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
The Bureau felt that more precise information was needed regarding the details of the project, the realism of the salary scales proposed and the likelihood of the effective implementation of the project in the near future.
The second session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") was held in Washington from 5 to 8 September 1978. The session was attended by the following members of the World Heritage Committee: Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Poland, Tunisia, United States of America and Yugoslavia.
Representatives of the International Centre for Conservation, the International Council of Monuments and Sites, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as "ICCROM", "ICOMOS" and "IUCN" respectively) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity.
Observers from five States Parties to the Convention not members of the Committee, namely Brazil, Morocco, Panama, Switzerland and the Syrian Arab Republic, also attended the session, as well as observers from ten international governmental and non-governmental organizations and a wider public audience.
The full list of participants will be found in Annex III to this report.
The second session of the Committee was opened by its Chairman, Mr. Firouz Bagherzadeh. In welcoming members of the Committee, representatives of advisory organizations and all other participants, he recalled the great progress already achieved in the implementation of the Convention thanks to the efforts of the States Parties, Bureau members, the Secretariat and the advisory organizations. He concluded by expressing his confidence that the session would be both fruitful and enjoyable.
Mr. David Hales, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, welcomed delegates to Washington on behalf of the United States of America. He conveyed to the Committee a written message from the President of the United States of America, Jimmy Carter, the text of which is given in Annex I. The Committee greatly appreciated the personal message from the President of the United States of America and requested the Chairman to convey to the President its gratitude for the message with which he had honoured the opening of the second session.
The Deputy Assistant Director General for Operations (Culture and Communication) responded on behalf of the Director General of UNESCO. Mr. Bolla expressed UNESCO's sincere appreciation for the invitation by the Government of the United States of America to hold the second session in Washington. In greeting members of the Committee and wishing them success in their work, he indicated the important role of international organizations such as UNDP, UNEP, IBRD, IDB, WFP, OAS and ALECSO in providing crucial support to conservation measures. In this context, he also expressed UNESCO's ...
The Chairman invited the members of the Committee to examine the provisional agenda prepared by the Secretariat. At the request of members of the Committee, two new items were added to the agenda: "Revision of the Rules of Procedure" and "Review of the Procedure for Nominations to the List of World Heritage in Danger."
The Committee discussed the need to increase the number of officers constituting the Bureau in view of the greater workload of the Bureau in the future. Committee members also felt that a larger number of officers would be advisable to allow for: (i) better representation of geographical regions in the Bureau; and,(ii) enhanced expertise for both natural and cultural properties. Having also in mind that the membership of the Committee itself would be increased from 15 to 21 delegates at the second General Assembly, the Committee agreed to elect henceforth 7 officers for the Bureau which ...
The Committee amended Articles 12.1 and 13 of the Rules of Procedure accordingly.
The Committee elected by acclamation Mr. David Hales (USA) as its Chairman. The Committee then proceeded to elect by acclamation the delegates of Ecuador, Egypt, France, Iran and Nigeria, as Vice-Chairmen, and Professor Krzysztof Pawlowski (Poland), as Rapporteur. The new Chairman then called for a standing ovation to thank Mr. Firouz Bagherzadeh for the excellent leadership he had provided to the Committee during the past year.
The Committee, after reviewing and commenting on each article of the draft agreement, asked the Secretariat to take note of the observations made by the delegates and to elaborate a new, less detailed text for consideration by the Committee at its next session. It was also noted that the new text should be formulated in such a way as to accommodate the specific requirements and practice of States Parties. In doing so UNESCO's general principles for the provision of technical cooperation should be retained.
Until the adoption of such an agreement by the Committee, UNESCO's rules and procedures would be followed in the provision of technical cooperation to States Parties.
16. The Committee expressed the wish that the Secretariat, in the preparation of a new draft agreement, take note of the following observations and recommendations made by delegates during the discussion: 17. With regard to Article 2 paragraph 5: The delegate of Poland recommended rewording to avoid obligation to meet expenses (for instance, for medical treatment) in convertible currency for countries with a non-convertible currency. Several delegates considered that governments should be encouraged to employ the fellow to the extent possible upon his return, in the field for which he ...
The Committee invited other members who wished to comment on the draft text to transmit their observations to the Secretariat by 31 December 1978. These comments would be circulated by the Secretariat to all members of the Committee and would be taken into account in the preparation of a revised text to be considered by the Committee at its third session.
The Committee followed the recommendation of the Bureau and agreed to publish and disseminate annually the World Heritage List, the World Heritage in Danger List and the list of properties for which technical cooperation is granted from the World Heritage Fund as combined lists. (see document CC-78/CONF.010/6). It was pointed out that this arrangement would allow for timely updating of these lists after each annual session of the Committee.
The representative of ICOMOS and the delegate of France drew the attention of the Committee to the introductory part to the World Heritage List in which some terms used in the French text did not correspond to the English text. In order to overcome this the Committee adopted the following changes in the French text: the criteria against which cultural properties would be evaluated, which are set out in point a) (ii) should read "... sur le développement de l'architecture, de la sculpture monumentale, de la conception des jardins et paysages, des arts connexes, des conceptions de ...
The former Rapporteur presented the views of the Bureau on this matter. He pointed out that the Bureau agreed that consideration should be given urgently to a general ongoing publicity campaign to promote the objectives of the Convention and the work of the Committee. Such a campaign would help to inform the public of the importance of conserving the World heritage, accelerate ratifications by Member States of the Convention, stimulate contributions to the World Heritage Fund, and generally start fulfilling the educational mandate outlined in the Convention.
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.
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.
At the invitation of the Chairman, the representative of the Director General presented the proposed expenditures for 1978-1979 (document CC-78/CONF.010/8) divided into five different Chapters. The first three chapters concerned what could be considered as purely operational activities - preparatory assistance, technical cooperation including training, and emergency assistance. The fourth chapter provided for programme support - IUCN and ICOMOS participation, and public information activities. The fifth and last chapter covered temporary assistance for the UNESCO Secretariat in order to ...
In connection with the provisions made for training, the delegates of Canada and of the Federal Republic of Germany stressed the importance of the training of administrators and reference was made to the annual International Seminar for parks administrators organized by the School of Natural Resources in cooperation with the U.S. National Park Service at the University of Michigan. The representative of the Director General of UNESCO confirmed that fellowships for such a course could be granted, if requested by a State Party for one of its nationals.
The delegate of Iraq stated the intention of the Regional Centre for Conservation of Cultural Property in the Arab States to submit for approval at the next session of the Committee a project for a course on the conservation of ancient buildings, to be organized in co-operation with the Committee.
The Committee agreed with the proposal of the delegate of France that the provision for emergency assistance be increased from US $100,000 to US $150,000.
The proposed expenditure for programme support , i.e. contracts with ICOMOS and IUCN and public information activities, as well as the funds allocated to temporary assistance for the UNESCO Secretariat, were supported by the delegates of Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iran, Nigeria and the United States of America. The latter having suggested that a certain amount of flexibility be introduced for Chapters IV and V of the proposed expenditure, the Committee, at the proposal of the delegate of Canada, decided to provide for a contingency allocation of 3% of the total ...
Taking into account the total resources available in the World Heritage Fund which, as shown in document CC-78/CONF.010/INF.2, amounted to $555,695.25 as at 31 July 1978, the Committee adopted the following revised budget for the period September 1978/September 1979 :   Item of expenditure / Funds authorized   I. Preparatory Assistance Preparation of nominations to the World Heritage List and(or) preparation of requests and feasibility studies for technical cooperation projects (provision of experts, equipment or financial grants required for the work foreseen under this item), as ...
The delegate of the United States of America expressed his concern with the workload imposed on the Secretariat by the various activities carried out under the Convention. This concern was shared by all the other members of the Committee who at the same time stated their appreciation of the work already undertaken by the Secretariat. The Committee consequently requested the Chairman to write to the Director General informing him of the decision to grant temporary assistance from the World Heritage Fund for a one-year period and drawing his attention to the need for additional permanent ...
The Committee authorized the Secretariat to amend the above-mentioned Operational Guidelines, adopted by the Committee at its first session, to bring them into line with the decisions taken at the second session.
The Committee approved the draft text of its report to the General Conference of UNESCO at its 20th session, as set out in document CC-78/CONF.010/9, and authorized the Secretariat to complete this report with the decisions taken at its second session.
In his statement, the observer of the World Food Programme indicated that his Organization gave food assistance to social and economic development projects. He went on to describe the project undertaken by the Egyptian Government in co-operation with UNESCO and the World Food Programme for the preservation of the Philae temples, to which the WFP had made a substantial contribution in the form of food assistance as part- payment of wages for about 1,700 workers engaged in the restoration of the monuments. The project, in addition to its evident cultural value, would also provide an ...
The delegate of Egypt invited the Committee to hold its third session in Cairo in September 1979. This invitation was greatly appreciated by the Committee which accepted by acclamation the kind offer of the Egyptian Government.
In closing the second session of the Committee, the Chairman thanked all those who had contributed to making the meeting possible and the deliberations successful.
The Second General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) met in Paris on 24 November 1978. Of the 40 States which were Parties to the Convention as at 24 November 1978, and thus had the right to vote, the following 34 States were represented at the meeting :   Algeria Jordan Argentina Morocco Australia Nepal Bolivia Niger Brazil Nigeria Bulgaria Norway Canada Pakistan Costa ...
7. The General Assembly then adopted its Rules of Procedure and elected by acclamation . Punisa A. Pavlovic as Chairman, the representatives of .Ecuador and Norway as Vice-Chairmen, and Mr. Tidjani Hamet (Niger) as Rapporteur.
8. The agenda of the meeting was approved unanimously by the General Assembly which devoted two sessions to the election of members of the Committee and to the determination of the amount of the contribution to the World Heritage Fund.
9. Twenty-one State Parties had presented their candidature for election to the World Heritage Committee : Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Idea, Cyprus, :Ethiopia, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Senegal, Sudan, Switzerland, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zaire. 10. The Chairman explained to the General Assembly the procedure to be followed for the election of members of the Committee. As a result of the increase in the number of States having ratified or accepted the Convention, the number of members of the ...
17. The General Assembly then considered Item 7 of the Agenda, and decided unanimously that the amount of the contribution foreseen in Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention would be fixed at of the contribution of States Parties to the Regular Budget of the Organization for 1979-1980. In-reply to a question raised by one of the delegates, the Deputy Assistant Director-General (Operational Activities) of the Sector of Culture and Communication, explained that the amounts of the contributions to the World Heritage Fund indicated in the annex to document CC-78/CONF.011/4 had been ...
18. The observer from Guatemala announced to the General Assembly that his government had decided to ratify the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and that he was depositing that day with the Secretariat two nominations for inclusion in the World Heritage List relating to Tikal National Park and the Old City of Guatemala.19. One delegate underlined the importance of the work already accomplished by the Committee and invited the delegations to take note of two fundamentally important documents which could serve as a basis for future action to ...