Faites une recherche à travers les informations du Centre du patrimoine mondial.

Administration
Assistance internationale
Budget
Communauté
Communication
Conservation
Convention du patrimoine mondial
Credibilité de la Liste du ...
Inscriptions sur la Liste du ...
Liste du patrimoine mondial en péril
Listes indicatives
Mécanisme de suivi renforcé
Méthodes et outils de travail
Orientations
Partenariats
Rapport périodique
Rapports
Renforcement des capacités
Valeur universelle exceptionnelle








60 Décisions
0 Résolutions
Année (fin) : 2003close
Session : 01COM 1977close
Par année
Un membre du Comité a proposé de modifier l'article 12 du règlement intérieur provisoire de manière à prévoir l'élection de 4 vice-présidents. Deux autres ont appuyé cette proposition, qui a été adoptée. Le Comité a ensuite élu par acclamation les représentants de la République arabe d'Egypte, de la France, du Nigéria et de la Pologne comme vice-présidents et M. Peter H. Bennett (Canada) comme rapporteur.
7. Le Président a invité les membres du Comité à examiner l'ordre du jour provisoire établi par le Secrétariat. Le représentant du Directeur général a proposé d'y ajouter un point intitulé "Questions diverses" au titre duquel la proposition de collaboration émanant de l'Organisation internationale pour la protection des oeuvres d'art (doc. CC-77/CONF.001/5) et la proposition de donation faite par le professeur Badawy (doc. CC-77/CONF.001/7) seraient étudiées. Il a suggéré en outre que la question des méthodes de travail du Comité soit examinée non pas séparément mais en même temps que les ...
[Uniquement en anglais] In reply to a suggestion that the Rules of Procedure should be examined by a working group which would report back to the Committee at a later plenary meeting, the Legal Adviser stated that, in the absence of a text formally approved by the Committee, the Provisional Rules of Procedure would prevail and he therefore proposed that they be examined at an early plenary meeting; this would not prevent the Committee from amending the Rules of procedure at a later stage, if necessary. He added that the Rules of Procedure would probably only assume their final form after ...
[Uniquement en anglais] Several amendments were proposed to bring greater clarity to the text or to reflect more closely the terms of the Convention. The Rules relating to the election of officers and to the voting procedures gave rise to some comment.
[Uniquement en anglais] With respect to the eligibility for re-election of members of the Bureau, participants considered that, although rotation in the membership of the Bureau was necessary, continuity in the work of the Committee was of paramount importance. Various proposals followed, some providing for re-election of all officers and others for re-election of the Vice-Chairmen and the Rapporteur only. A further proposal which sought to limit the eligibility of all officers for immediate re-election to a second term of office was finally accepted.
[Uniquement en anglais] An explanation was requested on the different weightings required for a majority vote under the terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Rule 28. The Legal Adviser referred members to paragraph 8 of Article 13 of the Convention·which stipulated that "Decisions of the Committee shall be taken by a majority of two-thirds of its members present and voting". This provision was included in an Article of the Convention dealing with substantive questions and not with procedural matters. It was therefore considered that a two-thirds majority should be required on substantive ...
[Uniquement en anglais] Participants requested that two points raised in connection with the Rules of Procedure be noted in the summary record. The first related to the meetings of the Committee which, in the opinion of one member, should be given wide publicity. The second concerned the suspension of the Rules of Procedure which, as confirmed by the Legal Adviser, could be initiated by any State member of the Committee.
[Uniquement en anglais] A corrigendum setting cut the modifications made by the Committee, as well as an amendment proposed by the representative of the Director-General to Rule 8.2, was examined at the last meeting of the Committee which then proceeded to adopt unanimously the revised text of its Rules of Procedure. (Annex II)
[Uniquement en anglais] The Chairman invited the members of the Committee to consider the main working document and gave the floor to the representative of the Director-General who introduced the document which had been prepared with the assistance of the Rome Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN.
[Uniquement en anglais] Some discussion ensued on the method to be followed in examining the different points raised in the document and it was decided to establish two working groups with which the Rome Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN would be associated and which would review the proposed criteria for the inclusion of cultural and natural properties in the World Heritage List, and drafting group which would formulate the decisions taken by the Committee on other matters. The Committee proceeded to debate the general principles involved in establishing the World Heritage List and to examine, one ...
De l'avis de plusieurs membres, le Comité devrait faire une déclaration sur les conceptions de base dont s'inspire la Convention et, en particulier sur la nécessité de dresser une liste du patrimoine mondial. D'autres ont estimé que dans le cadre de la discussion sur les critères relatifs à l'inscription des biens sur la liste, on serait nécessairement amené à traiter des concepts généraux mis en jeu.
Plusieurs membres ont exprimé la conviction que la liste du patrimoine mondial devrait avoir un caractère exclusif et que, compte tenu de son impact, il faudrait la mettre au point avec le plus grand soin en cherchant à établir un juste équilibre tant sur le plan géographique qu'entre les biens culturels et naturels. La responsabilité d'assurer ce caractère exclusif incomberait tout d'abord aux Etats qui feront les demandes d'inscription, et en second lieu au Comité lequel aurait le droit de rejeter les demandes ; l'adoption de critères à appliquer pour décider quelles demandes seront ...
La possibilité d'adopter de tels critères a fait l'objet d'un débat, au cours duquel les points ci-après ont été mentionnés : difficultés déjà rencontrées dans ce domaine à l'échelon national, caractère variable et subjectif de l'évaluation des qualités, influence de la pensée occidentale et enfin différence entre les perceptions à l'intérieur d'une culture donnée et à I'extérieur de celle-ci. En réponse, le représentant de l'ICOMOS a reconnu qu'il est malaisé de formuler des critères valables pour l'ensemble des biens culturels dans le monde entier et de traduire des concepts en mots ...
Certains membres du Comité ont exprimé l'espoir que les informations fournies aux Etats membres seront assez précises pour leur permettre de sélectionner des biens vraiment aptes à être inscrits sur la liste, et que les critères retenus les aideront à restreindre leur choix. A cet égard, quelqu'un a proposé qu'un maximum soit fixé au nombre des demandes que chaque Etat pourrait présenter à l'origine, mais à la réflexion cela n'a pas été jugé souhaitable. Il a cependant été décidé de conseiller aux Etats de limiter le nombre des demandes soumises au même moment, étant entendu qu'elles ne ...
[Uniquement en anglais] Questions were raised with respect to the calendar for the submission of nominations to be examined at the second session of the Committee. Many members mentioned difficulties for their own national authorities in meeting the deadline of 1 April 1978, particularly in those countries where complete inventories had not yet been established. Several members strongly urged that technical co-operation should be financed under the Fund for the preparation of these inventories. The representative of the Director-General referred participants in this respect to the ...
[Uniquement en anglais] Several members considered that an independent assessment by experts of the nominations submitted would be essential and it was proposed that the nominations should be transmitted, for comments and evaluation, to the Rome Centre, ICOMOS or IUCN, as appropriate.
[Uniquement en anglais] One member considered that States not Parties to the Convention should be able to have properties nominated by a State Party for inclusion in the List. Other participants inquired about the possibility of nominating properties not situated in national territories, such as international sites, for instance the United Nations building in New York, or regions such as Antarctica. However, it was pointed out that the Convention was very explicit in this respect, Article II referring to the submission by each State Party of inventories of properties situated in its ...
[Uniquement en anglais] The Committee then proceeded to examine the working document paragraph by paragraph and to put forward their comments which would be taken into account by the drafting committee in formulating the decisions taken by the Committee.
[Uniquement en anglais] Several participants felt that the fundamental notion of the Committee's complete independence in evaluating nominations of States Parties should be more emphatically underlined. Others foresaw that certain properties would be re-evaluated in the light of new discoveries which may lead to the deletion of properties from the List. The "loss of integrity" referred to as a reason for the deletion of property from the List did not appear pertinent in the case of cultural property; for example, monuments in ruins, obviously having lost their integrity, could be eligible ...
[Uniquement en anglais] An emphasis given to properties which combine cultural and natural features demonstrating the interaction between man and nature might, in the opinion of some participants, be confusing in that it might appear to diminish the value of properties outstanding only from the cultural or natural points of view.
[Uniquement en anglais] Another participant suggested that it should be indicated at the site itself that that site is included on the World Heritage List. On this point, the representative of the Director-General informed members that a World Heritage emblem was under preparation and this could well be used inter alia at the sites. It was feared by another participant that sites not included in the List and not marked by the emblem might be neglected by States.
[Uniquement en anglais] The definition of “universal” given in paragraph 17 of the working document was found to be incomplete, in that time also was a factor that modified the appreciation of values.
[Uniquement en anglais] It was proposed by several participants that, in the final text of the criteria, no examples should be cited, in order not to prejudice the decisions of the Committee. There was general agreement on this point.
[Uniquement en anglais] The interpretation given of authenticity was challenged by several members who did not consider that it necessarily entailed maintaining the original function of property which, to ensure its preservation, often had to be adapted to other functions. Another member specified that functions could change but when this different function entailed fundamental and irreversible changes to the original form, authenticity should be considered as lost. The same member went on to plead that due recognition be given to "progressive authenticity", for example, monuments and ...
[Uniquement en anglais] Taking into account the comments made in plenary, a working group under the chairmanship of Mr. Michel Parent (France) reformulated the criteria for cultural property. The Chairman of the working group presented to a later plenary meeting the revised text on which several comments were formulated.
[Uniquement en anglais] On the first criterion, the use of the word "spirit" was questioned and was replaced by "genius". One member requested that the word "scientific" referring to development be reinserted in criterion (iv). Another member proposed that "significant" be added to criterion (v) before the words "traditional style of architecture..". The same member queried the use of the word "site" in the introductory lines and asked that this should be interpreted as covering also groups of sites and large areas. This interpretation was accepted by the Committee. There was some ...
[Uniquement en anglais] With the above modifications and some minor changes in form, the criteria were unanimously adopted by the Committee.
[Uniquement en anglais] Some members questioned several changes made to the original draft text prepared by IUCN. For instance, there had been a change of emphasis from "representative" examples to "outstanding" examples in the different criteria, with which one member did not agree. The same participant found that too much emphasis had been laid on superlative examples (the highest, the largest, etc.). Another member sought to reinsert manageability as a criterion; in reply the IUCN representative considered that this should rather be taken into account at the stage of allocating funds. ...
[Uniquement en anglais] A working group under the chairmanship of Mr. David F. Hales (U.S.A.) then reviewed in detail the criteria and presented a revised text to a later meeting. With some minor changes in form proposed by the Chairman of the working group, the criteria were unanimously adopted by the Committee.
[Uniquement en anglais] The proposal to prepare one printed form for nominations of cultural and natural properties that would provide brief explanations on the information to be given was endorsed by the Committee which decided that it would be used on a trial basis until changes became necessary. The list of information to be provided by States Parties, which had been modified by one of the working groups, was approved by the Committee.
[Uniquement en anglais] On the question of model nomination files, there was some discussion on the organizations to be entrusted with this work, on the feasibility of associating the Bureau, and of the timing of their preparation. Whereas members of the Committee felt that model files would be extremely valuable to States Parties in preparing their nominations, they recognized that it was no easy task to prepare fictitious dossiers. It was finally decided that ICOMOS and IUCN would prepare model files which would be reviewed with the Secretariat before they were dispatched to States ...
[Uniquement en anglais] The very tight calendar proposed was discussed in some detail, with many participants referring once more to the difficulties their own governments would have to face in preparing in time their nominations. The question of limiting the number of nominations to be submitted by States was again raised, and whereas the decision previously taken in plenary not to impose any limit was maintained, it was decided that States would be requested to indicate an order of priority among the nominations submitted. States would, at the same time, be reminded that the process of ...
[Uniquement en anglais] The exact role to be played by the Rome Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN gave rise to some discussion, one member proposing that all nominations should be transmitted automatically by the Secretariat for comments and evaluation to the competent organization. The representative of the Director-General agreed that the organizations had an extremely important role to play in reviewing the dossiers submitted by States Parties, and in particular in putting them into order but he feared that the addition of another step in the already tight calendar might entail delays. It was ...
[Uniquement en anglais] In order to present the Committee at its second session with a set of nominations that would be balanced by category and by geographical and cultural region, it was decided that the Bureau, meeting in June 1978, would review all the nominations received and decide which would be forwarded to the Committee. The following calendar would thus be followed: November 1977: dispatch to States Parties of Director-General's letter, together with printed nomination form; 1 April 1978: receipt of nominations from States Parties; April/May 1978: dossiers will be received ...
[Uniquement en anglais] The Committee decided to defer to a later session decisions relating to the form and periodicity of publication of the "World Heritage List".
[Uniquement en anglais] Although one member found the list of information to be provided by States in making requests for assistance under the Fund to be rather too complicated and sophisticated, the Committee approved the content of requests for small-scale and large-scale projects.
[Uniquement en anglais] The procedure proposed in the working document for the consideration of requests gave rise to few comments and was adopted by the Committee. Following the request by one member that assistance in documentation work should be added, the drafting group felt that there was no need to add a specific reference to documentation which appeared to be covered by the other activities mentioned in Article 22 of the Convention.
[Uniquement en anglais] With respect to the granting of international assistance, it was suggested that, in view of the limited funds available, a fixed maximum sum should be made available for each project. This would be difficult, responded another participant, since each case would have to be considered separately in the light of resources available under the Fund and arrangements for complementary financing. Another proposed that such decisions should be taken on the basis of an annual budget submitted to the Committee at each session.
[Uniquement en anglais] General agreement was expressed on the factors proposed for consideration in determining an order of priorities but some comments were made on the concepts of "educational value" and "socio-economic benefits". It was therefore proposed that this question be taken up in depth at a later session. In the meantime, the phrase "consequences from the social and economic points of view" was adopted.
[Uniquement en anglais] It was agreed that a draft text of the standard agreement would be prepared by the Secretariat and sent to members of the Committee well in advance of the second session.
Il a été décidé que seuls les Etats parties pourraient transmettre des demandes d'assistance en cas d'urgence, et seulement pour des biens inscrits sur la liste du patrimoine mondial ou pour lesquels une demande d'inscription a déjà été faite. Si ces deux conditions sont réunies, le Secrétariat soumettra la demande au Président qui, après avoir consulté le Directeur général déterminera la nature et l'importance de l'assistance à fournir.
Le Comité a décidé qu'une telle assistance serait fournie à la demande des Etats parties dans ces deux cas*, conformément aux dispositons de l'article 21 (1) de la Convention et dans les limites du budget approuvé (voir par. 57 ci-après), sous la forme de services d'experts ou de matériel. Le Président sera chargé de fixer en consultation avec le Directeur Général la nature et l'importance de l'assistance préparatoire. * Ces cas sont mentionnés au paragraphe précédent : (i) en vue de la préparation des demandes d'inscription sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial et (ii) des demandes ...
Le Comité n'a pas fait de commentaires sur le texte du Règlement financier établi par le Secrétariat et dont l'Assemblée générale des Etats parties et le Conseil exécutif de l'Unesco avaient déjà pris note.
Le Comité a décidé de renvoyer à une session ultérieure les décisions relatives à l'établissement et à la publication de la liste du patrimoine mondial en péril et de la liste des biens pour lesquels une assistance internationale est fournie d'une part, ainsi qu'à la part que l'Etat bénéficiaire devra prendre dans chaque cas à l'exécution du projet.
Le Comité était saisi des propositions du Directeur général tendant à inviter les organisations ci-après à envoyer des observateurs aux sessions futures du Comité : Organisation des Nations Unies Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnement Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture Programme alimentaire mondial Banque internationale pour la reconstruction et le développement Banque interaméricaine de développement Organisation arabe pour l'éducation, la culture et la science Conseil de l'Europe Organisation des Etats américains Organisation des ...
[Uniquement en anglais] At the last meeting of the Committee, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee presented his report which, after a statement on the philosophy underlying the Convention, set out the decisions taken by the Committee on the various questions raised in the main working document. He drew the attention of participants to Section IV of the document in which several recommendations addressed to States Parties were formulated. With a certain number of modifications, which are referred to in the appropriate section of this record, the report under the title of "Operational ...
[Uniquement en anglais] On the basis of resources available in the World Heritage Fund, the Secretariat proposed in document CC-77/CONF.001/6, a budget covering (i) the preparation of model nomination files, (ii) technical co-operation to States Parties in preparing their nominations and requests for assistance, and (iii) emergency assistance required before the next session of the Committee.
[Uniquement en anglais] Members found the sums available to be very modest indeed and some felt that additional funds might be required. It was decided that the Bureau should have authority to increase the budget provisions, if necessary in the light of requests received and of funds available. With this provision, the Committee unanimously adopted the proposed budget.
[Uniquement en anglais] The Scientific Director of the International Organization for the Protection of Works of Art presented the offer of collaboration of that Organization.
[Uniquement en anglais] While-some members encouraged the Committee to accept the proposed offer which had no financial implications, others were uncertain as to whether the objectives of that Organization were the same as those of the Convention, particularly since the work of the Organization in question appeared to relate to movable cultural objects. This led to an exchange of views on the difficulty of distinguishing clearly between movable and immovable cultural property.
[Uniquement en anglais] It was subsequently decided that the International Organization for the Protection of the Works of Art would be invited to attend future sessions of the Committee, in an observer capacity. However, a member of the Committee asked that it be noted that this decision was in no way to be interpreted as recognizing a special status for that Organization within the framework of the World Heritage Convention and that there was no commitment on the part of the Committee to grant a special status in the future.
[Uniquement en anglais] The representative of the Director-General introduced document CC-77/CONF.001/7 which, at this stage, was submitted to the Committee for information only. He explained that the offer included a house in Cairo and a capital fund of $240,000 from which the interest could be used to finance a number of fellowships in Egyptian archaeology; he pointed out that the administrative and practical problems involved in the upkeep of the house would make it difficult to accept that part of the donation.
[Uniquement en anglais] The representative of the Arab Republic of Egypt supplemented the information provided, giving further details on Professor Badawy's offer.
[Uniquement en anglais] The Committee expressed sincere thanks to Professor Badawy for his offer and authorized the Secretariat to study further the exact conditions of the offer and to report to it at its second session.
[Uniquement en anglais] The representative of the United States of America, on behalf of the Secretary of State invited the Committee to hold its next session in Washington. The Committee expressed its gratitude to the United States for this generous offer, which was accepted by acclamation. 
[Uniquement en anglais] It was decided that the exact dates of the next session, which would take place between 15 September and 31 October 1978, would be fixed by the Chairman, in consultation with the Government of the United States of America and the Director-General.
[Uniquement en anglais] It was further decided that the Bureau would meet in Paris on 8 and 9 June 1978. The Rome Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN would be invited to attend.
[Uniquement en anglais] At the last plenary meeting the Rapporteur presented an oral report in which he highlighted the main conclusions and decisions of the Committee. In concluding his report, he referred to one issue that had not been discussed during the session, namely Secretariat assistance to the Committee: in view of the volume and complexity of the administrative work involved both in the preparation of documentation for the sessions of the Committee and in implementing its decisions, which would be particularly heavy as from 1979, he suggested that Unesco should carefully ...
[Uniquement en anglais] The Rapporteur's oral report has been incorporated into the present summary record, of which it forms a substantial part. 
top