Limited distribution WHC-96/CONF.202/10
20 August 1996
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twentieth session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room X (Fontenoy)
24-29 June 1996
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Opening session 1-2
Adoption of the Agenda 2
Report of the Secretariat on activities undertaken
since the nineteenth session of the Committee 2-4
State of conservation of properties inscribed on the
World Heritage List 5-20
Information on Tentative Lists and the examination of
nominations of cultural and natural properties to the
World Heritage List and List of World Heritage in
Danger 21-36
Progress Report on Thematic and Comparative Studies 37-38
Synoptic Presentation of the Budget, including full
information on World Heritage activities within the
UNESCO Secretariat 39-42
Decentralization of World Heritage Activities 42-47
Requests for International Assistance 48-49
Draft Agenda for the Twentieth Extraordinary session
of the Bureau (29-30 November 1996) 49
Preparation of the Twentieth session of the World Heritage
Committee, including the Draft Agenda (2-7 December 1996) 49-51
Other business 51
Adoption of the Report of the Bureau and closure of the
session 52
ANNEXES
ANNEX I List of Participants
ANNEX II Draft report on monitoring and reporting to
be submitted by the World Heritage Committee
to the Eleventh General Assembly of States
Parties (October/November 1997)
ANNEX III Draft resolution for inclusion in the
'Report by the Intergovernmental Committee
for the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage on its Activities (1996-
1997), to be submitted to the 29th General
Conference of UNESCO
ANNEX IV Provisional Agenda for the extraordinary
twentieth session of the Bureau (29-30
November 1996)
ANNEX V Provisional Agenda for the twentieth session
of the World Heritage Committee (2-7
December 1996)
*[1]
I. OPENING SESSION
I.1 The twentieth session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee was held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from
24 to 29 June 1996. The following members of the Bureau attended:
Ambassador Horst Winkelmann (Germany), Chairperson,
Representatives of Australia, Italy, Japan, Lebanon and Mexico
as Vice-Presidents and H.E. Ambassador Lambert Messan (Niger) as
Rapporteur.
I.2 Representatives of the following States Parties
attended as observers: Argentina, Benin, Burkina Faso, Canada,
China, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France,
Gambia, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Korea (Republic of),
Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Portugal, Russian
Federation, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic,
Thailand, United Kingdom and the United States of America.
I.3 Representatives of the International 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) attended the
meeting in an advisory capacity.
I.4 The World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and the
Nordic World Heritage Office were also represented. The full list
of participants is given in Annex I.
I.5 The Chairperson, in warmly welcoming the members of the
Bureau remarked on the large number of observers, attesting to
the growing interest of the international community in the World
Heritage Convention. He informed the Bureau that in his capacity
as Chairperson to the Committee, he met the Director-General of
UNESCO on two occasions to discuss the provision of personnel
from UNESCO's Regular Programme for the World Heritage
Secretariat in conformity with Article 14 of the Convention, as
requested by the Committee, and also visited the Galapagos World
Heritage Site.
I.6 Mr Bernd von Droste, Director of the World Heritage
Centre, speaking on behalf of the Director-General, welcomed the
members of the Bureau, the observers and the representatives of
the advisory bodies. He reiterated the importance attached by the
Director-General to World Heritage activities, especially in its
role in promoting the culture of peace. The accession of Estonia,
Iceland, and Mauritius to the Convention since the Committee last
meeting, brings the total number of States Parties to 146,
further enhancing its universality.
I.7 To strengthen the Secretariat, the Director-General has
appointed Mr Georges Zouain, an experienced staff member of
UNESCO, to the post of Deputy-Director and has also instructed
the transfer of Mr N. Ishwaran to the Centre as a senior
programme specialist for natural heritage.
I.8 The Director-General's appreciation for the work of the
Bureau and the Committee in developing the methodology and
*[2]
procedure for systematic reporting in full respect of the
sovereignty of States Parties was also noted by the Director.
I.9 The Director concluded his opening remarks by wishing
the Bureau every success in its deliberations.
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II.1 The Bureau adopted the agenda as proposed in Document
WHC-96/CONF.202/1 Rev. without modification.
III. REPORT OF THE SECRETARIAT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN
SINCE THE NINETEENTH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE
III.1 Mr Bernd von Droste, Director of the World Heritage
Centre reported on the main activities undertaken by the
Secretariat since the last session of the Committee held in
Berlin, Germany in December 1995. He referred to Document WHC-
96/CONF.202/INF.4 which provides the summary of the Secretariat's
activities during this reporting period. His oral presentation
began with the continued concern over the tentative lists
indicating that 54 States Parties had still not submitted this
list and that those from 34 other States Parties were not in the
required format.
III.2 With regard to the nominations of properties to be
examined this year, he stressed that proposed sites from Western
Europe and North America were still dominant despite the
Committee's repeated call to correct the geographical imbalance.
He took this opportunity to invite the States Parties from
Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Asia-Pacific
region to become more active in the nomination of properties. He
noted in particular, the absence of any nominations of sites in
the Pacific. He noted that among the nominations being examined
this year are those from Armenia, Austria, Belize, Gambia,
Mongolia and Sudan which were presenting properties for the first
time.
III.3 The Director then reminded the Bureau of the work
before the Committee this year on Monitoring and Reporting
Procedures, notably the preparation of the Draft Resolution for
the eleventh session of the General Assembly of States Parties
as well as the Draft Resolution for the 29th session of the
UNESCO General Conference.
III.4 As for the monitoring activities, he reported that
state of conservation reports were continuing to be forwarded to
the Centre for the attention of the Committee.
III.5 The cases of the Galapagos Islands and the Plitvice
National Park were mentioned in particular, indicating that the
full reports will be provided under the appropriate agenda item.
III.6 In terms of innovative action, the Director referred
to the case of the Cities Cooperation Programme launched in Asia,
*[3]
citing the especially successful example of the Cooperation
between Luang Prabang (Laos) and Chinon (France), under which
French expertise in historic cities preservation and development
are being extended to Laos. Special appreciation was noted for
the commitment of the Mayor of Chinon for his active mobilization
as well as for the Government of France for its financial and
technical input towards this cooperation programme. He mentioned
that eight other local authorities in Europe had already come
forward to cooperate with cities in Asia and that the activities
will specifically address the issues of heritage and modernity
in the context of cities for the 21st century as a follow up to
the Habitat II Conference.
III.7 He also informed the Bureau of the recently concluded
cooperation agreement between the World Bank and UNESCO for the
preservation of six cities, Fez, Hué, Sana'a, Samarkand, St.
Petersburg and Vilnius, five of which are on the World Heritage
List.
III.8 On the matter of financial administration, the Director
stressed that some US$ 3.8 million were still outstanding for the
years prior to 1996. He took this opportunity to request once
again the States Parties to settle their arrears, without which
the already limited financial resources will further constrain
the Committee from effective and timely intervention.
III.9 With regard to expenditures, he drew the attention of
the Bureau to the Synoptic Table of the Approved Budget for 1996,
indicating that obligations and disbursements to date show an
above average rate of implementation.
III.10 On promotional activities, the Director reported that
cooperation with the private sector continues to increase. Over
50 films on World Heritage have now been produced by the German-
led consortium and under a new contract concluded with the Tokyo
Broadcasting Corporation and SONY, some 100 films will be
produced, all of which are being aired on nation-wide television
in both these countries. As for publications, the 12-volume
encyclopedia is now being published in German, Spanish and
Japanese and other books are also in production under contracts
with various international publishers. The Bureau was informed
of the newly launched World Heritage Review, a quarterly magazine
published by UNESCO in cooperation with INCAFO, a Spanish
publisher.
III.11 Other public information material are also under
preparation by the Centre. Of particular note is the new
exhibition entitled Africa Revisited, which will highlight the
diversity and fragility of African cultural heritage.
III.12 The Director also noted the progress made in the
Internet-based World Heritage information service and announced
that a demonstration will be made during this Bureau session. He
took this opportunity to thank the Republic of Korea for the
recent contribution of US$ 100,000 earmarked for further
expansion of this system.
*[4]
III.13 Recalling that 1997 is the 25th anniversary of the
World Heritage Convention, the Director sought the Bureau's
opinion on whether or not a special series of anniversary events
should be organized. Stating that the 2Oth anniversary events
were focused in Headquarters, he suggested that the 25th
anniversary should perhaps be field-based in cooperation with the
interested States Parties. He suggested that a circular letter
be forwarded to the States Parties to determine their interest
and willingness to sponsor and host events. The interest of the
Secretariat is to seize the opportunity of this anniversary for
States Parties to review the implementation of the Convention and
for an evaluation of the World Heritage Centre which would be in
its fifth year of existence.
III.14 The Director reported on the continuing activities of
the World Heritage Youth Forum, mentioning in particular the
successful Forum held in Dubrovik in May this year thanks to the
US$ 100,000 contribution from Rhone-Poulenc. He informed the
Bureau that the next forum would be held in Zimbabwe and that the
Nordic World Heritage Office has announced a contribution of US$
70,000 for this event.
III.15 Progress in the work for the preparation of the World
Heritage Manual and Glossary of terms was also reported on.
III.16 With reference to activities in furthering the Global
Strategy, the Director referred to the successful expert meeting
held in La Vanoise in France in March devoted to the issues
related to natural properties. He thanked the Government of
France for the generosity in financing this meeting. Mention was
also made of the workshop held in Ravenshoe, Australia, for World
Heritage natural site managers from South East Asia, Australia,
New Zealand and the West Pacific, for which he thanked the
Australian Government for funding.
III.17 The Director concluded his oral presentation with a
special note of thanks to the United States Government for making
available for one year, the funds necessary to second the senior
advisor to the Director of the Centre. Mr Rob Milne, of the
United States, known to many of us here for his vast experience
in heritage management, including his qualities as Chairperson
to the Committee, was chosen. He also thanked the Governments of
Denmark, Japan and Sweden, for the Associated Experts serving in
the Centre and Austria, Australia and Finland for financing
expert secondments to the Centre. Gratitude was also recorded for
the contribution of funds from the American Express, Republic of
Korea as well as for the contributions in-kind of experts from
France for the implementation of projects.
*[5]
IV. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST
4.1 Methodology and procedures for the state of
conservation
IV.1 The Secretariat introduced the working document on this
agenda item, emphasizing that, following the discussions during
the nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee, the
matter of monitoring and reporting should be brought to the
attention of both the Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties
and the 29th General Conference of UNESCO.
IV.2 As to the Eleventh General Assembly, it was noted that
the Committee at its nineteenth session prepared already a draft
resolution and that it requested the Bureau to prepare a report
for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its twentieth
session and for subsequent submission to the General Assembly.
IV.3 The Bureau adopted the report contained in Annex I of
Working Document WHC-96/CONF.202/2A with the addition of an
explanatory note regarding the continued importance of reactive
monitoring as described in paragraph 75 of the Operational
Guidelines. As to the draft resolution prepared by the Committee,
the Bureau was of the opinion that it was the result of long and
substantive consultations among the Committee members and a great
number of observer delegations, and that, therefore, no
substantial changes in its text should be considered. The Bureau
adopted, however, a minor textual modification in point 7 of the
draft resolution. The report as adopted by the Bureau is attached
as Annex II of the report of this session of the Bureau.
IV.4 The Bureau also examined a draft resolution for
inclusion in the Committee's report to the 29th General
Conference of UNESCO, which was proposed by the Secretariat in
Annex II of the working document. The Bureau amended this draft
resolution in order to use the same terminology as in the
Convention itself. The draft resolution adopted by the Bureau is
attached as Annex III of this report.
IV.5 The Bureau decided that both documents should be
presented to the World Heritage Committee at its twentieth
session for adoption and subsequent submission to the Eleventh
General Assembly of States Parties and for inclusion in the
Committee's report to the 29th General Conference of UNESCO
respectively.
IV.6 As to the methodological development of systematic
monitoring and reporting, the Secretariat informed the Bureau
that, in accordance with the decision of the Committee at its
nineteenth session, the proposed new nomination form and the
format for the periodic state of conservation reports were
circulated to all States Parties to the World Heritage Convention
for comments. These will be brought to the attention of the World
Heritage Committee at its twentieth session.
*[6]
4.2 Reports on the state of conservation of specific
properties
IV.7 The Bureau examined a total number of forty-four
reports on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on
the World Heritage List.
NATURAL HERITAGE
Natural properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger
Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
The Bureau recalled that the World Heritage Committee at its
nineteenth session examined a monitoring report prepared by the
Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention. This report indicated that
the new water control structure allowed for an inflow of water
on a small scale and that a colony of the Dalmatian Pelican had
been re-established. The report concluded, however, that the
integrity of the site had not yet been adequately restored. The
Committee, therefore, decided to retain the site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger and requested the Bulgarian authorities
to prepare a status report on their efforts to restore the site,
to be presented in three year's time.
Pending the status report which the Committee requested the
Bulgarian authorities to submit in 1998, the Bureau recommended
the Committee to retain this property on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)
Following an endorsement by the last session of the World
Heritage Committee, a multinational rapid assessment mission was
organized by the Centre and the Croatian authorities from 5 to
9 May 1996. The mission reviewed the state of conservation of the
site, identified impact and damages caused by armed conflict to
park facilities infrastructure, reviewed the legislative,
administrative and management frameworks, assessed the
socioeconomic situation of the site with regard to tourism
potential and proposed summary recommendations. The full report
of the mission was presented to the Bureau as Information
Document WHC-96/CONF.202/INF.13. The Bureau took note of the
report and the specific recommendation made concerning the List
of World Heritage in Danger.
The Bureau commended the Croatian authorities for their initial
rehabilitation activities and recommended to the Committee to
maintain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger
because, although there was no longer threat of armed conflict
to World Heritage values, there were potential and ascertained
threats such as visitor impacts, water contamination and other
conditions identified in the mission report.
*[7]
Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
The Bureau recalled that the site was placed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger in 1992 due to threats from poachers, boundary
encroachment and the adverse impacts of unplanned road
construction. It furthermore recalled that at its last session,
the World Heritage Committee called for an Environmental Impact
Assessment of the road construction in the Park and requested
information from INEFAN, the National Park administration, on
road modifications, a land tenure study and steps for an updated
management plan. Meanwhile, a copy of the land tenure study which
was concluded in March of this year and the terms of reference
for the elaboration of a new management plan were received. IUCN
provided additional information from its Quito Office that the
construction company is no longer in charge of the road
construction, which was taken over by the military. The Director
of the Centre informed the Bureau that discussions have taken
place with the Vice President of Ecuador during a recent mission
to the country.
The Bureau commended INEFAN on its actions but at the same time
reiterated the Committee's concerns about the road construction
and its request for an Environmental Impact Assessment.
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire)
The Bureau recalled that the site was included on the List of
World Heritage in Danger in 1992 because of negative impacts from
a proposed iron-ore mining project and threats due to the arrival
of a large number of refugees from neighbouring countries.
The Bureau took note of a Round Table on Mount Nimba which was
held in Conakry (Guinea) on 17 and 18 April 1996 organized by the
Ministry for Energy and Environment in collaboration with the
"Mission Française de Cooperation et d'Action Culturelle". The
Round Table included representatives of the following donor
countries and organizations: France, Germany, Japan, Canada, the
Wallonian Region of Belgium, The World Bank, UNDP, the European
Union, and USAID. The Bureau took note of the recommendation that
UNESCO considers supporting the establishment of a working group
to create an "International Foundation for Mount Nimba".
The Bureau commended the States Parties for their efforts.
However, given the uncertainties concerning the adequate
management of the site, and the shortcomings with regard to the
on-site management, the Bureau recommended to the Committee to
retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The Bureau recalled that the site was included in the List of
World Heritage in Danger in 1992 and that at the nineteenth
session of the Committee the Observer of India invited members
of the World Heritage Committee and the Director of the Centre
to visit New Delhi, Assam and Manas. IUCN informed the Bureau
*[8]
that a member of the Rhino Specialist Group has recently visited
the site and a full report will be available at the next session
of the Bureau. The scheduling of a mission to the site is under
discussion.
In the absence of any precise information, uncertainties remain
concerning the state of conservation of the site, the Bureau
reiterated its request to the State Party for a detailed updated
report. In the meantime, the Bureau recommended to the Committee
to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Aïr-et-Ténéré Reserve (Niger)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger in 1992 as it was affected by civil
disturbances and that a peace agreement was signed on 9 October
1994. In 1995 a dialogue was established between the parties,
which has paved the way for a return to a normal situation and
may allow for a detailed evaluation of the state of conservation
of the site as well as the development of an action programme for
its recovery.
The Bureau was informed that an IUCN project of 1 Million US$ is
underway at the site to assist in re-establishing the management
regime and that a report from the project will be available in
August 1996. The Delegate of Niger underlined that a mission
would be necessary to evaluate the situation.
The Bureau recommended that the 20th extraordinary session of the
Bureau in November 1996 may wish to examine the report that will
be provided by IUCN on the site, and subsequently may wish to
consider whether the site should remain on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
Everglades National Park (United States of America)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger in 1993 and that the World Heritage
Committee at its last session examined a detailed monitoring
report, presented by the State Party, which outlined the long-
term restoration work necessary to restore the balance of the
Everglades ecosystem. The State Party presented a preliminary
monitoring report dated May 1996 outlining the Government's
efforts to protect the site. The report acknowledges that despite
significant progress made (acquisition of additional land,
improved ecological indicators), the Park remains seriously in
danger.
Due to the long-term nature of the rehabilitation activities and
further to the conclusions of the Committee, the Bureau
recommended that the site remain on the List of World Heritage
in Danger until further rehabilitation is demonstrated.
*[9]
Yellowstone National Park (United States of America)
The Bureau recalled that, at its nineteenth session, the World
Heritage Committee decided that, on the basis of both ascertained
dangers and potential threats, Yellowstone National Park be
inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and that the
State Party should provide the Committee with reports on the
results of the Environmental Impact Statement and mitigating
actions. In such a report dated May 1996, the State Party advised
the Centre about the different remedial actions taken. This
includes long-term control programmes to counter the non-native
lake trout introduction, public meetings to analyze visitor
management, and the preparation of the Environmental Impact Study
(EIS) for the proposed New World Mine; the final EIS is not
expected to be completed before autumn 1996.
The Bureau recommended that the site be retained on the List of
World Heritage in Danger until such time as the mining-related
Environmental Impact Study required under domestic law is
completed and considered, and actions taken on other issues
previously identified.
Virunga National Park (Zaire)
The Bureau recalled that Virunga National Park was included on
the List of World Heritage in Danger in December 1994, due to the
tragic events in Rwanda and the subsequent massive influx of
refugees from that country. Virunga National Park, situated on
the border between Rwanda and Uganda, has been destabilized by
the uncontrolled arrival of refugees, causing deforestation and
poaching within its boundaries.
The Centre wrote to the authorities requesting that the World
Heritage Committee be informed about any action to be undertaken
to stop poaching operations within the site and to improve
control in the Park. The Centre and IUCN are in contact with
several NGOs working in the area and a mission was organized
together with WWF to the site in order to evaluate its state of
conservation and to strengthen cooperation between the different
international assistance agencies working to protect the site.
The mission was carried out from 15 to 30 April 1996 and the
report indicates serious threats to the site, including impacts
due to the location of refugee camps involving more than 700,000
persons in the vicinity of the Park (deforestation, poaching
etc.). The report indicates detailed recommendations for an
urgent safeguarding plan, collaboration between different
organizations (WWF, GTZ, UNHCR, UNDP, GEF and UNESCO) as well as
specific recommendations for international assistance requests
to be submitted by the authorities.
Taking into account the presence of thousands of refugees, the
Bureau expressed its concern about the continuing degradation of
the Park and recommended to the Committee to retain the site on
the List of World Heritage in Danger.
*[10]
Natural properties on the World Heritage List
Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)
The Bureau recalled that the World Heritage Committee at its
nineteenth session discussed a report presented by IUCN, which
underlined the infrastructural developments in the "Bow Corridor"
and their impact on the integrity of the site. IUCN advised the
Centre that it had submitted a brief to the Task Force which is
due to report in September 1996.
The Bureau recommended that the Bureau at its twentieth
extraordinary session in November 1996 examines the Task Force
report.
Galapagos National Park (Ecuador)
The Bureau considered the report of the mission led by the
Chairman of the World Heritage Committee (1-11 June 1996) to
examine the situation of the Galapagos Islands and to formulate
recommendations to improve the situation. The Bureau commended
the Ecuador Government for its support to that mission and fully
endorsed the recommendations contained in the report (see
INF.12).
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 already made.
i) Notably, the Bureau calls upon the President and the
Congress of Ecuador to enact "special legislation" as an
emergency measure, as discussed on the mission, most
importantly to halt immigration from the mainland to the
islands and to ensure the protection of the marine area
surrounding the islands of the Galapagos.
ii) The Bureau requests that its Chairman transmit the mission
report to the Ecuadorian authorities, outlining the threats
to the site and actions necessary to redress the serious
situation. The Bureau offers its continued collaboration
and assistance in dealing with these problems and welcomes
generous offers of assistance in training and preparing
management schemes from the United States and Australia.
iii) The Bureau recommends further that the World Heritage
Committee examines the measures taken by the authorities of
Ecuador in the months to come on which the authorities are
requested to report by 1 November 1996. The Committee will
examine this information and decide whether the site should
be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Upon adoption of the above text by the Bureau, the Delegate of
Ecuador expressed his great satisfaction about the recognition
of the problems that the management of Galapagos Islands is
confronted with and the cooperative spirit with which the Bureau
*[11]
addressed this issue. He declared his gratitude for all
international assistance provided to the Galapagos. He
furthermore informed the Bureau that the President of Ecuador has
received the final version of the special legislation for the
Galapagos Islands and will submit it to the Congress within the
shortest delay possible.
Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
The Centre and IUCN have received a report on a Field Study on
the flora and fauna of the Simen Mountains prepared by the
University of Berne (Switzerland). The report indicates a
deterioration of the Walia ibex population and that other large
mammals (such as bushbuck and bushpig) have become extremely
rare. In addition, IUCN stressed the serious situation at the
ite, including the loss of biodiversity, the encroachment at the
borders of the site, and the impacts of the road construction.
An Action Plan for the site was proposed by the University of
Berne. The report of the University of Berne was made available
to the Bureau members and the following three main
recommendations of this report were endorsed by the Bureau:
1) Support a planning and coordination meeting at the regional
level, involving major stakeholders of the Simen Park area,
with the general objective to update management planning of
the Park and its buffer zone.
2) Organize a technical mission by the World Heritage Centre
in the near future, i.e. September/October 1996, with the
objective of assisting in the formulation of a possible
submission to the Centre for technical assistance for (1)
above.
3) Within the World Heritage Centre's mandate for better
monitoring of African conservation sites, provide financial
support for the finalization of the recent Simen Mountains
Baseline Studies carried out in 1994-96, in order to make
available to all stakeholders the informatioon collected in
the studies for the above planning meeting.
Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
The Bureau recalled the detailed monitoring report prepared by
an IUCN mission to the site in November 1995. This report noted
the threats to the site, including agricultural intrusion and the
implementation of land reform programmes. IUCN informed the
Bureau that the Minister of Environment is in agreement with the
findings. A number of follow-up actions, including the
inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger,
was recommended. The Centre received a brief state of
conservation report dated 30 April 1996 from the Honduran
Minister of Environment, which indicated the actions taken by the
Government and various NGOs, as well as projects submitted for
technical assistance.
*[12]
On the basis of the report provided by IUCN's regional office,
the Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this property
on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau recalled that
the 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 Government of Honduras has
submitted a technical assistance request and the Bureau recalled
that priority should be given to international assistance
requests for sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
The Bureau requested the Centre to write a letter of appreciation
to the Indonesian authorities expressing satisfaction on the
actions taken and commending them for the detailed state of
conservation report received for Komodo National Park from the
Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation
of the Ministry of Forestry dated February 1996.
Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico)
The Bureau urged the State Party to keep the Committee informed
about the proposed expansion of the industrial salt production
project and to ensure the integrity of the site.
The Delegate of Mexico informed the Bureau that in July 1994 the
ESSA Salt Mining Company submitted to the National Institute of
Ecology an environmental impact study proposal to extend its
installations. This proposal was refused by the National
Institute of Ecology (INE) in February 1995. On 23 June 1995 the
ESSA Company expressed interest in submitting a new study for
evaluation by the INE.
In 26 February 1996, INE created a Committee comprising seven
national and foreign experts, which held a first meeting in March
1996, participated in a public conference attended by 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
(SEMARNAP), has indicated, through the National Institute of
Ecology, that the proposal could only be authorized on the
understanding that it respects the legislation and the
ecological standards in force.
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
The Centre received a progress report, dated March 1996, on the
ongoing planning activities for the site and a schedule of
activities. IUCN noted several recent developments in the
Sanctuary that are of concern: (1) the poaching of thirteen Oryx
and (2) the construction of a reverse osmosis plant which has
*[13]
resulted in significant damage to the desert habitat. The Bureau
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.
Huascaran National Park (Peru)
The Bureau reiterated the request issued by the World Heritage
Committee that a cultural resources inventory of the site be
carried out and clarifications be provided on the road
developments which may threaten the integrity of the site.
Skocjan Caves (Slovenia)
The Bureau reiterated the request issued by the World Heritage
Committee to the authorities to provide a map of the revised
boundaries of the site and encouraged the State Party to finalize
new legislation and to prepare a management plan.
Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)
The Bureau was informed that the report of IUCN will be presented
to the twentieth extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee and examined at that time.
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
The Bureau reiterated the request issued by the World Heritage
Committee for information on the potential threats and the
measures being taken to ensure that they are minimized.
Garamba National Park (Zaire)
In April 1996, the Centre and IUCN received information on the
poaching of two Northern white rhinos (one female, one male
adult). A joint WWF-Frankfurt Zoological Society-IUCN mission to
the site was carried out recently and the findings will be
transmitted to twentieth extraordinary session of the Bureau in
November 1996.
Given the gravity of the situation, notably concerning poaching
of the white rhino population in Garamba National Park, the
Bureau recommended to the Committee inscription of this site on
the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau requested the
Secretariat to obtain the commitment of the Zaire authorities for
such listing and for submission of a plan for corrective measures
in conformity with the Operational Guidelines.
*[14]
Mosi-oa Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
The Bureau took note of the report provided by IUCN on a
"Sustainable Development Workshop" concerning the joint
Zambia/Zimbabwe Strategic Environmental Assessment of Tourism
Development in the Victoria Falls Area which was held from 25 to
29 March 1996 in Livingstone. The Bureau was informed that a
joint management plan is under preparation and that the first
draft has been completed.
The Bureau requested the Centre to write a letter commending both
Governments for the actions undertaken, and encourage them to
complete the management plan of the site, which would give focus
to the growing tourism pressure at the site.
MIXED NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
Mixed natural and cultural properties on the World Heritage List
Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia)
The Bureau recalled previously discussed reports received on
logging operations in adjacent areas to the site and was informed
that discussions are now underway with Tasmania to develop a
methodology for the proposed World Heritage assessments,
involving both natural and cultural values.
The Bureau requested the Centre to write a letter to commend the
State Party for its efforts to carry out the preliminary
assessment of World Heritage values in areas adjacent to the
World Heritage site. It requested the Australian authorities to
provide a full report once the negotiations and assessment work
has been completed.
Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
The Bureau was informed of the decision of the National Institute
for Culture to suspend the plans to construct two suspended cable
car systems to facilitate access to the ruins of Machu Picchu.
The Bureau suggested that the 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 Bureau requested the authorities
of Peru to 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.
*[15]
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Cultural properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger
Angkor (Cambodia)
Upon hearing the report provided by the Secretariat regarding the
hotel construction projects and discussions surrounding a query
from a member of the Bureau on the "son et lumière" at Angkor
Wat, the Bureau adopted the following decision:
The Bureau requested the Chairperson of the Committee to write
to H.E. Mr Vann Molyvann, expressing on behalf of the Committee,
his appreciation for the commitment of the Royal Government of
Cambodia to the World Heritage Convention and to request the
Government to keep the World Heritage Committee informed on
developments that may be of concern to the Committee in
accordance with Paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines for
the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
Bahla Fort (Oman)
The Bureau took note that an expert mission is scheduled for
September 1996 and requested the Secretariat to report on the
outcome of this mission to the World Heritage Committee at its
twentieth session.
Wieliczka Salt Mines (Poland)
The Bureau requested the Polish authorities to undertake the
appropriate measures for the prompt implementation of the
conservation project which involves the installation of
dehumidifying equipment and requested to be kept informed of the
progress made in this respect.
Cultural properties on the World Heritage List
Butrinti (Albania)
The Bureau commended the Albanian authorities for their efforts.
In addition, it recommended that the Committee be kept informed
about the on-going activities.
City of Potosi (Bolivia)
The Bureau was pleased to note that the Secretary for Culture of
Bolivia shares the concerns about the potential degradation of
the Cerro Rico and that it is collaborating with the regional
authorities in the preparation of an ordinance for the use of the
Cerro Rico. It requested the Secretary for Culture to keep the
Committee informed on the progress made in this respect.
*[16]
Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
The Bureau took note of the report on missions undertaken in
December 1995 and January 1996 by the Chairman of the Committee,
UNESCO and ICOMOS regarding proposed construction developments
endangering the cultural landscape of this World Heritage site.
The Representative of ICOMOS informed the Bureau that the City
of Potsdam had invited ICOMOS to advise on the possible extension
of the site as well as on its management.
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 Bureau requested the Secretariat to transmit
its concern to the German authorities. The Bureau furthermore
invited the authorities to consider the extension of the World
Heritage site in order to include the Russische Kolonie/
Kapellenberg/Pfingstberg and the corridor linking these sites to
the already inscribed site of Sanssouci.
Roman Monuments in Trier (Germany)
The Bureau took note of the report on the joint UNESCO - ICOMOS
mission to examine the impact of housing construction that might
have an impact on the Roman Amphitheater in Trier. It requested
the German authorities to re-consider the construction of
buildings that would be visible from the Amphitheater and to
involve ICOMOS in the drawing up of the terms of reference for
an architectural competition for the area immediately north of
the theater. The Bureau requested that a full report of the
mission as well as on the progress made in undertaking the
architectural competition be presented to its next session in
November 1996.
Forts and Castles, Volta Greater Accra, Central and Western
Regions (Ghana)
The Bureau thanked the Ghana Museums and Monuments Board (GMMB)
for having provided accurate information on the state of
conservation of this site and congratulated the Government of
Ghana for their efforts in mobilizing international assistance
for the establishment of a Castles Maintenance Trust Fund. It
commended the current major conservation programme in Elmina and
Cape Coast which should serve as a model for the conservation of
the Castle of Osu, Accra. The Bureau recommended that protective
action be taken to identify the buffer zones and protect the
other coastal forts most at risk and that special attention be
paid to the project financed by World Heritage Fund: Fort
Prinzensten at Keta.
Ashanti Traditional Buildings (Ghana)
The Bureau, concerned by the inadequate level of resources
available for the conservation of the fragile Ashanti Traditional
Buildings recommended that the Ghana Museums and Monuments Board,
*[17]
in cooperation with the Centre, prepare comprehensive
conservation and site management plans within the context of
envisaged regional integrated development programmes. It
requested the Ghana authorities to inform the World Heritage
Committee before its twenty-first session at the latest, on the
initiatives taken in this matter.
Petra (Jordan)
After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat
concerning several problems threatening the conservation of
Petra, the Bureau recommended that the authorities of the Royal
Kingdom of Jordan undertake the measures necessary to ensure the
long-term conservation of the World Heritage site of Petra, and
more particularly that it:
- halt all projects for the construction of new tourist
roads, and carefully evaluate the impacts of the road-
widening project from Wadi Musa to Taybeth;
- carefully evaluate the location of the water
purification station;
- prolong the interdiction of building authorizations
for hotels until the zoning regulations as proposed by
the UNESCO experts can be adopted;
- halt all construction of new houses, as at Um-Sayhun,
or the elevation of existing houses for tourist
purposes and enforce the construction regulations;
- prohibit the use of reinforced concrete in developing
or repairing the site, such as for the stairway
leading to Djebel al-Khubta;
- protect the juniper trees and the vegetation of the
natural environment of the site.
The Bureau encouraged the national authorities to continue the
implementation of effective long-term protection for the site,
and the measures advocated by the Petra Management Plan of the
UNESCO experts.
Baalbeck (Lebanon)
The Bureau took note with satisfaction of the information
provided by the Delegate of Lebanon, namely that the road
construction project passing behind the site had been definitely
abandoned following a Council of Ministers decree, and that the
water seepage problems in the underground passages was being
treated.
The Bureau thanked the Lebanese authorities for the efforts
already taken for the conservation of Baalbeck. It recommended
*[18]
them to also undertake emergency conservation measures to halt
the degradation of the inner north-east angle of the Temple of
Bacchus, protect the visitors and foresee the necessary
conservation and restoration measures.
Tyr (Lebanon)
The Bureau took note with satisfaction of the information
provided by the Delegate of Lebanon, namely that the project to
extend the northern part of the port had been completely
abandoned following a Council of Ministers decree and that a
joint project of the Ministry of Urbanism and the General
Directorate of Antiquities was being implemented to remove the
unsightly constructions from the Roman aqueduct.
The Bureau thanked the Lebanese authorities for the efforts
undertaken for the conservation of Tyr. It recommended them to
take all legal and financial measures to preserve the hippodrome
and the aqueduct. It assured them that a request from the
Lebanese Government for international assistance would be
favourably considered, as soon as funds are available, in order
to implement the recommendations of the UNESCO experts and to
contribute towards the launching of the international
safeguarding campaign.
Vilnius Old Town (Lithuania)
The Bureau commended the Lithuanian authorities for their
efforts, and encouraged them to pursue the promising
revitalisation programme for the Historic Centre of Vilnius.
Medina of Fez (Morocco)
After having been informed by the Secretariat of the measures
undertaken by the Minister of Cultural Affairs of the Kingdom of
Morocco to ensure the safeguarding of the Medina of Fez against
the threatening automobile circulation project, the Bureau
expressed its warm thanks to the national authorities of Morocco
and to their Cultural Heritage Directorate, and recommended that
they continue to be vigilant with regard to any new project of
this kind, and that economic development projects envisaged with
assistance from The World Bank for the rehabilitation of the
Medina continue to be carefully evaluated with regard to the
preservation of the cultural values of the site in all their
aspects.
The City of Cusco (Peru)
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
*[19]
mechanisms for the historical city of Cusco and to inform the
Committee through its Secretariat, in conformity with Paragraph
56 of the Operational Guidelines, of major restorations or new
constructions which may affect the World Heritage value of the
property.
Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)
The Bureau commended the Government of Poland on halting the
construction works in the immediate vicinity of the Auschwitz
concentration camp. It urged the authorities to devise a plan for
the preservation of the site and its immediate surroundings and
to keep the Committee informed on this matter.
Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (Tanzania)
The Bureau thanked the Antiquities Unit of Tanzania for having
provided the state of conservation report. Since it is obvious
that the site lacks proper documentation and a management plan,
the Bureau recommended that a management plan be prepared by the
Antiquities Unit of the Republic of Tanzania.
Ancient City of Damascus (Syrian Arab Republic)
The Bureau expressed to the authorities of the Syrian Arab
Republic its grave concern with regard to the serious damage
sustained to the authenticity of this exceptional monument, the
Omeyyades Mosque through the inordinate use of reinforced
concrete, plaster and marble, and by the demolition and
reconstruction work carried out without sufficient scientific
studies and without taking into account international standards
for authenticity and integrity. It recalled Articles 4 and 5 of
the World Heritage Convention ratified by the Syrian Arab
Republic on 13 August 1975, whereby States Parties undertake to
ensure the protection and conservation of their heritage - in
accordance with international standards - and Paragraphs 24(b),
56 and 75 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention.
It requested the authorities to immediately issue the necessary
instructions to suspend the work and that no further work be
undertaken prior to a careful and in-depth study of the present
needs, and in conformity with the standards of the international
community concerning restoration work and with the advice, should
they so wish, of experts that UNESCO is willing to provide.
It further recommended to avoid such work at all costs so as not
to compromise the authenticity of other World Heritage sites, as
for example, the monuments of the Ancient City of Aleppo. The
Bureau thanked the authorities for the financial and human
resources provided by Syria for the preservation of its heritage
in general.
*[20]
Taos Pueblo (United States of America)
The Bureau recalled that the situation regarding the proposed
airport extension in the vicinity of the Taos Pueblo site had
been discussed by the Committee and the Bureau over the last
several years.
The Bureau 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 took note of the information provided by the United
States National Park Service in response to the World Heritage
Committee's recommendation regarding the Environmental Impact
Statement that is to be undertaken in relation to the proposed
extension of the Taos airport. It requested the authorities to
keep the Committee informed of any progress made in these
matters.
Historic Town of Zabid (Yemen)
The Bureau informed the Yemeni authorities of its concern with
regard to the work undertaken by local donors at the Grand
Mosque, part of the World Heritage site of the Historic Town of
Zabid, and which appears to be causing serious damage to the
authenticity and integrity of the monument.
It drew their attention to Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the World
Heritage Convention whereby States Parties undertake to ensure
the protection and the conservation of their heritage, and that
conservation must be carried out in accordance with international
standards, such as the Charter of Venice, in order to ensure
respect of authenticity. It also recalled Paragraphs 24(b), 56
and 75 of the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of
the World Heritage Convention.
Finally, it reminded the Yemeni authorities that the Committee
is always willing to provide international expert advice prior
to any restoration work.
*[21]
V. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND THE EXAMINATION OF
NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN
DANGER
NATURAL HERITAGE
V.1 The Bureau examined 11 new natural nominations received
for review by IUCN. IUCN informed the Bureau that due to
geographic and climate 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.
V.2 The Bureau discussed the conceptual differences between
Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage sites. The Representative
of the Division of Ecological Sciences underlined that Biosphere
Reserves have three functions: (1) the conservation of
representative ecosystems; (2) the promotion of local development
and (3) scientific research. They normally consist of strictly
protected core area, a buffer zone and a larger transition area.
The clear difference between but complementarity of both concepts
was emphasized, and that given their outstanding universal value,
a number of World Heritage sites are core areas of Biosphere
Reserves.
A. Property which the Bureau recommended for inscription on the
World Heritage List
Name of Property Identi- State Party Criteria
fication having submitted
number the nomination
(in accordance
with Article 11
of the Convention)
Okapi Wildlife 718 Zaïre N(iv)
Reserve
The Bureau recommended inscription of the property as one of the
most important sites for conservation, including the rare okapi
and rich floral diversity, under criterion (iv). The Bureau
expressed its hope that the activities outlined in the new
management plan would ensure the integrity of the site.
*[22]
B. Properties for which the nominations were referred back
Belize Barrier Reef 764 Belize
Complex Protected
Area System
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the Belize
Barrier Reef Complex Protected Area System under criteria (ii),
(iii) and (iv) as the largest barrier reef in the Northern
hemisphere, as a serial nomination consisting of six sites. It
noted, however, that the conditions of integrity are not
fulfilled and referred the nomination back to the State Party in
order to receive, by 1 September 1996, the following information:
(1) a clarification on the boundaries of the nominated property,
omitting the site of Hol Chan and adding the Blue Hole; (2) a
statement on the establishment of the Coastal Management
Authority and the legal status of the different parts of the
nomination and (3) information on potential oil exploration
activities. In this context, the Bureau requested the Centre to
write a letter to the national authorities. It commended the
GEF/UNDP for considerable funding for the protection of the
coastal and marine resources.
Massif du Mont Perdu/ 773 France/Spain
Tres Serols
The Bureau took note of the information provided by IUCN that a
field inspection of the site is scheduled for July 1996 and that
a report will be provided to the twentieth extraordinary session
of the Bureau in November 1996.
W National Park 749 Niger
The Bureau took note of the information provided by IUCN that the
nominated property would not meet natural criteria of the World
Heritage Convention. It was noted that the site was recognized
as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve as presently constituted at the
last session of the MAB Bureau with the recommendation to extend
it to include adjoining areas of the neighbouring countries.
After a considerable debate and intervention by the Delegation
of Niger, the Bureau decided that the nomination of 'W' National
Park be referred in order to :
(a) allow trans-national discussion to be held on the
possibility of including the full natural system of the
region, and that the World Heritage Centre provides its
assistance in this matter as far as possible;
(b) assess the broader ecological values that have been
advanced as special features and the contribution of the
river and aquatic systems. The Bureau took note of the
proposal by the Director of the Centre regarding the
*[23]
forthcoming technical meeting in Niger which could provide
additional information to the twentieth extraordinary
session of the Bureau in November 1996;
(c) enable the World Heritage Centre to mobilize bilateral or
multilateral cooperation entities to provide assistance in
the development of management plans for the contiguous W
National Parks and other conservation areas in the region.
Lake Baikal 754 Russian Federation
The Bureau took note of the oral report provided by IUCN.
The Bureau decided to refer the nomination back to the State
Party to allow it to (1) confirm the revised boundaries of the
core area proposed for inscription, and (2) provide information
about the status of the special Lake Baikal Law. Furthermore, the
Bureau requested IUCN to submit a written evaluation. On the
condition that this information is provided by 1 September 1996,
in time for the twentieth extraordinary session of the Bureau,
the Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property as the most outstanding example of a fresh water
ecosystem on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv).
The Volcanoes of 765 Russian Federation
Kamchatka
The Bureau took note of the information provided by IUCN that a
field inspection of the site is scheduled for September 1996 and
that a report will be provided to the twentieth extraordinary
session of the Bureau in November 1996.
The Sikhote-Alin Natural 766 Russian Federation
Complex
The Bureau took note of the information provided by IUCN that a
field inspection of the site is scheduled for September 1996 and
that a report will be provided to the twentieth extraordinary
session of the Bureau in November 1996.
The Ubsunuur Hollow 769 Russian Federation/
Mongolia
The Bureau took note of the information provided by IUCN that a
field inspection of the site was carried out for the Russian part
and that a full report will be provided to the twentieth
extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 1996.
C. Deferred Properties
Neusiedlersee/Seewinkel 772 Austria
The Bureau took note of the information by IUCN that the
nominated property is only a part of a lake ecosystem and that
*[24]
the land area is one of the oldest cultivated areas in Austria.
Furthermore, it was noted that Austria's tentative list includes
this property as a cultural landscape.
Therefore, the Bureau deferred this nomination, recommending to
the State Party to consider nominating the site jointly with
Hungary as a transfrontier cultural landscape. The Observer from
Austria agreed to this proposal.
Juan Fernandez Archipelago 716 Chile
National Park
The Bureau took note of IUCN's evaluation and deferred the site
for five years to allow the Chilean authorities to take action
to restore the natural integrity of the islands.
Galapagos Marine Reserve 1bis Ecuador
(Extension of the Galapagos
Islands)
The Chairperson referred to the recommendations of the recent
mission to the Galapagos Islands, in particular the need for
adequate legal protection of the Marine Reserve. The Bureau
therefore deferred the marine extension of the site.
Vodlozero National Park 767 Russian Federation
The Bureau took note of the information provided by IUCN that a
field inspection of the site has to be rescheduled for 1997 and
that a report will be provided to the twenty-first session of the
Bureau in 1997. It requested however, the Centre to solicit with
the Russian Government to obtain its written agreement to this
postponement.
The Sources of the Great Ob 768 Russian Federation
The Bureau took note of the information provided by IUCN that the
local authorities are in the process revising the nomination and
that the present nomination be deferred.
D. Nomination which was Withdrawn
Mt Soraksan Nature Reserve 771 Republic of Korea
The Bureau took note of the information provided by the Centre
that the Republic of Korea has withdrawn this nomination.
*[25]
CULTURAL HERITAGE
V.3 The Chairperson informed the members of the Bureau that
all the proposed nominations of cultural properties for
inscription submitted by the States Parties were listed on the
Tentative Lists prepared in accordance with Paragraphs 7 and 8
of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention.
V.4 The Bureau examined thirty-three new inscriptions, one
extension of a cultural property, and four previously deferred
or referred nominations.
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on
the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identi- State Party Criteria
fication having submitted
number the nomination
(in accordance
with Article 11
of the Convention)
The Monastery of 777 Armenia C(ii)(iv)
Haghpat
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the Monastery
of Haghpat in accordance with criteria (ii) and (iv). The title
of the nomination should therefore read "The Monastery of
Haghpat". The State Party was invited to consider an eventual
extension to include the Sanahin Monastery, when restoration work
had been completed and a decision had been reached on the
ownership of this property and the Sanahin Bridge (Alavredi) and
the Kayanberd Fortress.
The Historic Centre 784 Austria C(ii)(iv)(vi)
of the City of
Salzburg
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value being an
important example of a European ecclesiastical city-state which
preserves to a remarkable degree its dramatic townscape, its
historical significant urban fabric and a large number of
outstanding ecclesiastical and secular buildings from several
centuries. It is also noteworthy for its associations with the
arts, and in particular with music in the person of its famous
son, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
The Palace and 786 Austria C(i)(iv)
Gardens of Schönbrunn
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (i) and (iv) considering that
*[26]
the site is of outstanding universal value being an especially
well preserved example of the Baroque princely residential
ensemble, which constitutes an outstanding example of a
Gesamtkunstwerk. The Palace and Gardens are exceptional by
virtue of the evidence that they preserve modifications over
several centuries that vividly illustrate the tastes, interests
and aspirations of successive Habsburg monarchs.
Concerning the protection of the Garden and Parks of Schönbrunn,
the Austrian Observer informed the Bureau that the Schönbrunn
Palace, Garden and Park had equal protection since this property
is considered as an ensemble.
The Lednice-Valtice 763 Czech Republic C(ii)(iv)
Cultural Landscape
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv) considering that
the site is of outstanding universal value being a cultural
landscape which is an exceptional example of the designed
landscape that evolved in the Enlightenment and after under the
care of a single family. It succeeds in bringing together in
harmony cultural monuments from successive periods and both
indigenous and exotic natural elements to create an outstanding
work of human creativity.
Le Canal du Midi 770 France C(i)(ii)(iv)(vi)
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iv) and (vi)
considering that the site is of outstanding universal value being
one of the greatest engineering achievements of the Modern Age,
providing the model for the flowering of technology that led
directly to the Industrial Revolution and the modern
technological age. Additionally, it combines with its
technological innovation a concern for high aesthetic
architectural and landscape design that has few parallels.
Cologne Cathedral 292Rev. Germany C(i)(ii)(iv)
ICOMOS informed the Bureau that, since preparing the written
evaluation of this nomination, it had received the exact
delineation of the buffer zone and that it now recommended the
inscription of this property.
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (i) (ii) and (iv) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value being an
exceptional work of human creative genius, constructed over more
than six centuries and powerful testimony to the strength and
persistence of Christian belief in medieval and modern Europe.
*[27]
The Bauhaus 729 Germany C(ii)(iv)(vi)
and its sites
in Weimar and Dessau
ICOMOS informed the Bureau that, since preparing the written
evaluation of this nomination, it had received additional
information responding to all the issues mentioned in its
original evaluation.
The Delegate of Japan pointed out that the Bauhaus nomination
should in addition be inscribed under criterion (iv).
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (ii) (iv) and (vi) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value since these
buildings are the seminal works of the Bauhaus architectural
school, the foundation of the Modern Movement which was to
revolutionize artistic and architectural thinking and practice
in the twentieth century.
The Luther 783 Germany C(iv)(vi)
Memorials in
Eisleben and
Wittenberg
ICOMOS informed the Bureau that, since preparing the written
evaluation of this nomination, it had received additional
information responding to all the issues mentioned in its
original evaluation. The Bureau decided to keep the Melanchthon's
House in Wittenberg in the nomination.
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (iv) and (vi) considering that
the site is of outstanding universal value bearing unique
testimony to the Protestant Reformation, which was one of the
most significant events in the religious and political history
of the world and to which the buildings bear exceptional
testimony.
The Archaeological 780 Greece C(iii)
Site of Vergina
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criterion (iii) considering that the
site is of outstanding universal value representing an
exceptional testimony to a significant development in European
civilization, at the transition from classical city-state to the
imperial structure of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. This is
vividly demonstrated in particular by the remarkable series of
royal tombs and their rich contents.
*[28]
The Millenary 758 Hungary C(iv)(vi)
Benedictine Monastery
of Pannonhalma
and its Natural
Environment
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (iv) and (vi) considering that
the site is of outstanding universal value illustrating in an
exceptional manner the structure and setting of an early
Christian Monastery that has evolved over a thousand years of
continuous use. Its location and the early date of its
foundation bear unique witness to the propagation and continuity
of Christianity in Central Europe.
Sangiran Early 593 Indonesia C(iii)(vi)
Man Site
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site under
criteria (iii) and (vi) as one of the key sites for the
understanding of human evolution that admirably illustrates the
development of Homo sapiens sapiens from the Middle Pleistocene
to the present through the outstanding fossil and artefactual
material that it has produced.
Skellig Michael 757 Ireland C(iii)(iv)
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv) considering that
the site is of outstanding universal value being an exceptional,
and in many respects unique example of an early religious
settlement deliberately sited on a pyramidal rock in the ocean,
preserved because of a remarkable environment. It illustrates,
as no other site can, the extremes of a Christian monasticism
characterizing much of North Africa, the Near East and Europe.
Castel del Monte 398Rev. Italy C(i)(iii)
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (i) and (iii) considering that
the site is of outstanding universal value as in its formal
perfection and its harmonious blending of cultural elements from
northern Europe, the Muslim world, and classical antiquity.
Castel del Monte is a unique masterpiece of medieval military
architecture, reflecting the humanism of its founder, Frederick
II of Hohenstaufen.
The Bureau requested that the competent Italian authorities
provide information on the car park project which would be
visually obstructive and consider the suppression of the trees
planted near the top of the hill where the castle is built.
*[29]
The Trulli of 787 Italy C(iii)(iv)(v)
Alberobello
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (iii) (iv) and (v) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value being an
exceptional example of a form of building construction deriving
from prehistoric construction techniques that have survived
intact and functional into the modern world. Further the Bureau
recommended that the Italian authorities consider the up-grading
of the streetscape.
The Bureau decided to rename this property to "The Trulli of
Alberobello"
The Early 788 Italy C(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
Christian
Monuments and
Mosaics of
Ravenna
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)
considering that the site is of outstanding universal value being
of remarkable significance by virtue of the supreme artistry of
the mosaic art that the monuments contain, and also because of
the crucial evidence that they provide of artistic and religious
relationships and contacts at an important period of European
cultural history.
The Bureau decided to rename the property to "The Early Christian
Monuments and Mosaics of Ravenna".
The Historic 789 Italy C(i)(ii)(iv)
Centre of the
City of Pienza
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value as it represents
the first application of the Renaissance Humanist concept of
urban design, and as such occupies a seminal position in the
development of the concept of the planned "ideal town" which was
to play a significant role in subsequent urban development in
Italy and beyond. The application of this principle in Pienza,
and in particular in the group of buildings around the central
square, resulted in a masterpiece of human creative genius.
Itsukushima Shinto 776 Japan C(i)(ii)(iv)(vi)
Shrine
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the group of
buildings under criteria (i) (ii) (iv) and (vi) as the supreme
*[30]
example of this form of religious centre, setting traditional
architecture of great artistic and technical merit against a
dramatic natural background and thereby creating a work of art
of incomparable physical beauty.
The Historic 793 Morocco C(iv)
City of Meknes
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the Historic
City of Meknes under criterion (iv) because it represents an
exceptionally complete example and well preserved way the urban
fabric and monumental buildings of a 17th century Maghreb capital
city which combines elements of Islamic and European design and
planning in a harmonious fashion.
The Defence 759 Netherlands C(ii)(iv)(v)
Line of
Amsterdam
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (v) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value as it is an
exceptional example of an extensive integrated defence system of
the modern period which has survived intact and well conserved
since it was created in the later 19th century. It is also
notable for the unique way in which the Dutch genius for
hydraulic engineering has been incorporated into the defences of
the nation's capital city.
The Historic 755 Portugal C(iv)
Centre of Oporto
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criterion (iv) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value as the urban
fabric and its many historic buildings bears remarkable testimony
to the development over the past thousand years of a European
city that looks outward to the west for its cultural and
commercial links.
The Historic 781 Spain C(ii)(v)
Walled Town
of Cuenca
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (ii) and (v) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value as it is an
exceptional example of the medieval fortress town that has
preserved its original townscape remarkably intact along with
many excellent examples of religious and secular architecture
from the 12th and 18th centuries. It is also exceptional because
the walled town blends into and enhances the fine rural and
natural landscape within which it is situated.
*[31]
La Lonja de la 782 Spain C(i)(iv)
Seda de Valencia
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (i) and (iv) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value as it is a wholly
exceptional example of a secular building in late Gothic style,
which dramatically illustrates the power and wealth of one of the
great Mediterranean mercantile cities.
The Church 762 Sweden C(ii)(iv)(v)
Village of
Gammelstad, Lulea
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (v) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value as it is an
remarkable example of the traditional church town or northern
Scandanavia, and admirably illustrates the adaptation of
conventional urban design to the special geographical and
climatic conditions of a hostile natural environment.
B. Property which the Bureau did not recommend for inscription
on the World Heritage List
The Legislative 748 Uruguay
Palace, Montevideo
The Bureau recognized the national significance of the building,
but felt that it did not possess the outstanding universal value
necessary for inscription on the World Heritage List. The Bureau
recommended that this site not be inscribed on the World Heritage
List.
C. Properties for which nominations were referred back
Verla Groundwood 751 Finland C(iv)
and Board Mill
ICOMOS proposed the extension of the nominated area to include
significant buildings and structures relating in particular to
the social unit associated with the Mill.
The Bureau recognized that this property fulfilled criterion (iv)
for inscription, but however, decided to refer it back to the
State Party, to await an official written confirmation regarding
the extension of the site and the land planning regulations.
The Finnish Observer informed the Bureau that the Finnish
authorities had agreed upon the extension of the nominated area
and that land planning regulations are being prepared.
*[32]
Upper Svaneti 709 Georgia C(iv)(v)
The Bureau recognized that the property fulfilled criteria (iv)
and (v), but decided to refer this nomination back to the State
Party to allow it to delineate a recognizable and representative
area which could be effectively managed. ICOMOS stressed also
that it would strongly support inscription of the Uzguli-
Chazhashi Reserve under criteria (iv) and (v) in the event of
this being confirmed as the nominated area by the State Party.
The Ancient ksour of 750 Mauritania
Ouadane, Chinguetti,
Tichitt, Oualata
After having taken note of the ICOMOS evaluation, the Bureau is
convinced of the outstanding universal value of the proposed
nomination. However, there were some uncertainties concerning
the conservation policy adopted by the Government of Mauritania
with regard to the four towns.
The Observer of Mauritania provided the Bureau with additional
information on this policy and on the conservation and
development programmes established, implemented or already
completed. The Bureau requested the Government of Mauritania to
send this information to ICOMOS to be taken into consideration
and that ICOMOS provide a new evaluation in the light of this new
information to the extraordinary session of the Bureau in
November 1996.
The Prehispanic Town 791 Mexico C(i)(ii)(iii)
of Uxmal
The Bureau endorsed the recommendation made by ICOMOS and decided
to refer this nomination back to the State Party, requesting that
it reduces the visibility of the "son et lumière" installations,
and also considers the possibility of extending the nomination
to cover the four related sites of Kabah, Labna, Sayil and
Xlapak. In the event that the State Party accedes to these
requests, the Bureau, 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, recommended that the property be inscribed on the
World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), and
(iii).
The Historic 792 Mexico C(iv)
Monuments Zone of
Querétaro
The Bureau was of the opinion that this property meets at least
one criterion for cultural properties (criterion (iv)) and
possibly others. The Bureau therefore decided to refer this
property back to the extraordinary session of the Bureau in
Merida (Mexico) and asks ICOMOS to clarify which other criteria,
if any, are met by this property.
*[33]
D. Deferred cultural nominations
The Semmering 785 Austria
Railway
The Bureau decided to defer the examination of this nomination
in order to enable the completion of a comparative study carried
out by TICCIH, and also for the State Party to supply more
detailed maps and information regarding the cultural landscape
protection legislation in Lower Austria and Styra relating to the
protection of the cultural landscape. If the study is completed
for the twentieth extraordinary session of the Bureau in November
1996, this nomination shall be considered as referred and an
ICOMOS recommendation will be submitted to that meeting.
Prehistoric Stone 760 Gambia
Circle Sites
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this site be
deferred so as to await the outcome of a comparative study of
megalithic monuments in north-western Africa; obtain the
completion of the procedures for institutional protection for the
three monuments which at present are not protected. Any
subsequent proposal must include provision for management plans
in relation to each of the sites and the definition of buffer
zones.
James Island and 761 Gambia
the Albreda/Juffure/
Santo Domingo Historic
Zone
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this nomination
be deferred to await the outcome of a comparative study of pre-
colonial and early colonial trading settlements in West Africa.
The State Party should also consider possible extension of the
nominated area, as proposed by ICOMOS. The Delegate of Niger
requested that the World Heritage Centre assist, if necessary,
the Gambian authorities with this possible extension, to include
the historical defence works situated on the opposite bank of the
Gambia River, at Banjul and Bullen.
Essaouira 753 Morocco
The Bureau decided to defer the examination of this proposed
nomination until the twenty-first session of the Bureau in 1997,
so that the Moroccan authorities may submit additional
information concerning the site.
*[34]
The Historic Sites 790 Panama
of Panama Viejo and
the Historic District
of Panama City, with the
Salon Bolivar
The Bureau endorsed the recommendation made by ICOMOS and decided
to defer this nomination to await the provision by the State
Party of plans showing the exact delineation of the areas
proposed for inscription, and also of the respective buffer
zones, supported by evidence of statutory controls within both
zones. Full details of the plan for the revitalization of the
Historic District of Panama City should also be supplied, once
this plan has received official approval and is being
implemented.
The Kysuce-Orava 756 Slovak Republic
Switchback Railroad
Given that this type of property has not previously been
inscribed on the World Heritage List, the Bureau decided to defer
this proposed nomination and to await the completion of a
comparative study carried out by TICCIH. If the study is
completed for the twentieth extraordinary session of the Bureau
in November 1996, this nomination shall be considered as referred
and an ICOMOS recommendation will be submitted to that meeting.
Suakin: The Island of 752 Sudan
Suakin, the Old Town of
Suakin, and the Coral
Town Suakin
The Bureau decided to defer the examination of the proposed
nomination in order to await the completion of the systematic
inventory and the evaluation programmes as well as the
preparation and implementation of an overall management plan.
E. Property for which the discussion was adjourned to the next
extraordinary session of the Bureau
Hiroshima Peace 775 Japan
Memorial (Genbaku
Dome)
The Bureau took note of ICOMOS recommendation concerning the
Hiroshima Peace Memorial, Genbaku Dome, Japan (775) in its
written report (1996) and decided to adjourn the discussion of
this matter to the extraordinary session of the Bureau in
November 1996.
*[35]
F. Extension of a World Heritage site
The City of Vicenza 712bis Italy C(i)(ii)
and the Palladian
Villas of the Veneto
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (i) and (ii).
With the proposed extension the Bureau further recommended that
the name be changed to "The City of Vicenza and the Palladian
Villas of the Veneto."
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that it had received a letter
in May 1996 from the Italian Delegation concerning the withdrawal
of the Villa Thiene in Cicogna di Villafranca Padovana from the
proposed extension.
MIXED PROPERTIES
V.5 The Bureau examined three nominations for inscription
of mixed sites which had been sent to ICOMOS and IUCN for review.
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on
the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identi- State Party Criteria
fication having submitted
number the nomination
(in accordance
with Article 11
of the Convention)
Mt. Emei and 779 China C(iv)(vi)
Leshan Giant Buddha N(iv)
The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee inscribe
the site under cultural criteria (iv) and (vi) as an area of
exceptional cultural significance related to Buddhism and of
natural beauty into which the human element has been integrated,
and natural criterion (iv) for its high plant species diversity
with a high number of endemic species. The Bureau furthermore
recommended that the Chinese authorities carefully control
tourism development at the site and encourage involvement of the
Buddhist Monasteries in conservation activities on the mountain.
*[36]
The Lapponian Area 774 Sweden C(iii)(v)
Precious Nature N(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
- Saami Culture
The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee inscribe
the nominated property on the basis of natural criteria (i),
(ii), (iii) and (iv). The Bureau considered that the site is of
outstanding universal value as it contains examples of ongoing
geological, biological and ecological processes, a great variety
of natural phenomena of exceptional beauty and contains
significant biological diversity including a population of brown
bear and alpine flora. It was noted that the site meets all
conditions of integrity.
The Bureau also recommended inscription under cultural criteria
(iii) and (v) as the site is one of the last and largest examples
of pastoralism with transhumance.
The Bureau encouraged the Swedish authorities (a) to continue to
work with the Saami people on the environmental impact of
reindeer herding, (b) to extend the inventory of species and (c)
to consolidate management planning for a single World Heritage
area. The Bureau would welcome consideration being given to the
possibility of a transboundary site with Norway.
B. Properties for which the nominations were referred back
Lushan National 778 China C(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)
Park
The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee inscribe
the site under cultural criteria (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi) as
a cultural landscape of outstanding aesthetic value and its
powerful associations with Chinese spiritual and cultural life.
The Bureau however, requested the State Party to provide further
clarifications on the boundaries of the site. The Bureau also
requested that additional comments on the site as a cultural
landscape be provided by IUCN in time for the twentieth
extraordinary session of the Bureau. The Bureau decided not to
recommend the inscription of the property under natural criteria.
V.6 At the end of the discussions, the Chairperson read the
Paragraphs 57, 61 and 62 of the Guidelines concerning the
evaluation and examination of nominations for inscription which
prescribe the role of the advisory bodies, the representatives
of States Parties, member or not of the Committee, and requested
that these directives be strictly adhered to.
*[37]
VI. PROGRESS REPORT ON THEMATIC AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES
A) Thematic Studies
VI.1 The Bureau took note of the Working Document WHC-
96/CONF.202/4 on the "Progress Report on Thematic and
Comparative Studies", the Information Document WHC-
96/CONF.202/INF.6 on the "Comparative and Related Studies carried
out by ICOMOS, 1992-1996", Information Document WHC-
96/CONF.202/INF.9 on the "Report of the Expert Meeting on
Evaluation of General Principles and Criteria for Nominations of
Natural World Heritage Sites (Parc national de la Vanoise,
France, 22 to 24 March 1996)" and Information Document WHC-
96/CONF.202/INF.10 on the "Regional Thematic Study Meeting:
European Cultural Landscapes of Outstanding Universal Value
(Vienna, Austria, 21 April 1996)".
VI.2 A general debate took place as to whether the Bureau
had the mandate to discuss and decide upon substantive issues
such as those raised in Working Document WHC-96/CONF.202/4 and
Information Document WHC-96/CONF.202/9. The Bureau recalled the
discussions held at the eighteenth and nineteenth sessions of the
World Heritage Committee and thanked the French Government for
hosting the expert meeting in the Parc de la Vanoise. It was
decided that the Secretariat transmit the recommendations of the
expert group (Documents WHC-96/CONF.202/4 and WHC-
96/CONF.202/INF.9) to all States Parties to the World Heritage
Convention and request their comments by 1 November 1996 at the
latest. It was furthermore noted that the recommendations of the
expert group and the comments by States Parties be presented to
the twentieth session of the World Heritage Committee. It was
suggested that consideration be given to the creation of a
special group at the time of the twentieth session of the
Committee to help structure this important debate.
VI.3 A number of delegates expressed their view that the
expert meeting held in at the Park de la Vanoise brought up
important questions concerning the spirit of the Convention and
the unique links it makes between nature and culture and their
protection.
VI.4 The Observer of France recalled the background to the
expert meeting and its reflections on the notions of integrity,
representivity and universality of the World Heritage List. He
underlined that the recommendations made by the experts are a
basis for further deliberations and can in no way be interpreted
as suggesting the removal of sites from the World Heritage List.
The full report of the Vanoise Meeting (Information Document WHC-
96/CONF.202/INF.9) discusses general principles and
interpretations of natural heritage as well as the interface
between nature and culture, recalling the unique approach of
linking both in the World Heritage Convention. He welcomed the
proposal that the full report be transmitted to all States
Parties for comments as well as to the twentieth session of the
World Heritage Committee. The Bureau took up this discussion
under Agenda item 11 (see Chapter XI of this Report).
*[38]
VI.5 It was suggested that the Operational Guidelines be
reorganized by the Secretariat in the form of a Manual to be
presented at the twentieth session of the World Heritage
Committee.
VI.6 The Bureau furthermore took note of the report of the
Regional Thematic Study Meeting on European Cultural Landscapes
of Outstanding Universal Value held in Vienna, Austria, on 21
April 1996 (Information Document WHC-96/CONF.202/INF.10).
B) Comparative studies
VI.7 The Chairperson gave the floor to the Director of the
Centre who recalled that information on this subject had been
requested by the Bureau during its nineteenth session in July
1995, then ICOMOS took the floor.
VI.8 The Representative of ICOMOS gave information on the
comparatives studies that had already been completed, those
underway or foreseen in Document WHC-96/CONF.202/INF.6. He
suggested that several of them concern questions which arise
frequently during the examination of nominations for inscription
and informed the Bureau that a more methodological document would
be presented to the Committee at its next session.
VI.9 The Delegate of Lebanon regretted that this document
was not available in English, as were other information
documents. The Director of the Centre agreed but it had not been
possible to translate this document due to lack of resources.
VI.10 The Delegate of Germany was very satisfied with the
level of work already achieved by ICOMOS, in particular for their
assistance to the Committee in the choice of new categories of
properties. He hoped that the members of the Committee would be
able to consult and receive some of these studies. The
Representative of ICOMOS indicated that this had already been
done in some cases and that an illustrated publication on the
canals and bridges of worldwide interest will be made available
at Merida.
VI.11 The Representative of ICCROM underlined that his
Organization would be happy to participate with ICOMOS in all
thematic meetings, and in particular in those concerning such
themes as authenticity, conservation and the links between nature
and culture. The Representative of ICOMOS warmly accepted this
proposal, particularly with regard to the studies which will be
carried out next year at the occasion of twenty-fifth anniversary
of the Convention.
VI.12 The Delegate of Mexico requested that experts for the
South and particularly from Latin America be closely associated
with future meetings, for example on the theme of authenticity.
*[39]
VII. SYNOPTIC PRESENTATION OF THE BUDGET, INCLUDING FULL
INFORMATION ON WORLD HERITAGE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE
UNESCO SECRETARIAT
VII.1 On Agenda item 7, the Chairman began by reporting on
his two meetings with the Director-General which had been
requested by the Committee at its nineteenth session.
VII.2 On the question of staff, the Chairman stated that
after the January meeting, the Director-General agreed to absorb
under the UNESCO staff costs from 1997, the costs for the seven
General Service staff and the documentalist post which are
exceptionally met this year from the World Heritage Fund. He
reported that the Director-General had also agreed to appoint
immediately, a P-5 natural heritage specialist and a high-level
administrator for the Centre. He drew the attention of the Bureau
to the letter dated 2 February 1996 addressed to the Chairman by
the Director-General reiterating these commitments, which had
been copied to all members of the Committee.
VII.3 In view of the delayed implementation of these
decisions by the Director-General and further departure of staff
from the Centre, the Chairman reported that another meeting with
the Director-General took place in June. He regretted to inform
the Bureau that due to the Organization's financial difficulties,
the Director-General was obliged to make a new proposal in which
four posts will be met under the UNESCO staff cost and two posts
from Regular Programme project costs. For the two remaining
posts, the Director-General expressed his hope for the Committee
to continue meeting the costs.
VII.4 The members of the Bureau thanked the Chairman for his
intervention with the Director-General on their behalf. The
Delegate of Italy recalled the Committee's decision in Berlin to
support the costs of these posts only on an exceptional basis and
therefore stated that the Committee's prolongation for the
funding of any of these posts should be avoided. Germany
supported this position also shared by the French Observer.
VII.5 The French Observer also reminded the Secretariat that
the Committee had requested at its nineteenth session, an
organizational chart of the Centre, clearly demonstrating the
ratio between professional and secretarial staff as compared to
the other units of UNESCO Secretariat. This organizational chart
should be annotated with information regarding the functional
responsibilities of the staff with the date of their appointment
and duration of their assignment.
VII.6 Several members of the Bureau requested a clearer
presentation of the relations between the Centre and the advisory
bodies, both in financial terms and for their respective
activities to ensure that there is no overlap or duplication. The
Representative of ICOMOS welcomed this suggestion stating that
this will provide an opportunity for the Bureau and Committee to
appreciate the extent of their input which is not limited to the
evaluation of nominations but to potentially extend to all the
*[40]
actions linked to the Convention, as for example technical
assistance and monitoring.
VII.7 The Bureau requested the Chairman to see the Director-
General with regard to these outstanding problems and on the
matter of strengthening the administrative unit of the Centre.
VII.8 On the question of the budget presentation, as
requested by the Committee at its nineteenth session, an
illustrative example of a synoptic presentation of the budget,
including information on World Heritage activities within the
UNESCO Secretariat was submitted in Document WHC-
96/CONF.202/5/Rev. This document contained two parts, the sample
presentation of budgetary details by budgetline with detailed
annotations and the synoptic overview table and the second part
being the Draft Matrix Report on 1996 UNESCO Activities for World
Heritage Cultural Properties and Natural Properties.
VII.9 The Representative of the UNESCO Bureau of the
Comptroller explained that the first part of this Document
contained the sample budget presentation information, while the
World Heritage Fund financial accounts for 1995 and
implementation of the 1996 approved budget were contained in WHC-
96/CONF.202/INF.7. He stated that in view of the fact that the
financial accounts have to be submitted to the Committee, then
to the General Assembly of States Parties, the Bureau of the
Comptroller recommended the budget document should be distinct
from the financial accounts document.
VII.10 The Italian Delegate considered that the synoptic
presentation of the budget as contained in the first part of this
Document was exactly the same as that provided to the Committee
and does not conform to what was requested and still remains
confusing. At the request of the Observer of France, the
Secretariat confirmed that if the draft Resolution 3 in Document
WHC-96/CONF.202/5.Rev. was to be presented to the next Committee
meeting, it would be in accordance with paragraph XII.4 of the
Cartagena Report which authorizes the Chairman of the Committee
and not the Director of the Centre to approve part of the
provisional budget, subject to the conditions therein mentioned.
VII.11 The German Delegate stated that he found the
information contained in the Draft Matrix Report on UNESCO
activities for World Heritage of interest. While welcoming
information contained in the Explanatory Notes in the budget, he
felt that the format should be improved. He also requested a more
comprehensive explanation on the reasons determining the budget
ceiling, notably in relation to the revenue and the reserve. He
also stated that in assisting the Committee to establish the 1997
budget, information on the Regular Programme activities related
to World Heritage foreseen in other units of UNESCO, notably in
the Culture and the Science Sectors would be useful.
VII.12 The Observer of France stated preference for a single
document including both the budget and expenditures, together
*[41]
with a table providing information on the prior year's approved
budget, actual expenditure and the proposed budget for the next
year so as to have an overview of trends in one table. She
suggested that each budgetline be annotated, providing
explanations as necessary. She noted furthermore, that in view
of the Centre being protected from financial cuts, details on
appropriation and expenditure under the Regular Programme budget
should not be difficult to provide. The Secretariat undertook to
provide this information and added that for the other Sectors of
UNESCO, where the budgets could be subjected to cuts, the
activities foreseen would only be indicative.
VII.13 Some members considered that the amount in the
Contingency Reserve was too high and that it should perhaps be
reduced to increase funding for the much needed activities for
the large number of sites on the List. The Representative of the
Bureau of the Comptroller referred to the decision of the
Committee at its seventeenth session in Cartegena which
established the Contingency Reserve at US$ 2 million and that it
was open to the Committee to change this amount if it so wished.
VII.14 The Delegate of Niger, supported by the Observer of
Canada, suggested that, for the next session of the Committee,
an annex document to the budget report be prepared. The
analytical document will comprise the columns "proposed" and
"actual" expenditure and would permit statistical overview of the
main trends of the different budget chapters, to better
comprehend the directions for the safeguarding of world heritage.
VII.15 The Delegate of Lebanon suggested that a working group
be established for budgetary and financial matters before the
next Committee meeting. The German Delegate reminded the Bureau
that working groups can only be established by the Committee.
VII.16 Further to the suggestion of the Observer of the United
States, it was agreed that the members of the Bureau, as well as
the observers, if they so wish, provide the Secretariat in
writing with the budgetary format and information they would like
to see in the document for the next Committee meeting. The
Secretariat will in any case act upon the recommendations of the
Bureau and the Observers.
VII.17 The Bureau also expressed its wish to have an
evaluation conducted on the activities financed from the Fund
which they deemed was essential in determining the future
orientation of projects, as well as their sustainability.
VII.18 The Director noting the comments of the Bureau, stated
that the Secretariat will make its best efforts to present the
budget and financial account documents for the next Committee
meeting in Merida, containing the information requested by the
Bureau, notably:
(a) the synoptic table to include prior year approved budget,
actual expenditures and proposed budget with annotations by
budgetline as annex, including information on the budget
*[41]
ceiling, with each page and paragraph numbered for ease of
reference;
(b) a separate document on the financial account of the
previous biennium;
(c) the organizational chart of the Centre with annotations on
the main responsibilities of each unit or staff and date of
appointment to the post and duration of the assignment;
(d) a synoptic report on the budget relations between the
Centre and the rest of the UNESCO units with regard to
World Heritage activities;
(e) a synoptic report on the budget relations between the
Centre and the advisory bodies, together with a draft
contract for the following year to be approved by the
Committee.
VIII. DECENTRALIZATION OF WORLD HERITAGE ACTIVITIES
VIII.1 The Chairman, having reminded the Bureau that this
item will be discussed on the basis of Working Document WHC-
96/CONF.202/6, recalled also that this item was inscribed on the
agenda by the Committee at its nineteenth session in Berlin. (As
indicated on page 69 of the Berlin Report, English and French
versions). He then invited the Secretariat to introduce the item
on behalf of the Centre.
VIII.2 Having explained the structure of the working
document, the Secretariat underlined that it was meant to be a
factual presentation of the actual situation, based on existing
documents. The text had been previously approved also by the
Director of UNESCO's Division for Decentralization and Relations
with Field Offices who, unfortunately, could not be present as
he was on mission. The part dealing with the Nordic World
Heritage Office in Oslo was prepared on the basis of the written
information provided by the Office. In addition to this, the
Office made available a more detailed paper, "Strategy 1996-98",
which had been distributed to the Bureau members during the
session. The Secretariat furthermore informed the Bureau that the
Oslo Office would submit a detailed report on its activities of
the first nine months at the next session of the Committee. In
conclusion, the Secretariat ventured to underline that the
setting up of the Oslo Office was a three-year pilot project,
created on an experimental basis; that the office was fully
financed by the Government of Norway; and that UNESCO contributed
US$ 20,000 from the Regular Programme for projects to be
implemented jointly with the World Heritage Centre in the 1996-97
period. The Secretariat finally suggested that the debate on
decentralization could perhaps be more productive if it focused
on possible forms of (sub)regional support mechanisms in favour
of World Heritage rather than decentralization as a somewhat
abused notion.
*[43]
VIII.3 The Delegate of Italy insisted that the debate be on
decentralization, as requested by the Committee, and in line with
UNESCO's documents. He quoted in this respect the Director-
General's statement in 1995 regarding the setting up of the
Office.
VIII.4. Having reminded that the Convention is served by the
Secretariat of UNESCO, but that it is the World Heritage
Committee that decides on policy matters, the Delegate of Italy
underlined that the real issue is the attitude and the way in
which the establishment of this new office (or possibly offices),
was handled. In this sense he disagreed with the Director's
statement regarding the World Heritage logo (referred later in
this Chapter), emphasizing that the logo belongs to all States
Parties collectively. Therefore it is not for the Director-
General of UNESCO, or anyone else, to decide on its use. He
deplored the fact that copies of the agreement regarding the Oslo
Office had never been officially distributed to the members of
the Committee, not even in Berlin, when it was made available
thanks to one of the delegations. He concluded by stating that
his Delegation has nothing against the Oslo Office working on
promoting the Convention among the Nordic countries. However, it
is the international dimension of their envisaged activities
which gives rise to concern. In this regard he wished to know
whether any specific contracts had been signed between the Oslo
Office and the Centre for activities to be carried out in Asia
and southern Africa.
VIII.5. In a later intervention, the Delegate of Italy
underlined that questions regarding the use of the logo are only
a part of the problem. The central issue remains that of
priorities, and he quoted in this context Article 13, paragraph
4 of the Convention, notably the part which states: "The
Committee shall determine an order of priorities for its
operations." He therefore reiterated that the Committee must
have the possibility to approve such actions, no matter how
worthwhile these may be, and he wanted to know in what way and
when the Committee would be seized to do so.
VIII.6 The Delegate of Germany wished to know more about the
legal aspects of the agreement, signed between the Government of
Norway and UNESCO, regarding the creation of the Oslo Office. He
furthermore wished to know whether specific contracts had been
made with the Office and what amount from the World Heritage Fund
had been decentralized. Finally, while stating that the Office
could perhaps serve as an example of a useful complementary
structure, the Committee was entitled to be informed in advance
of such actions, i.e., before any agreements are signed.
Referring to the "Strategy" paper of the Oslo Office, he said it
was important to distinguish the part regarding the Nordic
countries, which he found acceptable, from the part dealing with
the international dimension of the Office activities. These, he
said, would need the approval of the Committee. The Delegate of
Germany also wished to know whether the funds provided by the
Office, coming for instance from one of the Nordic development
*[44]
agencies, would be given to the World Heritage Fund, and would
therefore be subject to the Committee's decision on how it is to
be used.
VIII.7. Having stated that the Working Document fails to
respond to any of the concerns raised regarding this matter at
the Berlin session, the Delegate of Lebanon deplored that it did
not outline any strategy, or any new developments. It likewise
did not mention previous decentralization efforts, such as the
UNDP in Latin America. As regards the international dimension of
the "Strategy" paper distributed by the Oslo Office, he wished
to know why it deals with only two regions (southern Africa and
South-east Asia). He also wished to know who this Office will be
accountable to and within what legal framework. Was this going
to incite the creation of other similar offices, thereby creating
"clubs of well-off countries" which would replace existing forms
of multilateral cooperation? He also wished to know whether
paragraph 124 of the Operational Guidelines on the use of the
World Heritage logo had been respected.
VIII.8 At a later stage of the debate, the Delegate of Lebanon
recalled Article 15.4 of the Convention, notably the part which
states that "Contributions to the Fund and other forms of
assistance made available to the Committee may be used only for
such purposes as the Committee shall define". He asked in this
context whether this should not apply also to funds received
under the Regular Programme.
VIII.9 Speaking again, later in the debate regarding the World
Heritage emblem, the Delegate of Lebanon reminded that while
paragraph 123 of the Operational Guidelines stipulates that
"properties included in the World Heritage List should be marked
with the World Heritage emblem jointly with the UNESCO logo",
this does not mean that the emblem is the property of UNESCO.
Regarding the emblem, he also reminded the Committee that any
modifications regarding its use will have to be reflected in the
relevant paragraphs of the Operational Guidelines.
VIII.10 The Delegate of Mexico deplored that the distribution
of the Oslo Office "Strategy" paper was only made during the
Bureau session, when it was dated "March 1996". He agreed with
the statement of the Delegate of Italy concerning the ambiguity
of this document and that apart from financial matters and the
question of the logo, it should be reformulated to avoid
confusion, as for instance on page 5, under the title
International Strategy: "NWHO's International Strategy will be
implemented in cooperation with our Nordic Partners and WHC,
Paris".
VIII.11 The Delegate of Australia stated that his understanding
was that States Parties were encouraged to use the logo and
Australia therefore prominently featured the logo in publications
of the Ravenshoe Workshop and others. He shared the view
expressed by others that this matter needed to be discussed in
more detail. To ensure the proper use of the logo in an
efficient way, it was proposed that requests for its use could
*[45]
be submitted by correspondence via the Centre to the Chairman and
the members of the Bureau for approval.
VIII.12 Speaking about the agreement by which the Oslo Office
was created, the Delegate of Australia indicated that it speaks
(in the opening paragraph) of an "international network of World
Heritage offices", while in Article 6, it speaks of "obligations
of UNESCO". These parts of the agreement are indeed likely to
raise suspicion and damage confidence. It is therefore important
to have more detailed information on this matter.
VIII.13 The Delegate of Niger also queried the Oslo Office
"Strategy" paper, asking specifically what partnerships have been
envisaged in Africa and Asia, and whether such activities would
be first discussed by the Committee. Having heard the reply
provided by the Director of the Oslo Office, Ms Kris Endresen,
he then expressed his concern regarding such a decentralization
of World Heritage activities which would use bilateral as well
as multilateral forms of cooperation. Having endorsed the
concerns expressed by previous speakers, he underlined that
multilateral cooperation normally means that funds are given into
a common kitty, the use of which is decided by an international
body, in this case the World Heritage Committee.
VIII.14 Regarding the World Heritage logo, the Delegate of
Niger felt that this was not an urgent matter, and that therefore
a proposal for eventual modifications regarding its use could be
prepared by the Secretariat for the Committee's session in
Merida.
VIII.15 The Delegate of Japan stated that the setting up of
the Oslo Office was a useful pilot project, but that its legal
aspects and role in international projects required further
clarification. He insisted on the importance of clarifying
particularly the relationship between this new type of office or
organization and the World Heritage Committee.
VIII.16 The Observer of Malta emphasized the general concerns
expressed by the Bureau for not having been given officially
copies of the agreement regarding the Oslo Office, or any other
possible contracts related to it. She said that while no-one
could be against the principle of regional initiatives undertaken
by States Parties to strengthen the implementation of the
Convention in their respective regions, it was the manner in
which this particular office was set up that was unacceptable.
She requested the Secretariat to ensure that the necessary
control mechanisms be applied by UNESCO in any future undertaking
to avoid a repetition of what occurred in the creation of the
Nordic agreement.
VIII.17 The Observer of France, having endorsed the statements
made by the Delegates of Germany, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, Niger
and the Observer of Malta, summarized the key problems identified
under this item. The use of the logo clearly requires to be
managed in a legally sound way, and it therefore needs to be
*[46]
examined at the next meeting of the Committee. Regarding the
financing of the Oslo Office, she requested the Director of the
Centre whether he could confirm that no contract had been
concluded between the Centre and the Oslo Office which implied
the use of funds from the World Heritage Fund or Regular
Programme funds. She also wished to have precise information
concerning the possible creation of three other World Heritage
offices and whether official negotiations were in progress. In
the event that other offices were created, would they be auto-
financed or would UNESCO funds be required?
VIII.18 The Observer of Benin suggested that a written proposal
regarding the use of the logo be adopted at this session of
Bureau, so that it could be submitted to the Committee at its
session in Merida.
VIII.19 The Observer of the United States of America endorsed
the proposal made by the Observer of Benin. Having emphasized the
growing threats to the World Heritage sites on the one hand, and
the rapidly decreasing financial means for their preservation,
on the other, he felt that the Centre and the Oslo Office should
be praised for finding additional funds for World Heritage
projects. However, while sharing the view of preceding speakers
who requested further clarifications regarding the Oslo Office,
he invited these speakers to state more clearly the motives for
their reservations regarding such new offices. He concluded by
stating that his country will continue to support such
initiatives, particularly in view of the fact that the Nordic
countries sought close cooperation with the World Heritage
network when in fact nothing would have prevented them from doing
the same without the Committee's endorsement.
VIII.20 The Observer of Thailand reminded the Bureau that the
questions regarding the logo have remained in suspense since the
Committee's eighteenth session, held in Phuket in 1994. It was
important to keep in mind that paragraph 125 of the Operational
Guidelines (the need for written authorization), evoked in the
debate at this session, speaks of the restrictions regarding the
use of the logo for commercial purposes. Nonetheless, he agreed
that the entire matter should be brought again to the attention
of the Committee.
VIII.21 Both the Director of the World Heritage Centre and the
Representative of the Legal Adviser provided clarifications to
some of the questions raised in the debate. The Director of the
Centre notably emphasized the complementarity of the Oslo Office
with the work of the Centre. The Office helps identify World
Heritage projects for which funds can be made available from
major funding agencies of the Nordic Countries. He cited the
example of the World Heritage Education project for young people,
endorsed by the Committee as well as UNESCO's General Conference,
and for which additional funds have been received from NORAD.
While emphasizing that the Oslo Office is indeed a "learning
experience", he stated his readiness to prepare a detailed report
on the Oslo Office and its activities, which would be ready for
the Committee's meeting in Merida, in December 1996.
*[47]
VIII.22 The Legal Adviser on his part provided clarifications
regarding the use of the World Heritage logo, as defined in the
Operational Guidelines, emphasizing that it was for the Committee
to decide on its logo, as it is not mentioned in the text of the
Convention. Specifically regarding the use of the logo by the
Oslo Office, he said that this authorization seems to have been
given by the Centre while in fact, officially, it could have been
given only by the Committee. As for the relationship between the
Oslo Office and the Committee, he drew the Bureau's attention to
Article 9 of the agreement signed between UNESCO and the
Government of Norway, which states that "the Office shall prepare
an annual report on its activities which will be submitted to the
World Heritage Centre. The Centre shall inform the World Heritage
Committee on the operation and the activities of the Office and
shall subsequently communicate to the Office any decisions and
recommendations of the Committee relevant to the activities of
the Office."
VIII.23 The Chairman of the World Heritage Committee thereupon
summarized the debate on this item by underlining the following:
(a) While it is true that the World Heritage sites are in
danger and all efforts must be made to save them,
greater transparency is necessary when undertaking
such initiatives as the setting up of the Oslo Office,
to avoid confusion and mistrust.
(b) While everyone commends the contribution of the Nordic
countries, and particularly the Government of Norway,
to World Heritage, there is nontheless a concern,
expressed by the majority of the speakers, that the
responsibilities regarding the World Heritage
Convention could eventually slip away from its
Committee. This was expressed particularly in regard
to the international dimension of the Oslo Office's
proposed activities.
(c) The present difficulties may perhaps be overcome if
the Centre provides more information on the Oslo
Office and all other similar initiatives to the
Committee. To do so, the Chairman invites all members
of the Committee to address in writing their questions
to the Centre, so that a full written reply can be
prepared for the Committee's session in Merida. The
Secretariat will in any case act upon the
recommendations of the Bureau and the Observers.
(d) Regarding the use of the logo (emblem), he agrees with
the proposal that the countries wishing to use it
address their request to the Chairman, who will
consult by correspondence the members of the Bureau.
Furthermore, the Chairman requested the Legal Adviser
to prepare for the Committee's meeting in Merida a
written document on the use of the logo, including
proposals on how to assure its appropriate use.
*[48]
IX. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
IX.1 The Bureau recalled the discussion held at nineteenth
session of the World Heritage Committee in Berlin (see Chapter
XIII of the Committee Report, page 59) that one third of the
budget for technical cooperation (total of US$ 685,000) and half
of the budget for training (US$ 550,000) is reserved for natural
heritage. It was also noted that no funds remain for these two
budget items for cultural heritage and that the remaining balance
for technical cooperation for natural heritage is US$ 121,234.
NATURAL HERITAGE
A. Technical Cooperation
Requests approved by the Bureau
Conservation Strategy and Preparation of a Management Plan for
the Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
In the light of the state of conservation report presented on
this site, the Bureau approved an amount of US$ 30,000 for the
elaboration of a management plan for the Rio Platano Biosphere
Reserve (Honduras) subject to the submission of a detailed budget
outline for this request.
Requests not approved by the Bureau
Architectural Design of the Interpretation Centre at the
Galapagos National Park (Ecuador) (US$ 25,900)
The Bureau recalled the recent mission to the Galapagos Islands
and recommended that the Galapagos National Park authorities
submit a request to the next Bureau session in line with the
orientations identified by the fact-finding mission to the
Galapagos Islands led by the Chairperson.
Technical Assistance for Virunga National Park (Zaire)
(US$100,000)
The Bureau did not recommend this request to be approved by the
Committee in the light of the findings of the recent mission to
this site, which is on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The
Bureau encouraged the State Party to submit a revised request in
particular for a safeguarding plan for Virunga National Park as
recommended by the expert mission.
*[49]
B. Request concerning Promotional Activities
Preparation of Interpretation Materials for the Galapagos
National Park (Ecuador) (US$29,900)
The Bureau recalled that the total amount for promotion has
already been fully committed and that no further funds are
available.
X. DRAFT AGENDA FOR THE TWENTIETH EXTRAORDINARY SESSION
OF THE BUREAU (29-30 NOVEMBER 1996)
X.1 The Chairperson recalled that at the kind invitation
of the Government of Mexico, the twentieth session of the World
Heritage Committee will be held in Mexico, Merida (Yucatan). He
thanked the Government of Mexico for this generous offer.
X.2 Upon the proposal of the Chairperson, the Bureau
decided that its twentieth extraordinary session will be held in
Merida, Yucatan on 29 and 30 November 1996. The Bureau adopted
the Provisional Agenda for this session as proposed by the
Secretariat in Working Document WHC-96/CONF.202/8 with a change
in the order of the items. The Provisional Agenda as adopted by
the Bureau is attached as Annex IV of this report.
XI. PREPARATION OF THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE, INCLUDING THE DRAFT AGENDA (2-7
DECEMBER 1996)
XI.1 The Chairperson recalled that the twentieth session of
the World Heritage Committee will be held in Mexico, Merida
(Yucatan) from 2 to 7 December 1996. The Bureau examined the
draft agenda for this session as proposed by the Secretariat in
Working Document WHC-96/CONF.202/9.
XI.2 Further to discussions regarding the collaboration
between the advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre, the
Bureau adopted the following text submitted by the Delegate of
Australia:
"At this meeting, we have witnessed the growth in
evaluations, monitoring and technical assistance tasks
under the Convention and the range of approaches to field
missions. We note Information Document INF.5 and the points
raised within it at points 3 and 4.
It appears that the collaborative distribution of work
between the Centre and the Committee's three advisory
bodies identified in Article 14 of the Convention has
become critical. That article specifies "utilizing to the
fullest extent possible the services of ICCROM, ICOMOS and
IUCN in their respective areas of competence and
capability". How this is done must be clear to all parties
*[50]
(i.e. the Committee and Bureau, the Centre and the advisory
bodies). Information Document INF.5 suggests some
procedural changes including those related to contractual
arrangements.
To encourage the effectiveness of collaboration, it is
proposed that the Centre and the three advisory bodies
prepare, for the next Committee meeting, a memorandum of
understanding to achieve complementarity and consistency of
work between the Centre and the Committee's advisors in
implementing the Convention."
XI.3 Following the discussions on the thematic and
comparative studies reported in Chapter VI above, the Chairperson
requested the Delegate of Australia to propose a text concerning
the follow-up that could be given to the Expert Meeting on
"Evaluation of General Principles and Criteria for Nominations
of Natural World Heritage Sites" (Parc National de la Vanoise,
France, March 1996). After considerable discussion on this text,
the Chairperson proposed the Bureau to adopt the following:
"In connection with item 9 of the draft agenda, the Bureau
suggests to the Committee that, in view of the Vanoise
conclusions on strengthening the links between cultural and
natural values, and in the spirit of the Global Strategy
adopted at the eighteenth session of the Committee in
Phuket, it consider holding a regionally balanced workshop
of experts from both cultural and natural fields to review
the specific question of revising the evaluation criteria
in the Operational Guidelines."
XI.4 This text was adopted by vote with a majority of four
members of the Bureau (Australia, Germany, Japan and Lebanon).
XI.5 The Delegate of Italy requested that sufficient time
be allocated during the next Committee session for an in-depth
discussion on the global strategy, and thematic and comparative
studies. The Observer of Canada proposed that the report of the
'Expert Meeting on the Global Strategy and Thematic Studies for
a Representative World Heritage List' that was adopted by the
Committee at its eighteenth session in Phuket, be made available
to the members of the Committee as an information document.
XI.6 As to the celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary
of the Convention in 1997, the Bureau decided that this should
be considered under the agenda item on promotional and
educational activities that should now read as follows:
'Promotional and educational activities, highlighting
particularly the twenty-fifth anniversary events'.
XI.7 The Bureau also decided that the issue of
decentralization of World Heritage activities should be dealt
with under the agenda item 'Examination of the World Heritage
Fund and approval of the budget for 1997, and presentation of a
provisional budget for 1998'.
*[51]
XI.8 The Bureau decided furthermore to add the following
agenda items:
- Cooperation between the advisory bodies and the World
Heritage Centre;
- Implementation of the Convention in the light of twenty-
five years' practice;
- Use of the World Heritage Emblem;
- Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
XI.9 The Provisional Agenda for the twentieth session of the
World Heritage Committee is attached as Annex V of this report.
XII. OTHER BUSINESS
XII.1 The Director-General of ICCROM, Mr Marc Laenen,
referred to the Information Document WHC-96/CONF.202/INF.8 and
stated that ICCROM was involved in the World Heritage Convention
as an advisory body and an operational partner in its
implementation following Article 14 of the Convention which
stresses the need to organize the maximal use of the capacities
offered by the advisory bodies. He made the following statement.
XII.2 "ICCROM's specific nature and competence are in its
intergovernmental status and its statutory mandate. There are
common issues and differences between the World Heritage
Convention and ICCROM allowing complementarity, synergy and
functional partnership. Our aim should be to avoid duplications.
In fact, the States that are members of ICCROM, are also Parties
to the Convention. Our organization has an intergovernmental
status and many of the fields of application are similar, e.g.
archaeological sites, historic buildings and areas, cultural
landscapes. ICCROM's aim is to coordinate resources to change
i.e. improve conditions for conservation practice. Its activities
focus on professional capacity development and the establishment
of a favourable climate for conservation activities. This is done
in a strategic way identifying the problems, setting targets and
objectives and measurables, and selecting methodologies and the
target audiences (key people, trainers). Capacity-building and
social environment development should address not only
technicians, but also decision-makers, administrators, site
managers and the general public. It includes development of
scientific, educational and training facilities, through projects
combining research, training, publications, and cooperation.
Currently, ICCROM is preparing projects for the conservation of
historic cities, such as World Heritage cities, in Lithuania,
Hungary, Brazil, Mali. The purpose is to develop also training
programmes in archaeological site conservation and management,
such as Chan Chan in Latin America and a similar project in the
*[52]
Middle East. Future cooperation between ICCROM and the World
Heritage Convention can focus on a global approach in
professional capacity development and a favourable environment
in shared critical problem areas."
XII.3 The Delegate of Italy reiterated his Government's
invitation made during the nineteenth session of the Committee
in Berlin, to hold the twenty-first session in Naples in 1997.
The Chairperson thanked the Delegate of Italy for this
invitation.
XIII. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE BUREAU AND CLOSURE
OF THE SESSION
XIII.1 After having examined the draft report presented
by the Rapporteur, the Bureau adopted the Report with the
amendments requested by the delegates, observers and
representatives of the adivsory bodies. These have been
incorporated into the present final version of the Report.
XIII.2 Referring to the debate noted in Paragraph VIII.22
of this Report, the Director of the Centre clarified that the
Centre did not give any specific authorization to the Nordic
World Heritage Office (Oslo) for the use of the World Heritage
emblem given the fact that the use of this emblem, as well as
that of UNESCO, are embodied in the overall agreement signed
between UNESCO and the Government of Norway.
XIII.3 The Observer of Mexico, Ms Maria Teresa Franco,
expressed her Government's pleasure and privilege to welcome the
twentieth session of the World Heritage Committee to Merida this
December and gave assurances that every effort would be
undertaken to make this meeting a successful one.
XIII.4 Upon the proposal of the Delegate of Australia,
the Bureau asked the Chairman to express to the Director and the
staff of the Centre its appreciation for organizing the meeting
and for its hard work and continuing dedication to the causes of
World Heritage. The Bureau also expressed deep respect for the
high professionalism of the advisory bodies, IUCN, ICOMOS and
ICCROM, which maintain the international standards of heritage
listing; and it thanked the Chairman for his firm leadership of
the meeting, the Rapporteur and the interpreters for their
consummate skill.
XIII.5 The Chairman then declared the twentieth session
of the Bureau meeting closed.
Distribution limited WHC-96/CONF.202/INF.3
Distribution limitée Paris, 28 juin 1996
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
World Heritage Bureau/Bureau du patrimoine mondial
Twentieth session/Vingtième session
Paris, France/Paris, France
24-28 juin 1996/24-28 June 1996
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU/ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
Mr Colin GRIFFITHS
Deputy Executive Director
Environment Strategies Directorate
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories
Dr Ian Mc. PHAIL
Chairperson
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Ms Joan DOMICELJ
Director
Domicelj Consultants
The Hon. Barry JONES
Member of Parliament
Parliament House
CANBERRA
Ms Roni ELLIS
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Australia to UNESCO
Ms Anne SIWICKI
Attaché
Australian Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Ambassador Dr. Horst WINKELMANN
Chairman of the World Heritage Committee
H. Exc. Mr Christoph DERIX
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
of Germany to UNESCO
Dr Hans CASPARY
Conservator of Historical Monuments
Office for the Conservation of Historic Monuments
of the Land Rhineland-Palatinate
Dr Harald PLACHTER
University of Marburg
Faculty of Biology
Department of Nature Conservation
Mr Thilo KOHLER
Second Secretary
Federal Foreign Office
ITALY/ITALIE
S. Exc. M. Giancarlo LEO
Ambassadeur
Délégation permanente de l'Italie auprès de l'UNESCO
M. Francesco FRANCIONI
Professeur à la faculté de Droit
Université de Sienne
Expert des questions juridiques auprès du
Ministère italien des Affaires Etrangères
Mme Margherita SABATINI
Direction générale des Relations culturelles
du Ministère des Affaires étrangères
M. Pasquale Lino MALARA
Surintendant aux Biens environnementaux
et architecturaux du Piemonte
M. Luciano MARCHETTI
Conservateur des Biens architecturaux
et de l'environnement de Florence
JAPAN/JAPON
Mr Azusa HAYASHI
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Japan to UNESCO
Mr Joji HISAEDA
Director, Cultural Affairs
Second Cultural Affairs Division,
Cultural Affairs Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ms Tokuko NABESHIMA
Third Secretary
Permanent Delegation of Japan to UNESCO
Mr Shinichiro MURAKAMI
Official, Second Cultural Affairs Division,
Cultural Affairs Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr Tetsuro UESUGI
Assistant Director
Planning Division
Nature Conservation Bureau
Environment Agency
Prof. Dr. Nobuo ITO
Professor Emeritus
Kobe Design University
Mr Shinichi YAMANAKA
Director of Monuments and Sites Division,Cultural Properties
Protection Department, Agency for Cultural Affairs
Dr. Makoto MOTONAKA
Senior Specialist, Monuments and Sites Division,
Cultural Properties Protection Department,
Agency for Cultural Properties
Dr. Nobuko INABA
Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties, Architecture Division,
Cultural Properties Protection Department,
Agency for Cultural Affairs
LEBANON/LIBAN
S. Exc. M. Sami KRONFOL
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent du Liban
auprès de l'UNESCO
M. Camille ASMAR
Directeur général des Antiquités
Musée national
M. Noël FATTAL
Conseiller, Délégué permanent adjoint du Liban
auprès de l'UNESCO
Maître Abdallah ZAKHIA
Avocat spécialisé dans la législation de l'environnement
MEXICO/MEXIQUE
Mme Maria Teresa FRANCO
Directeur général,
INAH
Dr. Salvador DIAZ BERRIO
Directeur adjoint
'Apoyo Técnico y Docente
del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia (INAH)
M. Salvador ACEVES
Coordinateur National des Monuments Historiques (INAH)
M. Francisco Javier LOPEZ MORALES
Subdirector catalogo Donas
Institut National d'Antropologie et d'Histoire
(INAH)
NIGER/NIGER
S. Exc. M. Lambert MESSAN
Rapporteur du Comité
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent du Niger
auprès de l'UNESCO
M. Michel LE BERRE
Conseiller scientifique de la Délégation
permanente du Niger auprès de l'UNESCO
M. André ZODI
Expert,
Secrétaire général du Ministère de la Culture
et de la Communication à Niamey
M. Seydou SEYNI
Expert
Conservateur du Parc National du W
Ministère du Développement Rural
et de l'Environnement, Niamey
II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/ORGANISATIONS
PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF
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 CULTURELS
(ICCROM)
Mr Marc LAENEN
Director General
Mr Jukka JOKILEHTO
Assistant to the Director General
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES/CONSEIL
INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS) *
Mr Jean-Louis LUXEN
Secretary General, ICOMOS Paris
Mr Henry CLEERE
World Heritage Coordinator, ICOMOS Paris
Ms Carole ALEXANDRE
Director, ICOMOS Paris
Ms Carmen AÑON FELIU
President of the Executive Committee, ICOMOS Madrid
M. Daniel DROCOURT
Coordinateur Programme
100 Sites Historiques/PAM/PNUE
Ms Regina DURIGHELLO
Assistant to the World Heritage Coordinator, ICOMOS Paris
* New address from 15 July 1996/Nouvelle adresse à partir du
15 juillet 1996 :
49-51, rue de la Fédération
75015 PARIS
FRANCE
THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)/UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE
(UICN)
Dr. James THORSELL
Head, Natural Heritage Programme
Mr Percy.H.C.('Bing') LUCAS
Vice-Chair, World Heritage
IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA)
1/268 Main Road, Tawa, Wellington
New Zealand 6006
Tel: 64 4 232 55 81
Fax: 64 4 232 91 29
Mr James PAINE
Senior Research Officer
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC)
Cambridge, U-K
M. Gérard SOURNIA
IUCN France
III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS
ARGENTINA/ARGENTINE
Ms Maria Susana PATARO
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation permanente de l'Argentine
auprès de l'UNESCO
AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE
Mr Ernst BACHER
General Conservator
Bundesdenkmalamt
Mr Hans HORCICKA
Director
Minoritenplatz 5
Federal Ministry for Education
and Cultural Affairs
BENIN/BENIN
M. Isidore MONSI
Conseiller
Délégation permanente du Bénin
auprès de l'UNESCO
BOLIVIA/BOLIVIE
Mme Silvia ROCA
Premier Secrétaire
Délégation permanente de Bolivie
auprès de l'UNESCO
BURKINA FASO/BURKINA FASO
M. Jean-Baptiste KIETHEGA
Maître-Assistant d'Histoire et Archéologie
Université de Ouagadougou
CANADA/CANADA
Ms Christina CAMERON
Director General, Parks Canada
Department of Canadian Heritage
M. Murray McCOMB
Chief of Strategic Studies
National Parks Directorate
Parks Canada
Mme Gisèle CANTIN
Chef des Affaires internationales
Parks Canada, Ministère du patrimoine canadien
CHINA/CHINE
Mr Kuangren ZHANG
Director
Administative Bureau of Lushan National Park, JIANGXI Province
Mr Yuan Zhu MA
Director, Administration of Mount E'mei and
Leshan Giant Buddha Scenic Area, SICHUAN Province
Mr Feng JING
Programme Officer, Chinese National Commission for UNESCO
M. Jian Ping TIAN
Premier Secrétaire
Délégation permanente de Chine auprès de l'UNESCO
COSTA RICA/COSTA RICA
Mme Iris LEIVA DE BILLAUT
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation du Costa Rica
auprès de l'UNESCO
Mme Gabriela CASTILLO
Ministre Conseiller
Délégation du Costa Rica
auprès de l'UNESCO
CROATIA/CROATIE
Mr Drazen KARAMAN
Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
CUBA/CUBA
Mme Marta ARJONA PEREZ
Président du Conseil du Patrimoine Culturel
Ministère de la Culture
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
M. Michal BENES
Secrétaire pour les Affaires culturelles de l'UNESCO
auprès du Ministère de la Culture
Mr Josef STULC
Director, State Institute for the Protection of Monuments
ECUADOR/EQUATEUR
S. Exc. M. Santiago MASPONS
Ambassadeur Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente de l'Equateur
auprès de l'UNESCO
M. Mauricio MONTALVO
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation permanente de l'Equateur
auprès de l'UNESCO
Mme Patricia VEDOVA
Assesseur
Délégation permanente de l'Equateur
auprès de l'UNESCO
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Ms Anne LAMMILA
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Finland to UNESCO
Mr Henrik LILIUS
Director General, State Archaeologist
National Board of Antiquities
FRANCE/FRANCE
M. Léon PRESSOUYRE
Vice-President
Université de Paris I
Mme Françoise BERCE
Inspecteur général du Patrimoine
Ministère de la Culture et de la Francophonie
Mme Anne LEWIS-LOUBIGNAC
Conseiller technique
Commission nationale française pour l'UNESCO
M. Jean-Louis PONS
Chargé de mission
Ministère de l'environnement
GAMBIA/GAMBIE
Mr E. SEY
Délégation permanente de la Gambie
auprès de l'UNESCO
Mr K. SIDIBE
Executive Secretary
National Council of Arts and Culture (NCAC)
GREECE/GRECE
Mme Hélène METHODIOU
Conseiller culturel à la Délégation permanente de la Grèce
auprès de l'UNESCO
Mr Nicolaos GALANOPOULOS
Permanent Delegation of Greece to UNESCO
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Le Pére Titusz HARDI
Professeur
Représentant de l'Abbaye bénédictine de Pannonhalma
Mme Katalin SZILAS-MARTON
Architecte principal
M. Béla KOVACSI
Secrétaire du Comité national Hongrois pour le Patrimoine mondial
INDONESIA/INDONESIE
M. Kria Fahmi PASARIBU
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Indonesia to UNESCO
M. A. M. ZAINI
Assistant,
Permanent Delegation of Indonesia to UNESCO
IRAN/IRAN
Dr S. P. BINDRA
Professor Charif University of Technology
in charge of ESCAP Region,
Office of Scientific & International Co-operation
Tehran, IRAN
LITHUANIA/LITUANIE
M.Paulius KULIKAUSKAS
Conseiller du Ministre des Affaires Etrangères de Lithuanie
pour les questions du patrimoine mondial
MALTA/MALTE
Mme Tanya VELLA
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation permanente de Malte
NETHERLANDS/PAYS BAS
S. Exc. J.J de VISSER
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente des Pays-Bas
auprès de l'UNESCO
Dr. Robert DE JONG
State Department for Conservation
President ICOMOS-IFLH Committee of
Historic Gardens and Sites
PANAMA/PANAMA
Mme Maria Elena DE AGUILAR
Premier Secrétaire
Délégation permanente du Panama
auprès de l'UNESCO
M. Jorge PATINO
Chargé des négociations
Délégation permanente du Panama
auprès de l'UNESCO
POLAND/POLOGNE
M. Krzysztof PAWLOWSKI
Président du Comité national polonais de l'ICOMOS
PORTUGAL/PORTUGAL
Mme Maria Isabel PEREIRA DA SILVA
Technicien supérieur,
Institut Portugais du patrimoine culturel
Mr Rui LOZA
Technicien de la Mirite de Porto
REPUBLIC OF KOREA/REPUBLIQUE DE COREE
H.E. Mr Hyun-Gon KIM
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of the Republic of Korea to UNESCO
Mr Jung-Hee YOO
Counsellor, Permanent Delegation
RUSSIAN FEDERATION/FEDERATION RUSSIE
Mr Valeri NERONOV
Deputy Chairman
Russian MAB Committee
Mme Olga IVANOVA
Conseiller de la Délégation permanente de la Russie
auprès de l'UNESCO
Mr Vladimir KOROTKOV
Conseiller de la Délégation permanente de la Russie
auprès de l'UNESCO
SLOVAKIA/SLOVAQUIE
Ms Viera POLAKOVICOVA
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Slovakia to UNESCO
Ms Viera DVORAKOVA
Institute of Monuments
Dr. Jozef KLINDA
Head of the Environmental Conception,
Law and Organisation Division
Ministry of the Environment
Mr Pavel TOMA
Head of Environmental Planning and Conception Department
Ministry of the Environment
SWEDEN/SUEDE
Ms Birgitta HOBERG
International Secretary
Central Board of National Antiquities
Mr Rolf LÖFGREN
Conservator Officer
National Environmental Protection Agency
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE ARABE SYRIENNE
Mme Majeda HANA
Assistante
Délégation permanente
THAILAND/THAILANDE
Dr Adul WICHIENCHAROEN
Chairman,
National Committee for Protection of the
World Cultural & Natural Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy & Planning
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
Ms Srinoi POVATONG
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Thailand to UNESCO
UNESCO House, Paris
M. L. Chiranand HASDINTRA
Director of Economic Projects Division IV
Bureau of the Budget
Office of the Prime Minister
Mr Tawee NOOTONG
Forest Technical Officer
Royal Forest Department
Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives
Mrs Tuenchai SONGSAPAT
Secretary, Office of the Secretary
Department of Environmental Quality Promotion
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
Mrs Usa KIATCHAIPIPAT
Environmental Officer
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
Ms Malee SRIRATANATUM
Forest Technical Officer
Royal Forest Department
Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNI
Ms Hilary IZON
Deputy UNESCO Observer
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mr William McILHENNY
Permanent Observer of the United States to UNESCO
Mr John J. REYNOLDS
Deputy Director
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
Ms Katherine STEVENSON
Associate Director
Cultural Resource
Stewardship and Partnership
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
Mr James H. CHARLETON
International Cooperation Specialist
Office of International Affairs
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
V. NORDIC WORLD HERITAGE OFFICE/BUREAU NORDIQUE DU PATRIMOINE
MONDIAL
Ms Anne Kristin ENDRESEN
Nordic World Heritage Office
Ms Astrid OPSAL
Nordic World Heritage Office
VI. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION/ORGANISATIONS NON-
GOUVERNEMENTALES
M. Daniel DROCOURT
Coordinateur du Programme 100 sites historiques
PAM/PNUE
VII. SECRETARIAT
World Heritage Centre/Centre du Patrimoine mondial
Mr Bernd von DROSTE
Director/Directeur
Mr George ZOUAIN
Deputy Director/Directeur adjoint
Mr Robert MILNE
Ms Breda PAVLIC
Ms Minja YANG
Mr Makhily GASSAMA
Mr Laurent LEVI-STRAUSS
Ms Galia SAOUMA-FORERO
Mr Herman van HOOFF
Ms Mechtild RÖSSLER
Mr Gernot BRODNIG
Ms Vesna VUJICIC
Mr Michel LINCOURT, Consultant
Mr Peter STOTT, Consultant
Ms Sarah TITCHEN, Consultant
Ms Beatrice KALDUN, Associated Expert/Expert associé
UNESCO/Bangkok Office
Ms Kumiko KURIBAYASHI, Associated Expert/Expert associé
Ms Maria PERERS, Associated Expert/Expert associé
Mr Carlos ROMERO
Ms Jane DEGEORGES
Ms Jocelyne POUTEAU
Ms Marianne RAABE
Mr David MARTEL
Ms Réjane HERVE
Ms Claire SERVOZ
Division of Cultural Heritage/Division du Patrimoine physique
M. Mounir Bouchenaki
Directeur, Division du patrimoine culturel
Mme Emiko de Marmier-Murai
Mme Ana DUMITRESCU
Dr Khin MYAKYA
Division of Ecological Sciences/Division des Sciences écologiques
Ms Mireille JARDIN
M. Ma Mbaelele MANKOTO
Ms Jane ROBERTSON
Mr Thomas SCHAAF
Mr Mohamed SKOURI
Division of Earth Sciences/Division des Sciences de la Terre
M. F. EDER
Directeur, Division des Sciences de la Terre
Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs/Office des
Normes internationales et des Affaires juridiques
Mr Daniel de SAN
Legal Advisor
Bureau of the Comptroller - Accounts Division/Bureau du
Contrôleur financier - Division de la comptabilité
M. Mark WARREN
Contrôleur financier
ANNEX II
----------------------------------------------------------------
Draft report on monitoring and reporting to be submitted by
the World Heritage Committee to the Eleventh General Assembly
of States Parties (Oct./Nov. 1997)
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
ELEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
Item xx of the provisional agenda: monitoring and reporting on
the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List
SUMMARY
In accordance with the decision of the Tenth
General Assembly of States Parties (paragraph
31 of the Summary Record of the Tenth General
Assembly), the World Heritage Committee
submits herewith a report and a draft
resolution on the monitoring and reporting on
the state of conservation of properties
inscribed on the World Heritage List.
Decision required: The General Assembly may
wish to adopt the draft resolution on
monitoring and reporting submitted in
paragraph 16 of this document.
ANNEX II, page 2
Background*
1. To ensure the efficient implementation of the World Heritage
Convention it is essential that all the actors involved have
access to up-to-date knowledge on the state of conservation of
World Heritage properties. This is not only true for the national
authorities and site-managers, in order to plan for preventive
conservation, but also for the World Heritage Committee and its
Secretariat, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, to fulfil their
functions in collaborating in the preservation of properties and
enhancing international solidarity as set out in the Convention.
In order to set priorities for international collaboration and
emergency assistance the international community has to be kept
informed of requirements at World Heritage properties.
2. Discussions on the most appropriate means to establish up-
to-date information on World Heritage properties were initiated
in 1982 and have continued since then at the sessions of the
World Heritage Committee, the General Assembly of States Parties
to the Convention and the General Conference of UNESCO. Numerous
States Parties and experts, as well as the advisory bodies, were
involved in this process. The work undertaken by the Working
Group of States Parties on Monitoring and Reporting in 1987 and
by the Strategic Planning Meetings held in 1992 constitute the
main stages of it.
3. This process is described in detail in the report that the
Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee submitted to the
Tenth General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage
Convention which was held in Paris on 2 and 3 November 1995.
4. Practical experiences in monitoring and reporting benefitted
to the process, particularly those gained in the implementation
of regional and national monitoring and reporting programmes and
the different models that had been applied. In some cases for
example the preparation of state of conservation reports was
undertaken through United Nations activities such as the Regional
Project for Cultural Heritage of UNDP and UNESCO for Latin
America and the Caribbean, and a UNEP project for the
Mediterranean. In other cases, the States Parties undertook the
reporting by themselves or in collaboration with non-governmental
organizations such as ICOMOS and IUCN or ICCROM. The World
Heritage Committee examined at various occasions the results of
these monitoring and reporting activities and concluded that they
all resulted in credible state of conservation reports.
* This report addresses the concept of systematic monitoring
and reporting described in paragraph 69 to 74 of the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention. At the same time, the World Heritage
Committee recognizes the important and continuing role of
reactive monitoring as described in paragraph 75 of the
Operational Guidelines.
ANNEX II, page 3
5. As a result of the above process and practical experiences,
the World Heritage Committee reconfirmed at its eighteenth
session in December 1994 the responsibility of the States Parties
to monitor on a day-to-day basis the conditions of the properties
and invited all States Parties to present periodic state of
conservation reports to the World Heritage Committee.
6. The Tenth General Assembly examined the matter of monitoring
and reporting under its agenda item 'New monitoring activities
related to World Heritage sites' against the background of the
report and a draft resolution presented by the Chairperson of the
World Heritage Committee as well as a number of draft resolutions
that were submitted by States Parties. The report of the
Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee and the draft
resolutions are included in Annex II of the Summary Record of the
Tenth General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention
Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage.
7. The debate at the Tenth General Assembly is reflected in
paragraphs 15 to 31 of the Summary Record of the Tenth General
Assembly. As a conclusion, the Tenth General Assembly decided the
following:
'As a conclusion, the General Assembly decided to continue
the debate on the systematic monitoring and reporting on
the state of conservation of World Heritage properties at
the Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties that will
be held in 1997. The General Assembly requested the World
Heritage Committee to prepare a report and a proposed
resolution for the eleventh session of the General Assembly
of States Parties taking into account the discussions and
experiences gained over the past years as well as the
documents that had been presented to the Tenth General
Assembly and the discussions thereon.'
8. In compliance with this decision, the matter of monitoring
and reporting was again examined by the World Heritage Committee
at its nineteenth and twentieth sessions. At these sessions, the
World Heritage Committee studied the reporting procedures
foreseen under the World Heritage Convention, defined the main
principles of monitoring and reporting and prepared a draft
resolution for submission to the Eleventh General Assembly of
States Parties.
The reporting under Article 29 of the World Heritage Convention
9. The World Heritage Convention does not foresee any other
reporting by States Parties than to the General Conference of
UNESCO. Article 29 of the Convention states that "The States
Parties to this Convention shall, in the reports which they
submit to the General Conference (...) on dates and in a manner
to be determined by it, give information on the legislative and
ANNEX II, page 4
administrative provisions which they have adopted and other
action which they have taken for the application of this
Convention, together with details of the experience acquired in
this field."
10. It is the view of the Committee that the periodic reporting
by the States Parties on the state of conservation of the
properties on their territories would fall within the terms of
Article 29 and that the General Conference could determine that
'the manner' of the reporting would be through the World Heritage
Committee. The General Conference could be asked, therefore, to
activate Article 29 and to determine that reports should be
submitted through the World Heritage Committee, requesting the
Committee at the same time to define the periodicity, the form,
nature and extent of the regular reporting, i.e. to establish a
format for the periodic reporting by the States Parties on the
application of the Convention.
11. In this case, this reporting would include information on
the general application of the Convention, particularly the
stipulations in Articles 4, 5 and 6, Article 11.1, Article 17 and
18 and Article 27, as well as information on the state of
conservation of specific properties on the World Heritage List.
12. If the General Conference of UNESCO would delegate to the
World Heritage Committee the examination and responding to the
States Parties' reports, this activity would automatically be
included in the report which the Committee is required to submit
to the General Conference under the terms of Article 29.3.
Principles of monitoring and reporting
13. On the basis of past experiences, consultations with States
Parties and experts and, above all, the debate at the Tenth
General Assembly and the nineteenth session of the Committee, the
World Heritage Committee concludes that there is a general
recognition among the States Parties of the need for them to
monitor, as an integral part of their management efforts, the
conditions of the World Heritage properties on their territories
and to report its results to the bodies that are involved in the
implementation of the Convention. In this sense, the Committee
considers that there is a need to interpret the Convention in the
light of twenty-five years of experience in its implementation
while recognizing the sovereign rights of the States Parties. The
Committee, furthermore, considers that the General Assembly and
the World Heritage Committee have a role to play as standard
setting organizations.
14. In this context, the Committee proposes that the following
principles govern the methodology and procedures of monitoring
and reporting:
ANNEX II, page 5
i) monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage
properties is the responsibility of the State Party
concerned and is part of the site management;
ii) the commitment of the States Parties to provide
regular reports on the state of conservation of World
Heritage properties is consistent with the principles
of the World Heritage Convention and should be part of
a continuous process of collaboration between the
States Parties and the World Heritage Committee;
iii) regular reports may be submitted in accordance with
Article 29 of the Convention. The General Conference
of UNESCO should be asked to activate Article 29 of
the Convention and to entrust the World Heritage
Committee with the responsibility to respond to these
reports;
iv) the World Heritage Committee should define the form,
nature and extent of the regular reporting in respect
of the principles of State sovereignty.
15. The World Heritage Committee considers that these principles
would provide the appropriate framework for the management of the
World Heritage properties by the States Parties themselves and
for the enhanced cooperation between the States Parties, the
World Heritage Committee and the international community for
their preservation. Their introduction would also facilitate the
World Heritage Committee to perform its functions effectively,
particularly in providing and generating international assistance
and in maintaining a credible World Heritage List.
Decision required
16. The General Assembly may wish to adopt the following draft
resolution:
The General Assembly,
1. Noting that the 1972 Convention concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
has recognized that the cultural and natural heritage
'are increasingly threatened with destruction, not
only by traditional causes of decay, but also by
changing social and economic conditions which
aggravate the situation with even more formidable
phenomena of damage or destruction';
2. Reaffirms that 'deterioration or disappearance of any
item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes
a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the
nations of the world';
ANNEX II, page 6
3. Considers that the Convention should be interpreted in
the light of twenty-five years of experience in its
implementation;
4. Considers that such interpretation recognizes the
sovereign right of the State Party concerned over the
World Heritage sites situated on its territory;
5. Considers that a well-reflected and formulated common
policy for the protection of cultural and natural
heritage is likely to create a continuing interaction
between States Parties;
6. Emphasizes the interest of each State Party to be
informed of the experience of others with regard to
conservation methods and the possibilities so offered,
through voluntary international cooperation, for the
general improvement of all actions undertaken;
7. Reaffirms the standard setting role of the General
Assembly as well as of the World Heritage Committee;
8. Concludes that monitoring is the responsibility of the
State Party concerned and that the commitment to
provide regular reports on the state of the site is
consistent with the principles set out in the
Convention in
(i) the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth
preambular clauses,
(ii) Art. 4
(iii) Art. 6.1. and 6.2.
(iv) Art. 7
(v) Art. 10
(vi) Art. 11
(vii) Art. 13
(viii) Art. 15
(ix) Art. 21.3
(x) Art. 29;
9. Emphasizes that monitoring by the State Party is part
of the site management which remains the
responsibility of the States Parties where the site is
located, and that regular reports may be submitted in
accordance with Article 29 of the Convention;
10. Recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that
'Each State Party....recognizes that the duty of
ensuring the identification, protection, conservation,
presentation and transmission to future generations of
the cultural and natural heritage...situated on its
territory, belongs primarily to that State';
ANNEX II, page 7
11. Recalls that Article 6 lays down the concept of world
heritage 'for whose protection it is the duty of the
international community as a whole to co-operate', and
that Article 7 requires the establishment of a 'system
of international co-operation' and assistance
'designed to support States Parties' efforts to
conserve and identify that heritage;
12. Emphasizes that regular reporting should be part of a
consultative process and not treated as a sanction or
a coercive mechanism;
13. Notes that within the broad responsibility of the
World Heritage Committee in standards setting, the
form, nature and extent of the regular reporting must
respect the principles of State sovereignty;
The involvement of the Committee, through its
Secretariat or advisory bodies, in the preparation of
the regular reports would be with the agreement of the
State Party concerned. The States Parties may request
expert advice from the Secretariat or the advisory
bodies. The Secretariat may also commission expert
advice with the agreement of the States Parties;
14. Suggests the General Conference of UNESCO to activate
the procedures in Art. 29 of the Convention and to
refer to the World Heritage Committee the
responsibility to respond to the reports;
15. Encourages States Parties to take advantage of shared
information and experience on World Heritage matters;
16. Invites other States to become States Parties to the
Convention.
ANNEX III
----------------------------------------------------------------
Draft resolution for inclusion in the 'Report by the
Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage on its Activities (1996-1997)'
to be submitted to the 29th General Conference of UNESCO.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The General Conference,
1. Noting that the 1972 Convention concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
has recognized that the cultural and natural heritage
'are increasingly threatened with destruction, not
only by traditional causes of decay, but also by
changing social and economic conditions which
aggravate the situation with even more formidable
phenomena of damage or destruction';
2. Reaffirms that 'deterioration or disappearance of any
item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes
a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the
nations of the world';
3. Considers that the Convention should be interpreted in
the light of twenty-five years of experience in its
implementation;
4. Considers that such interpretation recognizes the
sovereign right of the State Party concerned over the
World Heritage sites situated on its territory;
5. Considers that a well-reflected and formulated common
policy for the protection of cultural and natural
heritage is likely to create a continuing interaction
between States Parties;
6. Emphasizes the interest of each State Party to be
informed of the experience of others with regard to
conservation methods and the possibilities so offered,
through voluntary international cooperation, for the
general improvement of all actions undertaken;
ANNEX III, page 2
7. Reaffirms the standard setting role of the General
Assembly as well as of the World Heritage Committee;
8. Concludes that monitoring is the responsibility of the
State Party concerned and that the commitment to
provide regular reports on the state of the site is
consistent with the principles set out in the
Convention in
(i) the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth
preambular clauses,
(ii) Art. 4
(iii) Art. 6.1. and 6.2.
(iv) Art. 7
(v) Art. 10
(vi) Art. 11
(vii) Art. 13
(viii) Art. 15
(ix) Art. 21.3
(x) Art. 29;
9. Emphasizes that monitoring by the State Party is part
of the site management which remains the
responsibility of the States Parties where the site is
located, and that regular reports may be submitted in
accordance with Article 29 of the Convention;
10. Recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that
'Each State Party....recognizes that the duty of
ensuring the identification, protection, conservation,
presentation and transmission to future generations of
the cultural and natural heritage...situated on its
territory, belongs primarily to that State';
11. Recalls that Article 6 lays down the concept of world
heritage 'for whose protection it is the duty of the
international community as a whole to co-operate', and
that Article 7 requires the establishment of a 'system
of international co-operation' and assistance
'designed to support States Parties' efforts to
conserve and identify that heritage;
12. Emphasizes that regular reporting should be part of a
consultative process and not treated as a sanction or
a coercive mechanism;
13. Notes that within the broad responsibility of the
World Heritage Committee in standards setting, the
form, nature and extent of the regular reporting must
respect the principles of State sovereignty;
ANNEX III, page 3
The involvement of the Committee, through its
Secretariat or advisory bodies, in the preparation of
the regular reports would be with the agreement of the
State Party concerned. The States Parties may request
expert advice from the Secretariat or the advisory
bodies. The Secretariat may also commission expert
advice with the agreement of the States Parties;
14. Invites the States Parties to the World Heritage
Convention to submit in accordance with Article 29 of
the Convention, through the World Heritage Committee,
via its secretariat the UNESCO World Heritage Centre,
reports on the legislative and administrative
provisions and other actions which they have taken for
the application of the Convention, including the state
of conservation of the World Heritage properties
located on its territories;
15. Requests the World Heritage Committee to define the
periodicity, form, nature and extent of the regular
reporting on the application of the World Heritage
Convention and on the state of conservation of World
Heritage properties and to examine and respond to
these reports while respecting the principle of State
sovereignty;
16. Requests the World Heritage Committee to include in
its reports to the General Conference, presented in
accordance with article 29.3 of the Convention, its
findings as regard to the application of the
Convention by the States Parties;
17. Encourages States Parties to take advantage of shared
information and experience on World Heritage matters
and to contribute to the conservation of World
Heritage properties, including through voluntary
contributions to the World Heritage Fund;
18. Invites other States to become States Parties to the
Convention.
ANNEX IV
Distribution Limited WHC-96/CONF.202/8.Rev.
Paris, 28 June 1996
Original: English
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twentieth session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room X (Fontenoy)
24-29 June 1996
Item 10 of the Provisional Agenda: Provisional agenda for the
extraordinary twentieth session of the Bureau (29-30 November
1996)
1. Opening of the session
2. Adoption of the agenda and the timetable
3. Reports on the state of conservation of properties
inscribed on the World Heritage List
4. Examination of nominations of cultural and natural
properties to the World Heritage List and List of World
Heritage in Danger
5. Requests for International Assistance
6. Other business
7. Closure of the session
ANNEX V
Distribution Limited WHC-96/CONF.202/9.Rev.
Paris, 28 June 1996
Original: English
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twentieth session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room X (Fontenoy)
24-29 June 1996
Item 11 of the Provisional Agenda: Provisional agenda for the
twentith session of the World Heritage Committee (2-7 December
1996)
1. Opening of the session by the Director-General of UNESCO or
his representative
2. Adoption of the agenda and the timetable
3. Election of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons and the
Rapporteur
4. Report on the activities undertaken by the Secretariat
since the nineteenth session of the Committee
5. Report of the Rapporteur of the sessions held in 1996 by
the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
6. Constitution of working groups to examine specific items on
the Committee's agenda
7. State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List:
7.1. Methodology and procedures for reporting on the state
of conservation
7.2. Reports on the state of conservation of specific
properties
*[ANNEX V/2]
8. Information on Tentative Lists and examination of
nominations of cultural and natural properties to the World
Heritage List and List of World Heritage in Danger
9. Progress report on the global strategy, and thematic and
comparative studies
10. Cooperation between the advisory bodies and the World
Heritage Centre
11. Progress report on the training strategy
12. Requests for International Assistance
13. Examination of the World Heritage Fund and approval of the
budget for 1997, and presentation of a provisional budget
for 1998
14. Implementation of the Convention in the light of twenty-
five years practice
15. Promotional and educational activities, highlighting
particularly the twenty-fifth anniversary events
16. Use of the World Heritage emblem
17. Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
18. Date and place of the twenty-first session of the Bureau of
the World Heritage Committee
19. Date and place of the twenty-first session of the World
Heritage Committee
20. Other business
21. Closure of the session
*[EOF]