
region could not apply until they have paid their outstanding 
dues to the World Heritage Fund.  Furthermore, during meetings 
and workshops, African experts emphasized that the ceiling of 
"preparatory assistance" (US$ 15,000) was insufficient to 
prepare nomination dossiers, because at many African sites, 
listed on the tentative lists, the costs for the gathering of 
documentation, preparation of conservation and management 
plans, was far superior to US$ 15,000.  Therefore, 
complementary measures appear indispensable to assist these 
countries in the efficient implementation of the Global 
Strategy.  This situation implies a proposal for a coherent 
training policy in co-operation with ICCROM.  To achieve this, 
the Secretariat also proposes to use UNESCO offices.

IX.3	During the debate, the African delegates recognized 
the pertinence of the methodology proposed and suggested 
associating their efforts with those undertaken by the World 
Heritage Centre to encourage countries south of the Sahara to 
ratify the 1972 Convention.  The Delegate of Benin suggested 
that the Director of the Centre be a member of the UNESCO 
Delegation participating at the Organization for African Unity 
(OAU) to inform as many States as possible about World 
Heritage.  The Observer of South Africa proposed that the 
African States Parties should, in the same way, create 
national committees for the implementation of the 1972 
Convention, so as to activate the process from the 
establishment of tentative lists through to the preparation of 
the nomination dossier.  The delegates reiterated their 
support for the training strategy adopted at the twentieth 
session of the Committee (Merida, 1996).  It was also 
recommended to invite experts from all Sub-saharan African 
regions to the expert meeting on African Cultural Landscape, 
scheduled in 1998, in Kenya. Finally, the suggestion to 
organize a meeting on Global Strategy in Western Africa was 

*[52]
welcome and the Republic of Benin offered to host it in autumn 
1998, instead of 1999, as it was originally foreseen.

IX.4	Concerning the implementation of the Global Strategy 
in the Pacific, it was noted that there are still very few 
States Parties to the Convention in the Pacific.  The Director 
of the Centre informed the Committee that the need to 
encourage greater adherence to, and implementation of the 
Convention in the Pacific has been included as part of 
UNESCO's new strategic approach called "Focus on the Pacific".  
The Delegate of Australia gave her encouragement and support 
for Global Strategy work in the Pacific stressing that the 
region's cultural and natural heritage is currently under-
represented on the List.  She made reference to the Global 
Strategy work already performed in the Pacific, most notably 
the meeting held in Suva, Fiji, in association with the Fiji 
Museum, which was already leading to tangible results (WHC-
97/CONF.208/INF.8).  She supported the proposal to hold a 
follow-up meeting for the Pacific in 1998, indicating that 
Australia would be active in assisting in the meeting and 
asked that a progress report on Global Strategy work in the 
Pacific be presented to the next session of the Committee.  
The Delegate of the Republic of Korea suggested that the 
Committee members of the region, Australia, Japan, Republic of 
Korea and Thailand, participate in the meeting together with 
experts, to undertake joint efforts regarding those small 
islands' Governments of the Pacific, especially noting that 
the main objective of the proposed Global Strategy meeting is 
to encourage those Pacific islands to accede to the 
Convention. IUCN asked that the meeting address both cultural 
and natural heritage as they are so intrinsically linked in 
the Pacific.

IX.5	The Committee took note of the comparative studies 
which were undertaken by ICOMOS in 1997 on Fossil Hominid 
sites, Iberian Colonial towns in Latin America, Islamic 
military sites in Central and South Asia, and Castles of the 
Teutonic Order in Central and Eastern Europe.

IX.6	The Committee recalled that the Global Strategy was 
originally devised with particular reference to cultural 
heritage and that in March 1996 an expert meeting in the Parc 
National de la Vanoise, France, affirmed the application of 
the Global Strategy for natural heritage. 

The Committee noted that thematic studies (e.g. on tropical 
forests and wetlands, coastal and marine ecosystems) funded by 
an earmarked contribution from Australia, have commenced in 
co-operation with IUCN. The Committee was informed of a number 
of actions concerning geological heritage, including a 
thematic brochure on World Heritage sites of geological value 
and co-ordination meetings with the International Union of 
Geological Sciences (IUGS), the International Geological 
Correlation Programme (IGCP) and the UNESCO Division of Earth 
Sciences. The Committee noted that within the framework of the 
Global Strategy a study was carried out in 1997 on the 
"Identification of potential natural heritage sites in the 
Arab Countries" and was provided to States Parties in the Arab 
Region.

IX.7	The Committee took note of the preliminary Draft 
European Landscape Convention (Resolution 53/97 of the Council 
of Europe) and Recommendation 31 of the Council of Europe's 
"Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe" (CLRAE) 
presented in Information Document WHC-97/CONF.208/INF.12. The 
Committee welcomed the complementarity of the World Heritage 
Convention and the proposed Preliminary Draft of the European 
Landscape Convention and the synergy of efforts. The Committee 

*[53]
was informed of the "Intergovernmental Consultation Conference 
on the Preliminary Draft European Landscape Convention" 
organized by CLRAE and to be held from 2 to 4 April 1998 in 
Florence (Italy) and welcomed the initiative by CLRAE to 
enhance the identification, protection, conservation, 
presentation and transmission to future generations of 
European landscapes. The Delegate of France underlined that 
new instruments should find their place among existing legal 
instruments, on the national, regional and international level 
and that a collaboration between the World Heritage Committee, 
the Centre and the new European instrument should be 
organized. The Committee recalled that at its twentieth 
session in December 1996, it approved US $30,000 for an Expert 
Meeting on cultural landscapes of the Andean Region to guide 
States Parties in the identification, selection and 
presentation of cultural landscapes in the Andes.  The meeting 
will be held in Peru in May 1998.

IX.8	 The Committee recalled that a preliminary 
consultation meeting took place in conjunction with the World 
Heritage Bureau session, on 28 June 1997, to further define 
the objectives and agenda for the Global Strategy Expert 
Meeting on Natural and Cultural Heritage to be held in 1998.  
The report of the consultation meeting was included as ANNEX 
XI of the report of the twenty-first session of the Bureau of 
the World Heritage Committee (WHC-97/CONF.208/4A). The 
Secretariat informed the Committee that co-ordination meetings 
were held with the advisory bodies and with colleagues from 
the Culture and Science Sectors of UNESCO. These meetings 
reviewed replies to the circular letter on the Selection of 
National Experts, and refined the agenda items into more 
detailed terms of reference, noting in particular that the 
meeting should focus on an analysis of issues through case 
studies.  The Committee also recalled that it approved US 
$30,000 for this activity at its twentieth session in December 
1996 and welcomed the offer by the Government of the 
Netherlands to host the Expert Meeting.

IX.9	While referring to the Global Strategy meeting 
scheduled in South East Asia in 1999, the Committee stressed 
the importance of wood architectural heritage and its 
conservation.  In addition, it emphasized the relation of this 
heritage to ritual ceremonies and therefore its link to 
intangible heritage.  The Observer of India underlined the 
importance of living cultures and the suggested meeting in 
Central Asia and offered to host a Global Strategy meeting for 
South Asia in India in 1999.

IX.10	 The Committee reviewed the proposals for Global 
Strategy activities for 1998 and 1999. The Committee approved 
the following budget including the items for IUCN and ICOMOS, 
foreseen in Chapter II of WHC-97/CONF.208/13:


*[54]
Summary Budget for the Global Strategy, 1998 to 1999


WHF 1998    Expert Meeting on Cultural      US$ 40,000
            Landscapes in Africa, Kenya

            Global Strategy Meeting         US$ 35,000
            for the Caribbean region,
            Martinique 

            Follow-up Global Strategy       US$ 30,000
            meeting for the Pacific, Vanuatu			
		
			
            Sub-regional meeting on Central US$ 20,000
            Asian cultural heritage

            Global Strategy meeting,        US$ 50,000
            Western Africa, Benin

            Africa Revisited Publication    US$ 15,000

            IUCN Ecosystem subregional and 
            thematic studies for natural    US$ 30,000
            heritage

            ICOMOS                          US$ 23,000


            SUB-TOTAL                       US$ 243,000


WHF 1999    Global Strategy meeting, South-   US$ 40,000
            East Asia 		

            Global Strategy meeting, South Asia,
            India (to be approved by the 22nd session
            of the World Heritage Committee)

            SUB-TOTAL                       US$ 40,000


X.	 REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

X.1	The Committee examined International Assistance 
requests submitted by States Parties and advisory bodies 
presented in Working Document WHC-97/CONF.208/12Rev.  In 
accordance with paragraphs 91-117 of the Operational 
Guidelines, the Committee took decisions concerning 
International Assistance requests for natural and cultural 
heritage above US$ 30,000.  

X.2	The Committee's decisions and comments concerning 
International Assistance requests for natural and cultural 
heritage have been summarized in the following tables.  	

*[Tables excluded from this html version]

*[55]


XI.   EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND 		
      APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 1998, AND PRESENTATION OF 	
      A PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR 1999

XI.1	 The Chairperson presented the documents 
concerning this agenda item, which were :

      -WHC-97/CONF.208/13
      -WHC-97/CONF.208/13Add, which presented the financial 
       statements of the World Heritage Fund audited by the External 
       Auditor for the year ended 31 December 1996 ; 
      -WHC-97/CONF.208/13Corr. which showed the adjustments to
       the amounts of UNESCO's Regular Programme allocated to 
       the World Heritage Centre as approved by the General
       Conference at its 29th session.

Furthermore, he recalled that the advisory bodies, ICOMOS, 
IUCN and ICCROM, had submitted their activity reports for 1996 
relating to the World Heritage Convention (Documents WHC-
97/CONF.208/INF.6A, B and C).

XI.2		The Director of the Centre then introduced the 
outline of Document CONF.208/13 as well as the list of 
decisions required to be taken by the Committee.

	- to take note of the financial statements of the World    
Heritage Fund for the year ended 31 December 1996,

	- to take note of the provisional accounts of the World 
Heritage Fund for 1997, as of 31 August 1997,

	- to decide upon the budget ceiling for 1998,

	- to allocate within this ceiling the amounts to the 
different budget chapters,

	- to examine and approve the indicative provisional 
budget for 1999.

XI.3		The Deputy Comptroller of UNESCO then introduced the 
financial statements of the World Heritage Fund for 1996 as 
well as the provisional accounts for 1997 as of 31 August 1997 
of which the Committee took note.

One delegate drew the attention of the Committee to the fact 
that the cash at bank of the Fund was in excess of US$ 5 
million and considered that this balance was unnecessarily 
blocked.  He was informed that this balance should be reduced 
over time through the implementation of the increased budget. 
The Delegate of Italy stated that he considered the staff 
costs should not be included in the budget of the World 
Heritage Fund. 

Several delegates raised the subject of the low 
implementation rate, particularly for preparatory assistance.  
The Director informed the Committee that the latest figures 
provided by the Administration Unit of the World Heritage 
Centre showed an improved implementation rate (almost 81.5% 
for one budget line in Chapter III).

*[56]

XI.4		Whilst noting that the overall presentation of the 
work plan and budget was clearly improved, the delegates 
recalled that the external auditor reported little progress 
had been made in the implementation of the recommendations of 
the financial audit.  The reply by the Deputy Director of the 
Centre on  the rigidity of procedures as well as on the follow 
up of operations were satisfactory : to date US$ 300,000 of 
old obligations had been liquidated and a further amount of 
US$ 200,000 would be liquidated or spent before 31 December 
1997.  A detailed chart of accounts and a database for 
monitoring of financial operations of the World Heritage Fund 
had been elaborated.  Finally, the Centre is continuing with 
the implementation of the other recommendations of the 
External Auditor.

XI.5		Several interventions concerned improving methods to 
increase the number of assistance requests that would better 
correspond to the needs of States Parties.  Better 
communication, greater use of preparatory assistance, as well 
as co-operation with the States Parties in programme 
development were suggested.  Delegates agreed that greater 
flexibility was required in the use of the allocated amounts 
for preparatory assistance.

In the same way, delegates raised the matter of Member States 
of UNESCO who had not ratified the Convention.  Various 
solutions were made to yet encourage them to ratify to the 
Convention, including participation in regional and sub-
regional meetings, creation of networks, etc.  It was decided 
that all these questions should be discussed by the 
Consultative Body.

XI.6		With regard to the budget ceiling, delegates 
requested that earmarked and non-earmarked  funds should be 
included.  After discussions on the amount of funds available, 
the amount of non-earmarked funds and the capacity of 
implementation by the World Heritage Centre, a revised budget 
ceiling amounting to US$ 4, 137,083 was approved by the 
Committee for the budget of the World Heritage Fund for 1998.  
This new budget ceiling was based upon that proposed by the 
World Heritage Centre, to which were added US$ 226,333 
relating to earmarked activities and US$ 200,000 relating to 
non-earmarked activities, as well as US$ 350,000 for the 
meeting on Global Strategy in Western Africa, originally 
foreseen for 1999.

XI.7		The Committee then examined the different budget 
chapters and components and took the following decisions:

XI.7.1		Chapter I

The amount proposed for participation in statutory meetings is 
available to all developing States Parties.  The amount was 
increased from US$ 70,000 to US$ 80,000.

The amount proposed for co-ordination with other Conventions 
and programmes, etc. was approved.  The Centre will make a 
report on the use of this amount at the Bureau meeting to be 
held in June 1998 which will decide upon its future use.

An amount of US$ 50,000 was approved for the work of the 
Consultative Body.  Zimbabwe and South Africa expressed their 
wish to participate in the work of this Body.

The budget for Chapter I amounted to US$ 160,000.
*[57]

XI.7.2		Chapter II

At the request of the advisory bodies and with the support of 
several delegates:

	- contribution to ICOMOS for the implementation of the 
Convention concerning advisory services and Global Strategy 
financed by the World Heritage Fund, will be included in a 
single contract amounting to US$ 350,000 (including US$ 23,000 
for thematic studies); 

	-a special budget line grouping the different activities 
of ICCROM will be established under this Chapter.

The amount proposed for this Chapter including the above-
mentioned changes was approved.

XI.7.3		Chapter III

The substantial increase foreseen for this Chapter will be 
brought to the attention of all UNESCO Member States as a 
means to raise interest and encourage them to ratify the 
Convention.

The non-earmarked resources amounting to US$ 200,000 (of which 
US$ 10,000 has been used for increases decided upon in Chapter 
I for participation in statutory meetings and US$ 25,000 has 
been used for the radio programmes) is evenly divided between 
technical co-operation and training.

Support for promotional activities at sites is increased by 
US$ 25,000 already approved for radio programmes.  This new 
amount will be used to support, at the request of States 
Parties, for promotional activities in the States for radio as 
well as other media.

The amounts foreseen in the Chapter for the advisory bodies 
are to be indicated.

The budget for Chapter III amounts to US$ 2,440,000.

XI.7.4	Chapter IV

To respond better to the needs of States and to improve 
implementation, certain flexibility was agreed concerning the 
allocation of funds between the regions.

The amount proposed for this Chapter was approved without any 
changes.  The training component for ICCROM is clearly 
indicated in Chapter III.

XI.7.5	Chapter V

As this Chapter  had already been discussed and approved 
earlier, it remains unchanged.

XI.7.6	Emergency Reserve

The Committee decided that the emergency reserve fund should 
be replenished to US$ 500,000 as of 1 January 1998.

*[58]
Approved Budget for 1998 and Tentative Budget for 1999
(in United States Dollars)

*[Table excluded from this html version]

*[59]

XI.8		The delegates expressed the wish that future work 
plans and budgets submitted to the World Heritage Committee be 
prepared based on precise forecasts of the resources and 
identified needs and priorities

XI.9		A draft resolution prepared by the Italian 
Delegation and discussed earlier was distributed as amended by 
a working group created by the Chairperson for this purpose 
(Italy, Benin, Japan, Thailand, France, Lebanon and Germany).  
The text of this resolution approved by the Committee is the 
following:

Resolution presented by Italy

     "The Committee,

     Underlining its responsibilities assigned by the 
     Convention for the Protection of the World Heritage,

     Taking into consideration the need to have access to all 
     the necessary means in order to fulfil its 
     responsibilities,

     Invites the World Heritage Centre and as well as any 
     other unit of the Secretariat which might be concerned, 
     to submit to its prior consideration every activity 
     envisaged to be undertaken for the implementation of the 
     Convention and funded by the Fund and by the Regular 
     Programme."


XI.10   The Deputy Comptroller of UNESCO, representing 
the Director of the Centre, reminded the Committee that the 
World Heritage Fund was set up as a Trust Fund of UNESCO and 
that Regular Programme funds were voted by UNESCO's General 
Conference.  He stated that the Secretariat took reserve on 
the above decision recommending that the Legal Advisor should 
be consulted as to the legality of the Committee being 
required to give its advice before Regular Programme funds 
voted by UNESCO's General Conference could be spent.  In 
addition, he pointed out the pragmatic problem of obtaining 
the Committee's views on Regular Programme funds budgeted for 
1998, when the next Committee meeting would not take place 
until December of that year.  He reiterated the proposal made 
earlier that, in the context of streamlining procedures as 
proposed by the External Auditor in the Management Review, the 
Consultative Body consider a mechanism whereby the Committee 
should be involved in the preparation of the World Heritage 
Centre's Regular Programme budget for the next biennium 
(2000/2001).

XI.11   The Chairperson gave the following reply:

"The Chairperson takes note of the remarks made by the Deputy 
Comptroller, representing the Director of the World Heritage 
Centre, on the Resolution just adopted.  These remarks are 
misconceived in point of law and policy.  In point of law, 
there is no way that the World Heritage Committee may be 
considered as a "subsidiary body" of the "UNESCO supreme 
governing body" i.e. the General Conference.  It should be 
clear that the World Heritage Committee is an 
intergovernmental body elected by the States Parties to the 
World Heritage Convention, made up of sovereign states 
accountable to the General Assembly of States Parties.  
Therefore, the idea that the World Heritage Committee is not 
in a position to give opinions on activities, initiatives or 
programmes that affect the very object and purpose of the

*[60] 

World Heritage Convention because of a perceived relationship 
of subordination of the General Conference is wrong.  Its 
relation to the General Conference is one of co-operation and 
co-ordination between institutions of equal standing both 
based on international treaties of equal hierarchical value.  
In point of policy, the object and purpose of the Resolution 
is that of building confidence and co-operation between the 
World Heritage Committee and UNESCO through appropriate 
mechanisms that will ensure transparency, communication and 
harmonisation of respective objectives.  It is regrettable 
therefore that the remarks of the Representative of the 
Director of the Centre have challenged this legal status and 
overlooked these policy objectives."

XI.12		Finally, the Delegate of Italy informed the 
Committee of his country's offer to further contribute to the 
implementation of the Convention. Italy would wish an 
appropriate joint effort between the Committee, ROSTE and 
ICCROM.  The statement by Italy on this matter is included as 
Annex VII.



XII.   WORLD HERITAGE DOCUMENTATION, INFORMATION AND 
       EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

XII.1		In introducing this agenda item on World 
Heritage Documentation, Information and Education activities 
carried out in 1997 and the examination of the proposal for 
the 1998 programme (as contained in the Document WHC-
97/CONF.208/14) the Chairperson indicated the five major 
components of the document: A. Documentation, B. Information, 
C. Internet and World Heritage Information Network (WHIN), D. 
Self-financing Programme for Partnerships with the Media and 
Publishers, E. World Heritage Education Project. 

XII.2		The Secretariat began its presentation by 
recalling the information strategy submitted and adopted by 
the Committee at its twentieth session held in Merida 
stressing that this strategy, based on establishing 
partnerships with organizations and networks, has two basic 
objectives: 

-	to support the efforts of States Parties, relevant 
international organizations and non-governmental organizations 
to promote understanding of the World Heritage Convention and 
the sites under its protection ;

-	to enhance general public awareness and support of the 
Convention and its activities for the conservation of World 
Heritage sites through direct contacts with the media to 
promote the production of World Heritage communication and 
information material for mass diffusion.

XII.3		In implementing this strategy, the World 
Heritage Centre made a reappraisal this year of the main 
documentation and information objectives which was reflected 
in a self-evaluation to prioritize activities on the basis of 
the available human and financial resources of the Centre and 
made available to the Auditors to be reflected in the 
Management Review.

XII.4		The Secretariat explained that one of the main 
areas felt to be the weakest and which required further 
development was the role of the Centre as repository of World 
Heritage documents to be made available to the Centre's 
partners : States Parties , universities, research and 
development institutions and development aid organizations 
among others.

*[61]

XII.5		Activities proposed under A and C were 
therefore aimed towards the attainment of these objectives. 
The Secretariat indicated that in addition to the nomination 
files and statutory meetings which are already being 
digitised, it would be useful to also digitise existing 
scientific and expert reports. The Secretariat proposed to 
make, in 1998, an inventory of expert reports and to evaluate 
their value to enable the Committee at its twenty-second 
session to determine which are suitable for public or semi-
public use. The Secretariat suggested the use of passwords in 
the revised World Heritage Internet web site to allow for 
access to restricted documents by entities deemed appropriate 
by the Committee.

XII.6		Building on the success of the existing World 
Heritage web site, the new template of the World Heritage web 
site was designed to strengthen the outreach function to 
enhance public awareness through greater participation and to 
optimize the information already available so that the web 
site could cater for users ranging from children to experts.

XII.7		Activities proposed under Section B. 
Information will continue to focus on the production of more 
conventional and basic World Heritage information material. 
Such material of institutional character are essential in 
order to support the public awareness-raising work being 
carried out by State Party partners, international 
organizations and NGOs. These products have contributed to 
mobilizing many partners to engage into more mass-based 
activities.

XII.8		Activities listed under Section D. reflected 
the various partnerships between the World Heritage Centre, 
UNESCO Publishing Office and media and publishers. The 
partners are mainly of international reputation and according 
to their own estimates, the investment made for the World 
Heritage products is over US$ 50 million. Regarding the 
quality control of these products which has been the subject 
of discussions in past Committee and Bureau meetings and with 
the Consultative Body, the Secretariat indicated that draft 
guidelines on the use of the emblem and the content validation 
with regard to information material had been proposed by the 
World Heritage Centre to the Consultative Body as requested. 
The Secretariat stressed the fact that partnerships with the 
media and publishers were not a matter of emblem lending and 
requested the guidance of the Committee on how best to ensure 
the quality of the products.

XII.9		The self-financing programme on partnerships 
with the media will be financed from earmarked income for 
servicing fees to enable the Centre to employ one full time 
professional media relations consultant and to allow for 
punctual fee contracts with specialists as well as the costs 
involved in liaising with States Parties for content 
verification. In addition, the earmarked servicing income from 
the "Planetary Dialogues" contract will be used to employ one 
professional consultant and one assistant for this project.  
The Secretariat indicated that earmarked income in servicing 
fees is expected to be US$ 226,333 and in addition, US$ 
204,333 in non-earmarked income in 1997.

XII.10	 	A request for US$10,000 from the World Heritage 
Fund in addition to the earmarked servicing income was made to 
finance activities for the promotion of the involvement of 
publishing firms and national television companies in 
developing countries in the International Film Consortium and 
the network of publishers producing World Heritage books and 
encyclopaedias.

*[62]

XII.11		A new international assistance chapter for «on-
site promotion activities» was proposed by the Secretariat for 
a total budget of US$ 100,000 which can be granted on the 
basis of project proposals submitted for the Committee's 
approval to carry out information and education activities by 
national and local authorities and site management agencies in 
developing countries.

XII.12		Upon the completion of the Secretariat's 
presentation of sections A to D, many delegates expressed 
support for the new template of the World Heritage web site 
and for its aim to facilitate navigation by different types of 
users. However, although this was recognised as an important 
communication tool and means of diffusing digitised 
information, proposals were made by several members of the 
Committee to initiate a project based on the use of radio 
media, particularly for States Parties which do not have 
access to Internet. Several delegations also expressed concern 
that the World Heritage web site is available only in English 
and cannot yet be used world wide.

XII.13		The Chairperson stated that both Internet and 
other communication tools such as radio, which was often 
suggested during the meeting, would be complementary and radio 
is certainly the most useful medium available before Internet 
receives global coverage. It was agreed that the Internet web 
site should be further developed as a core data bank for World 
Heritage information but the Secretariat should not neglect 
the use of this electronic information tool to promote other 
important mediums such as the radio. It was however stressed 
by a number of delegates that it was not for the Centre to 
produce radio programmes which need to be adapted to each 
national situation, but for the Centre to make available 
information to enable the national radio stations to produce 
such programmes. The Delegation of Mexico volunteered its co-
operation to promote World Heritage on radio. 

XII.14		The Delegate of Thailand also asked that 
official documents for statutory meetings be made available in 
diskettes, even if they are available on the web site.

XII.15		The Delegate of Canada raised the issue of 
budget priority, stating that technical assistance for the 
protection of World Heritage sites was more important than the 
promotion of the sites. Several delegations and ICOMOS agreed 
that the function of the Convention was primarily to protect 
the sites so they retain the World Heritage value but stated 
that public awareness and education activities to preserve 
World Heritage were also essential as a part of the 
conservation process. With regard to Section B. Information, 
the suggestion of the Canadian Delegate for the Secretariat to 
propose a policy based on cost-recovery was adopted. This 
would enable the Centre to produce information materials using 
the World Heritage Fund input as seed money and for the States 
Parties and other users with financial means to purchase these 
products.

XII.16		With regard to partnerships with the media and 
publishing houses, the Committee expressed concern about the 
use of the emblem and quality control  The Committee requested 
the Consultative Body to submit to it recommendations on the 
use of the emblem and guidelines for fund-raising.  This would 
allow the development of a policy for outside partnerships 
that the Centre would implement. The Delegates of China and 
Japan commended the efforts of the Centre in building 
partnerships with the media, stating that in their countries 
World Heritage  films produced by Beijing Television and Tokyo 
Broadcasting System (TBS), respectively, has been diffused 
widely, informing large audiences of the importance of World 
Heritage.  The delegate of Japan stated that more than half of 
the income *[63] from media contracts come from Japanese companies,  
showing how despite the late accession of Japan to the 
Convention, there is a tremendous public interest in World 
Heritage which is inspired by the media.

XII.17		The Director of the World Heritage Centre 
acknowledged the comments and  explained that the Centre is 
already working on a cost-sharing basis on some information 
products such as the World Heritage Diary. He also pointed out 
that funds invested to produce such materials are almost  
recovered through income generated from media partners which 
is non-earmarked for the World Heritage Fund. He expressed his 
hope that all information activities would soon be self-
financed. The Director welcomed the proposal by the Delegation 
of Mexico and stated that discussions with UNESCO's Office of 
Public Information on radio programming had begun and would be 
continued to meet the request of the Committee. He also stated 
that the World Heritage web site also exists in French and 
that the new template would also be made in French.

XII.18		The Committee took the following decisions with 
regard to activities under Sections A to D:

1.	Under Section A. the Committee agreed not to approve the 
request for the purchase of equipment under A.7 and A.8 from 
the World Heritage Fund as a matter of principle, indicating 
that equipment to be used by the Secretariat should be 
financed under the Regular Programme Budget. The Committee 
therefore decided to allocate US$ 38,000 from the World 
Heritage Fund for 1998 for the documentation.

2.	Under Section B, the Committee decided to allocate 
US$165,000 from the World Heritage Fund in 1998, but requested 
the Secretariat to submit a proposal on means of cost-recovery 
for posters, maps and other material being produced under this 
section as well as the possibility of co-production of such 
material for mass distribution. 

3. 	Under Section C, taking into account the comments of 
several Committee members on the need to use the radio medium, 
the Secretariat was requested to prepare a strategy and plan 
of action on how to support States Parties efforts to produce 
radio programmes on World Heritage. The Committee decided to 
approve the budgetary ceiling of US$ 70,000 for Section C, 
stating that up to US$ 20,000 can be used to prepare a 
strategy on radio programming instead of the proposed activity 
C.5.

4. 	Under Section D, the Committee decided to allocate US$ 
10,000 to be used to promote the involvement of publishing 
firms and national television companies in developing 
countries, in addition to the earmarked income for servicing 
generated from contracts with the media partners to enable the 
Secretariat to employ consultants and issue fee contracts for 
backstopping the contracts and carrying out content validation 
of the World Heritage information products being produced by 
the partners.

XII.19		To enable the Committee to address outstanding 
issues related to information activities, notably on the 
guidelines on the use of the World Heritage emblem for 
information and the private sector fund-raising activities, as 
well as on content validation, it was decided that the 
Consultative Body would continue its work and submit its 
recommendation to the Bureau in June 1998 and to the Committee 
at its twenty-second session. It was agreed that the 
Consultative Body would also look into the information 
strategy especially with the view to *[64] improving the target 
of the various information material being produced by 
UNESCO as well as by the media partners.

XII.20		Under Section E on the Young People's World 
Heritage Education Project, the Secretariat recalled that the 
project was initiated in 1994 and is jointly administered 
through close co-operation between the Education Sector of 
UNESCO and the World Heritage Centre.

XII.21		The overall aim of the project is to ensure 
that an increased awareness, knowledge and understanding of 
the importance of World Heritage properties and of World 
Heritage conservation is introduced into secondary school 
classrooms throughout the world (through UNESCO's Associated 
Schools Project Network, ASPNet).  This is to be achieved by 
integrating World Heritage Education into secondary school 
curricula.  This is being achieved with the support of the 
Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation (NORAD), the 
Rhône-Poulenc Foundation, the UNESCO Regular Programme as well 
as Committee approved allocations from the World Heritage 
Fund.

XII.22		The Secretariat then reported very briefly on 
two of the main Education activities that have taken place in 
1997.  Following the three World Heritage Youth Fora held in 
1995 and 1996 (Bergen, Norway; Dubrovnik, Croatia; and 
Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe), the first Asia and Pacific World 
Heritage Youth Forum was held in Beijing, China from 15-21 
September 1997.  The Forum was organized at the kind 
invitation of the Chinese National Commission for UNESCO.  The 
Recommendations from the students who participated in the 
Forum were presented to the Committee in Annex I of Working 
Document WHC-97/CONF.208/14.

XII.23		In 1997 the UNESCO World Heritage Teacher's 
Education Resource Kit entitled "World Heritage in Young 
Hands" was finalized in English and French.  The Kit includes 
classroom and extra-curricular activities, photographs of 
World Heritage sites and of project activities held to date, a 
colour poster, stickers and the following main sections:

	- Educational Approaches to World Heritage
	- The World Heritage Convention
	- World Heritage and Identity
	- World Heritage and Tourism
	- World Heritage and the Environment
	- World Heritage and a Culture of Peace
	- Resource Materials

XII.24		The Secretariat informed the Committee that it 
proposed four main priorities for 1998:

1. the organization of regional and international World 
Heritage Youth Fora (including a Youth Forum for Francophone 
Africa in Senegal and an International Youth Forum in Japan 
with the support of the Osaka Junior Chamber of Commerce) and 
consolidation of the World Heritage Education in regions where 
Youth Fora have taken place previously (for example, in 
Europe);

2.	to translate, distribute and experiment the World 
Heritage Education Teacher's Resource;

*[65]

3.	to develop human resources with expertise in World 
Heritage Education through teacher-training courses; and,

4.	to establish an international, co-ordinating and 
evaluation structure, through the establishment of an 
International Steering Committee on World Heritage Education 
by the Director-General of UNESCO, to ensure the qualitative 
and quantitative development of the Project.

XII.25		The Delegate of China made reference to the 
success of the Youth Forum held in Beijing, China and said 
that he was glad to see the rapid development and abundant 
fruits of the Young People's World Heritage Education Project.  
He expressed his delight in the news that Japan would host a 
Youth Forum in 1998 and said that China was ready to be 
involved.

XII.26		After endorsing the statement of China, the 
Delegate of Zimbabwe acknowledged the resounding success of 
the Project.  In referring to the tangible results of the 
Project, he reported that in Zimbabwe, World Heritage 
Education had recently been included in the national 
curriculum.  In noting the importance of teacher training, he 
informed the Committee that in Zimbabwe the first diploma 
programme on World Heritage had been established by the 
University of Southampton, the University of Newcastle and the 
Zimbabwe National Museums.  He stated that he expected the 
proposed involvement of the University of Newcastle in 
developing sub-regional teacher training courses would have 
good results.

XII.27		The Delegate of Japan offered his 
congratulations on the successful Youth Forum held in China.  
He announced that an international Youth Forum would be held 
in Japan in 1998 and said that the Japanese Government 
welcomes the joint collaboration with the Osaka Junior Chamber 
of Commerce and the World Heritage Centre for this event.

XII.28		The Delegate of Croatia also praised the 
project and informed the Committee that a World Heritage 
summer camp had been held in Roros in Norway in 1997.  He also 
announced that Croatia would be organizing a summer workshop 
for secondary school students on the island of Hvar in 1998, 
to ensure follow-up to the Youth Forum that had been held in 
Dubrovnik in 1996.

XII.29		It was suggested that the project also involve 
tertiary education and work in association with the Culture 
Sector of UNESCO which has already been involved in projects 
relating to heritage protection and universities .  The 
Committee approved a total amount of US$ 70,000 for the Young 
People's World Heritage Education Project in 1998.  The 
Chairperson closed the debate by noting that the Committee had 
expressed wide praise and enthusiasm for the Project.


*[66]
Presentation of the Chapter V budget from 1998 to 1999 


WHF      Documentation                 US$  38,000 
1998		
         Information                   US$ 165,000 

         Internet and WHIN             US$  70,000 

         Self-financing Programme for
         partnerships with the Media
         and Publishers	               US$  10,000
		 	  
         Education - Special Project for Young
         People's participation in World Heritage
         preservation and promotion    US$  70,000
			

         SUB-TOTAL                     US$ 353,000 



WHF      Documentation                 US$ 50,000
1999	
         Information                   US$ 180,000 

         Internet and WHIN             US$ 85,000

         Self-financing Programme
         for partnerships with the
         Media and Publishers          US$   10,000
		 			 	  
         Education - Special Project for
         Young People's participation in
         World Heritage preservation 
         and promotion                 US$   80,000



         SUB-TOTAL                     US$ 405,000 


*[67]

RP       Documentation                 US$ 10,150  
1998
         Information                   US$ 10,000 

         Education - Special Project
         for Young People's participation
         in World Heritage preservation and 
         promotion                     US$   85,000 **


         SUB-TOTAL                     US$ 105,150

RP       Documentation                 US$ 10,150 
1999
         Information                   US$ 10,000 

         Education - Special Project
         for Young People's participation
         in World Heritage preservation and 
         promotion                     US$ 85,000 ** 

         SUB-TOTAL                     US$ 105,150


Extrabudgetary
XB       Self-financing Programme for
1998     partnerships with the Media
         and Publishers                US$ 226,333 *						
	 	  
         Education - Special Project for
         Young People's	participation in
         World Heritage preservation and 
         promotion                     US$ 590,000
	
 
         SUB-TOTAL                  US$ 816,333 

Extrabudgetary
XB       Self-financing Programme for
1999     partnerships with the Media
         and Publishers                US$ 156,000 *						
	 	  
         Education - Special Project for
         Young People's	participation in
         World Heritage preservation and 
         promotion                     US$ 570,000
	
 
         SUB-TOTAL                  US$ 726,000 




* US$ 226,333 earmarked income for servicing fee received from 
the media and publishing partners.
** including US$ 30,000 from the Education Sector. 



XIII.  WORLD HERITAGE AND THE PREVENTION OF THE ILLICIT 
       TRAFFIC OF CULTURAL PROPERTY

XIII.1 	In introducing Item 13, the Secretariat noted 
the increasing problem of illicit traffic in all countries and 
its potential severity for World Heritage sites given that 
they often attract the particular attention of the public.  
Examples were shown of sites, which had had serious losses, 
and this included not only cultural heritage but also fossils, 
which are extremely popular collectors' items at present.  
Their defence depended on physical security of sites, the 
completion of inventories, at least to the minimum standard of 
the "Object ID"(developed by a consortium of international 
organizations and published by the Getty *[68] Information 
Institute), the adequacy of national legislation 
and proper networking between police, customs and cultural 
officers.  

XIII.2	Collaboration with international organizations 
such as INTERPOL, ICCROM, WCO, (World Customs Organization), 
ICOM, IFAR, etc. as well as with UNESCO is essential.  It is 
also important to make use of international co-operation 
through the three major illicit traffic treaties and the 
various regional instruments and losses should be publicised 
fast.  UNESCO was providing help to "source" countries, 
through consultations of experts on legislation, regional 
training workshops for police, customs and cultural officials 
and by publications such as the new Handbook on the 1970 
Convention for national workshops and a study on the 
antiquities trade.  

XIII.3	Delegates thanked the Secretariat for this 
information and underlined the importance of the topic. The 
Delegate of Morocco emphasised the importance of specifying 
concrete steps which could be taken by source countries, Italy 
mentioned its proposal for a fund for measures relating to 
illicit traffic and the Delegate of Benin the importance of 
the topic. Ecuador's long experience in this respect was 
offered for the benefit of other States and UNESCO and France 
expressed support for the work of UNESCO.  During a short 
discussion certain amendments were proposed to the 
Recommendation in Document WHC-97CONF.208/15 (Annex VIII).



XIV. DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-	
     SECOND SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE 	
     COMMITTEE

XIV.1    The Committee decided that the twenty-second 
session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee would be 
held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 22 to 27 June 1998.

XIV.2	   The Committee adopted the provisional agenda 
for the Bureau's session which is attached as ANNEX IX.



XV.  DATE AND PLACE OF THE TWENTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE 
     WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

XV.1	The Committee decided that, following the invitation 
by the Government of Japan previously expressed at the 
twentieth session of the World Heritage Committee, the twenty-
second session of the World Heritage Committee would take 
place in Kyoto, Japan from 30 November to 5 December 1998 (to 
be preceded by an extraordinary session of the Bureau on 27 
and 28 November 1998). The Committee expressed its gratitude 
for this generous invitation.

XV.2	The Delegate of Morocco informed the Committee that 
his country would like to host the Committee in 1999. The 
Chairperson informed the Committee that he had received a 
verbal invitation from Lebanon who would like to host the 
Committee in 1999 and a written invitation had also been 
received from Finland who offered to extend their

*[69]

hospitality to the Committee for 2001. The Delegate of 
Australia recalled that her country has offered to host the 
Committee session in the year 2000.

XV.3	 The Delegate of Benin declared that the Committee 
meeting had never been held in Africa.	
	

XVI.	OTHER BUSINESS

XVI.1		The Representative of the Assistant Director-
General of the Culture Sector and the Delegate of Benin paid 
tribute to Mr R. Lemaire, who died earlier in the year.  They 
recalled Mr Lemaire's noble and important work in the field of 
cultural heritage conservation. 

XVI.2		The Chairperson recalled that the mandate of 
the Consultative Body had been extended with the agreement of 
the Committee (see paragraph V.6).  He announced that in 1998 
the members of the Consultative Body would be Australia, 
Benin, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Malta, 
Mexico, the United States of America and Zimbabwe.

XVI.3		The Chairperson reported that an informal 
meeting of the new Consultative Body had taken place earlier 
in the week.  At that meeting it had been agreed that Ms 
Teresa Franco (Mexico) would be the Vice-Chairperson of the 
Consultative Body and that four main issues would be examined 
by the Consultative Body in 1998.  The Chairperson informed 
the Committee that each of the four issues would be researched 
and co-ordinated in the following way:

1. Technical issues - to include an analysis of the 
application of cultural heritage criteria (i) and (vi), 
the test of authenticity, the balance of the World 
Heritage List and the implementation of the Global 
Strategy.  It was noted that the analysis of these issues 
might benefit from a further reflection on the first part 
of the Management Review Report. Co-ordinated by 
Australia in association with Benin, Canada, France and 
Mexico with input invited from ICOMOS and Greece.
 
2. Communications and promotion and their relationship to 
the objectives of the Convention - to include an 
examination of the potential of a cost-recovery policy 
for World Heritage information products and the need for 
a balance between the allocation of funds for management 
and conservation of sites and of promotional activities.  
Co-ordinated by Canada in association with Mexico.
 
3. World Heritage Centre - to examine the recommendations in 
the Management Review Report that relate to financial and 
personnel matters and to examine the point raised by the 
Delegate of Germany during the budget discussion, how can 
a balance be achieved between the Committee's desire to 
consider all activities relating to the implementation of 
the Convention, and the need for the Director of the 
World Heritage Centre to have some flexibility in 
financial decision-making?  Co-ordinated by Italy, France 
and Germany working closely with the Director of the 
World Heritage Centre.
 
4. Use of the World Heritage Emblem and Fund-Raising 
Guidelines.  Co-ordinated by the United States of America 
and Japan.

*[70]

XVI.4		The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had 
approved US $50,000 for the Consultative Body to perform its 
work in 1998 and concluded by stating that the Consultative 
Body would meet at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris at a date to 
be confirmed in April 1998, and would then propose concrete 
recommendations and conclusions to the Bureau and the 
Committee at their twenty-second sessions in 1998.
	


XVII.	 ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

XVII.1	The Rapporteur presented the draft report of the 
session to the Committee and thanked the Secretariat for their 
support in its preparation. Following the examination of the 
report, the Committee adopted it with the amendments noted and 
received in written form during its debate.

XVII.2	The Delegate of Niger regretted that due to his late 
arrival he was not able to participate in the discussions on 
the state of conservation of properties. In referring to 
paragraph VII.20 concerning Air and Ténéré Reserve (Niger), he 
informed the Committee that a meeting between the Local 
Management Committee and the CNRS took place on 28 November 
1997.  At that meeting the possibility of removing the site 
from the List of World Heritage in Danger had been discussed. 
The authorities of Niger and IUCN (through its on-site 
project) agreed that it would be too early to remove the site 
from the List of World Heritage in Danger. He reiterated his 
Government's request for a monitoring mission to be organized 
in 1998.



XVIII.    CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

XVIII.1	The Chairperson, Professor Francesco Francioni, 
thanked the Committee for its support, important discussions 
and spirit of co-operation. He continued by thanking the 
Italian authorities for the excellent hospitality, civic pride 
and organization of the meeting.  The importance that had been 
attached to the Committee's work by the Italian authorities 
had, he said, contributed to the success of the twenty-first 
session.  He referred to the substantial work of the Committee 
as having included the consideration of many state of 
conservation reports, the reaching of a consensus on periodic 
reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage 
properties, the prolongation of the mandate of the Committee's 
Consultative Body and the consideration of the illicit traffic 
in movable cultural property in relation to the World Heritage 
Convention.  He also expressed his happiness that the 
Committee had been able to remove Plitvice Lakes National Park 
in Croatia from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

XVIII.2 	Several delegates expressed their gratitude and 
appreciation for the hospitality received from the Italian 
authorities and thanked the Chairperson for his effectiveness 
and efficiency. 

XVIII.3	The International Federation of Landscape Architects 
(IFLA) thanked the Committee for the invitation to attend the 
meeting and expressed its continuing support to the World 
Heritage Convention.    

XVIII.4	Finally, the Director of the World Heritage Centre 
expressed his thanks and gratitude to the Italian authorities 
for their generous hospitality and for the smooth running of

*[71] 

the meeting.  He commented that the continuing work of the 
Consultative Body represented a new and constructive dialogue 
on issues that are fundamental for the future success of the 
World Heritage Convention.  He acknowledged the importance of 
seeking a balanced World Heritage List as had been emphasised 
by the Committee.  He referred to the new consensus on 
periodic reporting on the state of conservation of World 
Heritage properties as representing a significant 
reinforcement of the implementation of the Convention. The 
Director acknowledged the important and increasing tasks of 
the advisory bodies and referred to the need to ensure 
strengthened communication with the Chairperson, especially in 
relation to decisions concerning international assistance 
requests. The Director than expressed his thanks to the 
Committee for its guidance and concluded by thanking the 
Italian authorities, support staff, hostesses, interpreters, 
translators and staff of the World Heritage Centre.


[*EOF]

ANNEXES