CC-78/CONF.010/10 Rev.
                                              Paris, 9 October 1978
                                              Original: English



Second Session

Washington, D.C. (USA) 5 to 8 September 1978

Final Report


1. The second session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (hereinafter
referred to as "the Committee") was held in Washington from 5 to 8 September
1978. The session was attended by the following members of the World
Heritage Committee: Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Federal
Republic of Germany, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Poland, Tunisia, United States
of America and Yugoslavia.

2. Representatives of the International Centre for Conservation, the
International Council of Monuments and Sites, and the International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (hereinafter referred
to as "ICCROM", "ICOMOS" and "IUCN" respectively) attended the meeting in
an advisory capacity.

3. Observers from five States Parties to the Convention not members
of the Committee, namely Brazil, Morocco, Panama, Switzerland and
the Syrian Arab Republic, also attended the session, as well as observers
from ten international governmental and non-governmental organizations
and a wider public audience.

4. The full list of participants will be found in Annex III 
to this report.


5. The second session of the Committee was opened by its Chairman,
Mr. Firouz Bagherzadeh. In welcoming members of the Committee,
representatives of advisory organizations and all other participants,
he recalled the great progress already achieved in the implementation
of the Convention thanks to the efforts of the States Parties, Bureau
members, the Secretariat and the advisory organizations. He concluded
by expressing his confidence that the session would be both fruitful and

6. Mr. David Hales, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife
and Parks, Department of the Interior, welcomed delegates to
Washington on behalf of the United States of America. He conveyed to the
Committee a written message from the President of the United States of
America, Jimmy Carter, the text of which is given in Annex I. The
Committee greatly appreciated the personal message from the President of
the United States of America and requested the Chairman to convey to the
President its gratitude for the message with which he had honoured the
opening of the second session.

7. The Deputy Assistant Director General for Operations (Culture and
Communication) responded on behalf of the Director General of UNESCO.
Mr. Bolla expressed UNESCO's sincere appreciation for the invitation by
the Government of the United States of America to hold the second session
in Washington. In greeting members of the Committee and wishing them
success in their work, he indicated the important role of international
organizations such as UNDP, UNEP, IBRD, IDB, WFP, OAS and ALECSO in


providing crucial support to conservation measures. In this context,
he also expressed UNESCO's gratitude to the host country for its
intellectual and financial support to a number of conservation projects
throughout the world. He then reported on the present situation regarding
the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"). Forty (40) Member
States of UNESCO had ratified or accepted the Convention as of 23 August
1978 and other Member States were about to do so. Thus the Committee would
be enlarged to twenty-one members, as provided for under the Convention,
when the next election to the Committee took place on 24 November 1978,
at the second General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention to be
held during the next General Conference of UNESCO. He continued with an
analysis of the geographical distribution of States Parties to the Conven-
tion and pointed out that nine States Parties belonged to the Arab Region,
eight to the African Region, eight to the Western European and North
American Region, seven to the Central and Latin American Region, five to
the Asian and three to the Eastern European Regions.  Mr. Bolla noted that,
while this distribution was a fairly balanced one, still greater efforts
would have to be made to increase further the number of States Parties,
particularly in the Asian and Eastern European regions. He then high-
lighted the fact that a number of outstanding cultural and natural proper-
ties had already been nominated by States Parties for inclusion in the
World Heritage List, which set a high standard for the future designation
of properties for the List. In reviewing the present financial situation
of the World Heritage Fund, he stressed the crucial importance of voluntary
contributions to the Fund. Mr. Bolla then expressed the opinion that the
time had probably not yet come to launch a world-wide mass media campaign
aimed at the general public for publicising the Convention, as this might
be more effective when a greater number of concrete achievements could be
shown. In this connection, Mr. Bolla stressed the importance of starting
immediately with operations under the Convention and he suggested that
necessary action be taken without delay to enhance knowledge of the
Convention among decision-makers in all Member States of UNESCO. However,
preparatory work should already commence to plan future information
activities intended for the general public. Finally, Mr. Bolla recalled
that the Committee had so far adopted all its decisions with the full
consensus of all its members. He concluded with the hope that the decisions
adopted at this session would also be unanimous.


8. The Chairman invited the members of the Committee to examine the
provisional agenda prepared by the Secretariat. At the request of
members of the Committee, two new items were added to the agenda:
"Revision of the Rules of Procedure" and "Review of the Procedure for
Nominations to the List of World Heritage in Danger."

9. With the above additions, the agenda was adopted.


10. The Committee discussed the need to increase the number of officers
constituting the Bureau in view of the greater workload of the
Bureau in the future. Committee members also felt that a larger number of
officers would be advisable to allow for:


(i)    better representation of geographical regions in the Bureau; and,

(ii)   enhanced expertise for both natural and cultural properties.

Having also in mind that the membership of the Committee itself would be
increased from 15 to 21 delegates at the second General Assembly, the
Committee agreed to elect henceforth 7 officers for the Bureau which would
then consist of the Chairman, five Vice-Chairmen and the Rapporteur.

11. The Committee amended Articles 12.1 and 13 of the Rules of
Procedure accordingly.


12.  The Committee elected by acclamation Mr. David Hales (USA) as its
Chairman. The Committee then proceeded to elect by acclamation
the delegates of Ecuador, Egypt, France, Iran and Nigeria, as Vice-Chairmen,
and Professor Krzysztof Pawlowski (Poland), as Rapporteur. The new
Chairman then called for a standing ovation to thank Mr. Firouz Bagherzadeh
for the excellent leadership he had provided to the Committee during the
past year.


13. At the first session of the Committee it had been agreed that a
draft text of the standard agreement would be prepared by the
Secretariat. Subsequently, a first draft was submitted to the Bureau by
the Secretariat. The Bureau recommended that the proposal of the Secretariat
be considered by the Committee.

14. After presentation of this background by the former Rapporteur, the
Committee discussed the draft text in depth (document CC-78/CONF.010/5).
The delegate of Canada pointed out that the Treaty Section of the Depart-
mant of Foreign Affairs of his country had carefully examined the proposed
draft text and found it unacceptable, in particular because the Convention
provided only for arrangements and not agreements for technical cooperation
with States Parties. However, several delegates expressed their views on
this matter and saw no obstacles to concluding such agreements. In addressing
this point, Mr. Bolla drew attention to Article 26 of the Convention which
stipulates the establishment of "agreements" for technical cooperation with
States Parties. The Committee, after reviewing and commenting on each
article of the draft agreement, asked the Secretariat to take note of
the observations made by the delegates and to elaborate a new, less detailed
text for consideration by the Committee at its next session. It was also
noted that the new text should be formulated in such a way as to accommodate
the specific requirements and practice of States Parties. In doing so
UNESCO's general principles for the provision of technical cooperation should
be retained.

15. Until the adoption of such an agreement by the Committee, UNESCO's
rules and procedures would be followed in the provision of technical
cooperation to States Parties.

16. The Committee expressed the wish that the Secretariat, in the prepara-
tion of a new draft agreement, take note of the following obser-
vations and recommendations made by delegates during the discussion:


17. With regard to Article 2 paragraph 5:
The delegate of Poland recommended rewording to avoid obligation to
meet expenses (for instance, for medical treatment) in convertible currency
for countries with a non-convertible currency. Several delegates considered
that governments should be encouraged to employ the fellow to the extent
possible upon his return, in the field for which he has been trained under
the fellowship rather than to force governments to do so as a condition
sine qua non.

18. With regard to Article 3, as the delegate of Canada pointed out, not
all States Parties had adhered to the Convention on the Privileges and
Immunities of Specialized Agencies of the UN system. He therefore recom-
mended that the wording of Article 3 be reconsidered by taking into account
specific regulations by which some of the States Parties might be bound.

19. With regard to paragraph 3 of Article 3, the delegate of the United
States of America requested that the stipulation not to impose 
commercial bank charges should be reconsidered as it might be difficult to
apply this clause in some countries.

20. With regard to paragraph 5 of Article 3, the delegate of Canada
expressed doubt that the "save harmless clause" would be an appro-
priate provision, as its legal value from the point of view of his govern-
ment was questionable.

21. Article 4 should also contain a provision for the use in the
agreement of the official language(s) of the country receiving

22. As regards paragraph 3 of Article 4, the delegate of Canada recom-
mended the following clause: "In the event of termination, the
undertakings assumed in this arrangement will continue to apply to the
extent necessary to permit the orderly withdrawal of personnel and funds
and the settlement of accounts, provided that in no case will the arrange-
ment continue to apply for a period longer than (- x - months or years)."

23. The Committee invited other members who wished to comment on the
draft text to transmit their observations to the Secretariat by
31 December 1978. These comments would be circulated by the Secretariat
to all members of the Committee and would be taken into account in the
preparation of a revised text to be considered by the Committee at its
third session.


24. The Committee followed the recommendation of the Bureau and agreed
to publish and disseminate annually the World Heritage List, the
World Heritage in Danger List and the list of properties for which technical
cooperation is granted from the World Heritage Fund as combined lists. (see
document CC-78/CONF.010/6). It was pointed out that this arrangement would
allow for timely updating of these lists after each annual session of the


25. The representative of ICOMOS and the delegate of France drew the
attention of the Committee to the introductory part to the World
Heritage List in which some terms used in the French text did not corres-
pond to the English text. In order to overcome this the Committee adopted
the following changes in the French text: the criteria against which
cultural properties would be evaluated, which are set out in point a) (ii)
should read "... sur le développement de l'architecture, de la sculpture
monumentale, de la conception des jardins et paysages, des arts connexes,
des conceptions de l'urbanisme ou de l'habitat ..." instead of "... sur le
développement ultérieur de l'architecture, de la sculpture monumentale,
de la conception des jardins et des paysages, des arts connexes ou de
l'habitat ...".

Point a) (v) should read "... formes d'habitats humains traditionnels ou
de conceptions urbanistiques ..." instead of "... formes d'habitats humains
traditionnels ...". Upon the Rapporteur's proposal, the Committee decided
to amend also the corresponding English text in order to add the same


26. The former Rapporteur presented the views of the Bureau on this
matter. He pointed out that the Bureau agreed that consideration
should be given urgently to a general ongoing publicity campaign to promote
the objectives of the Convention and the work of the Committee. Such a
campaign would help to inform the public of the importance of conserving the
World heritage, accelerate ratifications by Member States of the Convention,
stimulate contributions to the World Heritage Fund, and generally start
fulfilling the educational mandate outlined in the Convention.

27. After considerable discussion, the Committee agreed to form a sub-
Committee for in-depth study of future public information and educa-
tional activities of the Committee.

28. The Chairman then nominated Mr. Peter Bennett as Chairman and
appointed the delegates of Ecuador, France, Iran, Iraq, USA and
representatives of the advisory organizations as members of the sub-

29. In reporting on the work of the sub-Committee, its Chairman outlined
the objectives of the proposed public information programme, in the follow-
ing terms. Firstly, the programme should focus upon the aims of the Con-
vention, the work of the Committee, the criteria for the inclusion of sites
in the World Heritage List and the types of assistance available to States
under the Convention, providing examples of assistance already granted;
the World Heritage List should be de-emphasized until such time as there
were sufficient sites on the List to make it appear truly representative of
the world's heritage. Secondly, the programme should be at two levels,
international and national. At the international level, UNESCO, ICOMOS,
ICCROM and IUCN channels and facilities should be used. At the national
level, States adhering to the Convention should be encouraged to promote
the Convention through their governmental machinery. The Canadian Govern-
ment Booklet on the Convention, distributed to delegates, was noted as a
good example of a national governmental initiative. The assistance of
non-governmental organizations in each State should also be enlisted by
States to promote the objectives of the Convention; these would include
not only the national committees of international organizations such as


ICOMOS and IUCN, but also other conservation-oriented non-governmental
organizations. The Chairman of the sub-Committee then proceeded to present
suggestions for a three-year public information programme.

30. After discussing the proposed programme, the Committee decided that
the following three activities would be undertaken during the forth-
coming year and authorized expenditure of up to $30,000 for that purpose :

(a) a brochure in five UNESCO languages (Arabic, English, French,
Russian and Spanish) aimed primarily at opinion-makers in
States not yet adhering to the Convention, to describe the
objectives of the Convention, the criteria for nominations to
the World Heritage List, the types of assistance available and
the ways of applying for such assistance;

(b) a simple, four-panel leaflet on the Convention and its objec-
tives in all five UNESCO languages for distribution to the
general public everywhere on a large scale, to answer inquiries;

(c) a World Heritage poster.

31. The decision to limit the number of activities to be undertaken
during the next twelve months stemmed from the Committee's wish to
pursue only those which would be of immediate interest in relation to the
present stage of its work. The Secretariat was, however, requested to
study the feasibility of carrying out at a later stage other activities
proposed by the sub-Committee, such as the creation of a photo library of
World Heritage sites, the preparation of a radio documentary and of a
slide show with audio track, both in five languages and dealing with the
objectives of the Convention, and the preparation of an educational kit
with slides, as well as the printing of stamps by States Parties, as
suggested by the delegate of Poland. The Committee asked the Secretariat
to present proposals on the above activities for consideration by the
Committee at its third session.


32. The Committee recalled Article 20 of the Convention under which
international assistance may not only be granted to property already
included in the World Heritage List but also to property which had not yet
been added to the World Heritage List. International assistance for pro-
perty which had not yet been included in the World Heritage List, for which
the working term "preparatory assistance" had been adopted by the Com-
mittee may be granted:

(i) for identifying cultural and natural properties of universal
importance and preparatory work with a view to nominating pro-
perties for inclusion in the World Heritage List (see Article
13, paragraph 2 of the Convention), and

(ii) for drawing up technical assistance requests, including
preparation of feasibility studies for future technical co-
operation projects in accordance with Article 13, paragraph 1,
and Article 21, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Convention.


33. In this connection, the Committee had before it a proposal from the
Secretariat that financial assistance be granted to States Parties
for the purposes defined in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above (see
document CC-78/CONF.010/4).

34. The Chairman further drew attention to Article 22, sub-paragraph (c)
and Article 23 of the Convention under which, regardless of whether
a property had been entered in the World Heritage List, assistance might
be granted to States Parties for the training of staff and specialists in
the field of identification, protection, conservation, presentation and
rehabilitation of the cultural and natural heritage and/or for relevant
training centres.

35. After examining the budgetary situation of the World Heritage Fund
(see document CC-78/CONF.010/INF.2) and discussing in depth appro-
priate use of the Fund, the Committee decided to authorize the Chairman
to grant, in consultation with the Director General of UNESCO, preparatory
assistance to States Parties up to a total amount of US $140,000 (as shown
in document CC-78/CONF.010/8) with a budgetary ceiling of US $15,000 per
project. The Committee agreed with the proposal mentioned in paragraph
33 as put forward by the Secretariat and consequently decided that this
preparatory assistance could, in exceptional cases, take the form of
financial assistance.


36. The former Rapporteur presented to the Committee the list of
properties which, according to the Bureau, would be eligible for
inclusion in the World Heritage List. He then called the attention of
the Committee to three properties on this list which would meet the
criteria for inclusion in the World Heritage List but which, at the time
of the Bureau meeting had lacked the required documentation.

37. The Committee examined these three cases first and stated with
satisfaction that appropriate documentation for two properties had
in the meantime been received. As regards the third case (National Park
of Ichkeul) the Committee decided, in agreement with the delegate of
Tunisia, to deter its decision to its next session subject to receipt of
the requested information.

38. The Committee, upon finding itself in full agreement with the list
proposed by the Bureau, decided to enter the following 12 properties
in the World Heritage List:

HERITAGE LIST                                      STATE
______________________________________                     _____

L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Park    Canada
Nahanni National Park

Galapagos Islands                            Ecuador
City of Quito

Simien National Park                         Ethiopia
Rock Hewn Churches, Lalibela


HERITAGE LIST                                      STATE
______________________________________                     _____

Aachen Cathedral                            Federal Republic
of Germany

Cracow's Historic Centre                   Poland
Wieliczka - salt mine

Island of Goree                            Senegal

Mesa Verde                                 United States
Yellowstone                                of America

39. The Committee further decided to defer consideration of all other
nominations listed in document CC-78/CONF.010/7 until its third
session. All these nominations, as well as those received after the
Bureau meeting and listed in document CC-78/CONF.010/7 Add.1 (for which it
had been impossible to complete the technical review, translation and
transmission to all States members of the Committee in time before the
second session) would be transmitted to the Bureau for examination prior
to their consideration by the Committee at its next session.

40. The Chairman then thanked the States Parties for their efforts,
which had made it possible to initiate the establishment of the
World Heritage List. He also recalled that the time and order of entry
of a property in the World Heritage List should by no means be interpre-
ted as an indication of the qualification of a property or judgment on
its value in comparison to other properties in the list, as all of them
had met the criteria adopted by the Committee.

41. The Committee continued its work by discussing suitable future
closing dates for the submission of nominations and agreed that
nominations, in order to be examined at the next Bureau meeting, should
be with the Secretariat by 1 March 1979 at the latest. Thereafter,
however, the deadline for submission of nominations would be 1 January
so that more time would be available to the Secretariat, ICOMOS and
IUCN for the processing and technical review of the new dominations.

42. There followed considerable discussion as to whether the number
of nominations per country and year should be limited or not
and how to solve the problem of the increasing workload for all parties
involved in the evaluation process, which may become rather time-consuming
and may even exceed the capacity of the advisory organizations, the Bureau,
the Committee and the UNESCO Secretariat in the future.

43. In this connection, reference was made to Article 11 (1) of the
Convention which stipulates no limit for the number of nominations
by a single State Party. However, in recognizing this stipulation the
Committee, for purely practical reasons, authorized the Chairman to convene,
if necessary, a special Bureau meeting after the closing date for submission
of nominations in order to examine, together with the advisory organizations
and the Secretariat, the possibility of evaluating all new nominations and
to adopt a procedure which would take into account the capacities of all


parties involved in the processing of nominations.

44. Following a proposal made by the delegate of Yugoslavia who under-
lined the importance of the decisions taken by the Committee for the
establishment of the World Heritage List, the Committee decided that a
document concerning the nominations of States and presenting the recom-
mendations of the Bureau thereon, would be prepared for the Committee
which would examine the nominations one by one and would decide on the
inclusion or non-inclusion in the List of each individual site.

45. The delegate of Poland then drew the attention of the Committee to
paragraphs 20 and 21 of the report of the Rapporteur on the first
meeting of the Bureau. As noted in the report, Poland was the only State
affected by the decision that on this first occasion, States Parties would
be limited to nominating only two properties each for inclusion in the
World Heritage List, since it had nominated three sites which clearly
qualified for inclusion and for which complete documentation had been
submitted: Auschwitz, Cracow and the Salt Mines of Wieliczka. It would,
therefore, appear justified that the nomination of Auschwitz be referred
to the second session of the Bureau with a favourable recommendation.

46. In response to this proposal the Committee agreed that in all
future cases where eligible nominations were deferred by the Bureau,
such nominations would be given priority consideration at the following
Bureau meeting, unless these nominations had in the meantime been with-
drawn by the State concerned.

47. At the suggestion of the delegate of France a general discussion
took place on the problems of typology, comparability, complement-
arity and universality of cultural and natural properties of universal
importance. Some delegates felt it desirable that States Parties sharing
cultural or natural properties of a comparable nature should consult each
other for the purpose of harmonizing approaches in the selection of pro-
perties for the World Heritage List. It was also stated that the criteria
for selection of properties for the World Heritage List should be discussed
in more detail in the future in order to facilitate selection and evalua-
tion of candidate World Heritage properties.


48. The Committee examined a request from Ethiopia for technical
cooperation to enhance preservation of the Simien National Park,
which had bean declared a World Heritage Site. The Committee, fully aware
of the urgency to assist Ethiopia in the great task of preserving this
threatened property agreed to make available to Ethiopia, if requested,
preparatory assistance, deemed necessary by the Committee for the elabora-
tion of a more comprehensive technical assistance request and the conduct
of a feasibility study. Subject to the outcome of this preparatory work,
technical assistance may be granted by the Committee or emergency assistance
by the Chairman, for the Simien World Heritage Site, as appropriate.


49.  The Chairman invited the delegate of Canada to take the floor since
this item had been added to the agenda upon his proposal.


The delegate of Canada explained that after discussing with the Secretariat
of UNESCO the terms of Article 11.4 of the Convention he considered that
there was no need for a special procedure to be adopted for the establish-
ment of the List of World Heritage in Danger.


(a)   Consideration of a Proposed World Heritage Emblem

50. The Secretariat of UNESCO presented to the Committee the initial
design and a later version, modified according to the suggestions of
the Bureau, of the proposed World Heritage Emblem, prepared by Mr. Michel

51. As conceived by the artist, this emblem symbolized, "in a form
sufficiently simple to be inserted on a map and to identify sites",
the interdependence of cultural and natural properties. The central
square was a form crested by man; the circle represented nature, the
two being intimately linked. The emblem was round, like the world, but
it was also a symbol of protection. The two designs, identical in their
concept, differed in their graphic approach. (Both designs are shown in
Annex II.)

52. Following the Bureau's suggestions, the author presented two versions
of the designs, one in black and white, the other in blue and white, the
latter being the colours of the United Nations.

53. The Committee examined the proposed designs very carefully. The
delegate of Yugoslavia emphasized that the choice of an emblem was
of great importance. The emblem would symbolize for future generations
the principles embodied in the Convention. The Committee felt that the
proposed emblem fully satisfied the criteria of universality and simplicity,
and conveyed the essential objectives of the Convention. Consequently it
decided to adopt the emblem in its two graphic versions both to be used, in
any colour, depending on the use to be made of them, the technical possi-
bilities and considerations of an artistic nature.

(b)   Booklet on How to Prepare World Heritage List Nominations

54. Following the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided
that a booklet explaining how nominations to the World Heritage List
should be prepared, should be drawn up by ICOMOS and IUCN instead of the
model nomination files which they had previously been asked to prepare
and that the Secretariat of UNESCO should follow up this decision. This
booklet should be published in Arabic, English, French, Russian and

55. In this connection, the delegate of France pointed out that there was
also need to develop tools for alleviating the workload involved in the
processing and technical review of nominations by the Secretariat of
UNESCO, ICOMOS and IUCN. The Secretariat informed the Committee that
forms to simplify the correspondence necessary to complete the nominations
and relevant documentation were already used and others would be worked


(c)  Authorization of Expenditures in 1978-1979

56. At the invitation of the Chairman, the representative of the Director
General presented the proposed expenditures for 1978-1979 (document
CC-78/CONF.010/8) divided into five different Chapters. The first three
chapters concerned what could be considered as purely operational activi-
ties - preparatory assistance, technical cooperation including training,
and emergency assistance. The fourth chapter provided for programme
support - IUCN and ICOMOS participation, and public information activities.
The fifth and last chapter covered temporary assistance for the UNESCO
Secretariat in order to cope with part of the additional workload. The
figures in the document were only indicative.

57. In connection with the provisions made for training, the delegates
of Canada and of the Federal Republic of Germany stressed the
importance of the training of administrators and reference was made to
the annual International Seminar for parks administrators organized by the
School of Natural Resources in cooperation with the U.S. National Park
Service at the University of Michigan. The representative of the
Director General of UNESCO confirmed that fellowships for such a course
could be granted, if requested by a State Party for one of its nationals.

58. The delegate of Iraq stated the intention of the Regional Centre for
Conservation of Cultural Property in the Arab States to submit for
approval at the next session of the Committee a project for a course on
the conservation of ancient buildings, to be organized in co-operation with
the Committee.

59. The Committee agreed with the proposal of the delegate of France
that the provision for emergency assistance be increased from
US $100,000 to US $150,000.

60. The proposed expenditure for programme support , i.e. contracts
with ICOMOS and IUCN and public information activities, as well as
the funds allocated to temporary assistance for the UNESCO Secretariat,
were supported by the delegates of Canada, France, the Federal Republic of
Germany, Iran, Nigeria and the United States of America. The latter having
suggested that a certain amount of flexibility be introduced for Chapters
IV and V of the proposed expenditure, the Committee, at the proposal of
the delegate of Canada, decided to provide for a contingency allocation
of 3% of the total amount for all activities proposed.

61. Taking into account the total resources available in the World
Heritage Fund which, as shown in document CC-78/CONF.010/INF.2,
amounted to $555,695.25 as at 31 July 1978, the Committee adopted the
following revised budget for the period September 1978/September 1979 :


Item of expenditure                              Funds authorized
___________________                              ________________

I.   Preparatory Assistance

Preparation of nominations to the
World Heritage List and/or prepara-
tion of requests and feasibility
studies for technical cooperation
projects (provision of experts,
equipment or financial grants
required for the work foreseen
under this item), as provided for
in Articles 13.2 and 21.3 of the
Convention                                        $140.000

II.  Technical cooperation

Training (fellowships) for
nationals of States Parties to the
Convention, as foreseen in Article
22(c) of the Convention                           $ 90.000

III. Emergency Assistance
(Provision of experts, equip-
ment or financial grants), as fore-
seen in Article 21.2 of the
Convention                                        $150.000

IV.  Programme Support

Technical review of nominations

For 15 to 30 nominations
$300 per nomination           $9.000
(For up to 15 nominations
$450 per nomination)

Technical review of nominations
For 15 to 30 nominations
$300 per nomination          $9.000
(for up to 15 nominations
$450 per nomination)

Public information activities   $30.000           $ 48.000

V.   Temporary Assistance for the
Secretariat                                    $ 47.000
Total       $475.000
Contingency Funds
(3% of $475.000)                                  $ 14.250



62. The delegate of the United States of America expressed his concern
with the workload imposed on the Secretariat by the various activi-
ties carried out under the Convention. This concern was shared by all the
other members of the Committee who at the same time stated their apprecia-
tion of the work already undertaken by the Secretariat. The Committee
consequently requested the Chairman to write to the Director General infor-
ming him of the decision to grant temporary assistance from the World
Heritage Fund for a one-year period and drawing his attention to the need
for additional permanent staff support financed by the Regular Programme
and Budget of the Organization.

(d)   Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage

63. The Committee authorized the Secretariat to amend the above-mentioned
Operational Guidelines, adopted by the Committee at its first session,
to bring them into line with the decisions taken at the second session.

(e)   Report of the Committee to the UNESCO General Conference

64. The Committee approved the draft text of its report to the General
Conference of UNESCO at its 20th session, as set out in document
CC-78/CONF.010/9, and authorized the Secretariat to complete this report
with the decisions taken at its second session.

(f)   Statement by the observer of the World Food Programme (WFP)

65. In his statement, the observer of the World Food Programme indicated
that his Organization gave food assistance to social and economic
development projects. He went on to describe the project undertaken by
the Egyptian Government in co-operation with UNESCO and the World Food
Programme for the preservation of the Philae temples, to which the WFP had
made a substantial contribution in the form of food assistance as part-
payment of wages for about 1,700 workers engaged in the restoration of the
monuments. The project, in addition to its evident cultural value, would
also provide an opportunity to develop the tourist industry in the area and
help diversity the economic development of the Aswan region. In concluding,
the observer of the World Food Programme referred to the success of the
operation which, in that Organization, was known as "bread and stones".

(g)   Date and place of the next session

66. The delegate of Egypt invited the Committee to hold
its third session in Cairo in September 1979. This invitation
was greatly appreciated by the Committee which accepted by acclamation
the kind offer of the Egyptian Government.

67. In closing the second session of the Committee, the Chairman thanked
all those who had contributed to making the meeting possible and
the deliberations successful.

Krzysztof Pawlowski
Rapporteur, World Heritage Committee

*[Annexes not yet available-22/6/96]



CC-78/CONF.010/10 Rev. Annex II / Annexe II 
WHC/2 Annex I / Annexe I 


(adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its second    
session / adopté par le Comité du Patrimoine Mondial lors de 
sa deuxième session)



CC-78/CONF.010/10 Rev.
Annex III/Annexe III



I. Representatives of States Members of the World Heritage Committee/
 Représentans des Etats membres du Comité du patrimoine mondial


Mrs. Jennifer Porter
Second Secretary
Embassy of Australia


Mr. Peter H. Bennett
Coordinator, Liaison and Consultation
Parks Canada 
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs

Mr. Michael O'Rourke
Executive Director
Historical Resources Administration
Government of New Brunswick

Mr. J. E. Potton
Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Division
Department of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife
Government of Alberta


Mr. Rodrigo Pallares
National Institute of Cultural Heritage

Dr. Luis Gallegos Chiriboga
Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador

Dr. Shehata Adam
Egyptian Antiquities Organization



Mr. Michel Parent 
Inspecteur général
Inspection générale des Monuments historiques
Ministère des Affaires culturelles

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bady
Caisse nationale des Monuments historiques


Dr. Georg Moersch
Landeskonservator Rheinland

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Engelhardt 
President, German League for Protection of
Nature and Conservation of Environment
Director-General, Natural History Museums of Bavaria


Dr. Firouz Bagherzadeh
Director General
Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, Iran Bastan Museum

Mrs. Anne Claude Saurat
Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, Iran Bastan Musenm


Dr. Adil Naji Tawfiq
Regional Centre for Conservation of Cultural Property
of the Arab States
Ministry of Information

Dr. Besim Said Muyad Damerji
Director General
State Foundation for Antiquities
Iraq Museum

Dr. Salah Hussain Al-Obaidi,
Assistant Professor
College of Arts
Regional Centre for Conservation of Cultural Property
of the Arab States



Dr. Ekpo O. Eyo
Federal Department of Antiquities


Prof. Krzysztof Pawlowski
Conservateur général adjoint des
Monuments historiques de Pologne
Ministère de la Culture et des Arts


Mr. Hamid Zaouche
First Secretary
Embassy of Tunisia


Mr. David F. Hales
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
Department of the Interior

Hr. Robert R. Garvey Jr.
Executive Director
Advisor Council on Historic Preservation

Mr. Christopher Delaporte
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
Department of the Interior

Mr. Robert C. Milne
International Park Affairs Division
National Park Service
Department of the Interior


Mr. Branislav Krstic
Conseiller fédéral
Conseil fédéral exécutif


II. Observers from other States Parties to the Convention/
Observateurs d'autres Etats Parteis à la Convention


Mrs. Maria Alves
Secretary, Cultural Affairs
Embassy of Brazil


Mr. Abdelkader El Kadiri
First Secretary
Embassy of Morocco

Mr. Ahmed Sefrioui
Ministère des Affaires culturelles


Dr. Reina Torres de Aruz
Director of Historic Beritage in Panama


Mr. Daniel Dayer
First Secretary
Embassy of Switzerland


Mr. Toufic Abouchaer
Second Secretary
Embassy of the Syrian Arab Republic

III. Organizations invited in an advisory capacity/
 Organizations invitées à titre consultatif

International Centre for Conservation (ICCROM)/ Centre, international
pour la Conservation

Br. Giorgio Torraca
Assitant Director

International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)/
Conseil international des monuments et des sites

Mr. Raymond Lemaire


Mr. Ernest Allen Connally
Secretary General

Mrs. Ann Webster-Smith
Deputy to the Secretary General

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural -Resources (IUCN)/Union
internationale pour la Conservation de la nature et de ses ressources

Mr. David A. Munro

IV. International governmental and non-governmental Organizations/
Organisations internationales gouvernementales et non-gouvernementales

United Nations/Nations Unies

Ms. Patricia O'Callaghan
Information Officer

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/ Programme des Nations Unies pour
le développment

Mr. Charles L. Perry
Washington D.C. Officer

United Nations Enviroument Programee (UNP)/Programme des Nations Unies
pour l'environnement

Mr. Noel J. Brown
North American Representative

World Food Programme (WFP)/Programme alimentaire mondial

Mr. Maurizio Gnocchi
WFP-UNDP Liaison Officer

Arab Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization/
Organisation arabe pour l'éducation, la culture et la science

Prof. M. S. Abulezz
Institute of Arab Research and Studies

Organization of American States/Organisation des Etats américains

Mrs. Jill Vexler
Cultural Officer


Inter-American Development Bank (IBD)/Banque inter-américaine de

Mr. Arnaldo Pessoa 
Senior Specialist for Technical Co-operation
Economic and Social Development Department 

International Council of Museums (ICOM)/Conseil international des Musées

Mr. Paul N. Perrot
Vice-President of ICOM

Mr. Gilbert Goret
Chef du Service des Relations internationales
Caisse nationale des Monuments historiques, France

International Federation of Landscape Architects/
Fédération internationale des architectes paysagistes

Mr. William G. Swain
President of J.W.S.M.

International Union of Architects/
Union internationale des architectes

Mr. Donald B. Myer
Assistant Secretary
Commission of Fine Arts

V. Secretariat of Unesco/Secrétariat de l'Unesco

Mr. Gérard Bolla
Deputy Assistant Director-General (Operations)
Culture and Communication Sector

Mr. Michel Batisse
Deputy Assistant Director-General for Natural Resources
and Environmental Sciences

Mrs. Anne Raidl
International Standards Section
Division of Cultural Heritage

Mr. Bernd von Droste
Division of Ecological Sciences

Mr. Joseph Mehan
Senior Information Officer
New York Office


VI. United States Coordination Staff for the meeting/
Personnel américain chargé de la coordination de la réunion

Mr. Gordon Fredine
Chief meeting coordinator
National Park Service
United States Department of the Interior

Mr. Fred M. Packard
Documents Officer for the meeting
National Park Service
United States Department of the Interior