Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Capacity Building
Credibility of the World Heritage ...
Inscriptions on the World Heritage ...
International Assistance
List of World Heritage in Danger
Operational Guidelines
Outstanding Universal Value
Periodic Reporting
Reinforced Monitoring
Tentative Lists
Working methods and tools
World Heritage Convention

65 Decisions
0 Resolutions
Year start: 1978close
Year end: 1978close
By Year
After considerable discussion, the Committee agreed to form a sub-Committee for in-depth study of future public information and educational activities of the Committee.
The Chairman then nominated Mr. Peter Bennett as Chairman and appointed the delegates of Ecuador, France, Iran, Iraq, USA and representatives of the advisory organizations as members of the sub-Committee.
In reporting on the work of the sub-Committee, its Chairman outlined the objectives of the proposed public information programme, in the following terms. Firstly, the programme should focus upon the aims of the Convention, the work of the Committee, the criteria for the inclusion of sites in the World Heritage List and the types of assistance available to States under the Convention, providing examples of assistance already granted; the World Heritage List should be de-emphasized until such time as there were sufficient sites on the List to make it appear truly representative of the ...
After discussing the proposed programme, the Committee decided that the following three activities would be undertaken during the forth-coming year and authorized expenditure of up to $30,000 for that purpose : (a) a brochure in five UNESCO languages (Arabic, English, French,Russian and Spanish) aimed primarily at opinion-makers in States not yet adhering to the Convention, to describe the objectives of the Convention, the criteria for nominations to the World Heritage List, the types of assistance available and the ways of applying for such assistance;(b) a simple, four-panel leaflet on ...
The decision to limit the number of activities to be undertaken during the next twelve months stemmed from the Committee's wish to pursue only those which would be of immediate interest in relation to the present stage of its work. The Secretariat was, however, requested to study the feasibility of carrying out at a later stage other activities proposed by the sub-Committee, such as the creation of a photo library of World Heritage sites, the preparation of a radio documentary and of a slide show with audio track, both in five languages and dealing with the objectives of the Convention, ...
The Committee recalled Article 20 of the Convention under which international assistance may not only be granted to property already included in the World Heritage List but also to property which had not yet been added to the World Heritage List. International assistance for property which had not yet been included in the World Heritage List, for which the working term "preparatory assistance" had been adopted by the Committee may be granted: (i) for identifying cultural and natural properties of universal importance and preparatory work with a view to nominating properties for inclusion ...
After examining the budgetary situation of the World Heritage Fund (see document CC-78/CONF.010/INF.2) and discussing in depth appro- priate use of the Fund, the Committee decided to authorize the Chairman to grant, in consultation with the Director General of UNESCO, preparatory assistance to States Parties up to a total amount of US $140,000 (as shown in document CC-78/CONF.010/8) with a budgetary ceiling of US $15,000 per project. The Committee agreed with the proposal mentioned in paragraph 33 as put forward by the Secretariat and consequently decided that this preparatory assistance ...
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.
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 ...
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.