1.         Madara Rider (Bulgaria) (C 43)

Year of inscription on the World Heritage List  1979

Criteria  (i)(iii)

Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger  N/A

Previous Committee Decisions  see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/43/documents/

International Assistance

Requests approved: 0 (from 1982-1991)
Total amount approved: USD 49,815
For details, see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/43/assistance/

UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds

N/A

Previous monitoring missions

September 1991: UNESCO expert mission

Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports

Illustrative material  see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/43/

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1991

When examining item 11 of the agenda concerning international assistance, the Committee will have to consider a request by Bulgarian authorities in relation to the Madara Rider.

This monument, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1979 under criteria (i) and (iii), is at present in great danger according to the expert report annexed to the present document.

Reading the report reveals profound differences in opinion as to the methods to be applied for the conservation of the Madara Rider. It seems that the hypothesis of displacing the sculpture is considered. This does not however meet the agreement of UNESCO's expert. In any case and even before the necessary studies have been completed which should determine the modes of conservation agreed upon, the Committee might wish to question the situation of a property whose conservation can only be ensured by displacing it from its original context.

The question indeed is to know whether a property or a site inscribed on the World Heritage List, of which one of the elements has been taken away, can be maintained on the List, in particular when the displaced element has been a determining factor in the inscription. 

Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM

N/A

Decision Adopted: 15 COM VII

18. The monitoring report presented by the Secretariat dealt with the following sites: Xanthos-Letoon (Turkey), the City of Valletta (Malta), Shibam (Yemen), National Historical Park - Citadel, Sans Souci, Ramiers (Haiti), Kathmandu Valley (Nepal), Moenjodaro (Pakistan), and the Madara Rider (Bulgaria). Monitoring visits had been made to seventeen sites by an expert who was in charge of co­ordinating action for the preservation of 115 Mediterranean sites within the framework of the UNEP - Barcelona Convention. These visits had yielded a wealth of information and documentation which needed analysis and the establishment of a dialogue with the national authorities before a report could be presented to the Committee. A summary of the findings of this expert concerning two sites was included in the Working Document SC-91/CONF.002/3. Reports on the state of conservation of the other fifteen sites will be presented to the Bureau in June 1992. In addition, the expert who was present at this session was ready to explain to the Committee his approach and to respond to specific questions. An additional monitoring report had been prepared by the Co-ordinator of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project on Cultural Heritage and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, who was also present at this session.

19. The Committee was also informed of the type of continuous monitoring which the Secretariat pursued with regard to projects which were the subject of international campaigns or supported by UNDP. A recently published brochure on the work carried out in Sana'a, as well as the report on the mission to Bulgaria which was annexed to the Document SC-91/CONF.002/3, showed that the most efficient monitoring could be done through technical assistance missions. Unfortunately, the financial and personnel resources of the Secretariat were far too small compared with the many World Heritage sites to be monitored.

20. In the opinion of the Secretariat, a monitoring action should be carried out in the form of a continuous dialogue with the State Party which should begin even before the inscription of the site, in order to inform local competent authorities (politicians and technicians) about the values to be maintained and the principles and methods of conservation to be applied. In particular, the implementation of the management plan requested at the time of the proposal for inscription should be verified by means of a monitoring exercise.

21. The representative of ICOMOS brought to the attention of the Committee alarming news about the deterioration of certain parts of monuments of Khizi Pogost (USSR). He stressed the fact that his organization was interested in sending a mission on the spot to evaluate the state of conservation of the site. With reference to the cultural centre in the process of being built between the Tower of Belem and the Monastery of the Hieronymites (Portugal), he underlined that the work was almost completed and that a comprehensive file submitted by the government showed that the rules of the competition had taken account of the fact that the site was classified as a World Heritage property. Part of the existing building replaced industrial constructions and this represented an improvement. This case proved that it was necessary to determine a future strategy to guide architects in charge of the development of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Portuguese observer remarked that the project of integrating this cultural centre was part of a plan for safeguarding of the zone with a view to reasserting the value of the site. The Committee took note of the report of ICOMOS and, in the light of this example, emphasized that States Parties should attach the greatest attention to maintaining the values of World Heritage properties, when elaborating development projects, new constructions or major restorations. They should equally inform the Committee, through UNESCO's Secretariat, of their intention to undertake or to authorize projects in an area protected under the Convention before any irreversible decisions were taken. The need for close collaboration between the Secretariat and the local competent authorities was stressed during the debate. The Committee took note that ICOMOS, in co-operation with ICCROM, was preparing a guide on the management of sites for authorities responsible for World Heritage.

22. The Co-ordinator of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project on Cultural Heritage and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean introduced the method which had been used in the detailed analysis of six sites in the region. The documents presented only reflect work already achieved within the framework of a wider project concerning sixteen sites in all, the evaluation of which will be carried out up until 1993 and will cost the World Heritage Fund US$40,000.

23. The Committee took note of this report. While considering that the method was interesting, it judged that it would not be necessarily applicable to all regions.

24. The Co-ordinator of a network set up by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for the protection of Mediterranean sites under the Barcelona Convention introduced in his turn his working method on monitoring. During visits to seventeen sites around the Mediterranean, he evaluated,, in collaboration with local experts, the different problems raised by the conservation of the sites concerned. Following his visits he kept in touch with the competent authorities with a view to assisting them in their task with technical advice and documentation.

25. Regarding the management of sites, a member of the Committee questioned the limits to the possibility of intervention by the Committee and the Secretariat. The Secretariat explained that national authorities, whose collaboration was obviously indispensable, were always informed.

26. The possibility of intervention by the private sector in activities of safeguarding and development of World Heritage was raised. A delegate considered that progress in this field remained far below desirable levels. For instance, various difficulties encountered by a high visiting capacity of the sites could be solved through co­operation with, private associations.

 

Decision Adopted: 15 COM XII.A-B

A. Technical co-operation

The Committee approved the following requests:

 

US$

1.

The Madara Rider (Bulgaria)

35,000

 

Purchase of equipment for drilling, measurement and urgent cleaning of the monument 

2.

Saint-Stephen Church in Nessebar (Bulgaria)

15,000

 

Restoration of mural paintings of Saint-Stephen Church 

3.

Pyramid Plateau at Giza (Egypt)

30,000

 

Costs for three international experts (an economist, an archaeologist and a landscape designer) in the elaboration of a Master Plan

4.

International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)

25,000

 

The Committee, in accordance with Article 23 of the Convention, approved this project for supplying technical documentation and equipment and materials

5.

Machu Picchu Historic Sanctuary (Peru)

40,000

 

Contribution for the period April-December 1992 for the preparation of a Master Plan 

6.

Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)

45,000

 

Purchase of two all-terrain vehicles

 

Furthermore, the Committee recommended that the Secretariat request the Senegalese authorities to provide details of schedules and technical modalities for the implementation of measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of the road construction project in this Park

7.

Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)

40,000

 

Consultancy, equipment, design and construction costs for a centre to improve presentation of the Park to visitors 

8.

Garamba National Park (Zaire)

15,000

 

Purchase and shipment of three all-terrain motor cycles for patrolling of the Park

9.

Virunga National Park (Zaire)

40,000

 

Purchase of one motor-boat and of spare parts for two boats already purchased and freight charges.

The Committee deferred its decision on the following requests:

10.

Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves (Costa Rica)

The Committee recalled that at its last session it approved US $ 50,000 for this site to be released on the condition that projects financed by funds already approved are completed. The Committee noted the implementation of those projects remained at the same level as reported at its last session. Hence the Committee instructed the Bureau to re-examine the situation at its next session before deciding to award the US$ 50,000 approved by the Committee in 1990.

11.

Hal Saflieni Hypogeum (Malta)

The Committee requested the State Party to submit to the next session of the Bureau a technical report justifying the need for the installation of an air-­conditioner in the hypogeum of this site.

12.

Simien National Park (Ethiopia)

 

Recognizing that reconstruction work in this Park, which was abandoned by Park staff in 1985, could begin soon, the Committee decided to set aside US$ 50,000 from the 1992 budget for the re-habilitation of the Simien National Park. The Committee authorized the Chairman to use these funds to support appropriate projects to be developed by the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation organization, in consultation with IUCN and the Secretariat.

B. Training

The Committee, in accordance with Article 23 of the Convention, provided financial assistance to the following international or regional training courses:

1.

International Course on the Preservation and the Restoration of Monuments and Historic Sites (University of Bahia, Brazil)

60,000

 

The Committee recommended that the funds be used to support the participation of specialists from Latin American and Caribbean States Parties to the Convention and that States Parties which had not received fellow­ships in the past be given preference during 1992. The Committee also recommended the authorities organizing the course to submit the list of trainees selected for the course for the approval of the Secretariat.

2.

Regional Training Seminar for Francophone Africa on the Management of National Parks, in 'W' National Park of Niger(ENGREF/France and FSA/Niamey, Niger)

30,000

3.

Mobile Regional Training Course for Protected Area Managers from South-Central Asia (Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehra Dun, India)

30,000

 

The Committee requested that the Secretariat obtain written approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests of India for the organization of this course. 

 

The Committee welcomed the offer from the Delegation of USA to make available the equivalent of US$ 30,000, in Indian Rupees, through the Indo-US Sub-Commission on Science and Technology which is already supporting similar training courses. The Committee recommended that the Secretariat, in co-operation with the USA and Indian authorities, take the necessary steps to use the offer made by the Delegation of USA so that part or whole of the amount approved by the Committee for this course could be saved to support other international assistance projects.