Limited distribution
WHC-92/CONF.003/2
Paris, 10 July 1992
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL
AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Sixteenth Session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 6-10 July 1992
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
*[1]
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The sixteenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee was held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 6 to 10
July 1992. All the Bureau members attended: Mr. Azedine
Beschaouch (Tunisia), Chairperson; Mr. Diaz Berrio (Mexico),
Rapporteur; and representatives of Brazil, France, Senegal,
Thailand, United States of America as Vice-Chairpersons.
2. Representatives of the following States to the Convention
attended the meeting of the Bureau as observers: Australia,
Canada, China, Cyprus, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, EL Salvador,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Philippines, Syrian Arab Republic,
Russia, Czechoslovakia, Turkey.
3. Representatives of the Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the
International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the
World Conservation Union (IUCN) also attended the meeting in an
advisory capacity. The full list of participants appears in
Annex I.
II. OPENING OF THE SESSION
4. The Deputy Director-General for Programmes, Mr. Portella,
welcomed participants on behalf of the Director-General. He
commended the progress made in the implementation of the World
Heritage Convention and highlighted the challenges ahead which
have to be met at a time of rapid global change.
He made reference to several of the events taking place this
year at UNESCO Headquarters and in the States Parties, to
commemorate twenty years of successful work under the World
Heritage Convention. He informed the Bureau members of the
decision taken by the Director-General to establish the UNESCO
World Heritage Centre in order to strengthen the UNESCO World
Heritage Secretariat by bringing together experts from the
cultural and natural heritage realms. He congratulated Mr. B.
von Droste on his appointment as Director of the Centre and
wished his young team success in its future work. He expressed
the hope that the Centre would effectively help States Parties
in their endeavor to protect humankind's priceless heritage
which must be Passed on to future generations.
He concluded by emphasizing the importance of the work
related to strategic planning for the future implementation of
the Convention which the Bureau will guide during its current
session, thus providing direction to all partners of the World
Heritage system for the future.
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
5. The Bureau decided to consider the monitoring of the state
of conservation of natural heritage properties on the World
Heritage List before proceeding with the examination of the
*[3]
monitoring of the state of conservation of cultural properties.
With this modification, the Bureau then adopted the agenda as it
had bean set out in document CLT-92/CONF.003/1
IV. REPORT OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE ~HE FIFTEENTH SESSION
OF THE COMMITTEE
6. The Secretary of the World Heritage Committee, Mr. B. von
Droste, reported on the activities undertaken since the fifteenth
session of the Committee held in Carthage, Tunisia, in December
1991. He began by informing the delegates that the Convention
has been ratified or accepted by four new States Parties :
Republic of Lithuania, Solomon Islands, Japan and the Republic
of Croatia. The total number of States Parties to the Convention
was now 127.
7. Mr. B. von Droste provided an overview of the events which
will take place during the next three months at UNESCO
Headquarters to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the
adoption of the Convention and thanked the States Parties which
have contributed to the organization of exhibits, conferences and
cultural events.
8. He outlined priorities of work for the World Heritage Centre
this year and gave details of the different steps which would be
followed in the launching of the strategy for the implementation
of the Convention for the next ten years. This strategy will be
finalized and adopted at the sixteenth session of the World
Heritage Committee at Santa Fe, USA, in December 1992.
Furthermore, he pointed out that the systematic monitoring of the
state of conservation of World Heritage properties inscribed on
the List of World Heritage in Danger and on the World Heritage
List would be an important concern for joint work with States
Parties and advisory bodies. In this connection he gave detailed
information on the devastation caused by the on-going armed
conflict in the Republic of Croatia resulting in the large-scale
destruction of the Old City of Dubrovnik and endangering the
integrity of the Plitvice Lake National Park. He also gave
details on the present situation at Mt. Nimba (Côte
d'Ivoire/Guinea), the conservation of which has been an important
concern of the Committee at its last session, particularly in
relation to minimizing threats posed by an iron-ore mining
project. He also informed the delegates of initial steps that
had been taken in co-operation with Cambodia for the inscription
of Angkor on the World Heritage List.
9. He concluded by highlighting the special significance of the
sixteenth session of the World Heritage Committee which, thanks
to the kind invitation of the United States of America, will be
convened in Santa Fe, new Mexico from 6-14 December 1992.
10. The Chairperson thanked the Director o f the World Heritage
Centre for the report and emphasized the task of the Bureau in
elaborating a future strategy for implementing the World Heritage
Convention.
*[4]
V. MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF NATURAL
PROPERTIES AND RELATED TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
11. The Bureau examined document CLAWED-92/CONF.003/3 and reviewed
progress reports on the state of conservation of fifteen natural
and mixed sites. The representatives of IUCN presented another
document (in English only) providing supplementary information
on these fifteen sites and progress reports on the state of
conservation of a number of other natural and mixed sites.
12. The Bureau noted that several States Parties have not
responded to letters sent by the Secretariat transmitting the
observations and recommendations of the Committee regarding the
state of conservation of World Heritage properties within their
territories. The Bureau urged the States Parties to respond to
the queries of the Committee in order to facilitate the work of
the Committee. The Bureau made specific observations and
recommendations on the state of conservation of the following
sites .
Iguazu National Park (Argentina) and Iguaçu National Park
(Brazil)
13. The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last session,
had noted that eight helicopters simultaneously overflow the
waterfall area and that local conservation groups opposed the use
of the area by helicopters since it contravened legal regulations
for air traffic over protected areas. At its last session, the
Committee was informed that the Brazilian authorities had
established a group to study the matter and had requested the
Secretariat to contact the Argentine authorities to obtain
information on the steps taken by them. The Brazilian
authorities have, by their letter of 5 June 1992, indicated that
the Working Group had considered the positive (economic benefits
to local people) and negative (noise pollution) aspects of
helicopter tourism and had identified potential mechanisms
(regulation of number of visits, time-table of visits, maximum
level of noise permitted for helicopter traffic in the area,
taxing helicopter operators for using the National Park area) for
regulation and control. However, the Group had concluded that
at present the negative impacts do not override the positive
effects and had recommended that the situation be further
monitored before any regulatory measures are introduced.
The Argentine authorities, by their letter of 17 June 1992,
provided information on the joint efforts of their National Park
Administration and Air Force to establish an agreement to
regulate use of the air space over the Iguazu National Park by
helicopters. Until such time as an agreement will be drafted and
finalized, the existing norms for use of air space between
surface level and an altitude of 112 km will be strictly
enforced. Violation of these regulations by an helicopter
operator is punishable by cancellation, for six months, of the
permit to use the National Park area.
*[4]
The Bureau noted the views of, and the steps taken by the
two States Parties concerned to regulate helicopter use of the
air space over the waterfall area and requested IUCN and the
World Heritage Centre to continue to monitor the problem and its
management by the authorities responsible for the two National
Parks.
Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)
14. The Bureau noted that, as requested by the Committee at the
time of the inscription of this property on the World Heritage
List in 1988, IUCN had undertaken a mission to the site. The
Bureau learnt with satisfaction that despite a slow start, the
management of the Wet Tropics area had achieved much progress
last Year, particularly with respect to:
(a) establishing a headquarters and appointment of staff; (b)
drafting of legislation; (c) preparing of management plans and
site plans; (d) carrying out a number of policy-relevant studies;
(e) setting-up advisory committees and a management authority (f)
improving budgetary allocations for site management, and (g)
rehabilitating degraded forest areas.
The Bureau commended the Australian authorities for taking
these steps for ensuring the adequate management of this site and
requested IUCN and the World Heritage Centre to continue to
monitor progress.
Srebarna Biosphere Reserve (Bulgaria)
15. The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last session,
recommended that the Bulgarian authorities nominate this site for
inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger because this
small (600 hectare) World Heritage site had lost much of its
ecological viability. The Bureau was informed that IUCN had
undertaken two missions to Bulgaria since the last session of the
Committee and that although the site's importance as a Ramsar
site and a Biosphere Reserve, in particular within a European
context, could still be retained with the implementation of
specific remedial actions, its World Heritage status can no
longer be justified because it has deteriorated to a state where
it has irretrievably lost many of the characteristics which
determined its inclusion on the World Heritage List.
The Bureau recommended that the Committee, at its
forthcoming session in December, consider deleting this property
from the World Heritage List, and in accordance with paragraph
41(c) of the Operational Guidelines, requested the World Heritage
Centre to inform the Bulgarian authorities of its recommended i on
to the Committee. The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre
to obtain all observations and comments the Bulgarian authorities
may wish to make regarding this recommendation to the Committee
in time to submit them to the consideration of the Committee,
scheduled to meet in December 1992.
*[6]
Dinosaur Provincial Park (Canada)
16. The Bureau was in agreement with the proposal of the
Canadian authorities to delete 423 hectares, where petroleum and
natural gas exploration will take place, and add 2,133 hectares
of significantly higher conservation value to this site. In
effect, the proposed modification of the boundaries of the site
has resulted in a net gain of about 1,700 hectares in the total
area of this Park. The Bureau recommended that the Committee
register the report and the map provided by the Canadian
authorities describing the revised boundaries of this World
Heritage site.
Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada)
17. The Bureau was informed of progress achieved by the Canadian
authorities in addressing threats to the conservation of this
site. The Bureau congratulated the Canadian authorities for the
programme of action they have set in motion for its conservation.
However, the Bureau was in agreement with the fact that
safeguarding the World Heritage values of this site require
continuous action over the long-term and requested the World
Heritage Centre and IUCN to monitor the state of conservation of
this site to report to the Committee any problems that may arise.
Manovo-Gounda Saint Floris National Park (Central African
Republic)
18. The Bureau recalled that when this site was inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1988, several members of the Committee had
registered their reservations as to its state of conservation and
several threats to its integrity. The Bureau was concerned that
despite assurances given to the Committee at the time of its
inscription and the US$27 million EEC project in the region, the
deterioration of the property had continued and this site still
does not have a management plan. The Bureau took note of the
intention of the President of the Central African Republic to
transfer the management of the site to a private foundation and
of the invitation made to UNESCO to participate, as a scientific
body, in the management of the site by this foundation. The
Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to study this
proposal, together with IUCN, and undertake a detailed analysis
of the implications of the transfer of management of the site to
a private foundation. The Bureau requested the World Heritage
Centre to contact the state Party to know whether the national
authorities would invite an expert mission to review the state
of conservation of this Park and assess the proposal to lease its
management to a private organization. The Bureau emphasized that
such a mission should build upon the recent project audit carried
out by the EEC and present recommendations on the future
viability and management of this site.
*[7]
Talamanca-La Amistad National Park (Costa Rica/Panama)
19. The Bureau commended the Panamanian authorities for
preventing 59,000 hectares of La Amistad National Park being
released for oil exploration.
The Bureau noted that the Costa Rican authorities have not
responded to the Secretariat's letter of 6 February l992,
requesting them to consider revising the boundaries of the
Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves by deleting four Indian Reserves
in the north-eastern Atlantic sector and submit a map showing the
new boundaries of the site. Furthermore, the Bureau was also
informed by the representative of IUCN that earlier plans to
construct a road through the middle of the Talamanca-La Amistad
Reserves of Costa Rica were also being revived.
The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to contact
the Costa Rican authorities to request, once again, that they
consider revising the boundaries of the Reserves and provide a
map showing the new boundaries. Furthermore, the Bureau requested
the World Heritage Centre to obtain detailed information
regarding the proposal for constructing a road through the middle
of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves, including an assessment of
the potential impact of this project on the state of conservation
of the site. A report on the situation should be given to the
committee at its forthcoming session.
Plitvice Lake National Park (Republic of Croatia)
20. The Bureau noted that the Croatian authorities have
officially informed UNESCO that they will abide by the
obligations of the World Heritage Convention and requested that
a joint UNESCO/IUCN mission be undertaken to assess the impacts
which unrest in the region has had on the state of conservation
of Plitvice Lake National Park. The Bureau recommended that the
Committee, as requested by the Croatian authorities, inscribe
Plitvice Lake National Park on the List of World Heritage in
Danger. The Bureau also decided to set aside an amount upto
USS30,000 as emergency assistance to enable the organization of
a joint UNESCO/IUCN mission to the site, in co-operation with the
Croatian authorities as well as the relevant UN bodies
responsible for monitoring the conflict in the region, in order
to prepare and initiate the implementation of an international
assistance project for the rehabilitation of the Plitvice Lake
National Park.
Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
21. The Bureau was satisfied to note that the Sub-Secretario
Forestal y Recursos Naturales y Renovables which is responsible
for the management of this site has been successful in halting
a proposed road construction project in order to bring together
the relevant provincial and national agencies to discuss the
environmental impact of the project and plan mitigating measures.
In this regard, the Bureau commended the Ecuadorean authorities
for having obtained official approval for including substantial
*[8]
areas south of the World Heritage site into the National Park.
The Bureau, however, was concerned about the information reported
by the representative of IUCN regarding heavy poaching of
wildlife, illegal livestock grazing and encroachment in this
World Heritage site. The Bureau requested the World Heritage
Centre to contact the Ecuadorean authorities and suggest that
they invite international and/or regional experts to join
Ecuadorean specialists to assess impacts of the road construction
project and threats to the integrity of this site. The Bureau
recommended that on the basis of more information received on the
potential impact of the road construction project and threats,
the World Heritage Committee, at its forthcoming session in
December 1992, decide whether or not this site ought to be
included on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Galapagos National Park (Ecuador)
22. The Bureau was informed that the employees of this World
Heritage site recently staged a four-week strike demanding higher
salaries and other improvements of their working conditions. The
Bureau also noted that a draft tourism and conservation plan for
Galapagos is now being finalized and the Master Plan for the
management of the Park would have to be revised in the light of
the strategies and programme of actions foreseen in the tourism
and conservation plan. The Bureau recommended that the World
Heritage Centre contact the Ecuadorean authorities and request
them to consider undertaking all possible measures to improve
salaries and working conditions of the Park staff and revise the
Master Plan for the management of the site, in order to harmonize
its implementation with that of the tourism and conservation plan
for Galapagos.
Simien National Park (Ethiopia)
23. The Bureau noted with satisfaction that the Ethiopian
authorities have submitted a rehabilitation project for this
site. This project is now being implemented with US$50,000
approved by the World Heritage Committee.
Mt. Nimba Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire )
24. The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its last session
concluded that the reduction in the size of this site proposed
by the Government of Guinea in order to exclude areas that would
be impacted by a proposed iron-ore mining project, posed a major
threat to its integrity. Taking into account that the site also
faced several other threats, the Committee, at its last session
recommended that the Governments of Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea
nominate this site for inscription on the List of World Heritage
in Danger.
The Bureau noted with satisfaction that experts of Côte
d'Ivoire and Guinea, together with representatives of UNDP and
UNESCO had met, from 29 June to 3 July 1992, at Mt Nimba and, on
*[9]
the basis of field visits and consultations, have endorsed the
conclusions of the Committee and requested the Governments of
Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea to urgently nominate this site for
inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau
noted with concern that the site continues to be under pressure
from interest groups which are eager to take advantage of the
economic benefits of exploiting the iron-ore deposits in this
site. The Bureau, however, noted that so far no iron-ore mining
activities have been undertaken and that bi-and multilateral
donors have refrained from financing such a project.
The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to contact
the authorities of Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea and, once again, urge
them to nominate this site to the List of World Heritage in
Danger. Furthermore, the Bureau recommended that the World
Heritage Centre co-operate with the two States Parties concerned
and donor agencies such as the World Bank and UNDP to develop a
integrated rural development project to bring socio-economic
benefits to people living in the immediate vicinity of this World
Heritage site.
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
25. The World Heritage Centre informed the Bureau that the
damage caused by the invasion of this Sanctuary by militants from
the Bodo tribe in Assam, India, was estimated to be about 50
million Indian rupees (about 1.6 million US dollars). Although
considerable damage was done to the Park infrastructure, the
habitat in the inaccessible parts of the Sanctuary still remained
intact. The Bureau, while noting that the conditions for
introducing normal management and administration regimes for the
site may be improving, was nevertheless concerned that a full
assessment of damage had not been made and that the Indian
authorities have not yet provided a formal written report on the
state of conservation of this Sanctuary, despite repeated
requests from the Committee since 1989.
The Bureau reiterated that the World Heritage Centre contact
the Indian authorities once again and request a written, up-to-
date report on the state of conservation of the Manas Wildlife
Sanctuary. The Bureau recommended that the Committee, at its
next session, review the information provided by the Indian
authorities in such a report and in consultation with IUCN and
the World Heritage Centre, determine whether or not this site
ought to be included in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Aïr-Ténéré National Nature Reserve (Niger)
26. The Bureau expressed concerns that the region in which this
site, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1991, is situated
has recently been affected by armed unrest. The Bureau was
informed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government
of Niger had requested the Director-General of UNESCO to launch
an appeal for the protection of this site. The Bureau recommended
*[10]
that the World Heritage Centre contact the authorities in Niger
and obtain more information on the impact the armed unrest in the
region has had on the state of the conservation of the site and
request them to nominate it for inclusion on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
Mt. Athos (Greece)
27. The Bureau was informed by the representative of IUCN that
the vegetation cover in this mixed site has been destroyed and
could have adverse impacts on the landscape in the area. The
Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to contact the Greek
authorities and obtain verification of this information and to
request them to invite a mission to examine the state of
conservation of this site
Niokola-Koba National Park (Senegal)
28. The Bureau recalled that an environmental impact study had
found that the construction of a road through this National Park
was preferable to the alternative of routing the road along the
periphery of the Park because the route inside the Park could be
better patrolled by Park staff. The Bureau noted that although
the construction of the road had begun, work on the road has been
temporarily suspended due to the beginning of the rainy season.
The Delegate of Senegal informed the Bureau that the National
Park Service had established several points, including one at
Niokolo-Koba, to monitor traffic currently using the cotton route
outside of the northern periphery of the Park, and that the
Government of Senegal has prepared a plan to mitigate the impacts
of the road construction project and draw up eco-management
regimes for areas outside the periphery of the Park. The Bureau
wished that a summary of the Plan be translated into English and
presented to the members of the Committee during its sixteenth
session scheduled to be held in December 1992.
Hierapolis-Pamukkale (Turkey)
29. The Bureau was pleased to note that the English version of
the "Preservation and Management Plan" for this mixed site,
prepared with financial assistance from the World Heritage Fund,
has been published. The observer from Turkey informed the Bureau
that the implementation of the Plan has begun and a project to
remove some of the hotels and associated infrastructure which
were threatening the integrity and authenticity of the site will
soon commence and that the Turkish authorities hope to request
international assistance from the World Heritage Fund to meet
part of the costs of implementing the project.
Durmitor National Park (Montenegro, Yugoslavia)
30. The Bureau noted that the authorities responsible for the
management of this site had submitted to the Secretariat several
reports on the potential impacts of the proposed hydroelectric
*[11]
dam construction on the Tara River and the pollution of that
river by a large asphalt plant situated upstream along the river.
The Bureau was informed by the representative of IUCN that the
Yugoslav authorities maintained that the two problems mentioned
above had minimal impacts on the conservation of Durmitor and
that necessary measures to mitigate those impacts were being
taken. However, the Bureau requested that the World Heritage
Centre contact the Yugoslav authorities to know whether they
would invite a joint UNESCO/IUCN mission and provide an on-site
briefing on the status of the proposal to construct a
hydroelectric dam on the Tara River and pollution caused to the
same river by the asphalt plant.
Garamba National Park (Zaire)
31. The Bureau was happy to note that the rhinoceros population
in the Park has now increased to 32 individuals due to an
increase in the budget and personnel and that the state of
conservation of the site continues to be stable. Hence, the
Bureau recommended that the Committee, in accordance with the
request made by the State Party by letter of 26 February 1991,
delete this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
32. The Bureau noted that a proposal to construct a dam across
the Batoka Gorge could flood some parts of this transfrontier
World Heritage site and that the World Heritage Centre has
informed the group of consultancy engineers who are undertaking
an environmental impact assessment of the dam construction
project of potential threats to the integrity of this site. The
Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to contact the States
Parties concerned and obtain more information on the proposed dam
construction project for submission to the Committee in December
1992.
33. The Bureau took note of information provided by IUCN that
a workshop on the Conservation of the Subantarctic Islands was
being jointly organized by IUCN and the Scientific Research
Council for Antarctica (SCAR) to develop recommendations for the
application of the World Heritage Convention in the Antarctic
region. The Bureau also noted the summary report of the Workshop
on the World Heritage Convention held within the framework of the
Fourth World Congress on National Parks, convened in Caracas,
Venezuela, in February 1992.
VI. MONITORING OF THE-STATE OF CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL WORLD
HERITAGE PROPERTIES, AND RELATED TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES IN
MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES
34. The Bureau examined the document CLT-92/CONF.003/02
presented jointly by the World Heritage Centre and the
Coordinator of "100 Mediterranean Sites" of the Mediterranean
*[12]
Action Plan of the United Nations Environment Programme. The
Bureau took note of the specific measures taken by the
Secretariat as a follow-up to the decisions of the World Heritage
Committee at its fifteenth session.
35. The Bureau was happy to learn that the restoration work on
the monuments at Arles (France) was continuing, thanks to
participation of the Ministry of Culture, and also with
important contributions from the municipal authorities and the
World Monuments Fund.
36. The Bureau also noted with satisfaction the continuing
efforts of the persons responsible for the conservation of the
archaeological site of Kerkouane (Tunisia), to reinforce the cliff
which is being eroded by waves.
37. The Bureau took note of the information provided by the
World Heritage Centre on the site of the Pont du Gard (France).
It appears that the development activities at the site do not
endanger its authenticity but seem to he~p re-establish it, as
an existing electricity line will be buried.
38. With regard to the state of conservation of the monuments
of Goreme (Turkey), the Bureau noted the willingness of the
national authorities to continue the restoration of the site and
requested the World Heritage Centre to prepare, in consultation
with the responsible Turkish authorities and specialists, a more
detailed dossier concerning tourist developments which may be
detrimental to the visibility of the monuments.
39. The Co-ordinator of the project on the "100 Mediterranean
Sites" presented a brief overview of the principal problems of
conservation identified during visits to the sites made at the
request of the Secretariat:
Abou Mena (Egypt)
40. The Bureau noted with concern the dangers threatening the
conservation of the site because of its fragility and the
increasing flow of pilgrims, as well as a possible reconstruction
of the church over the saint's tomb. The Bureau requested the
World Heritage Centre to draw the attention of the competent
national authorities to these matters and request their
assurances to take all action necessary for conserving this site.
Delos (Greece)
41. The Bureau noted that the restoration work was continuing
and that the archaeological activities were limited to excavation
connected with the installation of an electric line. The Bureau
was concerned that the means and human resources to ensure the
protection of the site was not yet in place.
*[13]
Delphes (Greece)
42. The Bureau was satisfied with the positive assessment of the
state of conservation of the monuments and expressed its wish
that the national authorities take measures to strengthen the
protection of this site.
El Jem (Tunisia)
43. Despite the fact that it was aware of the efforts of
specialists and the Tunisian authorities for conserving this
site, the Bureau was, however, concerned about the modifications
which affected the environment of the site and requested the
competent authorities to take urgent measures necessary to re-
establish the harmony of the site and its surroundings, halt all
new constructions in the immediate environs and demolish the
shopping arcade constructed on one side of the amphitheatre. If
it is not possible to demolish the arcade, then it would be
desirable to conceal it with a hedge. Insofar as the
organization of spectacles inside the amphitheatre does not imply
irreversible developments, the Bureau considered that the
recreational activities do not constitute a threat to the
conservation of the site.
Istanbul (Turkey)
44. The Bureau took note with satisfaction that the urban
development plan of the town had been modified and wished to
obtain more information regarding the new plan from the competent
Turkish authorities.
Gantija (Malta)
45. The Bureau expressed its concern regarding the protection
of Megalithic temples and requested the World Heritage Centre to
draw the attention of the competent Maltese authorities to the
necessity of establishing a larger buffer zone with better legal
protection. A report on the information received will be
submitted to the Committee at its next session, particularly in
the light of a proposal for extension of this site presented by
the Maltese authorities this year.
Vatican City (Holy See/Italy)
46. The Bureau was concerned by the construction project inside
the Vatican City of a concrete building of several floors in the
place of the old Hospice de Santa Marta, the demolition of which
was undertaken on 1 June 1992.
The breach in the Leonin Wall that appeared during this work
constitutes a danger to the integrity of this fortified ensemble.
Moreover, because of its co-visibility with the dome of Saint-
Pierre, the height of the planned building would cause
irreparable damage to the urban landscape of Rome, as well as to
the Vatican City.
*[14]
The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Centre contact the
Observer of the Holy See to UNESCO in order to do all that is
possible to revise this building project which will be extremely
damaging to two emblematic and closely-linked properties listed
on the World Heritage List, the City of Rome and the City of the
Vatican.
47. The World Heritage Centre informed the Bureau of UNESCO's
activities with regard to the safeguarding of a site inscribed
on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Old City of
Dubrovnik (Republic of Croatia) and a famous site for which
inscription will be examined this year - Angkor.
Dubrovnik (Republic of Croatia)
48. The Bureau took note of document CLT-92/CONF.003/02 and
commended the efforts of the Director-General of UNESCO for the
safeguarding of the cultural heritage of Dubrovnik, particularly:
- his joint appeal together with the United Nations Secretary
General for a return to peace and the protection of
cultural heritage;
- his appeal to the various UNESCO missions to the different
parties involved in the conflict with the aim of enforcing
the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in
the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954) and the World
Heritage Convention:
- the despatch of UNESCO observers to Dubrovnik in December
1991 followed, as of February 1992, by technical missions:
- his decision to allocate a special amount of US$200,000 for
preliminary operations for urgent restoration of monuments,
and
- the preparation, with the competent authorities, of a plan
of action for the restoration of the damaged monument
Thanks to an emergency assistance of US$19,000 from the
World Heritage Fund, an international expert meeting has already
been organized in Dubrovnik and technical training programmes for
Croation specialists are foreseen in France.
The Bureau expressed its concern regarding the resumption
of hostilities in the region where no military targets justifying
armed intervention are located. It requested the World Heritage
Centre to advise the Croation authorities to create, before the
next session of the World Heritage Committee, a buffer zone which
would ensure the protection of the ancient fortress and other
monuments.
The Bureau was informed that the plan of action mentioned
above will be made public and available to funding agencies. In
this respect, the Bureau was informed that a tourist agency in
the United States of America and another one in Dubrovnik have
*[15]
shown interest in the safeguarding operations and proposed to
collect funds to this end.
The Bureau made an appeal to the parties in conflict for a
suspension of hostilities and the protection of cultural
heritage. It invited all States Parties to the Convention to
participate in the conservation of the site.
49. The Bureau took note of the information provided by the
Secretariat and decided to set aside a sum of US$30,0000 for
urgent activities to be undertaken for the restoration of
Dubrovnik.
MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES IN LATIN
AMERICA
50. A paper on monitoring for Latin America, the Caribbean and
Mozambique (1991-1995) was presented by the Regional Co-ordinator
and Chief Technical Adviser, UNESCO/UNDP, for the Regional
Project for Cultural, Urban and Environmental/Natural Heritage
and Development.
51. The Bureau recalled that the task of an experimental
monitoring exercise which was entrusted to this Regional Project
during the session of the Committee at Banff, Canada, in 1990,
had already led to positive and promising results in 1991. In
fact, six sites in Quito (Ecuador), Antigua Guatemala
(Guatemala), Ouro Preto (Brazil), Cartagena (Colombia), Machu
Picchu (Peru) and San Francisco de Lima (Peru), were monitored
in 1991 and the findings were reported to the World Heritage
Committee meeting in Carthage, Tunisia, in 1991.
52. The Bureau discussed the raison d'être of monitoring which
cannot be looked upon as a sporadic inspection mechanism but must
be a continuous process, undertaken in the field, involving local
partners, and on a regional basis. The monitoring exercise
includes elements of awareness-building, continuous research,
dialogue, documentation and the development of guidelines for
project design. The exercise also provides opportunities for
training on "site monitoring" for national and local
technical/administrative staff, as well as for local non-
governmental organizations. Monitoring will also establish
closer links between site conservation and existing conservation
centres in the States Parties concerned and in the region, and
constitutes institution-building, human resource development,
utiIizing the expertise of those trained by the World Heritage
Fund, and the identification of future trainees.
53. As to the institutional framework for the storage of
information emanating from monitoring exercises, and the use of
this information for future monitoring exercises, the Bureau
recommended that information be stored not only at the World
Heritage Centre, ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM, but also in the
countries concerned. Basic information will be made available
to co-operating agencies and other interested agencies, e.g.
*[16]
bilateral sources, UNDP, and The World Bank for follow-up action.
This information should be continually up-dated for the purpose
of action-oriented projects and fund-raising for conservation.
54. The Bureau took note with satisfaction that these concepts
were put into practice in the monitoring proposal presented by
the regional project for Latin America. As to the methodology,
the Bureau took note that each monitoring cycle will consist of
nine steps: (1) development and refinement of methodology; (2)
information collection; (3) site visits; (4) progress reports;
(5) in-situ consultations; (6) evaluation and assessment of
sites; (7) formulation of future projects; (8) international
assistance required, and (9) comparative analysis with a built-in
evaluation component of the methodology in order to improve the
system in the future.
55. The Bureau recommended that the work plan and the modus
operandi of the 1991-1995 proposals for monitoring of 39 site
in Latin America, the Caribbean and Mozambique (6 sites in 1991
(already completed), 6 sites in 1992, 10 sites in 1993, 9 sites
in 1994, 8 sites in 1995), be approved by the Committee.
Lusophone countries in Africa, such as Mozambique and Cap Vert,
would be included in the exercise in view of the preparatory work
already carried out with Mozambique, in research and training
vis-à-vis interregional courses in Bahia, Brazil, financed by the
Brazilian authorities, the World Heritage Fund, UNDP and
organized in collaboration with ICCROM.
56. The Bureau also recommended that an overall report, in the
form of a bulletin, on the state of conservation of World
Heritage sites in Latin America, be presented to the Committee
at its next session in December 1992.
57. The need to carry out such exercises in other regions of the
world using existing appropriate regional and interregional
structures was emphasized. An exchange of experiences and views
between the different parts of the world, with a view to
enriching the monitoring concept was encouraged. A special-
interregional workshop on this theme could be held in 1993-94.
ANGKOR (CAMBODIA)
58. The Bureau took note with satisfaction of the safeguarding
activities undertaken by UNESCO for Cambodian heritage. The
Organization had already started this work before the signature
of the peace treaty. Since then, Cambodia has adhered to the
Convention and the Bureau considered it to be its duty to
participate actively in the restoration and conservation of
Angkor.
A member of the Bureau underlined the fact that the inscription
of this site on the World Heritage List was a matter of genuine
urgency. In fact, following the war which devastated this
country, the protection of the site could no longer be
guaranteed. A management plan for the site has to be elaborated,
*[17]
legislation revised and the necessary personnel for the
protection and restoration of the site have to be trained.
UNESCO is participating in the elaboration of a management plan
in collaboration with UNDP, Sweden and France. Furthermore, a
legal expert will shortly be sent by the World Heritage Centre
to advise Cambodian jurists. Finally, restoration specialists
will be trained with the assistance of Japanese funds.
Following the request of the Cambodian authorities regarding the
preparation of a dossier to nominate the site of Angkor on the
World Heritage List, a contract will be established with the
Ecole francaise d'Extreme Orient under preparatory assistance.
The Bureau requested ICOMOS to evaluate this nomination for
inscription and recommend that the Committee consider favourably
the possibility of initiating the procedure for inscription.
59. The representative of ICOMOS reported to the Bureau on the
cultural sites he had monitored. A more detailed report
accompanied by slide projections will be made during the Santa
Fé session in December 1992 for all the cases mentioned. The
properties in question are: Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation),
Monastery of Rila (Bulgaria), Budapest (Hungary) and Stonehenge
(United Kingdom). With regard to the site of Stonahenge, the
ICOMOS Representative mentioned the problem of tourist pressure
and the deviation of the road A-344. A more detailed report will
be submitted at the next session of the Committee at Santa Fe.
Quebec Historic Area (Canada)
60. The Bureau was informed of the building proposals in the
buffer zone along the Saint-Lawrence River and the impact they
would have on the views to and from the River. ICOMOS was
critical about the consultation process and the design and
specifically of the failure of the many levels of government to
work together. The Bureau also learnt that four other prominent
persons in Quebec had expressed similar concerns. The Bureau
noted with concern the incompatibility between such activities
and the aspiration of Quebec City concerning the World Heritage
Cities Secretariat. The creation of an interdepartmental
committee to coordinate federal government inputs to the issue
was considered useful. The Bureau requested the Chairman to write
to the three concerned levels of the Canadian government
(municipal, provincial and federal) expressing its concerns and
requested that ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre obtain a
detailed report on the status of the building proposals for
submission to the Committee in December 1992
61. The Bureau was happy to learn of the innovative efforts made
by the competent American authorities for the long-lasting
conservation of Chaco Canyon.
62. To conclude the debate on the monitoring of the state of
conservation of cultural properties, the Bureau felt that it was
an activity of utmost importance for the future of the Convention
and that it should be carried out in line with the principles
mentioned during the examination of the monitoring of Latin
*[18]
American properties. These principles will be elaborated in the
Strategy for the implementation of the Convention which will be
submitted to the World Heritage Committee at its next session in
Santa Fe. The Bureau also wished that the presentation of
monitoring activities be more rationalized in the future.
VII . GLOBAL STUDY
63. The Bureau took note of ICOMOS's point of view regarding the
continnation of the global study. It appears that the general
framework should be revised and that an overall philosophy for
the work be defined. The ICOMOS representative proposed a
general project framework. The Bureau considered that this
document could serve as a basis for discussions and requested the
World Heritage Centre to present to the Committee at its next
session a dossier containing a document prepared by ICOMOS
another prepared jointly by the Chairman and Professor Léo
Pressouyre as well as all other useful contributions submitted
by States Parties, particularly the contribution presented by the
observer from Greece during the Bureau session.
VIII. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
64. The Bureau examined document CLT-92/CONF.003/4 and took
decisions on requests for international assistance from States
Parties:
Hal Saflieni Hypogeum (Malta)
65. The Bureau requested that ICOMOS examine the justifications
provided by the Maltese authorities for the need to install an
air-conditioning system at this World Heritage site and assess
the relative merits of different options available for solving
problems caused by internal humidity. The Bureau recommended
that the Committee, at its next session, take a decision on this
request on the basis of information submitted by the State Party
and the report from ICOMOS.
City of Potosi (Bolivia)
66. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Bolivian
authorities to obtain information on the links between the World
Heritage site of Potosi and the proposed rehabilitation project
for the lagoons. The Bureau recommended that the Committee, at
its next session, assess, on the basis of the requested
information, the importance of the work to rehabilitate the
lagoons to the conservation of the World Heritage city and decide
whether or not this project qualifies for international
assistance from the World Heritage Fund.
*[19]
Plitvice Lake National Park (Republic of Croatia)
67. The Bureau decided to set aside US$ 30,000 as emergency
assistance to undertake an expert mission to this site to assess
damage caused by armed conflict in Croatia and to prepare and
initiate the implementation of an international assistance
project for the rehabilitation of this site.
Istanbul (Turkey)
68. The Bureau, while agreeing in principle to providing support
for the continuation of the restoration of mosaics of Saint-
Sophia in Istanbul, noted that the project approved in 1991 under
the World Heritage Fund is expected to be completed by the end
of 1992. The Bureau requested that the Committee at its
forthcoming session in Santa Fe, review the report of the project
which is currently underway and other information from studies
that are being undertaken by the Turkish authorities and decide
on an appropriate amount to assist in the continuation of the
restoration of the mosaics of St. Sophia.
IX. REVISION OF OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
69. The Bureau took note of document CLT-92/CONF.003/7 and
expressed its satisfaction with the revisions proposed to natural
heritage criteria and the associated conditions of integrity.
The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to further refine
the proposals, in the light of the improvements suggested by the
members of the Bureau and the Director of UNESCO's Division of
Geological Sciences, and work together with IUCN, to submit a
final draft for consideration and adoption by the Committee at
its next session.
70. The Bureau considered the revisions to the Guidelines
regarding the procedure for the inclusion of sites on the List
of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau recommended that an ad
hoc group be set up to study all revisions to the Operational
Guidelines and proposals be made for adoption by the World
Heritage Committee, in December 1992.
X. NOMINATION OF NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
AND TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for
inscription on the World Heritage List
71. The Bureau examined the nominations of eleven natural
properties and recommended that five of them be inscribed on the
World Heritage List. The Bureau did not recommend the other six
natural properties for inscription on the World Heritage List.
The Bureau also examined proposals for extensions two World
Heritage sites and recommended that both sites be extended in
accordance with the proposals made by the States Parties.
*[20]
Name of Property Identifi- State Party having Criteria
cation submitted the
N° nomination of the
property in
accordance with the
Convention
Fraser Island and 630 Australia N(ii)(iii)
the Great Sandy Region
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the Fraser
Island component of the nomination (excluding the Cooloola
National Park), which comprises the majority of the World
Heritage values of this site, on the World Heritage List. The
Bureau also recommended that the Committee commend the Australian
and Queens land authorities for including Fraser Is land and the
Great Sandy Region within their plans for a 'Regional Park' and
extend statutory protection to all of Fraser Island.
Belovezhskaya Pushcha 627 Belarus N(iii)
State National Park
The Bureau noted that this site is an extension of the Bialowieza
National Park of Poland and requested the Belarus authorities to:
(a) confirm that the boundaries of the site only include the core
zone; (b) prepare a management plan which would be co-ordinated
with the management of the adjacent World Heritage site in
Poland; (c) co-ordinate and share management experience with
their Polish counterparts, and (d) remove the fence between this
site and the Polish site if the management plan determines that
such an action would improve viability of the site.
The Bureau recommended that the Committee request the Belarus and
Polish authorities to recognize the ecological unity of the two
sites and agree to the inscription of the whole area as a single
transfrontier property on the World Heritage List.
Wulingyuan Scenic 640 People's Republic N(iii)
and Historic Interest of China
Area
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the core zone
of this site on the World Heritage List and encouraged the
Chinese authorities to manage the buffer zone for conservation
objectives and retain the natural characteristics of the site.
The Bureau noted that pressure due to tourism is likely to
increase and urged the management to be vigilant and protect the
integrity of the site. The Bureau suggested that the Committee
recommend that the Chinese authorities undertake a census of
wildlife in the area and prepare a species conservation status
report in order to study the possibility for inscribing this site
under natural heritage criteria (iv) as well.
*[21]
Jiuzhaigou Valley 637 People's Republic N(iii)
Scenic and Historic of China
Interest Area
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this site on
the World Heritage List and expressed concern over the question
of growing human impact in the reserve and encouraged the Chinese
authorities to take appropriate measures to safeguard this site.
The Bureau suggested that the Committee also recommend the State
Party to undertake a wildlife census in the area and prepare a
species conservation status report in order to study the
possibility for inscribing this site under natural heritage
criterion (iv) as well.
Huanglong Scenic and 638 People's Republic N(iii)
Historic Interest Area of China
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the central
and second class conservation zones of Huanglong on the World
Heritage List, excluding Mouni Gully sub-division in the west,
since its condition and natural values have not been adequately
investigated. The Bureau also suggested that the authorities
undertake a census of wildlife in the area and prepare a species
conservation status report in order to investigate the
possibility for inscribing this site under natural heritage
criterion (iv) as well.
The Bureau recognized that the Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and
Historic Interest Area and the Huanglong Scenic and Historic
Interest Area belong to the same ecological unit, despite being
under different county administrations. The Bureau recommended
that the Committee request the Chinese authorities to initiate
a two-phase process as follows: (a) under Phase I, consider to
include Jiuzhaigou and Huanglong Areas as a single property on
the World Heritage List, and (b) under Phase II, to consider
nominating an even larger area including not only Jiuzhaigou
Valley and Huanglong Scenic Areas, but also the Wanglang Reserve,
for inscription as a single site representing the Minshan range
of mountains. The Bureau noted that the Wanglang Reserve was a
part of the nomination of the Panda Reserves which was deferred
by the Committee in 1987 and 1990.
The Bureau also suggested that the Committee recommend that the
Chinese authorities, while implementing such a two-phase process,
also consider proposing a new name for the ensemble of
Jiuzhaigou, Huanglong and Wanglang areas. The Bureau recommended
that the Committee also encourage the authorities of China and
the United States to activate an agreement for "twinning" the
Jiuzhaigou and Huanglong Areas with the Yosemite National Park
of USA and co-operate in strengthening the management and
training of personnel.
*[22]
72. B. Properties which the Bureau did not recommend for
inscription on the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identifi- State Party having
cation N° submitted the nomination
of the property in
accordance with the
Convention
Berezinsky Biosphere 628 Belarus
Reserve
The Bureau noted that this site is recognized as one of UNESCO 's
Biosphere Reserves but did not meet criteria for inscription on
Tatra National Park 656 Czech and Slovak Federal
Republic
The Bureau acknowledged the high national importance of this
site, but was of the view that it did not meet any natural
heritage criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List.
The Bureau, however, encouraged the nomination of this site to
UNESCO 's International Network of Biosphere Reserves.
Gir Wildlife 615 India
Sanctuary
The Bureau noted that the conservation of this site will be
greatly enhanced if it were included in UNESCO 's international
network of biosphere reserves. The Bureau was of the opinion
that although it is a site of high national value, it did not
meet World Heritage criteria.
Lunan Scenic Area 639 People's Republic of
of the Stone Forest China
The Bureau was of the view that this site did not meet World
Heritage criteria.
Huangguoshu Waterfalls 641 People's Republic of
Scenic & Historic Area China
The Bureau was of the view that this site did not meet World
Heritage criteria.
Macquarie Island 629 Australia
Nature Reserve
The Bureau noted that the site had geological value but was of
*[23]
the view that its characteristics were not of universal
significance. However, in the light of the work of the IUCN/SCAR
Task Force on Islands of the Southern Ocean, the Bureau noted
that this site may be considered at a future date as part of a
Southern Ocean Island site of Australia and New Zealand.
73. C. Extension to World Heritage sites
Name of Property Identifi- State Party having Criteria
cation N° submitted the nomina-
tion of the property
in accordance with
the Convention
Kakadu National 631 Australia N (ii)(iii)(iv)
Park C (i)(iii)(iv)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee commend the Australian
authorities for concluding a 10-year programme to extend this
Park, for setting-up an exemplary management regime and
nominating the full extent of the Park for inscription on the
World Heritage List. The Bureau suggested that the Committee
also request the Australian authorities to implement management
recommendations made by IUCN in its evaluation report, and
consider proposing a new name taking into account the ecosystem
rather than the administrative characteristics of the site. The
Bureau also suggested that the Committee recommend that IUCN
undertakes a monitoring mission to the site within the next five
years.
Glacier Bay 72bis Rev United States of N (ii)
National Park America
extension of the
Wrangell/St.Elias/
Kluane site of
Canada-USA]
The Bureau noted that this extension of the American part of this
transfrontier World Heritage site increased the extent of the
site by 25% and the comment of the observer from Canada that they
support the extension proposed by the authorities of the United
States of America. The Bureau recommended that the Committee
include this extension as part of the Wrangell/St. Elias/Kluane
World Heritage site and request the authorities of the United
States of America to (a) eventually incorporate the small area
between Glacier Bay and the World Heritage site which has not
been included in the proposed extension, and (b) consider a
further extension of the World Heritage site to include Yakutat,
Cape Suckling and the Admiralty Islands.
The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to contact the
Canadian authorities and obtain their written support for the
extension prepared by the American authorities to this
*[24]
transfrontier site. The Bureau suggested that the Committee
request the two States Parties concerned to propose a new name
for this site reflecting its international character and
universal significance. The Bureau was informed that IUCN was
undertaking another mission to this site to evaluate the
potential threats to the site's integrity due to a proposal to
exploit the Windy Craggy mine in Canada. The Bureau noted that
IUCN will include its findings from this mission in its
evaluation report to the Committee in December 1992.
74. D. Property recommended for inclusion in the List of
World Heritage in Danger
Plitvice Lake National Park Republic of Croatia
The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its last session had
expressed concerns that this property, which was inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1979 at the request of the Government of
Yugoslavia, had been abandoned due to armed conflict in the
region, and that the Park faced several threats due to lack of
supervision. The Bureau noted that since the last session of the
Committee the Croatian government has informed the Director-
General of UNESCO that it considers itself committed to all
international agreements, including the World Heritage
Convention, signed and ratified by the previous government of
Yugoslavia under the auspices of UNESCO. Thus, in accordance with
the request of the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports of
the Republic of Croatia, made by his letter of 24 April 1992 to
the Secretariat, the Bureau recommended that the Committee
inscribe this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
XI. NOMINATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
75. The Bureau examined the nominations or extensions of twenty-five
cultural properties and recommended that eleven of them be inscribed
on the World Heritage List (Section A). The Bureau did not recommend
three properties (Section B), returned five nominations to the States
Parties for additional information (Section C) and deferred the
inscription of four properties (Section D). The Bureau recommended
the extension of one property (Section E, Part I) and referred the
second proposal for extension to the State Party for further
information (Section E, Part II).
76. The Bureau also recommended to initiate the procedure for
inscription of the monuments of Angkor (Cambodia). During its next
session, the Bureau will also examine complementary information on
the Kashah of Algiers (Algeria), property for which the inscription
procedure has already been initiated.
*[25]
77. A . Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on
the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identifi- State Party having Criteria
cation N° submitted the nomina-
tion of the property
in accordance with
the Convention
Butrinti 570 Rev Albania C (iii)
Mines of Rammelsberg 623 Germany C (iv)
and the historic
town of Goslar
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property and requested
ICOMOS to reconsider the criteria for inscription. The Bureau
wondered whether in this particular case criterion (i) was
applicable, or if criteria (ii) or (iii) would be more appropriate.
ICOMOS will make a report to the World Heritage Committee at its next
session in December 1992.
Pueblo de Taos 492 Rev United States C (iv)
of America
Historic Monuments 604 Russian C (ii)(iv)(vi)
of Novgorod and Federation
surroundings
Bourges Cathedral 635 France C (i)
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property, but
requested ICOMOS to complete its evaluation with a more detailed
justification concerning the exceptional value of this monument with
respect to the series of French and European Gothic cathedrals in
general.
Pythagoreion and 595 Greece C (ii)(iii)
Heraion of Samos
Although recommending this property for inscription, the Bureau
requested the competent Greek authorities to give assurances
regarding the protection of the natural environment of this property.
El Tajin, 631 Mexico C (iii)(iv)
Pre-Hispanic City
*[26]
Old City of Zamosc 564 Poland C (iv)
Historic Centre 616 Czech and Slovak C (ii)(iv)
of Prague Federal Republic
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property and took note
of the new proposal for the boundaries of the buffer zone, but
requested ICOMOS to consider the possibility of applying criterion
(vi) for this inscription as well.
Historic Centre 617 Czech and Slovak C (iv)
of Cesky Krumlov Federal Republic
While recommending the inscription of this property, the Bureau
requested the competent Czech and Slovak authorities to take all the
necessary measures to face pressures due to over-visitation by
tourists which threaten this propertY.
Historic Centre 621 Czech and Slovak C (i)(iv)
of Telc Federal Republic
78. B. Properties which the Bureau did not recommend for
inscription on the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identifi- State Party having
cation N° submitted the
nomination of the
property in
accordance with the
Convention
Mir Castle 625 Belarus
While recognizing the architectural value of this property, the
Bureau considered that it did not meet the criteria for inscription
on the World Heritage List, and more particularly the conditions of
authenticity.
Cidade Velha 607 Cap Vert
The Bureau considered that in spite of its indisputable historic
value, the property did not meet the criteria for inscription on the
World Heritage List.
*[27]
Karletejn Castle 619 Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic
The Bureau recognized the great national value of this property, but
considered that it did not meet the criteria for inscription on the
World Heritage List.
79. C. Properties for which nominations were referred back to
nominating States for further information/documentation
Name of Property Identifi- State Party having Criteria
cation N° submitted the nomina-
tion of the property
in accordance with
the Convention
Cultural and 632 Russian Federation C (iv)
natural historic
ensemble of the
Solovetsky Islands
The Bureau requested the competent Russian authorities to reconsider
the title of this property, which could be modified as follows
"Cultural and historic ensemble of Solovetsky".
Monuments of 644 Russian to be defined
Valdimir and 633 Federation by ICOMOS
Monuments of Suzdal
The Bureau recommended the inscription of these properties on the
condition that a new proposal be submitted, bringing together the
universal architectural values of the monuments of the ensemble of
Vladimir and Suzdal.
Reserve of Popular 622 Czech and Slovak C (V)
Architecture of Federal Republic
Vlkolinec
The Bureau decided to return the nomination to the competent Czech
and Slovak authorities so that additional information may be provided
regarding the natural and rural environment of the village and to
supply details of the management plan for the ensemble. Furthermore,
the Bureau requested ICOMOS to carry out a comparative study among
similar properties in Central Europe.
Safranbolu Village 614 Turkey C (ii)(v)
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property, but
requested the competent Turkish authorities to transmit to ICOMOS a
*[28]
plan clearly showing the boundary of the site proposed for
inscription, as well as additional information on the village
mosques. Furthermore, the Bureau requested ICOMOS to also take into
consideration the possibility of applying criterion (iv) for the
inscription of this property.
80. D. Deferred nominations
Name of Property Identifi- State Party having
cation N° submitted the
nomination of the
property in accordance
with the Convention
City of Bamberg 624 Germany
The Bureau deferred the examination of the nomination to allow the
competent German authorities to reconsider the proposal boundary, as
well as the buffer zone. The new boundary should not include recent
constructions.
Architectural, 634 Russian Federation
archaeological and
natural ensemble
of Kolomenskoye
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination to allow the
competent Russian authorities to reformulate the proposal so as to
include only the Ascension Church. Furthermore, the Bureau requested
that the new nomination comprises detailed documentation concerning
the authenticity of the property.
Historic City of 618 Czech and Slovak Federal
Banska Stiavnica and Republic
technical installations
of the environment
The Bureau deferred the examination of this property to allow the
competent Czech and Slovak authorities to provide additional
background information concerning the concrete existence of an
heritage bearing witness to mining activities.
Spissky Hrad and 620 Czech and Slovak Federal
surrounding monuments Republic
The Bureau deferred the examination of this property to allow the
competent Czech and Slovak authorities to establish a management plan
for this ensemble
*[29]
81. E. Extension of Properties on the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identifi- State Party having Criteria
cation N° submitted the nomina-
tion of the property
in accordance with
the Convention
I. Properties recommended for inscription
Kakadu National 631 Australia C (i)(iii)(iv)
Park N (ii)(iii)(iv)
The proposed extension to this property was also recommended due to
its natural values (see para. 73).
Potsdam, Park with 532 bis Germany C (i)(ii)(iv)
Sacrow Castle
and Sauveur Church
The Bureau recommended that the Castle and the Parks of Potsdam and
Berlin be extended to include Potsdam, the Park with Sacrow Castle
and Sauveur Church.
II. Properties returned to national authorities for further
information
Megalithic 132 bis Malta
Temples
The bureau, recognizing the exceptional universal value of these
monuments recommended that they be inscribed on the World Heritage
List, but returned the nomination dossier to the competent Maltese
authorities allow them, in consultation with ICOMOS, to
reformulate the proposal so that all the Megalithic monuments of the
Maltese archipelago are included under the same title.
XII. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN TO COMMEMORATE THE TWENTIETH
ANNIVERSARY OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
82. The Bureau noted with satisfaction the promotional activities
undertaken for the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the
World Heritage Convention as presented in Document CLT-92/CONF.003/8.
83. With regard to the activities at Headquarters, the members of
the Bureau participated at the inauguration of the three months of
*[30]
exhibits, conferences, film projections and artistic evenings
organized in co-operation with the States Parties to the Convention.
These events were launched on 8 July with a press conference, the
opening of an exhibition on World Heritage by the Director-General
of UNESCO and a gala evening organized with the generous
participation of well-known artists.
84. The events to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the
Convention also include seminars organized in each geographic region
of the world: the first of these regional seminars took place in
Jakarta; each State Party to the Convention presented a report
concerning the implementation of the Convention in its territory and
the participants emphasized that priority should be given to the
management of sites facing problems such as tourism.
85. The Bureau noted that other seminars would take place throughout
1992 and part of 1993, in order to allow participation of as many
countries as possible. In general, the Bureau felt that these
activities should be regarded as part of a long-term promotional
strategy.
86. The bureau also noted that other promotional activities had been
successfully carried out during the first six months of the year.
Amongst these, a prototype video-disc (CD-ROM) has been produced; the
Bureau examined the functioning of this prototype and felt that this
video-disc project should be continued and, once available, widely
diffused.
87. The other project which was presented to the Bureau is
Patrimoine 2001, implemented in co-operation with UNESCO by the
Gamma Agency, the Caixa Foundation of Barcelona, Kodak and France
Telecom. This photographic data-bank project on heritage will make
available both scientific photographic documentation on properties,
and renders this documentation immediately accessible, in a numerical
form, to a wide public, including teaching and research institutions.
88. The Bureau was satisfied with this ambitious initiative. The
Bureau recommended that a presentation be made on the occasion of the
committee meeting in Santa Fe, on the basis of the collection of
reports that would be made. This photographic presentation and the
possibilities offered by the numbering of images will bring together
at Santa Fe important photographers associated with the project and
representatives from the media.
XIII. DRAFT REPORT ON THE EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
89. The Bureau took note of the draft evaluation report prepared in
1992 by Mr. Beschaouch. The Bureau did not examine this document,
but evoked the principal conclusions during discussions under item
13 of the Agenda concerning the examination of elements for a future
strategy (see below).
*[31]
90. In other respects, the Bureau regretted that, to date, very few
States Parties had responded to the Committee's request to supply
evaluation reports concerning the implementation of the Convention
at a national level, in spite of several reminders from the
Secretariat.
XIV. EXAMINATION OF ELEMENTS IN VIEW OF A STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE
91. The Bureau examined the Document CLT-92/CONF.003/10 which
presented the principal conclusions and recommendations of a meeting
organized by the World Heritage Centre and held in Washington, D.C.,
from 22 to 24 June 1992, at the generous invitation of the United
States of America. Experts from States Parties, ICOMOS, ICCROM and
IUCN and UNESCO participated at this meeting. The preparation of
elements for a strategy for the implementation of the Convention in
the future was facilitated by the in-depth examination of the
evaluation document prepared in 1991 by Mr. Beschaouch.
92. The Bureau discussions related to recommendations made by the
Washington meeting concerning the following points:
- links of the World Heritage Convention with other
conventions and recommendations, notably the Hague
Convention;
- strengthening of expertise within the Committee, through
the financing of travel for experts from developing
countries who are members of the Committee and calling upon
outside expertise. Despite past practice over the last two
years, a Bureau member felt that the Convention did not
allow the use of World Heritage Funds to finance travel of
representatives from States Parties members of the
Committee. The World Heritage Centre will seek the advice
of the legal service of UNESCO on this question;
- the possibility of instituting a biennial cycle for the
Committee agenda;
- the improvement of advance information provided to
Committee members on nominations of properties for
inscription on the World Heritage List;
- strengthening of the role of consultative organs;
- monitoring of the state of conservation of properties
inscribed on the World Heritage List.
93. The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to convene a
second expert meeting at the end of October this year to finalize the
strategy to be adopted by the Committee at its sixteenth session at
Santa Fe. The Bureau members will also participate at this second
meeting as experts. The provisional document containing elements for
a future strategy, as elaborated during the first expert meeting in
Washington, should be sent to all States Parties to enable them to
*[32]
submit their contributions. The Bureau also decided that each of its
members send written observations on the document to the World
Heritage Centre before the end of September so as to allow an optimal
preparation of the second meeting.
XV. PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR THE SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE
94. The Bureau examined the provisional agenda of the Committee
(Document CLT-92/CONF.003/11) and took note that before the Santa Fe
meeting a decision would be taken as to whether it would be necessary
to foresee a two-day meeting to finalize the strategy document. An
information note about the meeting and the activities foreseen on
this occasion will be prepared by the World Heritage Centre very
shortly.
XVI. OTHER BUSINESS
95. The Representative of Senegal spoke of the problems involved in
the conservation of the Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary which would
be the subject of a monitoring report in liaison with IUCN. A file
on this question will be sent to the World Heritage Centre by the
Senegalese authorities.
96. The Chairman reported to the Bureau on progress achieved
regarding the setting-up of the World Heritage Cities Network : a
meeting of the Steering Committee had just been held in Tunis and the
next meeting was scheduled to take place at UNESCO Headquarters in
Paris. The statutes of the Network were almost finalized and the
Bureau learnt with satisfaction that the Network was gradually
becoming operational.
97. The observer from Colombia informed the Bureau of the wish of
his country to host the seventeenth session of the World Heritage
Committee at Carthagena, in 1993. The Colombian authorities will
confirm this invitation which will be submitted to the Committee at
its next session in Santa Fe, United States of America, for their
decision.
XVII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
98. After having thanked the members of the Bureau and all the
participants for their contributions to a particularly fruitful
session, within the framework of the launching of events to celebrate
the twentieth anniversary of the Convention and the creation of the
World Heritage Centre, the Chairman closed the session.
*[ANNEX I/1]
ANNEX I/ANNEXE I
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND
CULTURAL ORGANIZATION/ORGANISATION DES
NATIONS UNIES, POUR L'EDUCATION, LA SCIENCE ET LA CULTURE
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD
CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE/CONVENTION CONCERNANT
LA PROTECTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL CULTUREL ET NATUREL
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee/
Bureau du Comité du patrimoine mondial
Sixteenth session/Seizième session
Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, 6-l0 July l992
Paris, Siège de l'UNESCO, 6-10 juillet 1992
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU/ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU
BRAZIL/BRESIL
Mrs. Vera PEDROSA
Ministre-conseiller
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Brazil
Mr. Claudio LINS
Deuxième Secrétaire
Permanent Delegation of Brazil
FRANCE
M. Léon PRESSOUYRE
Vice-Président de l'Université Paris I
M. Jean-Louis PONS
Ministère de l' Environnement
DNR - 14, boulevard du Général Leclerc
92524 Neuilly sur Seine - Cedex
Mme Françoise BERCE
Conservateur général du patrimoine
12, rue du Parc Royal
75003 PARIS
*[ANNEX I/2]
Mme Stéphanie MORY
Deuxième Secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l' UNESCO
MEXICO/MEXIQUE
Dr. Salvador DIAZ-BERRIO
Deputy Director for Technical Assistance
National Institute for Anthropology & History
CORDOBA 45
Mexico 06700 D. F.
SENEGAL
Mr. Seydina Issa SYLLA
Directeur des Parcs Nationaux
BP 5135 DAKAR-FANN
Sénégal
Mr. El Had; M'Baye Bassine DIENG
Directeur du Patrimoine Historique et
Ethnographique
BP 4001 DAKAR
Sénéqal
Mr. Amadou DEME
Conseiller
Délégation permanente auprès de l'UNESCO
THAILAND/THAILANDE
Professor Dr. Adul WICHIENCHAROEN
Chairman
National Committee of World Heritage
1056/3 Nakornchaisri Rd.
BANGKOK 10300
Thailand
Mr. Bunnalert RUSHATRUL
Deputy Director General
Royal Forest Department, Phahon Yothin Rd.
BANGKOR 10900
Thailand
Mr. Payung NOPSUWAN
Director
National Park Division
Royal Forest Department, Phahon Yothin Rd.
BANGKOK
Thailand
*[ANNEX I/3]
Mr. Watana KAEOKAMNERD
Director
Wildlife Conservation Division
Royal Forest Department
Chatujak
BANGKOK 10900
Thailand
Mr. Prachote SANGKHANUKIT
Director
Archaeology Division
Fine Arts Department
BANGKOK 10200
Thailand
Ms Pinida LEWCHALERMWONG
Budget Analyst - Bureau of the Budget
Aresampan - Rama 6
BANGKOK (Thailand)
Mrs. Srinoi POVATONG
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Thailand to UNESCO
Mr. Manit SIRIWAN
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
60/1 Soi Phibun Wattana 7
Rama VI Rd
BANGKOK 10400
Thailand
Mrs. Srianong KUNGKAYA
Secretariat Officer
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
6071 Soi Pibun Wattana 7
Rama VI Rd
BANGKOK 10400
Thailand
TUNISIA/TUNISIE
M. Azedine BESCHAOUCH
Directeur de Recherches
Institut National d'Archéologie et d'Art
4, place du Château
TUNIS
Tunisie
Mme Mounira BACCAR
Délégation permanente auprès l'UNESCO
*[ANNEX I/4]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mrs. Jennifer SALISBURY
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Parks Department of the Interior
1849 C 57 NW Room 3153
WASHINGTON DC 20240
USA
Mr. Blaine CLIVER
Chief
Preservation Assistance Division
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON DC 20013-7127
USA
Mr. Richard COOK:
Office of International Affairs
National Park Service
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON DC 20013-7127
USA
Mr. William P. GREGG
Ecologist
National Park Service (490)
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON DC 20013-7127
USA
II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/
ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES/CONSEIL
INTERNATIONAL DES NONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS)
Mr. Herb STOVEL
Secretary-General
75, rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
Mr. Henry CLEERE
World Heritage Co-ordinator
75, rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
M. Leo van Nispen
Directeur
Secrétariat international
75, rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
*[ANNEX I/5]
Ms. Regina DURIGHELLO
Assistant Co-ordinator for the Convention
75, rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)/UNION MONDIALE POUR LA
NATURE (UICN)
Mr. Genady GOLUBEV
Assistant Director General
Avenue du Mont Blanc
Gland CH-1196
Switzerland
Mr. James W. Thorsell
Senior Advisor - Natural Heritage
Avenue du Mont-Blanc
1196 GLAND
Switzerland
M. Gérard SOURNIA
Délégué aux Affaires francophones
4, rue de Bel Air
37400 AMBOISE
France
Mr. Jeremy HARRISON
World Conservation Monitoring Centre
219c Huntingdon Road
CAMBRIDGE
United Kingdom
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE
RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES
POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS
(ICCROM)
M. Marc LAENEN
Director
via San Michele, 13
00153 ROME
Italy
Mr. Jukka JOKILEHTO
Chief
Architectural Conservation Programme
via San Michele, 13
00153 ROME
Italy
*[ANNEX I/6]
III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS
ALGERIA/ALGERIE
M. Mohamed BOUKLI-HACENE
Sous-Directeur des monuments et sites historiques,
des musées et des parcs nationaux
Ministère de la culture et de la communication
Palais de la Culture
Plateaux des Annassers
ALGER
Algérie
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
Mr. Andrew TURNER
Assistant Secretary
Nature Conservation Branch
Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment
and Territories
G.P.O Box 787
CANBERRA A,C-T, 2601
Australia
BELARUS
M. Evgueni IOUCHKEVITCH
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation Permanente auprès de l'UNESCO
CANADA
Mme Giséle CANTIN
Chef Affaires Inter.
Service Canadien des Parcs
25, rue Eddy Hull (P. QUEBEC)
Canada KIA OH3
CHINA/CHINE
Mr. Xunyan QIU
Directeur adjoint de la Division de
la Commission Nationale chinoise pour l 'UNESCO
100816 PEKIN
China
*[ANNEX I/7]
COLOMBIA/COLOMBIE
Ms. Isabel VERNAZA
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
COSTA RICA
Ms. Iris LEIVA-BILLAULT
Advisor
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
CUBA
Ms. Marta ARJONA
Directeur du Patrimoine culturel
Ministère de la culture
CUBA
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Mr. Christos CASSIMATIS
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
CZECHOSLOVAKIA/TCHECOSLOVAQUIE
Mr. Alés VOSAHLIK
Travailleur Scientifique
Institut d'Etat pour la protection des
Monuments Historiques
11000 PRAGUE 1
Revolucni 17
Tchécoslovaquie
Mr. Michel BENES
Vice Secrétaire général de la Commission Nationale
tchécoslovaque pour l'UNESCO
Hradcanske Nam 5
11000 PRAGUE 1
Tchécoslovaquie
EL SALVADOR
M. René HERRERA
Secrétaire du Délégué
Délégation permanente auprès de l' UNESCO
*[ANNEX I/8]
GREECE/GRECE
Dr. Marilena CASSIMATIS
Advisor for Cultural Affairs
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
GUINEA/GUINEE
M. Fodé CISSE
Conseiller
Délégation permanente auprès de l' UNESCO
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Mr. Béla KOVACSI
Ministère de l'Environnement et
de l'Aménagement Régional
Conseiller du Ministère
H-1394 BUDAPEST
P.O. 351
Hongrie
ITALY/ITALIE
Mr. Michelangelo JACOBUCCI
Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
Brs. Marina MISITANO
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
JAPAN/JAPON
Ms Michiko KARA
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
PHILIPPINES
Mrs. Deanna ONGPIN-RECTO
Attaché
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
RUSSIA/RUSSIE
Mr. Igor DANILOV
Director, Cultural Department
UNESCO High Commission
Vozdzizenlia - MOSCOW
Russia
*[ANNEX I/9]
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE ARABE SYRIENNE
Mr. A, E. SAOUD
Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Mr. Pulat TACAR
Ambassador Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
Mr. Engin TURKER
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
IV. WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE / SECRETARIAT/
CENTRE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL / SECRETARIAT
M. Bernd von DROSTE
Directeur
Centre du patrimoine mondial
M. Saïd ZULFICAR
Directeur adjoint
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mr. Mounir BOUCHENAKI
Directeur a.i.
Division du patrimoine culturel
M. Abdelkader Brahim ERRAHMANI
Chef de la promotion, Division du patrimoine culturel
Directeur de PATRICOM
M. David KABALA
Spécialiste du Programme
Division des Sciences écologiques
Mme Mireille JARDIN
Centre du Patrimoine mondial
M. Natarajan ISHWARAN
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mlle Ana DUMITRESCU
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mme Mechtild Rössler
Centre du patrimoine mondial
*[ANNEX I/10]
M. Gérard BOLLA
Consultant
M. Sylvio Mutal
Regional Coordinator
for Latin America and the Caribbean
UNDP/UNESCO
Mme Gisèle HYVERT
Consultant
Mr. Daniel DROCOURT
Consultant
Mr. Peter LOWREY
UNESCO Press
Jane DEGEORGES
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Joanna LEWIS
Centre du patrimoine mondial
David MARTEL
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Marianne RAABE
Centre du patrimoine mondial
*[EOF]