Distribution limited WHC-96/CONF.201/5
Mérida, 1 December 1996
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twentieth session
Mérida, Yucatan, Mexico
2 - 7 December 1996
Item 5 of the Provisional Agenda: Report of the Rapporteur of the
sessions held in 1996 by the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee
The Report of the Rapporteur of the twentieth extraordinary
session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee is
annexed.
*[2]
I. OPENING SESSION
I.1 The twentieth extraordinary session of the Bureau of the
World Heritage Committee was held in Merida, Mexico from 29-30
November 1996. Chaired by H.E. Dr Horst Winkelmann (Germany) and
with H.E. Mr Lambert Messan (Niger) as Rapporteur, the session was
attended by the following members of the Bureau: Australia,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico and Niger.
I.2 The following States Parties which are members of the
Committee were represented as observers at this Bureau session:
Austria, Canada, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Malta, Sweden and the
United States of America.
I.3 Representatives of the three advisory bodies to the Committee,
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the
Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International
Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and The World Conservation
Union (IUCN) attended. The complete list of participants, including
representatives of nongovernmental organizations, is given in Annex
I.
I.4 The Chairperson of the Committee, Dr Horst Winkelmann opened
the session by thanking the Government of Mexico, particularly the
National Commission of Mexico for UNESCO and the National Institute
for Anthropology and History, for its generosity in hosting this
session of the Bureau in the lovely historic city of Merida. He
also thanked the members of the Secretariat and the host for the
many months of hard work in the preparation of this Bureau. He
invited Mr Bernd von Droste, Director of the UNESCO World Heritage
Centre to address the Bureau on behalf of the Secretariat.
I.5 The Director of the Centre joined the Chair, in thanking the
Mexican Government and the national host organizations and
expressed his pleasure in announcing the arrival of the Director-
General of UNESCO, Mr Federico Mayor, for the opening session of
the twentieth session of the World Heritage Committee on 2
December.
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II.1 Stating that the purpose of the Bureau session being to
streamline and facilitate the work of the Committee, the
Chairperson requested the members of the Bureau to make their best
efforts in completing the task before them. The Bureau adopted the
*[3]
provisional agenda as submitted in Working Document WHC-
96/CONF.203/1 and the proposed timetable.
III. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES
INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
III.1. The Bureau examined reports on the state of
conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
contained in Working Document WHC-96/CONF.203/3 and information
provided by IUCN.
III.2. The Bureau noted that several reports referred to
cases in which the State Party concerned had not replied to the
Bureau's or the Committee's earlier recommendations or requests for
information on the state of conservation or management arrangements
for specific World Heritage properties. The Bureau noted that this
does not facilitate the work of the Bureau and the Committee,
particularly when they are seeking information on reported and
immediate threats to World Heritage properties. The Bureau stressed
that communication and cooperation between the States Parties and
the World Heritage statutory bodies is a basic principle of the
Convention and essential for its implementation.
III.3. The Bureau requested the Secretariat, in its
communications to the States Parties, to indicate precise dates for
reply in order to facilitate the follow-up reporting to the next
session of the Bureau and/or Committee.
III.4. Furthermore, the Bureau suggested the Committee to
consider the appropriate actions in case the State Party fails to
respond to the Bureau's and Committee's recommendations or requests
for information.
III.5. The Bureau also noted that several state of
conservation reports were related to requests for international
assistance for the same property and suggested the Committee to
consider if these should be examined together.
III.6. In order to prepare the examination of the state of
conservation reports by the Committee, the Bureau decided to take
its decisions in three categories:
*[4]
(a) The Bureau recommends the Committee to inscribe the
property on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
(b) The Bureau transmits the state of conservation report to
the Committee for action;
(c) The Bureau transmits the state of conservation report
together with its own observations/recommendations to the
Committee for noting.
A. NATURAL HERITAGE
a) Natural properties which the Bureau recommended for
inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Galapagos National Park (Ecuador)
The Bureau recalled that the World Heritage Committee at its
nineteenth session, discussed extensively the issues and threats
facing the site and that the Bureau at its twentieth session
considered the report of the mission led by the Chairperson of the
World Heritage Committee (1-11 June 1996) to examine the situation
of the Galapagos Islands. The Bureau concluded that serious
problems exist, such that immediate remedial actions are essential
to safeguard the values of the World Heritage site and the
surrounding marine areas, while recognizing the considerable
efforts made.
As a follow-up to the Bureau's recommendations, letters were
written by the Director-General of UNESCO to the President of
Ecuador and by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee to
the President of the Environmental Commission concerning the
protection of the Galapagos and more specifically on the proposed
"special legislation" for the Galapagos. This legislation was not
adopted and requires further action.
The Bureau took note of the report submitted by the authorities of
Ecuador on 22 November 1996 (contained in information document WHC-
*[5]
96/CONF.203/INF.2). The report provides an update on the situation
of the Galapagos and steps to be taken by the Government of
Ecuador. The report also addresses issues such as the restriction
of immigration, the institutional strengthening, issues concerning
the marine reserve, the preparation of a biodiversity management
plan, as well as assistance from the Interamerican Development
Bank.
The Bureau also considered the comments made by IUCN concerning the
serious threats to the site which require long-term action and that
placing the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger would
support the efforts made by Ecuador and would mobilize additional
international cooperation.
Several members of the Bureau stated that the requirements for
inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger stipulated in
Paragraph 79 of the Operational Guidelines are met and concluded
that the Bureau should recommend the Committee to inscribe the site
on the List of World Heritage in Danger. It was also noted that
this List was not to be viewed as a "black list", but as an early
warning notice that action needs to be taken.
The Observer of Ecuador reiterated the committment of the
Government of Ecuador to the preservation of the Galapagos Islands
and recalled the great number of actions that had been taken by her
government. She informed the Bureau that the Delegate of Ecuador to
the Committee will provide additional information at the twentieth
session of the Committee.
The Bureau decided to transmit the above information to the
Committee for action and to recommend the Committee to inscribe
Galapagos National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
The Bureau recalled discussions held at its last session concerning
reports received by the University of Berne (Switzerland) on the
deterioration of the Walia ibex population and other large mammals
(such as bushbuck, simen fox and bushpig) which have become
extremely rare. At the twentieth session of the Bureau, additional
information on the state of conservation of the site was provided
*[6]
by IUCN (loss of biodiversity, encroachment at the borders of the
site, impacts of the road construction) and a report by the
University of Berne was made available to the Bureau members. The
Bureau endorsed recommendations made in this report, including a
planning and coordination meeting at the regional level, a
technical mission to the site and the preparation of a technical
assistance request.
As a follow-up to the recommendations by the Bureau, a technical
mission to the site took place from 2 to 9 November 1996 and
included review meetings with the Ethiopian Wildlife authority, the
Wildlife Programme Steering Committee, UNDP, UNCDF, as well as
meetings with regional governments representatives in Bahr Dar on
the possibilities for sustainable coexistence of wildlife and
natural resources with human land users. As a result of the mission
an international assistance request was received (presented to the
Bureau in working document WHC-96/CONF.203/5add.1) and a summary
report including draft recommendations was brought to the attention
of the Bureau (Information Document WHC-96/CONF.203/INF.2).
The recommendations included the co-sponsoring of a workshop with
stakeholders scheduled for April 1997 and a co-ordination of donor
involvement, as well as a recommendation to include the site on the
List of World Heritage in Danger.
IUCN provided additional information on the state of conservation
of the site. It was recalled that considerations have been given
to placing this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger since
1987 and that all requirements for inscription on the List of World
Heritage in Danger stipulated in Paragraph 79 of the Operational
Guidelines are met.
The Bureau decided to transmit the above information to the
Committee for action and to recommend the Committee to inscribe
Simen National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its nineteenth session
took note of a monitoring report prepared by IUCN. This report
noted the threats to the site, including agricultural intrusion and
the implementation of land reform programmes. A number of follow-up
*[7]
actions, including the inscription of the site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger, were recommended. Further to the decision of
the Committee, the Centre requested the Honduran authorities to
inform the Committee about the actions taken to protect the site.
The Centre received a state of conservation report dated 30 April
1996 from the Honduran Minister for the Environment, which
indicated the actions taken by the Government and various NGOs, as
well as a project submitted for technical assistance, which was
approved by the Bureau at its twentieth session. On the basis of
additional information provided by IUCN's regional office, the
Bureau at its twentieth session recommended the Committee to
inscribe this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The
Bureau furthermore recalled that IUCN's report provides eleven
points of corrective actions and that the Minister of Environment
has endorsed this report, including the recommendation that the
site be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Bureau examined the report provided and decided to transmit the
report to the Committee for action and to recommend the Committee
to adopt the following:
"The Committee decides to inscribe the Rio Platano Biosphere
Reserve on the List of World Heritage in Danger and encourages
the State Party to implement the eleven points of corrective
actions recommended in the IUCN conservation status report.
The Committee requests the authorities of Honduras to keep it
informed on a regular basis of actions taken to safeguard this
property."
Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)
The Bureau recalled that the site was included on the World
Heritage List in 1980 and took note of the report presented by IUCN
on threats to the site which was prepared in cooperation with the
Ramsar Convention Secretariat. The report confirms that the
construction of dams had a devastating impact on the wetland values
of Ichkeul National Park. The significant adverse environmental
impact of the construction of two dams limiting the freshwater flow
to the area was also described in a recent report by the Tunisian
Ministry of the Environment. The Park no longer supports the large
migrating bird populations that it used to and the salinity of the
lake and marshes has dramatically increased. In addition,
*[8]
institutional problems remain, as the Park lacks sufficient
infrastructure, budget and management.
The Bureau recalled debates held concerning inclusion of the site
on the List of World Heritage in Danger beginning in 1985 and
considered the possibility of an eventual deletion of this property
from the World Heritage List. The Bureau discussed if a
rehabilitation of the site is at all possible and requested the
Secretariat to write immediately to the Tunisian authorities to (a)
inform them about the Bureau's concerns, (b) to inform them about
the Bureau's recommendation to include the site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger, and (c) to inform them of the possible
deletion of Lake Ichkeul from the World Heritage List if the world
heritage values of integrity of the site have been lost.
The Bureau decided to transmit the report to the Committee for
action and to recommend the Committee to adopt the following:
"The Committee decides (1) to inscribe Ichkeul National
Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger, (2) to request
the authorities to provide a programme of anticipated
corrective measures to reverse the degradation of the site and
(3) to inform the authorities of the procedures for the
possible deletion of the property from the World Heritage
List."
Garamba National Park (Zaire)
The Bureau recalled that due to the success of the safeguarding
action of the northern white rhino population by the World Heritage
Committee, IUCN, WWF, the Frankfurt Zoological Society and the
Zaire authorities, the site was removed from the List of World
Heritage in Danger in 1992. In April 1996, the Centre and IUCN
received information on the poaching of two white rhinos.
The Bureau took note of additional information provided by IUCN on
the loss of three rangers killed at the site and information based
on a detailed report provided by WWF and the IUCN species survival
commission. The Bureau recalled that it discussed at its twentieth
session inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger given
the gravity of the situation. The Bureau took note that no
commitment of the Zaire authorities for such listing had been
obtained and no plan for corrective measures in conformity with the
*[9]
Operational Guidelines has been submitted. The Bureau also
considered the serious situation in Zaire and the situation of the
protected areas in Africa in general, which has to be related to
sustainable development and international collaboration.
The Bureau decided to transmit this information to the Committee
for action and to recommend the Committee to adopt the following:
"The Committee decides to inscribe the Garamba National Park
on the List of World Heritage in Danger, urges the State Party
to collaborate with WWF, IUCN, and the Centre to prepare a
plan for corrective measures in conformity with the
Operational Guidelines and encourages international partners
to collaborate to safeguard the northern white rhino and other
wildlife population in the park."
b) State of conservation reports of natural properties which
the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for action
Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)
The Bureau recalled discussion held at the nineteenth session of
the World Heritage Committee on the infrastructural developments
in the "Bow Corridor" and their impact on the integrity of the
site. The Canadian authorities had set up the Bow Valley Task
Force, in order to prepare a study on these issues. The Canadian
authorities provided a full report in October 1996.
In addition, IUCN informed the Bureau about the resolution at the
World Conservation Congress held in Montreal, Canada in October
1996, endorsing the study's findings.
The Bureau examined the reports and decided to transmit them to the
Committee for action and to recommend the Committee to adopt the
following:
"The Committee commends the Canadian authorities for
providing a detailed report of the Bow Valley Task Force and
for taking actions on problems being faced in this small but
significant portion of the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World
Heritage site. The Task Force Report, if implemented, would
*[10]
significantly shift the future management of the area in a
more preservation direction. The Committee encourages wider
distribution of the lessons learnt from the Bow Valley Task
Force Report."
c) State of conservation reports of natural properties which
the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for noting
Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
The Bureau took note of the information provided by IUCN on the
site which was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1992. IUCN's
Commission on National Parks visited the site in August 1996 and
prepared a progress report. The Bureau recalled recommendations on
human impacts at the site and on enlarging the site made by the
World Heritage Committee in 1992 and noted substantial progress
dealing with the growing human impact in the area has been made,
including the possibility of twinning the site with another World
Heritage site in Europe. On the other hand the recommendation
concerning an expansion of the site to make it contiguous with
Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area has not been acted
upon.
The Bureau welcomed the prospects of twinning and commended the
Chinese authorities for addressing some of the human impact issues.
The Bureau however, reiterated the Committee's previous
recommendation encouraging the potential of expanding the site.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico)
The Bureau recalled discussions held at its nineteenth session,
concerning a report about a project for industrial salt production
at the site and its potential threats to the whale population. At
its last session, the Bureau was informed by the Delegate of Mexico
that the National Institute of Ecology (INE) created a Committee
comprising national and foreign experts, which held a first meeting
in March 1996, participated in a public conference attended by
*[11]
nearly 300 persons and presented 42 documents to define aspects to
be included in the new environmental impact study. The Minister of
the Environment, Natural Resources and Fish indicated, through the
INE, that the proposal could only be authorized on the
understanding that it respects the legislation and the ecological
standards in force.
IUCN informed the Bureau about a recent report which indicated that
private development was proceeding without fully following the
Mexican Environmental Impact Assessment standards. The Delegation
of Mexico informed the Bureau that additional information may be
available in time for the Committee session.
The Bureau urged the State Party to keep the Committee informed
about the industrial salt production project and the status of the
environmental impact study and to ensure the integrity of the site.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
The Bureau at its nineteenth session took note of a progress
report, dated March 1996, on the ongoing planning activities for
the site and a schedule of activities. IUCN had noted several
recent developments in the Sanctuary that are of concern: (1)
poaching of thirteen Oryx, and (2) the construction of a reverse
osmosis plant which has resulted in significant damage to the
desert habitat. The Bureau had requested the Centre to contact the
Omani authorities encouraging them to provide the definition of the
final boundaries of the site and expressing concern over the
poaching and construction activities.
The Bureau, recalled discussions held at the time of the
inscription of the site and raised concern that no reply has been
received from the Omani authorities since its last session. IUCN
informed the Bureau of delays being experienced by the management
authority in completing the management plan and defining boundaries
in the context of other pressures. Proposals for IUCN to cooperate
in an expert workshop to review the plan and boundaries were,
however, encouraging.
*[12]
The Bureau therefore (a) asked the State Party to keep the
Committee informed about the state of conservation of the site and
progress on the planning and boundary definition project to be
provided by 31 March 1997; (b) reiterated the clarification
requested about the definition of the final boundaries of the site
by 31 March 1997; (c) requested clarification of the situation with
respect to reported oryx poaching and the reverse osmosis plant,
and (d) commended the proposal for an international workshop to be
held in Oman in 1997 to review the draft management plan, including
the definition of boundaries of the site involving representatives
of IUCN and the World Heritage Centre in cooperation with the Omani
authorities.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Huascaran National Park (Peru)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its nineteenth session
recommended to the Peruvian authorities that a cultural resources
inventory of the site be carried out and asked for clarification
on the road developments which may threaten the integrity of the
site. The Bureau noted that no reply had been received to a letter
addressed to the State Party.
The Bureau reiterated the request by the World Heritage Committee
(a) that a cultural resources inventory of the site be carried out;
(b) that ICOMOS should be kept informed about this inventory, and
(c) clarifications be provided on the road developments which may
threaten the integrity of the site. The Bureau requested that this
information be provided by 31 March 1997.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Skocjan Caves (Slovenia)
The Bureau recalled that the World Heritage Committee, at its
nineteenth session, had requested the Centre to contact the
Slovenian authorities to provide a map of the revised boundaries
of the site and to encourage the State Party to finalize new
*[13]
legislation and to prepare a management plan. In its letter of 8
August 1996, the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning
informed the Centre about preparations of the adoption of the "Law
on the Protection of Skocjan Caves Regional Park", which is in the
last phase of parliamentary procedure and was expected to be
adopted in October 1996. In addition, the authorities provided a
map indicating the buffer zone of the site, which was transmitted
to IUCN for review.
The Bureau thanked the authorities of Slovenia for their efforts
and encouraged them to continue their efforts for the adoption of
the management plan. It requested however clarification on the
boundaries of the site and values added to it.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its nineteenth session,
noted the potential threats to the integrity of this site, due to
the proposed development of a new port, and the proposal to issue
a license for the establishment of a large floating hotel at the
site. Furthermore, the Committee learnt that Japanese aid agencies
were considering supporting the project up to an amount of US$ 100
million and noted that Japan was still studying the project. The
Committee recalled Article 6.3 of the Convention which commits
States Parties to the Convention "not to undertake any deliberate
measures which might damage directly or indirectly the cultural and
natural heritage ... situated on the territory of other States
Parties to the Convention."
The Bureau took note that the Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) is planning to draft an environmental management
programme for Ha Long Bay. In addition, the Delegation of Japan
informed the Bureau that JICA has completed "its project
formulation study", which was conducted in order to clarify the
contents and background of the request by the Vietnamese Government
to gather some other relevant information.
The Bureau requested the Centre to contact both the Japanese and
the Vietnamese authorities to obtain further information on
environmental impacts on the site.
*[14]
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Durmitor National Park (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia
and Montenegro))
The Bureau took note of the World Heritage Centre's mission to the
site, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1980. The mission
reviewed the state of conservation of the site and damage at the
Park Headquarters building in Zabljak caused by a fire in 1995,
which destroyed library and reference collections. The building has
since been reconstructed and is almost wholly refurbished and is
now operational.
The mission noted the rapid unplanned and uncontrolled expansion
of the village of Zabljak and adjacent development and that
international assistance had been received to mitigate the mine
tailing threat to the Tara River Canyon portion of the World
Heritage site by earthen containment structures within the
earthquake prone flood plain. The Bureau considered the situation
at the site and decided the following:
The Bureau (a) commended the State Party for its efforts to restore
the Park Headquarters facility to operational level and to contain
the Tara River Canyon mine tailings, (b) however, expressed its
concerns over the rapid town development within the site and lack
of investment in the Park infrastructure, þ requested clarification
of possible boundary adjustments under consideration, (d)
considered a possible engineering evaluation of the mine tailing
containment efforts, and (e) invited the State Party to encourage
the Director of the Park to participate in network and training
efforts with other World Heritage site managers in the region.
The Bureau furthermore requested that the name of the State Party
which ratified the Convention on 26 May 1975 (Yugoslavia) be
corrected to "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and
Montenegro".
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
*[15]
Furthermore, IUCN provided additional information on the situation
of World Heritage sites in Australia and Japan, which the Bureau
transmitted to the Committee for noting:
Australia
The Bureau recalled that Australia is a leading State Party in the
protection and enhancement of World Heritage. It took note of
information provided by IUCN on potential threats at a number of
World Heritage sites in Australia, including salt mining at Shark
Bay, logging in adjacent areas of the Tasmanian Wilderness, uranium
mining at Kakadu National Park, and the opening of nature reserves
at the Great Barrier Reef to fishing and development. IUCN stated
that - due to lack of sufficient resources - it was not possible to
prepare detailed reports on any of these sites. However,
resolutions on two of the sites passed at the World Conservation
Congress held in Montreal, Canada, in October 1996 were tabled.
The Delegate of Australia regretted that these reports were not
available and she informed the Bureau that the Australian
authorities report regularly on all their World Heritage areas. She
informed the Bureau that the Federal Agencies had been restructured
and that Australian World Heritage would be strengthened as a
result.
Japan
The Bureau recalled that at the time of the inscription of
Shirakami-Sanchi and Yakushima the Committee requested a follow-up
mission to review progress in 1996. IUCN informed the Bureau that
it was invited by the Japanese authorities, but was not able to
conduct a review in 1996 due to budgetary constraints. The Bureau
noted that this mission is re-scheduled for 1997.
B. MIXED (NATURAL AND CULTURAL) PROPERTIES
a) Mixed properties which the Bureau recommended for
inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger
The Bureau did not recommend any mixed property for inscription on
the List of World Heritage in Danger.
*[16]
b) State of conservation reports of mixed properties which the
Bureau transmitted to the Committee for action
Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
The Secretariat recalled the suggestion of the Bureau at its
twentieth session that alternative means of access to Machu Picchu
should be studied in the context of integral planning for the whole
of the area of the Sanctuary and that an assessment of the impact
of a possible cable-car system be undertaken, and the Bureau's
request that the authorities of Peru inform the Committee on the
progress made in the development of an integral management
mechanism as well as on the plans for the access to the ruins of
Machu Picchu. No response was received by the Secretariat since
then, however, it was informed that tenders had been invited for
the cable car system.
The Bureau decided to transmit the state of conservation report to
the Committee for action and to recommend the Committee to adopt
the following:
"The Committee considers that the implementation of the cable-
car system could have a serious impact on the World Heritage
site and that no action should be undertaken until a proper
management plan is in force. Therefore, the Committee urges
the Peruvian authorities to develop integral management
mechanisms for the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu and
suggests that alternative means of access to Machu Picchu be
studied in the context of integral planning for the whole of
the area of the Sanctuary and that an assessment of its impact
be undertaken. The Committee urges the Peruvian authorities to
provide a full report on the state of conservation and the
management mechanisms of Machu Picchu in time for the next
session of the Bureau."
c) State of conservation reports of mixed properties which the
Bureau transmitted to the Committee for noting
*[17]
Mount Huangshan (People's Republic of China)
The Bureau recalled that an international seminar was held at the
site in 1991 by the Chinese Ministry of Environment and UNEP, which
indicated growing negative impacts of unregulated tourism
development. It also noted that a training workshop for Chinese
protected area managers was organized at Huangshan in October-
November 1993. Recommendations of the workshop included the
construction of a visitor centre, improving the disposal of the
large amount of waste generated by tourists, and introducing
ecological safeguards and criteria in identification of sites for
constructing visitor facilities. The Bureau was pleased to note
that the Chinese authorities have given serious consideration to
these recommendations and that the management of waste disposal has
improved and the site's natural and aesthetic values are maintained
in an exemplary way. Site management authorities are also
considering plans for establishing a visitor centre and limiting
further construction of visitor facilities within the site.
The Bureau commended the Chinese authorities for the positive steps
they have taken in improving tourism management in the site and
encouraged them to proceed with additional measures, such as the
construction of a visitor centre, to manage the large numbers of
visitors annually entering the site.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
C. CULTURAL HERITAGE
a) Cultural properties which the Bureau recommended for
inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger
The Bureau did not recommend any cultural property for inscription
on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
*[18]
b) State of conservation reports of cultural properties which
the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for action
Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (People's Republic of China)
A UNESCO mission, undertaken in September 1996, revealed a number
of major problems, including complete halt of site excavations,
lack of adequate maintenance of the site and the lack of a new
generation of researchers.
The Bureau took note of the report provided by the Secretariat.
Since the Director of the UNESCO Division for Cultural Heritage who
is attending the international workshop on the Peking Man Site
taking place this week at the site, will be at the 20th session of
the Committee, the Bureau decided to transmit this case to the
Committee to formulate its decision after receiving the latest
information on the management and research programme for this site.
Potala Palace in Lhasa (People's Republic of China)
The Secretariat reported that pressures of urban development and
growth in tourism-related activities are resulting in many
construction activities in the historic sector of Lhasa with a
negative impact on historic structures and their authenticity.
Furthermore, in Shol, the former administrative area of Potala
Palace, which is part of the World Heritage protected area, the
rehabilitation of the historic buildings and the widening of the
streets risk causing irreversible changes to the historic character
of this area.
The mural paintings are threatened by humidity, the application of
lacquer varnish in the 1960s - 70s, alteration of the original
appearance due to excessive "retouching" and smoke from yak-butter
lamps. It was noted that, under the China-Norway-UNESCO cooperative
project for the preservation of Tibetan cultural properties, a
training course on mural painting restoration techniques has been
proposed and now pending approval by the Chinese authorities.
The Delegate of China to the Committee, attending the Bureau as
observer, indicated that the preservation of Tibetan cultural
*[19]
heritage has been one of the highest priorities of China. He
expressed his Government's appreciation for the UNESCO World
Heritage Centre's technical assistance and the mobilization of
international cooperation to support the Government's preservation
efforts. He indicated that the Chinese authorities were in favour
of the extension of the Potala Palace World Heritage Site to
include Jokhang Temple and the surrounding historic area, as
recommended by the Committee. He also informed the Bureau that the
proposed China-Norway-UNESCO cooperative project, in which a mural
painting restoration training course is planned, is being carefully
examined by the Chinese authorities.
The representative of ICCROM and a number of Bureau members offered
their expertise and interest in participating in mural paintings
conservation activities.
The Bureau decided to transmit the report to the Committee for
action and to recommend the Committee to adopt the following:
"The Committee taking note of the report of the Secretariat:
(a) encourages the Chinese authorities to strengthen
cooperation with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre's
Programme for the Safeguarding and Development of
Historic Cities of Asia, notably in the re-evaluation of
the Lhasa Urban Master Plan to integrate the preservation
of the historic urban fabric as part of the overall urban
development plan, and to develop technical guidelines on
conservation practice of historic buildings;
(b) encourages the Chinese authorities to strengthen
international cooperation in mural painting conservation
activities and in other fields in the preservation of
Tibetan cultural heritage within the framework of the
World Heritage Convention;
(c) encourages the Chinese authorities to consider the
extension of the World Heritage protected area to cover
Jokhang Temple and the historic centre of Barkor, as
recommended by the Committee at its eighteenth session
in December 1994."
*[20]
Rock-Hewn Churches, Lalibela (Ethiopia)
The Secretariat reported that fields that require particular
attention are:
1. The restoration of the site: particularly the protection of
the roofs and the drainage systems.
2. The management of the site and the harmonization of current
projects. Presently, the main difficulty encountered by the
national authorities seems to be the harmonization of the
different projects and coordination between the partners.
Several precise recommendations are made in the working
document regarding scientific research, the role of the
Centre for Research and Conservation of the Cultural Heritage
of Ethiopia as the coordinator of the restoration
projects including development projects in and around the
site of Lalibela.
The Bureau decided to transmit the state of conservation report to
the Committee for action and recommended the Committee to adopt the
following:
"The Committee feels that it is especially important to ensure
coordination of the work between all the national and
international partners engaged in the activities of
conservation and preservation of this World Heritage site.
It considers that the Centre for Research and Conservation of
the Cultural Heritage (CRCCH) should assume this coordination
and ensure that, in accordance with the principles of the
Global Strategy, the activities on the site are not limited to
interventions on the monuments. It therefore appears
indispensable to take into consideration the aspects of the
living culture by associating the entire ecclesiastic
hierarchy in the efforts made to preserve and enhance this
site. It requests the Ethiopian authorities to keep the World
Heritage Centre informed of the actions that will be taken to
this effect before the 21st session of the Committee in
December 1997."
Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
It is recalled that the Committee during its nineteenth session
invited the German authorities to provide a full state of
*[21]
conservation report on the site, including statements concerning
legal protection, current planning and development of Potsdam, as
well as information on possible extensions of the site and/or
buffer zones adjacent to the site.
Furthermore, during its twentieth session in June 1996, the Bureau
expressed its serious concern about urban development plans in
Potsdam, particularly the "Potsdam Centre" project, that could
directly or indirectly affect the values of the World Heritage
site.
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that on 22 November 1996, a
substantive report was received from the Minister for Science,
Research and Cultural Affairs of Land Brandenburg, on the state of
conservation of the World Heritage Site of the Palaces and Parks of
Potsdam and Berlin. The report describes in detail the efforts
undertaken for the preservation of this site as well as measures
taken for the protection of the surrounding area (the buffer zone),
particularly the adoption of the Statute for the Protection of the
Operative Area of the Monument of the Berlin-Potsdam Cultural
Landscape on 4 September 1996.
The report, furthermore, describes how the authorities intend to
take the World Heritage more into account in construction work and
planning in Potsdam. Proposals are being elaborated and will be
coordinated with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre for procedures
for an intensive coordination between builders, authorities and
experts. As to the "Potsdam Centre" it has now been agreed that,
for a large part of the area, special competitions will be
organized to better integrate the project in the cultural landscape
with the participation of independent experts. As to the
development of the waterways, it is stated that any damage to the
World Heritage site should be excluded. It is also reported that a
special application will be made for the extension of the site.
The representative of ICOMOS informed the Bureau that an ICOMOS
mission was undertaken from 4 to 8 November and that one of the
experts will attend the Committee session and will be able to
present a substantive report.
After a long debate in which the Bureau examined the report
submitted by the German authorities in detail, and after careful
consideration if inscription of the site on the List of World
*[22]
Heritage in Danger would be appropriate, the Bureau decided to
transmit the report to the Committee for action and to recommend
the Committee to adopt the following:
"Having examined the state of conservation report on the World
Heritage Site "The Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin"
the Committee commends the German authorities and the
"Prussian Palaces and Gardens Foundation Berlin-Brandenburg"
for their conservation and reconstruction efforts, notably
with regard to the very specific situation of the World
Heritage Site in the years following the reunification of
Germany.
The Committee notes with satisfaction that with the adoption
of the "Statute for Protection of the Operative Area of the
Monument of Berlin-Potsdam Cultural Landscape, in accordance
with its inscription on the World Heritage List on 1 January
1991, Potsdam Area", steps for a comprehensive legal
protection of the World Heritage Site and its immediate
surroundings have been taken.
Nevertheless, the Committee welcomes the fact that the State
Party has taken up the Committee's previous proposal for an
extension of the World Heritage site, which is to include the
following:
- Pfingstberg, Alexandrowka Colony, the "Städtchen" between
the Pfingstberg and the New Garden, Lindstedt Palace and Park,
all of which were not part of the original application to the
Committee for political and /or administrative reasons;
- Wooden areas ("Jagen"), mainly in the Sarcow region,
which were not fully included in the initial inscription due
to legal uncertainties;
- Areas historically and geographically linked to the World
Heritage Site, which include in particular parts of the
entrance to Sanssouci Park (for example the avenue leading to
Sanssouci and the adjacent buildings), the extension to the
main axis of the Park (i.e. the Lindenallee with an
appropriate strip of land on both sides), the unused field
north of the Orangery in the Sanssouci Park up to the
Teufelsgraben, remnants of the old village of Bornstedt royal
*[23]
domain as well as the Voltaireweg and its extension, the
historical link between Sanssouci and the New Garden.
The Committee encourages the State Party to make a concrete
application to that end in accordance with the Convention and
the Operational Guidelines in the nearest future.
The Committee expresses its concern that, although different
planning concepts on various levels exist, an overarching
master plan for the development of the City of Potsdam which
would reflect an overall approach towards the values of the
Potsdam Cultural Landscape is still missing. Furthermore,
coordination between the different planning concepts on one
hand and between the builders, authorities and experts on the
other should be considerably strengthened in order to avoid
that developments like the construction project on the
"Glienicker Horn" which already led to a serious damage to the
Potsdam urban and cultural landscape will not be repeated in
the future. According to information available to the
Committee, other critical uncoordinated projects pose
potential threats to the Potsdam urban and cultural landscape,
which include:
- the new theatre at the Zimmerstrasse;
- "city villas" at the Katharinenholzstrasse;
- the so-called "Lennéstadt"/Bornstedter Feld;
- new buildings at the Heiliger See;
- new buildings at Babelsberg: "Potsdam Fenster",
Gewoba-building and film studio Alt-Nowawes
- housing and business buildings at the Ribbeckstrasse,
Bornstedt;
The Committee takes note of the information provided by the
State Party on the so-called "Potsdam Centre" and on the
"German Unity Transport Project No.17".
As regards the "Potsdam Centre" the Committee asks the State
Party to ensure that the special competition, which will be
organized for a large part of the planned overall project,
with the participation of independent experts, will lead to
a harmonious integration of the project into the historic City
of Postdam and the cultural landscape. The Committee welcomes
*[24]
that the "Alter Markt" will be included in that competition.
In addition, as regards the parts of the project which will
apparently not be subject to such competitions (The Hotel
Project and the Railway Station),the Committee urges the
German authorities to undertake every effort to ensure that
the planning of those buildings be substantially changed.
As regards the "German Unity Transport Project No.17" the
Committee specifically takes note of the understanding between
the German authorities and the Foundation that the World
Heritage Site must not be adversely affected by that Project.
The Committee is of the opinion that no alteration should be
made to the Glienicker Bridge, that only one shipping lane
should be foreseen from the Glienicker Lake towards the Teltow
Channel and that no dredging work should be carried out within
Babelsberg Park.
The Committee appeals to the German authorities to ensure that
the World Heritage Site, which constitutes an integral part
of the City of Potsdam and the Potsdam Cultural Landscape,
will not be affected by these specific projects mentioned in
the state of conservation report.
The Committee concluded that:
- The Committee's concerns are not diminished by the state
of conservation report, submitted by the Land Brandenburg.
- In the opinion of the Committee, the report demonstrates
that the World Heritage site continues to be seriously
threatened by various urban development projects.
- The Potsdam World Heritage site is in danger. Therefore,
the Committee would have liked to inscribe it on the "List of
World Heritage in Danger". However, the German authorities
have urged the Committee not to do so. The Committee is
convinced by the explanations given by the German Delegation
that high ranking German authorities are and will be
undertaking all efforts to reduce the threats mainly deriving
from the planned "Potsdam Centre" and the "German Unity
Transport Project No. 17".
*[25]
- The Committee asks the State Party to Provide a full
state of the conservation report in time for the next ordinary
session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee. If
until the twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee
the threats to the World Heritage site as mentioned above
still persist the Committee is likely to decide to inscribe
the World Heritage Site of Potsdam on the "List of World
Heritage in Danger"."
The Town of Luang Prabang (Laos)
The Secretariat reported that a surge of overseas public and
private investments, and of tourism is being witnessed in this
World Heritage town.
Building renovations and new constructions are now taking place
throughout the town, including the rehabilitation of many temples
without sufficient consideration over authenticity. Numerous
violations of building regulations are occurring.
To strengthen the national capacity, a Heritage House (Maison du
patrimoine) was established under the Luang Prabang-Chinon
(France)-UNESCO World Heritage Centre project to prepare
recommendations on building design and conservation methods for all
building permit requests in the World Heritage protected area and
the buffer/support zones, as well as to prepare the Safeguarding
and Development Plan of the town.
Strengthening of the legal protection of movable and immovable
cultural properties, including archaeological sites and historic
human settlements, is urgently required. The enactment by the
National Assembly of a cultural properties protection law in
addition to the existing ministerial decrees is under
consideration.
The representative of ICOMOS reminded the Bureau that it had
recommended deferral of the inscription of Luang Prabang until
there was firm proof of the effectiveness of the management plan,
stating that this case shows the necessity of deferring inscription
decision. A number of Bureau members commented on the usefulness of
World Heritage inscription to strengthen protection and expressed
satisfaction for the achievements made within such a short time.
*[26]
The Bureau discussed the Secretariat's report and decided to
transmit it to the Committee for action recommending the adoption
of the following text:
"The Committee takes note of the Secretariat's report and
congratulates the Government of Laos for the establishment of
the Heritage House, the Provincial Committee for the
Protection and Development of Luang Prabang and the National
Inter-ministerial Committee for the Protection of Cultural
Properties, all within one year of inscription. The Committee
thanks the European Union, the Government of France, the City
of Chinon, Electricity of France and other donors for their
generous financial and technical support.
The Committee furthermore
(a) urges the Government of Laos to give top priority to the
enactment by the National Assembly of the Cultural
Properties Protection Law;
(b) requests the UNESCO World Heritage Centre to assist the
Government of Laos to organize an information meeting in
Luang Prabang to present the Safeguarding and Development
Plan of Luang Prabang and the landuse and building
regulations for bilateral and multilateral donors and
financial institutions to ensure that the numerous
infrastructural development projects do not undermine the
World Heritage value of the town;
(c) requests donor governments to provide financial and
technical support for the safeguarding of Luang Prabang
in coordination with UNESCO."
Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
The World Heritage Committee at its seventeenth session (1993),
expressed deep concern over the state of conservation of the
Kathmandu Valley and considered the possibility of placing this
site on the List of World Heritage in Danger following discussions
on the findings of the November 1993 Joint UNESCO/ICOMOS Review
Mission to the Kathmandu Valley.
*[27]
Since then, the Government has given priority to responding to the
sixteen points of concern raised by the UNESCO/ICOMOS mission.
To emphasize the increased importance being placed on the
preservation of the World Heritage Site as a whole, rather than on
individual monuments, an information meeting was held in October
1996 on the safeguarding and development needs of the site. During
this meeting some nineteen project proposals were presented for
national and international funding support.
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the State of Conservation
Report prepared by the Department of Archaeology of His Majesty's
Government of Nepal, with the assistance of the UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, was received that very morning and will be
distributed at the Committee session.
The Bureau took note of the Secretariat's report and decided to
transmit the state of conservation report to the Committee and
recommended the following text for adoption by the Committee:
"The Committee congratulates His Majesty's Government of Nepal
for the tangible proof of its commitment to the World Heritage
Convention. It expresses hope that efforts will be continued
to strengthen the institutional capacities of the Department
of Archaeology and the concerned municipal authorities to
protect and develop the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site
by officially adopting and publicizing regulations on building
control and conservation practice. The Committee appeals to
the national and international donors to finance the projects
developed by the local authorities for the safeguarding of the
site which are contained in the compendium of project
proposals prepared with the support of the UNESCO Cultural
Heritage Division and the World Heritage Centre."
City of Cusco (Peru)
At its twentieth session in June 1996, the Bureau took note of
information provided by the Secretariat regarding projects in the
historical city of Cusco that could have a negative impact on the
World Heritage values of the site. It invited the authorities to
establish appropriate planning mechanisms for the historical city
of Cusco.
*[28]
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that, since then, the
authorities had submitted a request for technical cooperation in
order to assist on these matters, but that no substantive reply had
been received to the concerns expressed by the Bureau.
In this context, the UNESCO Representative for Peru offered even
to strengthen her cooperation with the World Heritage Centre in the
promotion of the proper application of the World Heritage
Convention in Peru. The Bureau thanked her for her commitment in
this respect.
The Bureau decided to transmit this information together with the
request for technical cooperation to the Committee for action.
Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)
At its twentieth session, Paris, June 1996, the Bureau commended
the Government of Poland on halting the construction works in the
immediate vicinity of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp, [and] urged
the authorities to devise a plan for the preservation of the site
and its immediate surroundings, and keep the Committee informed on
this matter.
Since then, and although additional assurance has been given by the
Polish authorities that construction works have stopped, the
Secretariat was informed that Philip Morris Company has announced
its intention to go ahead with the construction of a cigarette
factory adjacent to the site.
The Secretariat immediately informed the Polish Permanent
Delegation of this event, and asked the Polish authorities "to take
all the necessary action in order to ensure that the integrity of
Auschwitz-Birkenau is respected".
The Bureau discussed the inscription of the site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger considering that no response by the Polish
authorities had been received by the Secretariat and in view of the
fact that the impact of the construction project poses a
fundamental threat to the site. The Bureau decided to transmit this
report to the Committee for the appropriate action.
*[29]
Ancient City of Damascus (Syrian Arab Republic)
The Secretariat recalled that a mission of five experts visited the
city of Damascus late 1995 and that their reports emphasized the
tremendous investment on the part of the Syrian authorities for the
conservation of the Mosque of the Omeyyades, but also expressed
severe concern and reservations about the conservation and
restoration approach and techniques.
In January of this year, UNESCO requested the Syrian authorities
to stop the work immediately and to continue it only when in-depth
studies would be carried out, and in accordance with international
standards for the respect of authenticity. The same request was
made by the Bureau during its twentieth session.
The Permanent Delegation of Syria informed the Secretariat that the
work had indeed been suspended.
In view of the importance of this issue, the Bureau decided to
transmit the report to the Committee for action and to recommend
the Committee to adopt the following:
"After being informed of the conclusions of UNESCO's expert
mission fielded at the request of the Syrian authorities in
November-December 1995 to the Mosque of the Omeyyades of
Damascus, as well as the Report of the President of the
Restoration Committee, the World Heritage Committee thanks the
authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic for interrupting the
work which it felt did not conform to the international
standards for restoration and conservation.
It strongly advises that one or two international experts,
proposed by the World Heritage Centre, be invited for a
consultation to help evaluate the situation, decide on
measures to be taken, and, should the need arise, determine
the most appropriate manner in which to pursue further work
which might be necessary. It recommends also that training of
national specialists and technicians be considered in
cooperation with ICCROM.
In this case, the Committee would of course be willing to
contribute to financing the participation of these
experts."
*[30]
Taos Pueblo (United States of America)
The Bureau, at its twentieth session, was informed that a
preliminary monitoring report from the United States National Park
Service indicated that no agreement had been reached as of yet
between the Federal Aviation Administration, the Taos Pueblo and
the National Park Service on the definition of the geographic area
of potential impacts and on the contents of the Environmental
Impact Statement. As to the recommendations made by the Committee
at its nineteenth session regarding the involvement of ICOMOS and
IUCN in the definition of the Impact Statement area, as well as a
possible extension of the site, the report indicated that these
will have to move forward in full consultation with the Pueblo,
which is self-governing.
The Bureau noted that no further information had been received from
the Government of the United States regarding the Environmental
Impact Statement on the proposed airport extension and the possible
extension of the World Heritage site. The United States observer
indicated that a representative of the National Park Service will
attend next week's Committee session and will be able to provide
further information.
The representative of ICOMOS reiterated its willingness to
cooperate with the U.S. authorities in this matter as recommended
by the Committee at its nineteenth session. He also remarked that
a wider protection of the Taos Pueblo area as a cultural landscape
would have facilitated the protection of the values of the site.
The Bureau decided to transmit the report to the Committee for
appropriate action.
Khami (Zimbabwe)
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the National Museums and
Monuments of Zimbabwe had reported that a strategic Action Plan for
the conservation and management of Khami is being formulated.
However, resources for maintenance work and surveillance are
inadequate.
*[31]
The Bureau decided to transmit the report on the state of
conservation to the Committee for action and to recommend the
Committee to adopt the following:
"The Committee takes note of the information provided by the
National Museums and Monuments concerning the threats of the
development project in the vicinity which are leading to
increased negative pressure on the site. It encourages the
Zimbabwe authorities to pursue their efforts for a better
conservation of this site by allocating adequate resources,
and transferring the expertise acquired at the site of Great
Zimbabwe."
c) State of conservation reports of cultural properties which
the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for noting
Butrinti (Albania)
The Secretariat reported that major studies were being undertaken
for tourism development of the World Heritage site of Butrinti and
that Albania had made a request for technical cooperation for
monitoring these activities, which, in the meantime, was approved
by the chairperson of the Committee. The assistance, however, could
not be implemented due to the non-payment of the contributions to
the World Heritage Fund.
The Bureau commended the Albanian authorities for their efforts at
Butrinti, and recommends that the Director of the World Heritage
Centre explore with the Albanian authorities a way of solving the
current difficulties so that a monitoring mission may be enacted in
the near future. The Bureau requests that the Committee be kept
informed about the on-going activities.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria)
In July of this year, the Permanent Delegation of Algeria
transmitted a progress report for the project entitled
*[32]
"Safeguarding Plan for the Kasbah of Algiers", and informed the
Centre that the training in Paris, financed by the World Heritage
Fund, of three architects in charge of drawing up the plan had been
satisfactory.
The Bureau took note of the information provided and warmly thanked
the Algerian authorities for having informed it of their strong
interest in the preservation of the Kasbah of Algiers and the
continuing measures taken for its safeguard, and requested them to
continue to devote their efforts to the conservation of this World
Heritage Site.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
City of Potosi (Bolivia)
In response to a request from the Committee at its nineteenth
session and the Bureau at its twentieth session, the Bolivian
authorities have informed the Secretariat that they are taking the
necessary measures to preserve the Cerro Rico mountain in Potosi
and its environment and that the Mining Company of Bolivia has
incorporated in the terms of reference for the exploitation of the
Cerro Rico to conserve the form and topography as well as the
natural environment of the Cerro Rico.
The Bureau noted with satisfaction that the Bolivian Mining
Corporation has included the preservation of the form, the
topography and the natural environment of the Cerro Rico as one of
the objectives for future exploitation of the Cerro Rico mountain.
The Bureau commended the Bolivian authorities for this action and
requested them to keep the Committee informed on further
developments in this respect.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
The Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples, Chengde (People's
Republic of China)
A UNESCO mission visited the Mountain Resort and its Outlying
Temples, in Chengde and noted remarkable achievements in the
*[33]
restoration of several of its buildings and of the landscape.
Major issues for the future are to bring development plans for the
town of Chengde in line with World Heritage conservation needs, the
improvement of buffer zone protection and the reduction of air
pollution.
The Representative from ICOMOS stated that even at the time of the
inscription of this site, the Chinese authorities had expressed
concern over the development of the town of Chengde and to control
its impact on the site.
The Bureau took note of the report provided by the Secretariat and
requested the authorities of China to inform the Committee of the
management and conservation and restoration programme for this
site, particularly regarding the development of the town of
Chengde.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Aksum (Ethiopia)
The Bureau took note of the report provided by the Secretariat that
the site management should be strengthened by providing and
collecting scientific documentation at the site level as the basis
for the management and conservation planning, particularly in view
of the master plan that is being prepared.
The Bureau warmly thanked the Ethiopian authorities for all their
efforts and the measures already taken to ensure the preservation
and enhancement of this site. It asked the Centre for Research and
Conservation of the Cultural Heritage (CRCCH) to continue its
efforts and to ensure that the scientific documentation at the site
be made available to the site manager. It reiterated that the
compilation of this documentation is a prerequisite for the
preparation of the management and conservation plans, and that
UNESCO is always ready to provide, where necessary, assistance in
obtaining documents that are not available in Ethiopia.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
*[35]
Lower Valley of the Awash (Ethiopia)
The Secretariat reported that in spite of its difficult access, it
appeared that the site is subject to the uncontrolled visits of
individual tourists seeking souvenir fossils. To provide better
protection and in order to further enhance this site, several
measures were recommended such as:
* the designation of a guide by the CRCCH;
* the construction of a museum;
* the eventual extension of the zone inscribed on the World
Heritage List.
The Bureau took note of the Secretariat's report and encouraged the
Centre for Research and Conservation of the Cultural Heritage
(CRCCH) to implement the above-mentioned proposals, and to keep the
World Heritage Centre informed of all progress accomplished.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Lower Valley of the Omo (Ethiopia)
The Secretariat reported that erosion endangers the site by erasing
the markers which had been planted during the last scientific
missions of 1974 and 1976 on the major sites, especially those that
had revealed hominid fossils.
Due to the suspension of the international missions since 1976, it
was recommended that a survey should be carried out on the present
state of the deposits to record the changes brought about by
erosion, to seek out the markers still in place and position each
locality by means of a GPS (Ground Positioning System).
The Bureau took note of the report provided by the Secretariat and
encouraged the Centre for Research and Conservation of the Cultural
Heritage (CRCCH) to undertake a survey and implement the above-
mentioned proposals, and requested the Ethiopian authorities to
keep the World Heritage Centre informed of the progress achieved.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
*[36]
Fasil Ghebbi (Gondar, Ethiopia)
Gondar was the political capital of Christian Ethiopia from 1632
to the middle of the 19th century. The Secretariat reported that
an extensive and high-quality three-year restoration programme is
being undertaken to transform the main palace into a museum of
Gondarian Civilization.
The Bureau warmly thanked the directorate of the Centre for
Research and Conservation of the Ethiopian Cultural Heritage
(CRCCH) for the financial and human efforts made towards the
preservation of this World Heritage Site, as well as the site
manager for his commitment and the quality of his work. It
considered the conservation project underway to be highly
satisfactory and exemplary, and hoped that other World Heritage
Sites will benefit from the competence and expertise of the team
in charge of the work. It would also be advisable that the
documentation concerning the history of the site and its
restoration be collected and deposited at Gondar and thus made
easily accessible to those working at the site.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Tiya (Ethiopia)
The city of Tiya is representative of the numerous archaeological
sites of the Megalithic period which bear witness to extinct
cultures.
The Secretariat reported that the preservation of the site is
effective, but that it could be further improved by a series of
measures such as:
* developing the surrounding area,
* installing a signposting system,
* numbering the stelae, and
* improving the maintenance of the grassy surface of the site
and the drainage system to avoid flooding during the rainy
season.
*[37]
However, for it to be truly enhanced, the site should be linked to
its cultural environment, i.e., with all the Megalithic sites of
the Soddo region. It would therefore be advisable to extend the
site inscribed to a significant regional cultural ensemble.
The Bureau encouraged the Centre for Research and Conservation of
the Cultural Heritage (CRCCH) to implement the above-mentioned
proposals which aim to improve the presentation of the site, and
to envisage its extension. It requests the Ethiopian authorities
to keep the World Heritage Centre informed of the progress
achieved.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Roman Monuments in Trier (Germany)
It was recalled that the Secretariat presented to the Bureau at its
twentieth session a report on a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS mission to
Trier in reference to the construction of urban villas and a
proposed urban development scheme in the immediate vicinity of the
Roman amphitheatre. The Bureau requested that a full report of the
mission, as well as on the progress made in undertaking the
architectural competition for the area north of the amphitheatre,
be presented to its next session in November 1996.
ICOMOS reported that the mission had been successful. ICOMOS was
involved in the drawing up of the terms of reference for the
architectural competition. It will also participate in the
evaluation of the designs. The urban villas which are already under
construction could be limited in their height so that they would
not been seen from the inside of the arena.
The German Delegate gave further information concerning the terms
of reference of the competition. He stressed that the main issue
is to analyze the possibility of re-opening the northern gate of
the amphitheatre which has been closed for centuries and to create
a way of communication from this northern gate to the other Roman
monuments of the town.
The Bureau requested that the German authorities provide a full
report concerning the entire area surrounding the Amphitheatre in
time for the next session of the Bureau.
*[38]
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Vilnius Old Town (Lithuania)
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the rehabilitation
programme of Vilnius Old Town is progressing well. In September
1996, the Danish/Scottish/Lithuanian consultant team submitted
their final report on the Revitalization Strategy and steps are
being taken to implement the consultantsþ recommendations, notably
the establishment of a management structure for the rehabilitation
programme. Furthermore a computer-assisted information system for
the rehabilitation of the historic centre is in preparation. The
President of the Republic of Lithuania and the Director General of
UNESCO have signed an agreement pledging to organize jointly, in
the first half of 1997, an International Donors and Investors
Conference for financing the rehabilitation programme. The World
Bank maintains its collaboration with the World Heritage Centre in
this endeavor.
ICCROM informed the Secretariat that it was also focussing its
attention on urban conservation in particular in the Baltic Region
and is planning to develop a training programme involving the
Baltic Region and expressed its wish to join forces with the
rehabilitation programme for Vilnius.
The Investors and Donors conferences organized in both Nepal and
Lithuania, to obtain funds for their World Heritage sites, were
welcomed and it was requested that the experiences in these two
Countries be published to serve as an example for other States
Parties and World Heritage sites.
The Bureau thanked the Danish Government, the World Bank and the
City of Edinburgh for their continuing support, welcomed the
agreement between Lithuania and UNESCO to organize the
International Donors and Investors Conference in 1997, pledged its
own support to this endeavor, commended the Lithuanian authorities
for their efforts, and encouraged them to pursue this promising
rehabilitation programme of Vilnius Old Town.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
*[39]
Archaeological sites of Bat, Al-Khutun and Al-Ayn (Oman)
On the occasion of a mission sent to Oman from 14 to 21 September
1996, UNESCO experts noted that several structures of the site of
Bat are now protected by wire fence enclosures, but that several
repairs or preventive measures should be taken.
Having noted the Secretariat report on the state of conservation
of the archaeological site of Bat, the Bureau thanked the Omani
authorities for preserving the structures of the site and
encouraged them to implement as quickly as possible the additional
measures already foreseen:
- repair of the fenced enclosures;
- diversion of the course of the neighbouring Wadi
which threatens the protection of the site;
- discreet marking in-situ, by appropriate methods, of the
position of the stones still in place in the walls.
- reinforcement of the security guards to avoid the theft
of the blocks of stone.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
The Monuments of Hue (Vietnam)
The inscription on the World Heritage List encouraged donations and
international patronage, in addition to substantial financial
allocation by the Vietnamese Government for conservation
activities. At present this support contributes to the restoration
of the monuments, the treatment of the wood against termites, and
to setting up a geographical information data system.
The Secretariat reported that considerable urban and regional
development for the area of Hue - Da Nang is being planned and
major infrastructural works are being considered with a possible
negative impact on the World Heritage site of Hue. The Centre
maintains contact with the Institute for Development and Strategy
of Hanoi (DSI) and the French Delegation for Territorial and
Regional Development (DATAR), as well as with the Japan
International Cooperation Agency, which are all involved in the
*[40]
development of the metropolitan area of the Hue - Danang region, to
ensure that the development plan takes into consideration the
conservation of Hue.
To ensure both conservation and development of this living historic
city, landuse and building regulations need to be urgently re-
evaluated and improved, especially with regard to the height and
volume of the buildings, the width and development of the streets,
as well as the commercial and residential landuse in the buffer
zones (zone 2 and 3) surrounding the monument zone (zone 1).
The Representative of ICOMOS expressed concern over the plan to
upgrade the road cutting across the World Heritage protected area
of Hue into a highway. The Secretariat stated that the Vietnamese
authorities have repeatedly assured UNESCO, through the Hue-UNESCO
Working Group on the International Safeguarding Campaign, that the
planned highway will not cut the site, nor have a negative impact
on the World Heritage value of Hue. The Secretariat, however,
expressed concern over the difficulty in keeping up-to-date on the
numerous major infrastructural development projects in Vietnam of
importance to the entire region.
The Bureau noted the Secretariat's report and requested UNESCO to
support the Vietnamese authorities to re-evaluate the landuse and
building regulations concerning the World Heritage protected area
and the buffer zones (Zones 2 and 3) as well as to participate in
the reflection on the various road construction/upgrading projects
currently under consideration. The Bureau also suggested that the
Vietnamese Government strengthen its inter-ministerial coordination
to ensure that the much-needed infrastructural development projects
do not undermine the World Heritage value of the site, and to
continue their on-going collaboration with the Governments of
France and Japan to reflect on the safeguarding needs of the World
Heritage Site of Hue within the context of the regional development
scheme.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
*[41]
Historic Town of Zabid (Yemen)
The World Heritage Bureau during its twentieth session was informed
that renovations which were seriously threatening the authenticity
and integrity of the Great Mosque of Zabid had been undertaken by
the local authorities.
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that, since then, it had
received the report of its expert stressing that the work is
presently being carried out in a manner more in keeping with the
traditional techniques; however, a water conveyance project planned
by the National Water and Sewerage Authority of Yemen and the
German Ministry for Cooperation (BMZ), could be a major hazard for
the preservation of the monuments of the city. Following
consultations with the Yemen and German authorities the Secretariat
received confirmation from the German Delegation that an agreement
has been reached with the Yemen authorities that the water project
will integrate sewage provisions.
The Bureau thanked the Yemenite authorities for having adopted
traditional methods more in conformity with the respect of
authenticity for the work of the Great Mosque of Zabid and
recommended that they consult as often as necessary the expert
designated by UNESCO. It also congratulated the Yemeni and German
authorities, the National Water and Sewerage Authority of Yemen,
the German Ministry of Cooperation (BMZ) and the KfW for having
decided last August to simultaneously implement the water supply
and sanitation systems in Zabid and other historic cities in order
to avoid any deterioration of their cultural monuments.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
Great Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe)
Considerable progress was reported in the preservation programme
for this extensive site: the site is managed by National Museums
and Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ) and a site management plan is in
place. As a result of a special Donors Conference held in 1992, the
site has also secured surveying equipment; a total survey and
technical expertise.
*[42]
The Bureau commended the Zimbabwe authorities for their efforts of
conservation and the professional expertise which is available
in situ. It recommended that the World Heritage
Centre be kept informed of on-going activities.
The Bureau decided to transmit its decision to the Committee for
noting.
IV. EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL
PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND LIST OF WORLD
HERITAGE IN DANGER
A. Natural properties
The Bureau, at its twentieth session, examined eleven new natural
nominations received for review by IUCN. IUCN informed the Bureau
that due to climatic conditions field missions could not be carried
out for all of these sites in time for the June meeting of the
Bureau. The Bureau also examined one extension to a World Heritage
site and two previously deferred nominations. The Secretariat
furthermore informed the Bureau that one site was withdrawn at the
twentieth session of the Bureau.
At its twentieth extraordinary session the Bureau reviewed six
properties which were referred back. In addition, the Secretariat
informed the Bureau that one site which was deferred in 1994 was
withdrawn by the State Party prior to the session.
*[43]
A.1 Properties recommended for inscription on the World Heritage List
Name of property Identi- State Party Criteria
fication having submitted
the nomination
(in accordance
with Article 11 of
the Convention)
Belize Barrier 764 Belize N(ii)(iii)(iv)
Reef Reserve System
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the Belize Barrier
Reef Reserve System under criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv) as the
largest barrier reef in the Northern hemisphere, as a serial
nomination consisting of seven sites. The Reef illustrates a
classic example of reefs through fringing, barrier and atoll reef
types. It commended the Belize authorities for having responded to
the Bureau's request concerning the clarification on the boundaries
of the nominated property, confirmation of the legal status of the
different parts of the nomination and statements on the concerns on
oil exploitation at the reef. The Bureau took note of the request
by the State Party to change the name for the nominated property to
"Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System".
Lake Baikal 754 Russian N(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
Federation
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe Lake Baikal as an
outstanding example of a freshwater lake on the basis of criteria
(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). It is the oldest and deepest of the
world's lakes containing nearly 20% of the world's unfrozen
freshwater reserve. The lake contains an outstanding variety of
endemic flora and fauna, which is of exceptional value to
evolutionary science. It is also surrounded by a system of
protected areas that have high scenic and other natural values. The
Bureau took note of the confirmation of the revised boundaries of
the site, which correspond to the core areas defined in the Baikal
*[44]
Law (excluding the five urban developed areas). It also noted that
the special Lake Baikal Law is now in its second reading in the
Duma. It noted finally concern over a number of integrity issues
including pollution which should be brought to the attention of the
Russian authorities.
The Volcanoes of 765 Russian N(i)(ii)(iii)
Kamchatka Federation
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the Volcanoes of
Kamchatka as one of the most outstanding examples of the volcanic
regions in the world on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iii).
The site contains a high density of active volcanoes, a variety of
different types and a wide range of volcanic features. The
Peninsula location between a large continental landmass and the
Pacific Ocean also exhibits unique characteristics with major
concentrations of wildlife. The Bureau also discussed the
possibilities of mining near the site and the need to strengthen
site management capacity.
A.2. Properties which the Bureau deferred
W National Park 749 Niger
The Bureau took note of the advice by IUCN that the nominated
property would not meet natural criteria of the World Heritage
Convention. The Bureau heard a summary report on the "Sub-regional
Training Seminar for Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site
Managers from Francophone Africa" held at La Tapoa, Niger, from 29
September to 6 October 1996, and took note of the full report
contained in Working Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.1 and Addendum.
A considerable debate followed, including the question of the
protection of the whole "W National Park" ecosystem (Benin,
Burkina-Faso, Niger), the assessment of cultural values in the
region and the integrity and the management of the site.
The Bureau decided to defer this nomination to allow the
authorities of Niger, Benin and Burkina-Faso to consider
preparation of a nomination of the total "W National Park" Region,
also taking into account cultural values, in particular cultural
*[45]
criterion (vi), and that the World Heritage Centre provides its
assistance in this matter as far as possible.
After the Bureau took its decision, the Delegate of Niger declared
that while respecting the Bureau's decision, his Delegation
formally disassociated itself from it.
The Sikhote-Alin Natural 766 Russian Federation
Complex
The Bureau noted important biological values and threatened
species, including the Siberian Tiger. The Bureau however, was of
the opinion that the boundary of the nomination is not justified,
that a legal basis is only provided for 14% of the nominated area
and that the Regional Government wished to be involved in a revised
nomination. The Bureau decided to defer the property.
The Ubsunuur Hollow 769 Russian Federation/
Mongolia
The Bureau whilst noting that IUCN had not assessed the Mongolian
portion of this nomination, considered the great variety of
ecosystems of this transfrontier nomination and noted the important
interaction of humans and nature in the area. The Bureau considered
however, that there is minimal evidence of any site management,
that there is need for clarification of the boundaries of the site
and that other information is missing in the nomination dossier.
There may also be a need to consider cultural criteria for this
site. The Bureau decided to defer this property .
A.3. Change in the name of an inscribed site on the World
Heritage List
Cape Girolata, Cape Porto 258 France
and Scandola Nature Reserve
in Corsica
The Bureau took note of the letter dated 30 July 1996, in which the
French authorities informed the Centre that they wish to change the
*[46]
name of the site "Cape Girolata, Cape Porto and Scandola Nature
Reserve in Corsica" (France) to add "The Piana Calanches". The
Bureau recommended to the Committee this change of name and to
adopt the following name:"Cape Girolata, Cape Porto, Scandola
Nature Reserve, and the Piana Calanches in Corsica".
A.4. Nomination of properties recommended for inscription on the
List of World Heritage in Danger
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session examined the
state of conservation reports contained in working document WHC-
96/CONF.203/3 (which was also made available to Committee members
as document WHC-96/CONF.201/7B), and additional information
provided in information document WHC-96/CONF.203/INF.2 (which is
also made available to Committee members as document WHC-
96/CONF.201/INF.23) and decided to recommend the following
properties for the List of World Heritage in Danger:
Galapagos National Park (Ecuador)
Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)
Garamba National Park (Zaire)
B. Cultural properties
At its twentieth session in June 1996, the Bureau examined thirty-
three new proposals for inscription, one extension and four
proposals for incription which had been deferred or referred back
for additional information. The Bureau also decided to postpone
discussion on one of the proposals until the outgoing Bureau.
During its session in November, the Bureau examined one mixed
property and six proposals for inscription.
*[47]
B.1 Properties recommended for inscription on the World
Heritage List
Lushan National 778 China C(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)
Park
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property
on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (ii),
(iii), (iv) and (vi), considering that the monuments of the
historical heritage on Mount Lushan blend in their style and, more
particularly, their settings with its outstanding natural beauty to
create a cultural landscape of outstanding aesthetic value, and
also powerful associations with Chinese spiritual and cultural
life.
Verla Groundwood 751 Finland C(iv)
and Board Mill
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property
on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criterion (iv)
considering that the Verla Groundwood and Board Mill and its
associated habitation area is an outstanding and remarkably well
preserved example of the small-scale rural industrial settlement
associated with pulp, paper and board production that flourished
in northern Europe and North America in the 19th and early 20th
centuries, of which only a handful survives to the present day.
Upper Svaneti 709 Georgia C(iv)(v)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property
on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (iv)
and (v) considering that the Upper Svaneti region is an exceptional
landscape that has preserved to a remarkable degree its original
medieval appearance, notable for the distribution, form and
architecture of its human settlements.
Hiroshima Peace 775 Japan C(vi)
Memorial (Genbaku
Dome)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the Peace
Memorial, Genbaku Dome, on the World Heritage List on an
exceptional basis, under cultural criterion (vi).
*[48]
The Ancient ksour 750 Mauritania C(iii)(iv)(v)
of Ouadane, Chinguetti,
Tichitt, Oualata
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this property on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (iii),
(iv) and (v), considering that these four ancient cities constitute
exceptional examples of settlements built to serve the important
trade routes of the Sahara Desert, and which were witness to
cultural, social and economic contacts for many centuries.
The Historic Monuments 792 Mexico C(iv)
Zone of Querétaro
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this property on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (ii) and
(iv), considering that Querétaro is an exceptional example of a
Spanish colonial town whose layout symbolizes its multi-ethnic
population. It is also endowed with a wealth of outstanding
buildings, notably from the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Prehispanic Town 791 Mexico C(i)(ii)(iii)
of Uxmal
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this property on
the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (I), (ii) and
(iii) considering that the ruins of the ceremonial structures at
Uxmal represent the pinnacle of late Mayan art and architecture in
their design, layout and ornamentation. Furthermore, the complex
of Uxmal and its four related towns of Kabah, Labna, Sayil and
Xlapak constitute a remarkable example of the socio-economic
structure of the Maya society at the end of its reign.
ICOMOS informed the Bureau that the Mexican authorities had taken
the measures that were requested by the twentieth session of the
Bureau by reducing the visibility of the son-et-lumière
installations and proposing to include four related sites in the
vicinity of Uxmal in the nomination.
*[49]
B.2 Change in the name of a mixed property that the June Bureau
recommended for inscription on the World Heritage List
The Laponian Area 774 Sweden C(iii)(v)
N(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
In June 1996, the Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe
this property: The Laponian Area Precious Nature - Saami Culture,
on the World Heritage List based on cultural criteria (iii) and
(v). In accordance with the wishes of the Swedish authorities, and
following a proposal by ICOMOS, the Bureau recommended to change
the name of this property and incorporate a minor addition to the
ICOMOS citation: The Laponian region of northern Sweden which
was continually occupied by the Saami population since prehistoric
times, is one of the last and unquestionably the largest and
best preserved examples of an area of transhumance, involving
summer grazing by large reindeer herds , a practice that was
widespread at one time and which dates back to an early stage in
human economic and social development.
EXAMINATION OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE REQUESTS
NATURAL HERITAGE
The Bureau noted that funds for natural heritage are still
available from the 1996 budget: US$ 75,222 for technical
cooperation and US$ 70,760 for training. The Bureau therefore
examined and approved the following requests:
A. Requests concerning the natural heritage for an amount
between US$ 20,000 and US$ 30,000 approved by the Bureau
under the 1996 budget
A.1 TECHNICAL COOPERATION
A.1.1 Identification of potential natural heritage sites in the
Arab countries (Egypt) (US$ 29,346 requested)
The Bureau approved the request for a reduced amount of US$
13,300 and suggested that the workshop proposed as a part of
the study be linked to the training workshop in Morocco on
"Training in the *[50] Conservation and Management of Natural
Heritage in the Arab Region: Biodiversity Conservation in Protected
Areas". The Bureau furthermore requested that other States Parties
from the Arab Region be included in the study.
A.2 TRAINING
A.2.1 Training in the Conservation and Management of Natural
Heritage in the Arab Region: Biodiversity Conservation in Protected
Areas (Morocco) (US$ 29,000 requested)
The Bureau approved the request for an amount of US$ 29,000
and asked the Secretariat to contact the organizers to examine
the outcome of the Egyptian study to be prepared on the
"Identification of potential natural heritage sites in the Arab
countries" (A.1.1) during this training workshop.
A.2.2 Management Planning for Sustainable Tourism at Ha Long
Bay World Heritage site (Vietnam) (US$ 24,250 requested)
The Bureau recognized the necessity to train staff of the site
management authority on tourism issues. The Bureau suggested
however to organize training for the development of a strategic
plan for the management of Ha Long Bay including sustainable
tourism development. The Bureau approved an amount of US$
24,250 as a contribution to the organization of such a
strategic planning meeting for Ha Long Bay World Heritage site.
A.2.3 Individual Scholarships at the College of African
Wildlife Management, Mweka (Tanzania) (US$ 30,000
requested)
The Bureau approved a sum of US $ 30,000 for scholarships
for three students for a one-year cycle (1997/98) subject to the
submission of a formal request by the College authorities.
A.2.4 Regional Training Course on Critical Wetlands Habitats:
Keoladeo National Park (India) (US$ 30,000 requested)
The Bureau took note of this request and recommended the
Secretariat to present it to the New Bureau, as all training funds
from 1996 have been committed.
*[51]
B. Requests for natural heritage above US$ 30,000 which
the Bureau recommended for approval by the Committee
(1997 budget):
B.1 TECHNICAL COOPERATION
B.1.1 Second Meeting of the Regional Network for the
Management of World Heritage, Thung Yai-Hua Kha
Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries (Thailand) (US$ 65,000
requested)
The Bureau recommended to the Committee to provide core-funding of
US$ 50,000 in support of the organization of the Second
Meeting of the Regional Network for the Management of World
Heritage in Southeast Asia, Southwest Pacific, Australia and New
Zealand. The Bureau however, requested clarficiation from the Thai
authorities about the national contribution and contributions from
other sources.
B.1.2 Technical Workshop to be held on the Conservation of
Simen National Park (Ethiopia) (US$ 46,000 requested)
The Bureau recommended to the Committee the approval of a reduced
amount of US$ 30,000 and requested the State Party in
consultation with the Secretariat and IUCN, to better define the
programme of the workshop, the expected outputs and to revise the
budget.
B.2 TRAINING
B.2.1 Nineteenth International Protected Areas Course
CATIE, (Costa Rica) (US$ 48,000 requested)
The Bureau recommended to the Committee to approve a sum of US
$ 30,000 for travel, board and lodging for participants to
attend the nineteenth International Protected Areas Course CATIE,
Costa Rica, subject to the submission of a detailed travel budget
to the World Heritage Centre.
B.2.2 Individual Scholarships at the School for the Training
of Wildlife Specialists at Garoua (Cameroon) (US$45,000
requested)
The Bureau recommended to the Committee to approve an amount for
US$ 45,000 for scholarships for three students from States
Parties *[52] of francophone African countries for two years
(1997/98 to 1998/99).
C. Requests for natural heritage above US$ 30,000 which
the Bureau does not recommend approval by the Committee
(1997 budget)
C.1. TECHNICAL COOPERATION
C.1.1 Technical Cooperation for Strengthening Management and
Protection of Ha Long Bay World Heritage site (Vietnam)
(US$ 64,310 requested)
The Bureau did not recommend this request to the Committee and
recalled that it had already approved a request for a workshop at
Ha Long Bay World Heritage site. The Bureau suggested that this
workshop may look into the question of equipment needs and that
specific recommendations may be brought to donor agencies,
including the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
which is involved in various activities in Halong Bay.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Since the 1996 allocations for cultural heritage are entirely
committed, the outgoing Bureau examined nine requests the amounts
of which were above US $ 30,000 and formulated its recommendations.
The Bureau also examined an emergency request.
D. Requests for cultural heritage above US$ 30,000 which
the Bureau recommends approval by the Committee
(1997 budget)
D.1. TECHNICAL COOPERATION
D.1.1 Historic Centre of the Town of Olinda (Brazil)
(US$ 33,000 requested)
Considering the potential inclusion of Olinda in a major programme
for the development of tourism in the north-east of Brazil with
subsequent funding possiblities for the rehabilitation and
restoration of Olinda, the Bureau recommended approval for the
amount of US$ 33,000 for this technical cooperation to
support the *[53] municipality authorities in the creation of a
project office in Olinda for a feasibility study on urban
rehabilitation and restoration.
D.1.2 Conservation of Traditional Houses in Luang Prabang
(Laos) (US$ 49,900 requested)
The Bureau recommended approval for an amount of US$ 39,900
to meet the above request (with a reduction of input for the
purchase of building material from US$ 20,000 to US$ 10,000) to co-
finance a project to impart skills for the conservation of
traditional wooden houses; to ameliorate the quality of locally
produced bricks and roof tiles and to distribute traditional
building material (roof tiles and wood) to renovate ten houses
owned by poor families.
D.1.3 Serra da Capivara National Park (Brazil)
(US$ 35,000 requested)
The Bureau recommended approval for an amount of US$ 35,000
for technical cooperation for the documentation, inventory and
observation of the conditions of the rock paintings at Serra da
Capivara National Park.
D.1.4 Joya de Ceren Archaeological Site (El Salvador)
(US$ 10,000 requested in addition to US$ 25,000 already
approved in 1994)
Considering the fragility of the site and the complexity of its
conservation and management and the need to continue the process
started in 1994, the Bureau recommended approval of the additional
amount of US$ 10,000 for an international seminar on the
conservation and management of Joya de Ceren and its surroundings
that will be held in 1997.
D.2 TRAINING
D.2.1 Latin America and the Caribbean: Regional Graduate
Training Course on 'Integrated Urban and Territorial
Conservation' (ITUC/BR) (request submitted by Brazil)
(US$ 42,600 requested)
*[54]
The course responds to the training strategy for cultural heritage
and the needs identified through a great number of state of
conservation reports. Considering that the course is the first one
of its kind in the region, that twenty-three World Heritage sites
in the region are historical cities or urban areas representing
fifty percent of the cultural sites, the Bureau recommended
approval for an amount of US$ 40,000, providing that
fellowships be awarded to participants with a responsibility for
properties inscribed on the World Heritage List.
D.2.2 Training Course for an Integrated Approach to Urban
Conservation (ICCROM) (US$ 40,000 requested)
Given that the advisory bodies are being requested, within the
overall strategy described in Document WHC-96/CONF.201/12,
to develop thematic courses at the international level and adapt
them at the regional level, the Bureau recommended approval for the
amount of US$ 30,000 to co-finance an international training
workshop for World Heritage City managers to be organized at ICCROM
with participants responsible for the conservation management of
historic cities or areas, and teachers.
D.2.3 Conservation of Immovable Property in Sub-Sahara, Africa
(ICCROM) (US$ 50,000 requested)
Given that the pilot project for Africa is part of the overall
training strategy for cultural properties as described in
Document WHC-96/CONF.201/12, the Bureau recommended approval
for the amount of US$ 50,000. This amount will co-finance
the implementation of the first phase of the project, to organize
a seminar in Africa with African partners, and identify scientific
partners for thematic approaches for the preservation of stone,
brick and wood and timber conservation and archaeological sites.
D.2.4 Pilot Project on Conservation Programme James Island
(Gambia) (US$ 40,000 requested)
The Bureau recommended approval for the amount of US$ 40,000
in the light of the recommendation for the training strategy south
of the Sahara, and requested ICCROM/GAIA to implement this project
which is an illustration of their strategic approach. The project
will cover on-site training in James Island to enable the Museums
and *[55] Monuments Department to prepare conservation plans not
only for James Island but for other sites as well.
E. Requests for cultural heritage above US$ 30,000
which the Bureau does not recommend approval by the
Committee
E.1 TECHNICAL COOPERATION
E.1.1 Third General Assembly of the Organization of World
Heritage Cities and the 4th Symposium of World Heritage
Cities, Evora (Portugal) (US$ 50,000 requested)
The Bureau debated on this request and decided to transmit it to
the Committee without recommendation. Some members of the Bureau
recalled the decision of the Committee at its eighteenth session
held in Phuket not to finance the Organization of World Heritage
Cities. Some members, however, indicated that a reduced amount can
perhaps be granted to enable the Mayors of World Heritage Cities in
the developng world to participate in the Symposium on "Tourism and
World Heritage Cities".
F. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE
F.1 Emergency Assistance for the Teatro Sucre in The City of Quito
(Ecuador) (US$ 50,000 requested)
Considering that the total contribution under the World Heritage
Emergency Reserve Fund for the theatre, would amount to US$ 65,000
(US$ 15,000 approved in 1996 plus the additional amount of US$
50,000), the Bureau examined this request and approved the amount
of US$ 50,000 as Emergency Assistance for structural
reinforcement and adaptation.
During the debate the Bureau noted that several requests for
international assistance were related to state of conservation
reports on the same properties and suggested the Committee to
consider if these should be examined together. It also suggested
that the presentation to the next sessions be harmonized so that
state of conservation and requests for assistance could be studied
jointly. Finally, it requested the Centre to prepare for the next
sessions, a presentation of all the yearly recurrent requests for
assistance such as fellowships.
*[56]
VI. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
The Chairperson then declared the twentieth extraordinary session
of the Bureau closed.
*[EOF]