In reporting to the Committee on activities undertaken during the previous year, the former Chairman, Mr. David Hales, focussed on significant successes noted by the Committee and he also referred to serious problems for the future. He drew attention to the increase in the number of ratifications or acceptances of the Convention which totalled 48, to the substantial increase in the number of fellowships provided under the World Heritage Fund as well as in the assistance provided for the protection of sites. Mr. Hales also laid stress on the vast increase in the number of nominations ...
The Rapporteur then proceeded to report on the last two sessions of the Bureau. The written report of the 2nd session, which took place in Paris from 28-30 May 1979, gave rise to no comments from the members of the Committee.
The report on the third session of the Bureau which took place in Cairo on 21 October 1979 was read before the Committee. Those points raised by the Bureau which called for decisions by the Committee and which were not the subject of an item on the Agenda were then taken up by theCommittee.
Thus, with respect to paragraph 16 of the report on the different types of recommendation formulated by the Bureau to the Committee on nominations, the Committee decided to adopt for its third session the procedure proposed by the Bureau which is as follows: nominations would not be examined by the Committee: (a) when the deadlines for their submission had not been respected, (b) when their proper processing had not been possible and (c) when it was evident that the supporting documentation was incomplete and/or inadequate; on the other hand those nominations which raised problems of ...
The Committee agreed with the proposal or the Bureau that in the case of properties which fully met the criteria for inclusion in the World Heritage List and which had suffered damage from disasters, the normal deadlines for the submission and processing of dossiers may be waived by the Bureau.
The Committee also shared the concern of the Bureau at the establishment in the United Kingdom of an organization bearing the name of "World Heritage Association" and of a Fund called "Heritage Trust". The Committee felt strongly that the use in names of the term "World Heritage" should be strictly limited to those activities directly related to the Convention and considered that the use of these terms in the titles of other organizations could only lead to confusion which would be regrettable. It therefore requested the Chairman to write to the above-mentioned Association, expressing the ...
Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee decided to set up three working groups, as follows:
A. On criteria for the evaluation of cultural property and the processing of nominations, composed of:
Australia, Bulgaria (Chairman), Ecuador, France, Iran, Italy, Panama, United States of America, Canada (observer), ICOMOS and OMMSA.
B. On the management of the Convention and its financial implications, composed of:
Australia, France, Nepal, Pakistan, Senegal (Chairmen), Switzerland, United States of America, Yugoslavia, ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM.
C. On criteria for the ...
The Committee took note of the report of the Secretariat on public information activities undertaken during the preceding year. This report called for decisions by the Committee on the publication of the World Heritage List and on the proposal received from the Swedish firm, Upsala Ekeby, to produce glass and silverware commemorating the World Heritage Convention.
The Committee took note of the typology proposed in Mr. Michel Parent's report. It considered that it was on the basis of the inventories submitted by States Parties that such a typology could be finalized. The question will therefore continue to be studied until its next session.