Distribution limited                                   CC-79/CONF.003/13
                                                       Paris, 30 November 1979
                                                       Original: English
                           CULTURAL ORGANIZATION


                           WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

                                Third session

                      Cairo and Luxor, 22-26 October 1979

                       OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

1. The third session of the World Heritage Committee was held in Cairo,
Egypt (22 October 1979) and in Luxor, Egypt (23-26 October) at the kind
invitation of the Egyptian Government. The meeting was attended by the
following States members of the World Heritage Committee: Australia,
Bulgaria, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Iran, Italy, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama,
Senegal, Switzerland, United States of America and Yugoslavia.

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

3. Observers from three States Parties to the Convention which were not
members of the Committee, namely Canada, Federal Republic of Germany and
Honduras also attended the session, as well as observers from two other
international organizations: the Organization for Museums, Monuments and
Sites of Africa (OMMSA) and the International Union of Architects (IUA).

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


5. The Chairman, Mr. David Hales, declared the session open and proposed
that items 2 to 4 of the Provisional Agenda be considered before the
inaugural ceremony.

6. This Proposal was accepted by the Committee which proceeded to
examine the Provisional Agenda prepared for the meeting. The Chairman



proposed that:

i)    an additional item be added to the agenda as item 5, namely
      "Report by former Chairman and Rapporteur on activities under-
      taken during the period September 1978-October 1979 and action
      to be taken thereon";

ii)   items 5 and 6 of the Provisional Agenda be examined as one item, and

iii)  item 14 should be reworded as follows "Support services to the
      Secretariat and to the advisory international organizations".

With those modifications, the Committee adopted the Agenda.


7. The Committee had before it a recommendation from the Bureau that
the Committee's Rules of Procedure be amended to provide for the replace-
ment of the Rapporteur when the Rapporteur was unable to act at any
session of the Committee or part thereof or was unable for any reason to
complete his term of office (document CC-79/CONF.003/2). The procedure
proposed for the replacement of the Rapporteur was identical to that
foreseen in the Rules of Procedure for the replacement of the Chairman.

8. After examining the Bureau's proposal, the Committee therefore
decided to amend its Rules of Procedure by inserting immediately after
Rule 14 an additional Rule providing for the replacement of the Rapporteur.
Rules 15 to 37 would be re-numbered accordingly.


9. Dr. Shehata Adam (Egypt) was elected as Chairman of the Committee
by acclamation. The Committee then elected by acclamation the following
States members of the Committee as Vice-Chairmen: Bulgaria, Nepal,
Panama, Senegal and United States of America and Mr. Michel Parent (France)
as Rapporteur.

10. In a reply to a member of the Committee, Dr. Shehata Adam, in his
capacity as Chairman of the Committee, stated that States members of the
Bureau would be invited to designate as their representatives at meetings
of the Bureau persons qualified in both the natural and the cultural
heritage, so that a proper balance would be maintained.


11. The Committee was honoured by the presence of H. Exc. Mrs. Jihan
El-Sadat, First Lady of Egypt and of H. Exc. Dr. Mansour Hassan, Minister
of Presidency, Information and Culture, who both addressed the meeting
during the inaugural ceremony; the representative of the Director General,
Mr. G. Bolla, and the Chairman of the Committee also addressed the meeting.



12. In reporting to the Committee on activities undertaken during the
previous year, the former Chairman, Mr. David Hales, focussed on signifi-
cant successes noted by the Committee and he also referred to serious
problems for the future. He drew attention to the increase in the number
of ratifications or acceptances of the Convention which totalled 48, to
the substantial increase in the number of fellowships provided under the
World Heritage Fund as well as in the assistance provided for the protec-
tion of sites. Mr. Hales also laid stress on the vast increase in the
number of nominations received for inscription on the World Heritage List.
However, he had become aware over the past year of the fact that the
Convention remained largely an unknown body in the majority of countries
and that many Governments did not fully understand its implications. He
expressed his concern with respect to the extremely heavy workload for the
Secretariat, the advisory organizations, the Bureau and the Committee itself,
and he noted that the staff on the Secretariat of the Committee was still
insufficient. Another problem was raised by the increasing imbalance
between cultural and natural representation on the Committee and he felt
that appropriate action should be taken by the States members of the
Committee to redress this situation so that the credibility of the World
Heritage List should not be put in doubt. Lastly, he underlined the
serious responsibility of the Committee with respect to the List, stressing
that the Committee's wisdom would be judged by the composition of the List.

13. The Rapporteur then proceeded to report on the last two sessions of
the Bureau. The written report of the 2nd session, which took place in
Paris from 28-30 May 1979, gave rise to no comments from the members of
the Committee.

14. The report on the third session of the Bureau which took place in
Cairo on 21 October 1979 was read before the Committee. Those points
raised by the Bureau which called for decisions by the Committee and which
were not the subject of an item on the Agenda were then taken up by the

15. Thus, with respect to paragraph 16 of the report on the different
types of recommendation formulated by the Bureau to the Committee on
nominations, the Committee decided to adopt for its third session the
procedure proposed by the Bureau which is as follows: nominations would
not be examined by the Committee: (a) when the deadlines for their
submission had not been respected, (b) when their proper processing had
not been possible and (c) when it was evident that the supporting docu-
mentation was incomplete and/or inadequate; on the other hand those nomina-
tions which raised problems of application of the criteria (calling in
some cases for the submission of additional documentation) would be sub-
mitted to the Committee for consideration with a recommendation from the
Bureau that action be deterred, together with those recommended to the
World Heritage List and those definitively not recommended for inscription
on the List.


16. The Committee agreed with the proposal Or the Bureau that in the
case of properties which fully met the criteria for inclusion in the
World Heritage List and which had suffered damage from disasters, the
normal deadlines for the submission and processing of dossiers may be
waived by the Bureau.

17. The Committee also shared the concern of the Bureau at the establish-
ment in the United Kingdom of an organization bearing the name of "World
Heritage Association" and of a Fund called "Heritage Trust". The Committee
felt strongly that the use in names of the term "World Heritage" should
be strictly limited to those activities directly related to the Convention
and considered that the use of these terms in the titles of other organiza-
tions could only lead to confusion which would be regrettable. It therefore
requested the Chairman to write to the above-mentioned Association, expressing
the concern of the Committee, requesting it to modify its name so that the
terms "World Heritage" no longer appeared therein and suggesting that the
Association adopt a name such as the sub-title proposed by its Chairman-
designate ("International Federation of Independent Organizations for the
protection of the cultural and natural heritage").

18. Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee decided
to set up three working groups, as follows:

A.     On criteria for the evaluation of cultural property and the
       processing of nominations, composed of:

       Australia, Bulgaria (Chairman), Ecuador, France, Iran, Italy,
       Panama, United States of America, Canada (observer), ICOMOS and

B.     On the management of the Convention and its financial implications,
       composed of:

       Australia, France, Nepal, Pakistan, Senegal (Chairmen), Switzerland,
       United States of America, Yugoslavia, ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM.

C.     On criteria for the evaluation of natural properties, composed of:

       Australia (Chairman), France, United States of America, Canada
       (observer) and IUCN.


19. The Chairman introduced the document (CC-79/CONF.003/5) prepared
by the Secretariat. Complementary information was provided by the
representative of the Director-General who proposed that the standard
agreement should only be concluded in the case of large-scale projects
and referred in particular to two points of special importance, namely
the provisions relating to the protection of experts and to the exemption
of taxes and duties on equipment and material necessary for the execution
of the projects. After examining the document before it, the Committee
approved, as recommended by the Bureau, the revised draft text as prepared


by the Secretariat. Furthermore, it decided to delegate authority to the
Chairman to sign such agreements on its behalf. However, in exceptional
cases or where necessary for practical reasons:, the Committee authorized
the Chairman to delegate authority for this purpose to a member of the
Secretariat, to be designated by him.


20. The document on this item which proposed a procedure with respect
to the deletion of properties from the World Heritage List was introduced
by Mr. Bolla who drew attention to the different stages in the proposed
procedure. A wide exchange of ideas ensued, during which several parti-
cipants expressed the hope that the State Party on whose territory the
property was located would inform the Secretariat of the Committee if any
property inscribed on the List had seriously deteriorated and others drew
attention to the obligation contracted by the States Parties under the
Convention to-properly preserve-the properties entered on the List.

21. With respect to the source of information on the deterioration of
a world heritage site, the-Committee presumed that it would in most cases
be the State Party on whose territory the property was located which would
transmit such information to the Secretariat. However, information on the
deterioration of a site may be made available by other sources and it would
be for the Secretariat to check, as far as possible, on the source of the
information and on the substance in consultation with the State Party
concerned. The Committee requested the Secretariat in such cases to inform
the Chairman of the results of its investigations and decided that it would
be incumbent on the Chairman to decide whether the information received
should be acted upon. '

22. After some discussion, the Committee retained the proposal that
decisions such as the sending out of fact-finding missions should be taken
by the Committee, except in the case where emergency action was necessary,
when the Bureau would be authorized to request the Secretariat to take such
measures. It was understood that in all cases, the State Party concerned
would be consulted. The question of organizing regular inspection missions
was also raised, but the Committee felt that each action should not be taken,
particularly in view of the States' obligations to adequately preserve
properties inscribed on the List and of the cost involved.

23. The representative of ICOMOS proposed that ICOMOS should be consulted
on the choice of experts to be sent on fact-finding missions in connection
with the state of preservation of cultural properties. In reply, Mr. Bolla
indicated that ICOMOS was regularly consulted on the roster of experts
maintained by the Secretariat but that any obligation for the Secretariat
to consult ICOMOS, in addition to the State Party which was always consulted
on the choice of experts, would invariably lead to delays in the sending
out of missions.


24. The Committee adopted the procedure proposed by the Secretariat
subject to amendments to stage A on the source of information on the
deterioration of a property and subject to reference to cases where the
necessary corrective measures for threatened natural sites have not been
duly taken (see paragraph 40 below). It was decided to incorporate this
procedure in the "Operational Guidelines". The full text of the procedure
is to be found in Annex II to this report.


25. Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved
the draft form for requests concerning preparatory or emergency assistance
and fellowships as annexed to document CC-79/CONF.003/8.


26.  The Committee took note of the report of the Secretariat on public
information activities undertaken during the preceding year. This report
called for decisions by the Committee on the publication of the World
Heritage List and on the proposal received from the Swedish firm, Upsala
Ekeby, to produce glass and silverware commemorating the World Heritage

27. On the publication of the World Heritage List, the Committee

     (a) to retard the publication of the List in order to include
the properties placed thereon at its third session; ,

     (b) that the List of World Heritage in Danger and the List of
properties for which international assistance has bean granted would be
published as appendices of the List;

     (c) that the list of properties for which international assistance
has been granted would include reference to properties for which technical
assistance has been granted but would make no mention of preparatory

     (d) to publish the full list once every two years.

28. The proposal from Upsala Ekeby to produce glass and silverware
gave rise to considerable discussion, since it raised the principle of
using tho World Heritage Emblem and depictions of World Heritage Sites
for commercial purposes. There was some reticence among members of the
Committee to authorize any commercial company to use the Emblem or
pictures of the sites for such purposes. On the other hand the Committee
underlined the need to-create a world-wide interest in the Convention
and recognized the importance of publicity. The Committee therefore


     (a) that the World Heritage Emblem should not be used for any
commercial purposes unless the Committee has given its authorization; and

     (b) that the name, symbol or depiction of any property inscribed
on the World Heritage List or, of any element thereof should not be used
for commercial purposes unless written authorization has been received
from the State concerned on the principle of using the said name, symbol
or depiction and unless the exact text or display has been approved by
that State and as far as possible by the national authority specifically
concerned with the protection of the site; such utilization should be in
conformity with the reasons for which the property has been placed on the
World Heritage List;

     (c) to accept the proposal from Upsala Ekeby as set out in the
Annex to document CC-79/CONF.003/6.1, authorizing the firm to use the
World Heritage Emblem and the name of the Convention on a series of silver
spoons and the glassware, subject to the stipulation formulated in para-
graph (b) above and on condition that the company was not given exclusive
rights to use the emblem and the name of the Convention on articles of the
type proposed; it is however understood that the company will retain
exclusive rights on its own design as foreseen in international agreements
on the protection of industrial property.

29. After examining the proposals of the Secretariat for promotional
activities for 1980 (document CC-79/CONF.003/6.2) the Committee authorized
the Secretariat to proceed with the following activities within a total
budget of $36,900:

                                                        Estimated cost
        (a) creation of a photo library
            of world heritage sites                          9,600

        (b) slide series and sound-track                     7,000

        (c) poster                                           7,500

        (d) postcards                                        4,000

        (e) journalists' seminars                            2,800

        (f) postage stamps                                   6'000


30. In response to a question from a member of the Committee who sought
to avoid the publication of information on cultural and natural world
heritage sites in separate publications, Mr. Batisse indicated that the
Secretariat was studying the possibility of enlarging the scope of the
Cultural Heritage bulletin to cover not only cultural sites but also
natural heritage sites.

31. The question was raised as to whether the Committee would authorize
States Parties to the Convention to produce material bearing the Emblem
such as postage stamps and post-cards for publicity purposes and for raising
financial contributions to the Fund. The Committee was of the opinion that
States Parties were free to use the Emblem for such purposes, and could make
additional voluntary contributions to the Fund by this means.



32. The Committee considered that it was absolutely essential that the
List contained only properties which were of outstanding universal value.
Unless this general criterion was applied to every nomination, the List
could rapidly decline in value and indeed in credibility. With this in
mind, the Committee recommended that the wording in the "Operational
Guidelines" and the nomination forms should more adequately reflect this
overriding consideration, and that ICOMOS and IUCN should be instructed
to regard this requirement as of critical importance in their evaluation
of nominations.

33. The Committee heard the reports of the two working groups set up to
examine amendments to the criteria and guidelines for the evaluation of
nominations and took the decisions set out below:

   (a) Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of cultural
       properties in the World Heritage List and guidelines for
       the evaluation of nominations by ICOMOS.

34. On the general question of the number of inscriptions to be entered
on the World Heritage List, as well as of the selection criteria to be
applied, the Committee recalled that the Convention foresees in Article 11
paragraph 1 that each State Party "shall in so far as possible submit to
the World Heritage Committee _an inventory of property forming part of the
cultural and natural heritage_, situated in its territory and _suitable for
inclusion_" in the World Heritage List (passages not underlined in the text
of the Convention). The Committee recommends that States Parties in future
conform to this provision so that the Committee may have access to provi-
sional and non-exhaustive lists of cultural properties for which they
intend to submit nomination files. This "inventory" and the nominations
should be very restricted, it being understood however that no limit in
the number of nominations should be imposed and that assurance be given
to each State Party that it may submit nominations for cultural property
relating to all the civilizations which have succeeded each other or
which coexist in its territory. The Committee was of the opinion that
the inventories submitted by the States Parties - inventories which would
as it were constitute long-term plans over a period of 5 to 10 years -
should enable the Committee to have a better global idea of the form that
the World Heritage List would take and thus to better define the selection

35. In response to specific questions raised by Mr. Michel Parent's
report, the Committee adopted the following principles:

   (i)    States Parties may propose in one single nomination
          several individual cultural properties, which may be
          in different geographical locations but which should:

          - be linked because they belong to the same historico-
            cultural group, or

          - be the subject of a single safeguarding project, or


          - belong to the same type of property characteristic
            of the zone.

          the geographical zone in which these properties are situa-
          ted should be delimited and the cultural properties indi-
          vidually described and also precisely localized.

          Each State Party submits only the cultural properties
          situated on its territory (even if these properties belong
          to an ensemble which goes beyond its borders) but it may
          come to an agreement with another State Party in order to
          make a joint submission.

   (ii)   In its justification of the outstanding universal value
          of the property nominated, each State should, whenever
          possible, undertake a sufficiently wide comparison;

  (iii)   The Committee should not take into consideration nomina-
          tions of immovable property which are likely to become

   (iv)   The authenticity of a cultural property remains an
          essential criterion.

    (v)   Particular attention should be given to cases which fall
          under criterion (vi) so that the net result would not be
          a reduction in the value of the List, due to the large
          potential number of nominations as well as to political
          difficulties. Nominations concerning, in particular,
          historical events or famous people could be strongly
          influenced by nationalism or other particularisms in
          contradiction with the objectives of the World Heritage

36. The Committee took note of the typology proposed in Mr. Michel
Parent's report. It considered that it was on the basis of the inventories
submitted by States Parties that such a typology could be finalized.
The question will therefore continue to be studied until its next session.

     (b)  Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of natural
          properties in the World Heritage List and guidelines for
          the evaluation of nominations by IUCN

37. In view of the difficulty of assessing nominations without an
adequate inventory, the Committee decided to encourage States Parties
to prepare such inventories. It was furthermore decided to ask IUCN
to prepare a proposal for the next meeting of the Bureau relating to
the methodology and cost of preparing an inventory on a global basis.

38. The Committee decided to instruct IUCN to use great caution in
the application of criterion (iv) when it was the sole criterion for
recommending sites for the World Heritage List. The sites nominated
under this criterion should be habitats where "significant populations"
or "concentrations of populations" of rare or endangered species of plants


or animals survive, that is, sites representing in some way "superlative

39. The Committee considered the complex issues concerning sites occupied
by migratory species on a seasonal basis and decided to add to paragraph 11
on integrity in the "Operational Guidelines" a new sub-paragraph (v) as

"In cases of migratory species, integrity will require critical areas
necessary for the survival of the species to be included in the nomination.
States which are parties to the Convention are requested to seek the co-
operation of other States which contain seasonable sites for populations
of World Heritage species so as to ensure that these species are protected
throughout their full life cycle. Agreements of this nature should be
noted in the nomination".

40. The Committee noted that several areas nominated which meet the
criteria may be marginal because of the inability of States, for various
reasons to apply the rigid management criteria which they believe is
necessary. The Committee was concerned that this could lead to further
deterioration of these sites if corrective measures were not implemented.
The Committee therefore decided to amend the "Operational Guidelines" by
adding a sub-paragraph (vi) to paragraph 11 as follows:

"Where the intrinsic qualities of a World Heritage site are threatened by
action or works of man and yet meet the criteria set out in paragraph 10,
an action plan outlining the corrective measures required shall be sub-
mitted with the nomination form. Should the corrective measures submitted
by the nominating State not be taken within the time proposed by that
State, the site will be considered by the Committee for delisting in
accordance with the procedure adopted by the Committee."

       (c) Other questions

41. The application of the procedure foreseen in paragraph 40 above to
cultural properties will be considered by the Committee at a later meeting.

42. The Australian Delegation drew attention to the fact that, on
several occasions, members of the Committee and representatives of IUCN
and ICOMOS had referred to the threat to which certain nominated sites
were exposed, and had suggested that this factor should influence the
favourable and rapid acceptance of the site in question. The Delegation
expressed concern at this development, pointing out that acceptance should
be based only on the established criteria dealing with the intrinsic
properties of the site and, further, that if the threat affected the
integrity of the site, acceptance should be deterred. The Bureau was
asked to discuss this matter in detail at its next meeting.

43. The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a revised text
of the "Operational Guidelines" reflecting the above-mentioned decisions
and to present this text to the Bureau at its next session. One question
that should be studied in this connection would be the possibility of
adding a criterion on integrity for the evaluation of cultural properties.


44. The Committee considered that it would be desirable to be able to
examine nominations at its fourth session within the framework of a
national inventory of cultural and natural properties which the State
Party considers suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List. This
would allow for a preliminary evaluation of the comparative value of
properties within that State. The Committee therefore expressed the
hope that each State Party concerned would make available to the Committee
before its next session a list of those properties which it intends to
nominate to the World Heritage List during the next five to ten years.


45. The Committee took up one by one those nominations which had been
recommended by the Bureau for inscription on the List, those which had
been recommended by the Bureau not to be entered on the List and nomina-
tions which raised a problem of application of the criteria, in accordance
with the Committee's decision mentioned in paragraph 15 above. In each
case the Committee heard, as appropriate, the comments of the representa-
tives of IUCN and/or ICOMOS who referred to the criteria met by the property
in question.

46. The Committee decided to enter in the World Heritage List the
following 45 properties:

No.   Name of property                                     State Party
___   ___________________________________________          ____________

19   Fasil Ghebbi, Gondar Region            Ethiopia

20   Ancient City of Damascus               Syrian 
                                                          Arab Republic

     The Committee noted the reservation expressed
     by ICOMOS concerning the threat to the site
     from rapid urban development.

31   Auschwitz concentration camp            Poland

     The Committee decided to enter Auschwitz
     concentration camp on the List as a unique
     site and to restrict the inscription of other
     sites of a similar nature.

33   Bialowieza National Park               Poland

34   Forts and Castles, Volta Greater Accra,
     Central and Western Regions                           Ghana

36   Medina of Tunis                        Tunisia

37   Site of Carthage                       Tunisia

38   Amphitheatre of El Jem                 Tunisia

39   Ngorongoro conservation area           Tanzania

42   Boyana Church                          Bulgaria

43   Madara Rider                           Bulgaria

44   Thracian tomb of Kazanlak              Bulgaria


No.   Name of property                                     State Party
___   ___________________________________________          ____________

45    Rock-hewn churches of Ivanovo         Bulgaria

58    Urnes Stave Church                    Norway

59    Bryggen                               Norway

63    Virunga national park                 Zaire

64    Tikal national park                   Guatemala

      The Committee learned of a tourism
      development project in the park and
      expressed the hope that the planned
      construction would not jeopardize
      the cultural and natural value of
      the site.

65    Antigua Guatemala                    Guatemala

71    Dinosaur provincial park              Canada

72    Kluane national Park, Wrangell-
      St. Elias National monument                          Canada & USA

75    Grand Canyon national park            USA

76    Everglades national park              USA

78    Independence Hall                     USA

80    Mont St-Michel and its Bay            France

81    Chartres Cathedral                    France

83    Palace and Park of Versailles         France

84    Vezelay, Church and Hill              France

85    Decorated grottoes of the 
                    Vezere Valley                          France

86    Memphis and its Necropolis - 
the Pyramid fields from Giza to Dahshur                    Egypt

      The Committee took note of the ICOMOS
      proposal that a safeguarding plan for
      the environment of the pyramids should
      be drawn up.

87    Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis    Egypt

88    The Nubian monuments from Abu Simbel to
      Philae                                               Egypt

89    Islamic Cairo                         Egypt

      Note was taken of the concern expressed
      by ICOMOS at the problems involved in
      safeguarding this site.

90    Abu Mena                              Egypt

94    Rock drawings in Valcamonica          Italy


No.   Name of property                                     State Party
___   ___________________________________________          _____________

95    Old City of Dubrovnik                 Yugoslavia

96    Stari Ras and Sopocani                Yugoslavia

97    Historical complex of Split with
      the Palace of Diocletian                             Yugoslavia

98    Plitvice lakes national park          Yugoslavia

99    Lake Ohrid (that part which
      lies in Yugoslavia)                                  Yugoslavia

      The Committee decided to inscribe this
      site on the List in view of the assurances
      received concerning the integrity of the
      Lake as a whole.

113   Tchogha Zanbil                       Iran

114   Persepolis                           Iran

115   Meidan-e Shah Esfahan                Iran

120   Sagarmatha National Park             Nepal

121   Kathmandu Valley                     Nepal

125   Natural and Culturo-Historical
      Region of Kotor                                      Yugoslavia

      Following the recommendation of the
      Bureau, the Committee decided to enter
      this site in the List of World Heritage
      in Danger as requested by the State Party

47. The Committee decided furthermore to defer the following sites:

No.   Name of property                                     State Party
___   ___________________________________________          ___________

8     Ichkeul National park                  Tunisia

      The Committee deferred this nomination
      until the Tunisian Government has contacted
      the other States concerned to ensure adequate
      protection of summering and wintering areas
      of major migratory species found in Ichkeul.

79    Paphos, Birthplace of Aphrodite        Cyprus

      The Committee deferred this nomination
      until more precise information was avail-
      able on the possible adverse impact on
      the sites of the pressing needs of tourism


No.   Name of property                                     State Party
___   ___________________________________________          _________

92    Sta. Giulia/St. Salvator's Monastery     Italy

      The Committee heard the comments of ICOMOS
      which referred to the outstanding universal
      value of the property. However, ICOMOS was
      concerned by the fact that the property had
      not been presented in the more general con-
      text of the cultural heritage of the country
      as a whole. While recognizing the value of
      the site nominated, the Committee decided to
      defer a decision until indications had been
      received from the Italian Government on the
      properties situated in Italy which it was
      considering nominating to the List.

48. The Committee furthermore decided not to inscribe the following
two sites on the World Heritage List:

      No. 5: Zembra and Zembretta Islands National Park (Tunisia) and

      No. 73: the Madeleine Island (Senegal).

49. In order to facilitate the examination by the Committee of
nominations, it was decided that in future documents submitting nomina-
tions to the Committee would include indication of the criteria under
which each nomination was to be considered.


50. After examining the requests received from States Parties and the
recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to grant technical
co-operation as follows:

(a)    Ecuador

       Equipment to enable the authorities to ensure the
       integrity of tho natural environment of the
       Galapagos Islands through protective measures.

       up to a maximum of                                       $ 50,000

(b)    Tanzania

       Services of an architect-museologist for three
       weeks in order to draw up a project for the con-
       servation and presentation of the prehistoric
       sites of Olduvai and Laetolil.

       estimated cost                                           $  5,400

(c)    Egypt

       Services of specialists in cultural heritage
       as well as equipment to draw up a project for
       the restoration and development of the Islamic
       Centre of Cairo.

       up to a maximum of                                       $ 30,000


51. The Committee was informed that requests for technical co-operation
were forthcoming for the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania and
Virunga National Park in Zaire and agreed to delegate authority to the
Chairman to approve these requests after consultation with members of the
Bureau if he considered it desirable.


52. The Committee approved the revised nomination form (CC-79/CONF.003/7)
subject to the following:

(a) the text should be revised to reflect the decisions taken by the
Committee on the criteria for the inclusion of properties in the World
Heritage List and guidelines for the evaluation of nominations (see
session XI above); the attention of States Parties should be drawn, in
particular, to the essential criterion of outstanding universal value
that should be met by properties nominated;

(b) The form should emphasize the importance of adequate buffer zones
and ask for details on measures taken by the State Party on the establish-
ment of such zones.

(c) A provision would be added inviting States to prepare a brief summary
of each nomination for reproduction and for distribution to members of the


53 The Committee heard the report of the working group on the management
of the Convention and its financial implications and took note of the
following points:

      i)   The Convention was now entering its operational phase
           particularly as regards technical co-operation, emergency
           assistance and the training of specialists, which implied
           a considerable increase in the workload of the Secretariat.
           An amount of approximately $210,000 had been spent by the
           Unesco Secretariat in 1979 under its Regular Budget for the
           management of the Convention.

      ii)  Funds actually obligated in 1979 under the World Heritage
           Fund for programme support were as follows:

                        ICOMOS       $ 15,600

                        IUCN         $  6,000

                        to the
                        Secretariat   $ 59,000



    iii)   The representatives of ICOMOS and IUCN explained that they had
           received funds under a lump-sum arrangement depending on the
           number of nominations examined but that this approach did not
           enable the Organizations to assure proper processing of the
           files and their continuous participation in the management of
           the Convention. They indicated that the direct contributions
           of their organizations to the management of the Convention
           could be estimated at $30,000 and $12,500 respectively in 1979.

53. The Committee then decided:

      a)   that it was not opportune at the present time to retain a
           fixed percentage such as 14%, as indicated in paragraph 26
           of document CC-79/CONF.003/12, to cover direct management
           costs of the Convention;

      b)   to ask the Director-General of Unesco to make additional
           efforts to provide the Secretariat with an adequate permanent
           staff to enable it to meet the substantial increase in workload
           due to the fact that the Convention has now entered its opera-
           tional phase. Until the Secretariat could be fully constituted
           and a sufficient number of Member States ratified the Conven-
           tion, the Committee considered it necessary to continue to
           provide for temporary assistance for the Secretariat and
           decided to review this question at its next session;

      c)   that with respect to temporary assistance and the processing
           of files by the advisory organizations, only a limited number
           of files could be processed between two Committee sessions,
           and therefore no allocation per nomination file should be made.

      d)   to allocate the following funds for programme support for the
           implementation of the Convention:

           - for the Secretariat: under
           temporary assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $ 70,000

           of which $40,000 for two consultants
           each for 6 m/m, one consultant for the
           cultural part, and one consultant for
           the natural part, and $30,000 for two
           (part-time) secretaries-documentalists

           for IUCN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12,000

           of which $4,000 for evaluation of files
           based on approximately 20 files,

           $2,500 for travel and per diem costs
           for participation in meetings of the Bureau,

           $2,500 for promotion of the Convention
           and, if necessary, field visits,

           $3,000 for professional experts in the
           evaluation of the nominations


           for ICOMOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 30,000

           of which $20,000 for a part-time
           co-ordinator to evaluate nominations
           based on approximately 80 files,

           $10,000 for one third of a full-time
           secretary and miscellaneous secretariat



55. The Committee took note of the statement of account of the World
Heritage Fund for the financial period which ended on 31 December 1978
and the interim statement of account of the Fund for the two-year
financial period 1979/80 as set out in document CC-79/CONF.003/9.

56. The Committee adopted the following budget for the period
October 1979 to December 1980.

                      October 1979 - December 1980

    Activities         Brought          Additional         Total funds
                       forward            funds            authorized
                         from            allocated         for period
                       1978-1979                           October 78-
                                                           December 80

I.   Preparatory          $                  $                  $
     Assistance         69,234             80,000          149,234 (30 m/m)

II.  Technical
     Co-operation         --              165,400          165,400

III. Training            4,700            200,000          204,700

IV.  Emergency          70,000            100,000          170,000

V.   Promotional
     Activities             500            36,400           36,900

VI.  Programme

      - ICOMOS }          -3,600           45,600           42,000 
      - IUCN   }         (deficit)                          (12,000 IUCN
                                                            30,000 ICOMOS)

VII. Temporary
     Assistance to          --             70,000            70,000
     the Secretariat
                       ______________     ____________      ___________
                          140,834          697,400           838,234
                          ========         =======           =======

Contingencies: 3% of
total funds authorized



    a) Balance between natural and cultural properties

57. The working group on natural criteria also reported to the Committee
on its concern at the relatively low number of natural properties so far
included in the World Heritage List. It considered that, if the List gave
an initial impression of being a list of cultural properties, it would
deter further nominations of natural properties. The working group was
also concerned that the delegations of States Members at the third session
of the Committee did not include a sufficient number of specialists in
the natural heritage field which reduced the Committee's ability to
evaluate properly natural properties. In order to increase the awareness
of the Committee and of States Parties of the need to redress this situa-
tion, the working group made two specific recommendations to the Committee:

      (i) that in future a quorum for a meeting of the Committee
          should require, in addition to a majority of States
          Members at least five delegates among the delegations
          with expertise in natural heritage; and

     (ii) that, in allocating funds for assistance to States,
          not more than 60% should be allocated to either
          cultural or natural properties.

58. The Committee shared the concern of the group. It considered,
however, that in view of the difficulty of determining precisely whether
persons were competent in the fields of nature conservation or of the
protection of cultural property, it would not be feasible to introduce
such a rule on the quorum for meetings of the Committee. The responsibility
for ensuring balanced representation lay with each State Member of the

59. The Committee requested the Secretariat to renew its efforts to
ensure that the authorities in each State Party responsible for the
natural heritage were fully informed of the activities undertaken under
the Convention and of the meetings of the Committee. IUCN could also be
of assistance through its direct contacts. It was decided that copies
of letters of invitation would be sent to those authorities responsible
for the national heritage in the States Parties. The Committee decided
furthermore to take up the matter again if the situation did not improve.

      b) Emergency assistance for the Natural and Culturo-historical
           region of Kotor (Yugoslavia)

60. Note was taken of the request from Yugoslavia for emergency
assistance, in the form of equipment and consultant services, for the
Natural and Culturo-historical region of Kotor. However, the Committee
felt that further information should be made available on the equipment
required and decided to grant in the first instance $20,000 for consultant


       c) Charter on the rights and obligations relating to towns inscribed
            on the World Heritage List (Cracow-Quito)

61. The Committee noted that a draft Charter had been prepared jointly
by the Ecuadorian and Polish authorities on this question and decided to
take up the matter at a later stage.

      d) Appeal of Mrs. El-Sadat

62. The Committee fully supported the appeal launched by Mrs. El-Sadat
for assistance in preserving the Islamic heritage of Cairo and members
declared that they would transmit details of the appeal to their respective

       e) Date and place of fourth session of the Committee

63. The next session of the Committee will take place early in
September 1980, probably in France. The precise place and dates will be
communicated to all concerned as soon as possible.


64. Following an expression of thanks from the floor to the Egyptian
authorities for the remarkable hospitality offered to the Committee, to
the Chairman for the admirable way in which he had conducted the meeting
and to all those who had contributed to the smooth running of the meeting,
the Chairman declared the session closed.


                               Michel Parent


                                       CC-79/CONF.003/13 Annex I




H. Exc. Professor R.O. Slatyer
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Australia to Unesco

Mr. Peter Dalkin
First Secretary, Australian Embassy, Cairo


Mme Magdalina Stantecheva                  Vice-Chairman/Vice-President
Membre de la Commission nationale pour
Maître de Recherches au musée de Sofia


Mr. Rodrigo Pallares
Director, Instituto de Patrimonio Cultural


Dr. Shehata Adam
Organization of Egyptian Antiquities            Chairman/President


Mr. Michel Parent                               Rapporteur
Inspecteur général des Monuments historiques

Mr. Jean-Pierre Bady
Directeur de la Caisse nationale des
Monuments historiques et des sites

Mr. Lucien Chabason
Chef de Service de l'Espace et des Sites
Ministére de l'Environnement et du Cadre de Vie


Mr. Charyer Adle (observer/observateur)

*[Annex I/2]


Mr. Giovanni d'Andrea
Directeur des Relations culturelles de
la Région de Lombardie

Mme Carla Maria Burri
Attachée culturelle à l'Ambassade italienne au Caire


H. Exc. Gen. Singh Bahadur Basnyat             Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador
of Nepal to Egypt


Mr. Shafqat Kakakhel
First Secretary, Pakistan Embassy in Cairo


Dr. Reina Torres de Arauz                     Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
National Director of Historical Heritage


Mr. Amadou Lamine Sy                          Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Directeur du patrimoine national


Mr. Ernest Martin
Membre correspondant de la Commission fédérale
des Monuments historiques


Mr. David Hales                              Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks
Department of the Interior

Mr. Robert R. Garvey, Jr.
Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic Prenervation

Mr. Richard Cook
National Park Service
Departmont of the Interior

Mr. Robert C. Milne
Chief, International Park Affairs
National Park Service

*[Annex I/3]

(cont'd)                / (suite)

Mr. Addison E. Richmond
Counselor for Scientific and Technological Affairs,
U.S. Embassy in Cairo

Mr. William H. Eddy (observer/observateur)
National Park Service


Mr. Milan Prelog
Professeur à l'Université de Zagreb



Mr. Peter H. Bennett
Adviser on Unesco World Heritage Convention
to Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada

Dr. Georg Mörsch
Conservator in Rhineland-Westfalie


Mr. Armando Alvarez
Minister, Secretary of Culture and Tourism

Mr. Guillermo Casco
Adviser, Ministry of Culture


                                               POUR LA CONSERVATION

Mr. Louis-Jacques Rollet-Andriane
Special Representative of the Director

*[Annex I/4]


Prof. Raymond Lemaire

Mr. Krzysztof Pawlowski

Mr. François Leblanc
Directeur du Secrétariat


Mr. Harold Eidsvik
Executive Officer
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas



Mr. Kwasi Myles
Secretary General


Mr. Yehya Mohamed Eid
Member of the Board of the UIA


Mr. Gérard Bolla
Deputy Assistant Director General
Sector of Culture and Communication
Representative of the Director-General

Mr. Michel Batisse
Deputy Assistant Director General
Science Sector

Mr. Bernd von Droste
Diviaion of Ecological Sciences

Mrs. Margaret van Vliet
Division of Cultural Heritage

Mrs. Anne Saurat


                                          CC-79/CONF.003/13 Annex II

                      FROM THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

1.  At its third session, the World Heritage Committee adapted the 
following procedure for the deletion of properties from the World Heritage
List in cases:

      a)     where a property has deteriorated to the point where it
             has lost those characteristics which determined its inclu-
             sion in the World Heritage List; and

      b)     where the intrinsic qualities of a natural world heritage
             site* were already threatened at the time of 
             its nomination by action or works of man and where the 
             necessary corrective measured as outlined by the State Party
             at that time, have not been taken within the time proposed.

A.   When a property inscribed on the World Heritage List has seriously
deteriorated or, in the case of a natural site*, when the necessary
corrective measures have not been taken within the time proposed, the
State Party on whose territory the property is situated should so inform
the Secretariat of the Committee.

B. When the Secretariat receives such information from a source
other than the State Party concerned, it will, as far as possible, verify
the source and the contents of the information in consultation with the
State Party concerned and request its comments. The Secretariat will
inform the Chairman of the Committee of the results of its investigations
and the Chairman will decide whether the information is to be acted upon.
If the Chairman decides that the information is not to be acted upon, no
action will be taken.

C. The Secretariat will request the competent advisory organization(s)
(ICOMOS, IUCN or ICCROM) to forward comments on the information received.

D. The information received, together with the comments of the State
Party and of the advisory organization(s), will be brought to the attention
of the Bureau of the Committee. The Bureau may take one of the following

(a)   it may decide that the property has not seriously deteriorated
      and that no further action should be taken;

(b)   when the Bureau considers that the property has seriously deterio-
      rated but not to the extent that its restoration is impossible,
      it may recommend to the Committee that the property be maintained
      on the List provided that the State Party takes the necessary
      measures to restore the property within a reasonable period of
      time. The Bureau may also recommend that technical co-operation
      be provided under the World Heritage Fund for work connected with
      the restoration of the property, if the State Party so requests.

* The Committee decided to examine at a later stage the possibility of
applying this rule to cultural properties.

*[Annex II/2]

(c)   when there is evidence that the property has deteriorated to the
      point where it has irretrievably lost those characteristics which
      determined its inclusion on the List, the Bureau may recommend that
      the Committee delete the property from the List; before any such
      recommendation is submitted to the Committee, the Secretariat will
      inform the State Party concerned of the Bureau's recommendation; any
      comments which the State Party may make with respect to the recommenda-
      tion of the Bureau will be brought to the attention of the Committee,
      together with the Bureau's recommendation;

(d)   when the information available is not sufficient to enable the Bureau
      to take one of the measures described in (a), (b) or (c) above, the
      Bureau may recommend to the Committee that the Secretariat be author-
      ized to take the necessary action to ascertain, in consultation with
      the State Party concerned, the present condition of the property,
      the dangers to the property and the feasibility of adequately restor-
      ing the property, and to report to the Bureau on the results of its
      action; such measures may include the sending of a fact-finding mission
      or the consultation of specialists. In cases where emergency action
      is required, the Bureau may itself authorize the Secretariat to take
      such measures.

E. The Committee will examine the recommendation of the Bureau and
all the information available and will take a decision. Any such decision
shall, in accordance with Article 13(8) of the Convention, be taken by a
majority of two-thirds of its members present and voting. The Committee
shall not decide to delete any property unless the State Party has been
consulted on the question.

F. The State Party will be informed of the Committee's decision.

G. If the Committee's decision entails any modification to the
World Heritage List, this modification will be reflected in the next
updated list that is published. Tho reasons for the deletion of any
property from the List will also be given in the publication.

2. In adopting the above procedure, the Committee was particularly
concerned that all possible measures should be taken to prevent the dele-
tion of any property from the List and was ready to offer technical co-
operation as far as possible to States Parties in this connection. Further-
more, the Committee wished to draw the attention of States Parties to the
stipulations of Article 4 of the Convention which reads as follows:
"Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring
the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission
to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in
Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that