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

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








19 Decisions
0 Resolutions
Year end: 1988close
Theme: Reportsclose
By Year
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.
The Rapporteur, Mr A. Beschaouch, referred to the main points of the report on the fifth session of the Bureau of the Committee, held in Paris from 4 to 7 May 1981. In particular, he draw attention to the twenty-seven properties recommended for inclusion in the World Heritage List.
The Rapporteur, Mr. A. Beschaouch, referred to the main points of the report on the sixth session of the Bureau of the Committee which was held in Paris from 21 to 24 June 1982. In particular, he drew attention to the twenty-four properties which had been recommended for inclusion in the World Heritage List and to the Bureau 's request to IUCN and ICOMOS to draw up draft guidelines for the inscription of cultural and natural properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger. He added that, in response to this request, a report was presented to the Committee by these two organizations on ...
In his report on the activities undertaken for the implementation of the Convention since the fifth session of the World Heritage Committee, the representative of the Director-General, Mr. Michel Batisse, Deputy Assistant Director-General for Science indicated that a total of sixty-nine States had now ratified, accepted or acceded to the Convention, and that one hundred and twelve properties nominated by thirty-three States Parties were now included in the World Heritage List. He reported on the activities which had been decided upon by the Committee at its fifth session and drew ...
The Committee took note of the draft report prepared for the period September 1980 to November 1982, given in document CLT-82/CONF.015/7. It agreed to the suggestion of the Secretariat that the report would be completed with information on the implementation of the Committee's decisions adopted at its sixth session and be submitted to the Bureau at its next meeting for approval and submission to the next General Conference. The Committee decided that a reference shall be added to the report which stresses the need for adequate staff resources particularly in view of the increasing number ...
12. Mr. da Silva Telles (Brazil), Rapporteur of the previous Bureau, presented the report of the eighth session of the Bureau held on 4-7 June 1984. He furthermore presented a report of the complementary meeting of the Bureau which had taken place on 29 October prior to the eighth session of the Committee itself. This complementary Bureau meeting aimed first of all at considering the conclusions of a group of experts brought together by ICOMOS to study the criteria applicable to historic towns and secondly examining the nominations of the historic centres of Quebec, Canada (N° 300) ...
8. The Secretary, Mr. B. von Droste, Director, Division of Ecological Sciences, reported on activities undertaken since the Committee's eighth session held in Buenos Aires from 29 October to 2 November 1984. He began by reviewing the general status of implementation of the Convention, announcing that six new States, viz. in chronological order, Qatar, New Zealand, Sweden, Dominican Republic, Hungary and Philippines had adhered to the Convention, bringing the number of States Parties to 88. The Convention thus continued to arouse the interest of an increasing number of States. It was to be ...
13. The Secretariat presented the report of the ninth session of the Bureau and an amendment to that report proposed by the representative of Algeria. The Committee took note of the report as amended.
38. The Committee thanked IUCN for these comprehensive reports and for regularly providing information on the status of natural properties. It furthermore welcomed the proposal of ICOMOS to submit similar reports, as far as its means would allow, in the near future. 39. Finally, the Committee welcomed document SC-85/CONF.008/INF.2 reporting on the measures taken by Yugoslavia to implement the World Heritage Convention and encouraged other States Parties to prepare such national reports for submission to the Committee.
8. The Secretary for the session, Ms. J. Robertson Vernhes, recalled the role of the Secretariat of the World Heritage Committee, concerning the processing of the nominations to the World Heritage List, the implementation of the decisions of the Committee concerning projects financed under the World Heritage Fund, as well as the promotional activities aimed at making the Convention better known and at stimulating contributions to the World Heritage Fund. 9. The Committee noted that the activities undertaken by the Secretariat since its eleventh session were described in detail in the ...
12. The Chairman of the Working Group, H.E. Ananda Guruge (Sri Lanka) presented the recommendations drafted by the Working Group. He stressed how important it was that the work of the Committee be facilitated through careful preparation and submittance of nominations of cultural properties by States Members, a more active Secretariat contribution when checking files, and a selective presentation of proposals by ICOMOS and by the Bureau. He also noted the progress that could be achieved through a reorganization of the Committee's agenda. The Chairman of the Working Group clarified that ...
top