8050 Decisions
146 Resolutions
By Year
The former Rapporteur presented to the Committee the list of properties which, according to the Bureau, would be eligible for inclusion in the World Heritage List. He then called the attention of the Committee to three properties on this list which would meet the criteria for inclusion in the World Heritage List but which, at the time of the Bureau meeting had lacked the required documentation.
The Committee examined these three cases first and stated with satisfaction that appropriate documentation for two properties had in the meantime been received. As regards the third case (National Park of Ichkeul) the Committee decided, in agreement with the delegate of Tunisia, to defer its decision to its next session subject to receipt of the requested information.
Sites: Ichkeul National Park
The Committee, upon finding itself in full agreement with the list proposed by the Bureau, decided to enter the following 12 properties in the World Heritage List:
NAME OF PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST (STATE PARTY)
L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Park (Canada)
Nahanni National Park (Canada)
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
City of Quito (Ecuador)
Simien National Park (Ethiopia)
Rock Hewn Churches, Lalibela (Ethiopia)
Aachen Cathedral (Federal Republic of Germany)
Cracow's Historic Centre (Poland)
Wieliczka - salt mine ...
Sites: Aachen Cathedral City of Quito Galápagos Islands Historic Centre of Kraków Island of Gorée L’Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site Mesa Verde National Park Nahanni National Park Rock-Hewn Churches, Lalibela Simien National Park Wieliczka and Bochnia Royal Salt Mines Yellowstone National Park
The Committee further decided to defer consideration of all other nominations listed in document CC-78/CONF.010/7 until its third session. All these nominations, as well as those received after the Bureau meeting and listed in document CC-78/CONF.010/7 Add.1 (for which it had been impossible to complete the technical review, translation and transmission to all States members of the Committee in time before the second session) would be transmitted to the Bureau for examination prior to their consideration by the Committee at its next session.
The Chairman then thanked the States Parties for their efforts, which had made it possible to initiate the establishment of the World Heritage List. He also recalled that the time and order of entry of a property in the World Heritage List should by no means be interpreted as an indication of the qualification of a property or judgment on its value in comparison to other properties in the list, as all of them had met the criteria adopted by the Committee.
The Committee continued its work by discussing suitable future closing dates for the submission of nominations and agreed that nominations, in order to be examined at the next Bureau meeting, should be with the Secretariat by 1 March 1979 at the latest. Thereafter, however, the deadline for submission of nominations would be 1 January so that more time would be available to the Secretariat, ICOMOS and IUCN for the processing and technical review of the new dominations.
There followed considerable discussion as to whether the number of nominations per country and year should be limited or not and how to solve the problem of the increasing workload for all parties involved in the evaluation process, which may become rather time-consuming and may even exceed the capacity of the advisory organizations, the Bureau, the Committee and the UNESCO Secretariat in the future.
In this connection, reference was made to Article 11 (1) of the Convention which stipulates no limit for the number of nominations by a single State Party. However, in recognizing this stipulation the Committee, for purely practical reasons, authorized the Chairman to convene, if necessary, a special Bureau meeting after the closing date for submission of nominations in order to examine, together with the advisory organizations and the Secretariat, the possibility of evaluating all new nominations and to adopt a procedure which would take into account the capacities of all parties ...
Following a proposal made by the delegate of Yugoslavia who underlined the importance of the decisions taken by the Committee for the establishment of the World Heritage List, the Committee decided that a document concerning the nominations of States and presenting the recommendations of the Bureau thereon, would be prepared for the Committee which would examine the nominations one by one and would decide on the inclusion or non-inclusion in the List of each individual site.
The delegate of Poland then drew the attention of the Committee to paragraphs 20 and 21 of the report of the Rapporteur on the first meeting of the Bureau. As noted in the report, Poland was the only State affected by the decision that on this first occasion, States Parties would be limited to nominating only two properties each for inclusion in the World Heritage List, since it had nominated three sites which clearly qualified for inclusion and for which complete documentation had been submitted: Auschwitz, Cracow and the Salt Mines of Wieliczka. It would, therefore, appear justified ...
In response to this proposal the Committee agreed that in all future cases where eligible nominations were deferred by the Bureau, such nominations would be given priority consideration at the following Bureau meeting, unless these nominations had in the meantime been withdrawn by the State concerned.
At the suggestion of the delegate of France a general discussion took place on the problems of typology, comparability, complementarity and universality of cultural and natural properties of universal importance. Some delegates felt it desirable that States Parties sharing cultural or natural properties of a comparable nature should consult each other for the purpose of harmonizing approaches in the selection of properties for the World Heritage List. It was also stated that the criteria for selection of properties for the World Heritage List should be discussed in more detail in the ...
The Committee, fully aware of the urgency to assist Ethiopia in the great task of preserving this threatened property, agreed to make available to Ethiopia, if requested, preparatory assistance, deemed necessary by the Committee for the elaboration of a more comprehensive technical assistance request and the conduct of a feasibility study. Subject to the outcome of this preparatory work, technical assistance may be granted by the Committee or emergency assistance by the Chairman, for the Simien World Heritage site, as appropriate.
Sites: Simien National Park
The Chairman invited the delegate of Canada to take the floor since this item had been added to the agenda upon his proposal. The delegate of Canada explained that after discussing with the Secretariat of UNESCO the terms of Article 11.4 of the Convention he considered that there was no need for a special procedure to be adopted for the establishment of the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Secretariat of UNESCO presented to the Committee the initial design and a later version, modified according to the suggestions of the Bureau, of the proposed World Heritage Emblem, prepared by Mr. Michel Olyff.
As conceived by the artist, this emblem symbolized, "in a form sufficiently simple to be inserted on a map and to identify sites", the interdependence of cultural and natural properties. The central square was a form crested by man; the circle represented nature, the two being intimately linked. The emblem was round, like the world, but it was also a symbol of protection. The two designs, identical in their concept, differed in their graphic approach. (Both designs are shown in Annex II.)
Following the Bureau's suggestions, the author presented two versions of the designs, one in black and white, the other in blue and white, the latter being the colours of the United Nations.
The Committee examined the proposed designs very carefully. The delegate of Yugoslavia emphasized that the choice of an emblem was of great importance. The emblem would symbolize for future generations the principles embodied in the Convention. The Committee felt that the proposed emblem fully satisfied the criteria of universality and simplicity, and conveyed the essential objectives of the Convention. Consequently it decided to adopt the emblem in its two graphic versions both to be used, in any colour, depending on the use to be made of them, the technical possibilities and ...
Following the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided that a booklet explaining how nominations to the World Heritage List should be prepared, should be drawn up by ICOMOS and IUCN instead of the model nomination files which they had previously been asked to prepare and that the Secretariat of UNESCO should follow up this decision. This booklet should be published in Arabic, English, French, Russian and Spanish.
In this connection, the delegate of France pointed out that there was also need to develop tools for alleviating the workload involved in the processing and technical review of nominations by the Secretariat of UNESCO, ICOMOS and IUCN. The Secretariat informed the Committee that forms to simplify the correspondence necessary to complete the nominations and relevant documentation were already used and others would be worked out.