Limited distribution CLT-82/CH/CONF.015/8 Paris, 17 January 1983 Original : English and French UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE World Heritage Committee Sixth Session Paris, 13-17 December 1982 REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR I. INTRODUCTION 1. The sixth session of the World Heritage Committee which was held at Unesco Headquarters in Paris from 13 to 17 December 1982 was attended by the following States Members of the World Heritage Committee : Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Guinea, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama, Senegal, Switzerland, Tunisia, the United States of America and Zaire. 2. Representatives of the International Centre for Conservation in Rome (ICCROM), the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and the International Union for Conservation of Na- ture and Natural Resources (IUCN) attended the meeting in an ad- visory capacity. 3. Observers from 18 States Parties to the Convention not members of the Committee, namely Afghanistan, Algeria, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Cuba, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Mauri- tania, Morocco, Niger, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sri Lanka and Syrian * Arab Republic also participated in the session, as well as observers from two intergovernmental organizations, the Arab Educational, Cul- tural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO) and the Council of Europe, and three international non-governmental organizations, the Interna- tional Council of Museums (ICOM), the International Union of Archi- tects (IUA) and the Organization for Museums, Monuments and Sites of Africa (OMMSA). Nine States not Parties to the Convention demonstrat- ed their interest in the implementation of the Convention by sending representatives to follow the work of the Committee. The full list of participants will be found in Annex I to this report. II. OPENING OF THE SESSION 4. The meeting was declared open by the outgoing Chairman, Profes- sor R.O. Slatyer (Australia) who welcomed the delegates and ob- servers. The Chairman recalled the conditions in which it had been decided that the meeting would be held in Paris and expressed the re- gret he shared with the authorities of Pakistan that it had not been possible to hold the sixth session of the Committee in Pakistan. 5. In his welcome address on behalf of the Director-General, Mr. Makaminan Makagiansar, Assistant Director-General for Culture, once again drew attention to the importance of the role of the Com- mittee. He referred to the World Conference on Cultural Policies (Mexico City, August 1982), to the IUCN World National Parks Congress (Bali, October 1982) and to the Extraordinary Session of the General Conference of Unesco (Paris, November 1982), at which special atten- tion was called to the safeguarding of the cultural and natural heri- tage. After having assured the Committee of the interest taken in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention by the Director- General of Unesco, Mr. Amadou Mahtar-M'Bow, he expressed his pleasure at the adherence to the Convention of eight new States, five of which are African States. Finally, he considered the situation of the World Heritage Fund and the budget to be very healthy. 6. The Chairman informed the Committee of requests he had receiv- ed from organizations which did not have an official status of observer to meetings of the Committee that they should be allowed to address the Committee. The Secretariat explained the decisions which the Committee had taken at previous sessions when similar requests had been received, namely that such groups would not be authorized to address the Committee direct nor to circulate material in the meeting room and that they should be requested to contact their national dele- gations; since the meeting of the Committee was public, these groups could however attend as members of the general public. The Committee confirmed its previous decisions. * III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 7. The Committee adopted the agenda for the meeting. IV. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRMEN AND RAPPORTEUR 8. Professor R.O. Slatyer (Australia) was re-elected Chairman of the Committee by acclamation, and gave a brief speech. Profes- sor Slatyer informed the Committee that he would stand down from the Chair when the two Australian nominations were considered by the Com- mittee. 9. The Committee thereafter elected by acclamation the delegates of the following States members of the Committee : Argentina, Bulgaria, Guinea, Italy and Pakistan as Vice-Chairmen. 10. Mr. Azedine Beschaouch (Tunisia) was re-elected Rapporteur by acclamation. V. REPORT ON THE SIXTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 11. The Rapporteur, Mr. A. Beschaouch, referred to the main points of the report on the sixth session of the Bureau of the Committee which was held in Paris from 21 to 24 June 1982. In particular, he drew attention to the twenty-four properties which had been recommend- ed for inclusion in the World Heritage List and to the Bureau 's re- quest to IUCN and ICOMOS to draw up draft guidelines for the inscrip- tion of cultural and natural properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger. He added that, in response to this request, a report was presented to the Committee by these two organizations on this question. VI. REPORT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 12. In his report on the activities undertaken for the implementation of the Convention since the fifth session of the World Heritage Committee, the representative of the Director-General, Mr. Michel Batisse, Deputy Assistant Director-General for Science indicated that a total of * sixty-nine States had now ratified, accepted or acceded to the Conven- tion, and that one hundred and twelve properties nominated by thirty- three States Parties were now included in the World Heritage List. He reported on the activities which had been decided upon by the Committee at its fifth session and drew attention in particular to the training programme and to the various initiatives taken to produce and disse- minate information material to a wide public. Finally, he indicated that the surplus in the World Heritage Fund as at 31 October 1982 amounted to over 2.3 million dollars. He considered that, despite some difficulties to be foreseen in the receipt of contributions, the overall situation of the Convention and of the Fund was satisfactory and constituted an excellent example of international co-operation in the present circumstances. VII. TENTATIVE LISTS 13. The Committee noted that, with the withdrawal by the Italian au- thorities of their list, only seven States Parties had so far submitted tentative lists of cultural and natural properties considered suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List. The delegates of Argentina, Brazil and Italy indicated that tentative lists would soon be available for submission to the Committee. 14. It was noted furthermore that the lists submitted by India and Portugal referred to cultural properties only, and the Committee expressed the hope that similar lists would be prepared by these two States on natural heritage sites. 15. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany informed the Committee that a second list, comprising some fifty properties, which had been prepared in the light of the list submitted by the authorities of France, would shortly be available for submission to the Committee. This statement gave rise to remarks by the Rapporteur and the representative of ICOMOS on the desirability of discussion among States of the same cultural region before tentative lists are submitted. The Rapporteur also indicated that ALECSO was co-ordinat- ing the drawing up of tentative lists of cultural and natural proper- ties in the Arab States which are Parties to the Convention. 16. The Chairman drew attention to the availability of preparatory assistance to States Parties for the establishment of tentative lists * 17. The representative of IUCN indicated that his organization had compiled a global inventory of natural heritage sites, for the purposes of indicating to States the type of sites considered appro- priate for nomination to the World Heritage List and of stimulating the submission of tentative lists. The representative of ICOMOS in- dicated that ICOMOS was engaged in a similar exercise with respect to cultural properties. 18. In concluding the discussion on this item, the Committee reite- rated the request made at previous meetings that those States which had not so far submitted tentative lists should prepare lists and make them available as soon as possible for submission to the Committee. VIII. NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST 19. Before the Committee examined the nominations to the World Heritage List, a series of slides on some of the cultural and natural properties nominated was shown by ICOMOS and IUCN. The Com- mittee then took up one by one the nominations of those properties which the Bureau had recommended for inclusion in the World Heritage List. In each case the Committee was informed of the point of view of the Bureau as presented by the Rapporteur and took note of the comments of the representatives of ICOMOS and/or IUCN, who had made an evaluation of each property in relation to the criteria for the inscription of properties. 20. The Committee decided to enter in the World Heritage List the twenty-four cultural and natural properties which had been re- commended by the Bureau . Contracting State having submitted the nomination of the property in accordance with Identification Name of Property the Convention No. _________________________________________________________________________ Tassili n'Ajjer Algeria 179 The M'Zab Valley " 188 * Contracting State having submitted the nomination of the property in accordance with Identification Name of Property the Convention No. _________________________________________________________________________ Djemila Algeria 191 Tipasa " 193 Timgad " 194 Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks Australia 181 The Committee is seriously concerned at the likely effect of dam construction in the area on those natural and cultural cha- racteristics which make the property of outstanding universal value. In particular, it considers that flooding of parts of the river valleys would destroy a number of cultural and natural features of great si- gnificance, as identified in the ICOMOS and IUCN reports. The Committee therefore re- commends that the Australian authorities take all possible measures to protect the integrity of the property. The Committee suggests that the Australian authorities should ask the Committee to place the pro- perty on the List of World Heritage in Danger until the question of dam construc- tion is resolved. Lord Howe Island Group " 186 In view of the importance of Lord Howe Is- land as a World Heritage site, the World Heritage Committee suggests that steps be taken to replace the telecommunications towers as soon as satellite communications are available. Historic Centre of the town of Olinda Brazil 189 * Contracting State having submitted the nomination of the property in accordance with Identification Name of Property the Convention No. _________________________________________________________________________ Old Havana and its Fortifications Cuba 204 The Royal Saltworks of Arc et Senans France 203 National History Park - Citadel, Sans Souci, Ramiers Haiti 180 The Committee recommends that the Haitian authorities exercise the greatest care as regards the restoration and consolidation work on the entire site, which should be carried out in conformity with interna- tionally recognized conservation standards. Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve Honduras 196 The Historic Centre of Florence Italy 174 Tai National Park Ivory Coast 195 Archaeological Site of Leptis Magna Libyan Arab 183 Jamahiriya Archaeological Site of Sabratha " 184 Archaeological Site of Cyrene " 190 Aldabra Atoll Seychelles, 185 Republic of Sacred City of Anuradhapura Sri Lanka 200 Ancient City of Polonnaruva " 201 * Contracting State having submitted the nomination of the property in accordance with Identification Name of Property the Convention No. _________________________________________________________________________ Ancient City of Sigiriya Sri Lanka 202 Selous Game Reserve Taszania 199 Cahakia Mounds State Historic Site United States of 198 America The old walled City of Shibam Yemen, 192 People's Democratic Republic of 21. The Committee furthermore decided that the site of Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve, which was already included in the World Heritage List on the proposal of Guinea, would be extended through the addition of that part of the Reserve situated in Ivory Coast, which was nominated by that State. 22. The Committee also decided that the Old Stone Town of Zanzibar which had been nominated by Tanzania should not be considered further for inclusion in the World Heritage List. 23. The delegate of Italy informed the Committee that the Italian au- thorities withdraw the nomination of the Medici Villas in the Florentine region. 24. The delegate of Pakistan requested the Committee to postpone consideration of the nominations of Kirthar National Park and Lal Sohanra National Park since the Government of Pakistan wished to have the opportunity to provide further information on these two sites before a final decision was taken by the Committee. 25. With respect to the nomination by the Syrian Arab Republic of Aleppo, the Rapporteur recalled the request made by the Bureau that the Syrian authorities should : * - provide a clear definition of the zones granted absolute protection in Aleppo; and - adapt an urbanization policy analogous to that advocated in the report of the Unesco mission to Aleppo. As soon as these additional steps have been taken, the Syrian authorities are invited to inform the Secretariat so that the nomina- tion can be re-examined. This information should reach the Secreta- riat by the end of February 1983 to enable the Bureau to take up this nomination at its next session. IX. GUIDELINES FOR THE INSCRIPTION OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER 26. In introducing the draft guidelines which had been prepared jointly by IUCN and ICOMOS, the representative of IUCN drew at- tention to the following three objectives of the List of World Heritage in Danger : a) to support national efforts towards safeguarding the integrity of a property; b) to demonstrate to world opinion the reality of the danger threatening a property; c) to contribute to the effectiveness of international fund-raising campaigns by identifying the property for which the public is being asked to contribute. He stated that the list was considered as being a short list, thus limiting operations by the international community to a reason- able number. Furthermore, inscription of a property on the list would be an exceptional action for an emergency measure of limited duration. 27. During the discussion that ensued on the draft criteria and pro- cedure for the inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger, several amendments were suggested to the text in paragraph 5.5 of the IUCN/ICOMOS document which was proposed for inser- tion in the "Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention". These amendments related to the difficulty of inscribing properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger when major operations were not required to protect the property and when the State concerned did not require assistance under the Convention. The Committee decided, however, to adapt the guidelines in their present form and to request the Bureau to examine the proposed amendments at its next meeting. The text of these guidelines is attached in Annex II. * X. NOMINATION OF THE "OLD CITY OF JERUSALEM AND ITS WALLS" TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER 28. The Rapporteur recalled that the Bureau, on the proposal of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, examined the request for the in- clusion of the "Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls" in the List of World Heritage in Danger, and that, since a consensus could not be reached on this nomination, the Bureau declared that "it will be for the Committee, at its sixth session, to take in this respect the de- cision which in any case has to be taken by the Committee". 29. At the Committee's request, ICOMOS pursued its examination of the file concerning this nomination. In this examination, ICOMOS took into account the following points : a) in giving a favourable opinion, in April 1981, on the inscription of this property on the World Heritage List, ICOMOS had already drawn attention to the "severe destruction followed by a rapid urbanization"; b) the mission of experts, entrusted with the task of verifying in situ "the nature and the extent of the threats", had not been able to proceed to Je- rusalem, for reasons beyond the control of ICOMOS; c) in the absence of a statement dating from 1982, ICOMOS has referred to reports made between 1970 and 1980, at the request of the Director-General of Unesco, by his personal representative, Professor Lemaire. Consequently, ICOMOS considered that the situation, as described by the personal representative of the Director-General, meets criteria proposed for the inscription of properties on the List of World He- ritage in Danger as they apply to both "ascertained danger" and "potential danger". 30. The delegate of the United States, while underlining the uni- versal importance of the monuments and spiritual heritage of Jerusalem, recalled the position taken by his government when the Old City had been nominated to the World Heritage List and explained the reasons for which he was opposed to its inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger which would be equally contrary to the Convention. He stressed that a property must be situated in the territories of the nominating State and, in the opinion of his govern- ment, Jordan had no standing to make such a nomination. Furthermore, the consent of Israel would be required since it effectively controll- * ed Jerusalem. His Government held that the ultimate status of Jeru- salem should be determined through negotiations by all the parties concerned. The urban transformations that had taken place in the Old City did not constitute "serious and specific dangers". The documents referred to in the ICOMOS analysis did not present a com- pelling case in favour of inscription, the nomination file did not contain the urban plan called for by the Bureau and Jordan was in no position to assume the responsibility stipulated in Article 26 of the Convention. He proposed that the Committee reserve judgement on this nomination and stated that, if the Committee were to take a de- cision now, his delegation would oppose the inscription and call for a vote to register its position. 31. Many delegates expressed their support for the nomination and unanimously insisted on the exceptional value and unique reli- gious and cultural significance of the Old City of Jerusalem. They recalled that the Old City of Jerusalem must be safeguarded in its entirety as a coherent whole and that the threats to any one of the elements of which it is composed endanger the property as such, as well as its authenticity and its specific character. Finally they considered that the situation of this property corresponds to the criteria mentioned in the ICOMOS note and, in particular, to crite- ria (e) (significant loss of historical authenticity) and (f) (im- portant loss of cultural significance) as far as "ascertained danger" is concerned, and to criteria (a) (modification of juridical sta- tus of the property diminishing the degree of its protection), (b) (lack of conservation policy) and (d) (threatening effects of town planning) as far as "potential danger" is concerned. 32. Finally the delegate of Jordan called the attention of the Committee to the serious and specific dangers which threaten the "Old City of Jerusalem". He specifically pointed out the des- truction of religious properties, threats of destruction due to ur- ban development plans, deterioration of monuments due to lack of maintenance and responsible management, as well as of the disastrous impact of tourism on the protection of the monuments. Consequently, he urged the Committee to protect the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls by inscribing the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. 33. After discussion, the Committee decided, by 14 votes for, 1 against and 5 abstentions, to inscribe the "Old City of Jeru- salem and its Walls" on the List of World Heritage in Danger. One State Member of the Committee was absent when the vote was taken. * 34. In explaining the reasons for his abstention which were legal in nature, the delegate of Switzerland recalled the statement made by his delegation when the Committee decided to enter the Old City of Jerusalem on the World Heritage List, regarding the special status of Jerusalem (corpus separatum according to the 1947 partition plan of the United Nations). The Swiss Government considers that the City of Jerusalem is situated neither on Jordanian nor on Israeli territory. His delegation would furthermore have wished to have more complete information on the present state of Jerusalem and he con- sidered it regrettable that the Committee had not been able to ob- tain a recent expert evaluation. 35. The delegates of Argentina, Nepal and Zaire also-explained their vote. These delegations had supported the proposal made by Jor- dan to inscribe the Old City of Jerusalem on the List of World Heritage in Danger in view of the outstanding cultural and historical signifi- cance of this site. They underlined, however, that inscription on the list had no political implications and should in no way be regarded as a means for registering political or sovereignty claims by any State. XI. STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND BUDGET FOR 1983 36. The Committee was informed by the Rapporteur that a working group met on 14 December 1982 at Unesco Headquarters in order to consider the different budget lines of the draft budget for 1983 and to provide the Committee with recommendations concerning the technical co-operation requests received as well as the budgetary provisions for the various activities to be undertaken to implement the Convention. Representatives of the following States Members were present at this working group : Australia, Bulgaria, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Jordan and Pakistan. Mr. A. Beschaouch, the Rapporteur of the Committee, was Chairman. Representatives of ICOMOS and ICCROM, as well as Mr. Batisse, the representative of the Director-General, and members of the Secretariat were also present. 37. The recommendations of the working group were presented to the Committee in the form of a draft budget. 38. On the recommendations of the working group, the Committee adopt- ed the following budget for the period 1 January - 31 December 1983 : * B U D G E T US $ ----------- ------------ I. Preparatory assistance and regional studies 100 000 II. Technical co-operation - "large" requests : 596 000 - "small" requests : 149 000 _______ 745 000 III. Training 500 000 IV. Emergency assistance 220 000 V. Promotional activities and information 150 000 VI. Advisory services - ICOMOS : 65 000 - IUCN : 35 000 __________ 100 000 VII. Temporary assistance to the Secretariat 120 000 _________ 1 935 000 3% contingencies 58 050 TOTAL 1 993 050 ========= * 39. As far as temporary assistance to the Secretariat is concerned, some delegates considered that the Secretariat of the Conven- tion should be financed from the regular budget of Unesco, as had been repeatedly stated at previous sessions of the Committee. In responding to these remarks, the representative of the Director- General reminded the Committee that, if the Secretariat of the Con- vention was in fact placed under the responsibility of Unesco accord- ing to Article 14, the management of the World Heritage Fund foreseen in Part IV should, according to Article 15.2, be carried out in con- formity with the provisions of the financial regulations of Unesco which govern trust funds. In this respect, the practice is to take a sum totalling 14 % of these funds for general management costs. In the case of the Convention, the funds for assistance to the Secreta- riat to cover management costs which have thus far been requested are considerably less than those which the Organization could legitimately claim. 40. The Committee approved the interim statement of accounts of the Fund for the three-year financial period 1981-1983 as set out in document CLT-82/CONF.015/4. The Committee noted that as of 31 October 1982, the surplus in the Fund amounted to US $ 2,372,715. XII. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION REQUESTS 41. The Rapporteur reminded the Committee that the Bureau had not made recommendations on the technical co-operation requests pre- sented in document CLT-82/CONF.015/5 as a certain number had required further clarifications. The Bureau had decided, on an exceptional basis, to submit these requests to the Committee. The Rapporteur in- formed the Committee that the working group which examined the budget for 1983 had also examined each of the requests for technical co-ope- ration. On the basis of the recommendations of the working group, the Committee approved the following technical co-operation requests : US$ -------- - Bulgaria - Boyana, Ivanovo and Madara Rider Request 42 - 43 - 45.1 48 000 - Haiti - Citadel Henry, National History Park Request 180.1 57 200 * US$ -------- - Honduras - Maya Site of Copán Request 129.1 24 050 - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan - Old City of Jerusalem Request 148.1 100 000 - Pakistan - Archaeological ruins at Moenjadaro Request 138.1 34 000 - Yugoslavia - Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor Request 125.1 (rev.) 50 000 Sub-total for technical co- operation requests concern- ing cultural properties 313 250 - Ethiopia - Simen National Park Request 9.1 (rev.) 21 000 - Honduras - Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve Request 196.1 (rev.) 67 025 - Nepal - Sagarmatha National Park Request 120.1 (3) (rev.) 61 995 - Panama - Darien National Park Request 159.1(rev.) 55 000 * US$ -------- - Senegal - Nickolo-Koba National Park Request 153.1 (rev.) 27 031 - Senegal - Djoudj National Park Request 25.1 (rev.) 29 132 - Seychelles - Aldabra Atoll Request 185.1 21 000 Sub-total for technical co- operation requests concern- ing natural properties 282 183 _______ TOTAL concerning cultural and natural properties 595 433 & 25 % reserve for small-scale projects 148 858 _______ TOTAL 744 291 ======= 42. The Committee approved without reservation the technical co- operation request from Senegal concerning Djoudj National Park. It expressed its concern, however, concerning the consequences of the changes in the hydrological system on Djoudj National Park which would result from the works envisaged on the River Senegal and suggested that the authorities of Senegal request the inscription of this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. * XIII. TRAINING 43. The Chairman reported that the Bureau had recommended that priority in training activities should be given to group train- ing at the local and regional levels and that the training of indi- vidual persons should be essentially limited to short-term refresher courses. The Rapporteur presented the requests for such training activities that had been submitted by States Parties as part of tech- nical co-operation projects and recalled that these would be funded under the budget line for training which had just been adopted by the Committee, amounting to US$ 500,000. 44. The Committee approved the following requests for training : US$ -------- - Honduras - Maya Site of Copan 28 950 - Pakistan - Archaeological Ruins at Moenjadaro 20 000 Sub-total for training requests in the field of cultural heritage conservation 48 950 - Honduras - Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve 4 975 - Tanzania - College of African Wildlife Management 45 000 Regional training centre) Sub-total for training requests in the field of natural heritage conservation 49 975 TOTAL of requests in the fields of cul- tural and natural heritage conservation 94 925 * XIV. FORM IN WHICH THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST IS TO BE PUBLISHED 45. The Committee took note of the recommendation of the Bureau which had proposed that the States having nominated the pro- perties inscribed on the World Heritage List should be presented in the published list under the following heading "Contracting State Having Submitted the Nomination of the Property in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention". 46. After examining this question the Committee decided that no reference should be made in the heading to any specific ar- ticle of the Convention and that the heading should therefore read as follows "Contracting State Having Submitted the Nomination of the Property in accordance with the Convention". XV. PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND REPORTS ON THEIR CONDITION 47. This item on the agenda gave rise to a lengthy discussion with several participants referring to the desirability of the Com- mittee receiving regular reports from States Parties on World Herit- age sites. In particular, it was considered that it would be useful if the Committee could be regularly informed (a) on the state of con- servation of the properties; (b) on the measures taken to protect and to manage the properties; (c) on the way in which funds allocat- ed under the World Heritage Fund for the safeguarding of sites are used, as well as details on the conservation methods and techniques followed in the projects concerned. It would also be desirable if the Committee could be informed of action taken by States Parties with respect to the different recommendations formulated by the Com- mittee regarding the preservation of properties at the time of their inscription on the World Heritage List or on the List of World Herit- age in Danger. 48. It was felt, however, that the question of reporting by States Parties required careful study before the Committee could take any decision on this matter, although the principle of yearly report- ing was considered to be highly desirable. The Committee therefore requested IUCN and ICOMOS, in collaboration with ICCROM, to prepare for the next meeting of the Bureau proposals on the contents of the reports which may be requested from States Parties on World Heritage sites and on the procedure to be followed for the preparation and submission to the Committee of such reports. In this connection, the organizations should take account of the different types of cul- tural and natural properties in the various regions of the world. * The Committee furthermore expressed an interest in the establishment of guidelines for the protection and management of properties in- scribed on the World Heritage List. XVI. PUBLIC INFORMATION ACTIVITIES 49. The Committee examined the report by the Secretariat on the state of implementation of the public information activities which the Committee at its fifth session had requested the Secretar- iat to undertake (document CLT-82/CONF.015/6) and it expressed its satisfaction thereon. It furthermore approved the proposals made by the Secretariat for future promotion and information activities, in particular the publication of a special issue devoted to the World Heritage of the magazine "Ambio" (published by the Swedish Royal Academy of Science) and of the periodical "Monumentum" (published by ICOMOS), as well as the preparation of a poster for the information of the public. The Committee considered it desirable that the manu- scripts of the booRs for children be submitted to the States concern- ed, to the extent that the arrangements already concluded with the publishing house "Etudes vivantes" allow this to be done. 50. The Rapporteur drew the attention of the observer from ALECSO to the desirability of producing in Arabic a series of books on World Heritage sites. These would be complementary to the publica- tions which have already appeared or are planned in English, French and Spanish on World Heritage sites. 51. The representative of the Director-General underlined the im- portance of a sustained effort of high-level promotion for the future of the Convention and he indicated that a detailed plan of action concerning both public information and promotion in general would be submitted to the Bureau at its next session. XVII. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE 22nd SESSION OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE 52. The Committee took note of the draft report prepared for the period September 1980 to November 1982, given in document CLT-82/CONF.015/7. It agreed to the suggestion of the Secretariat that the report would be completed with information on the implemen- tation of the Committee's decisions adopted at its sixth session and be submitted to the Bureau at its next meeting for approval and sub- * mission to the next General Conference. The Committee decided that a reference shall be added to the report which stresses the need for adequate staff resources particularly in view of the increasing num- ber of properties on the World Heritage List. XVIII. OTHER BUSINESS 53. The Committee took note of recommendation No. 16 concerning the World Heritage Convention which was adapted by the World Na- tional Parks Congress (Bali, 11-22 October 1982). It approved the suggestion made to Unesco to launch international campaigns for the protection of the natural heritage which would be similar to those which are currently under way for the preservation of the cultural heritage. 54. The Committee took note of recommendation No. 45 adopted by the World Conference on Cultural Policies (Mexico City, 26 July - 6 August 1982) in which the Conference "expresses the hope that the World Heritage Committee will take the initiative of in- cluding the Mediterranean in the World Cultural and Natural Herit- age List". 55. Following a proposal made by IUCN, the Committee commended and encouraged efforts under way in the United States of America to develop improved water release and delivery plans affect- ing Everglades National Park, a world heritage site, which will more closely approximate natural, cyclic conditions. These efforts will further assure continued integrity of the site as well as long-term recovery for this world-famous ecosystem. 56. The representative of ICOMOS presented to the Committee the study undertaken by ICOMOS on the heritage of the Jesuit mis- sions in North and South America. The Committee noted that some of these missions would be nominated jointly to the World Heritage List by Argentina and Brazil. Another joint nomination to be made by these two States concerned Iguazu National Park. 57. As concerns the meeting place for its next session, the Com- mittee noted with gratitude the intention expressed by the delegate of Italy of inviting the Committee to hold its next meeting in Italy. The delegate of Cyprus informed the Committee that the authorities of his country have the intention of inviting the Com- mittee to hold one of its future sessions in Cyprus and that they * were considering inviting the Committee in 1985, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Antiquities Department. The delegate of Bulgaria stated that her Government would also like to host one of the future sessions of the Committee. The Rapporteur also referred to the wish of the Tunisian authorities to invite the Committee to hold one of its meetings in Tunisia; however, since the term of office of Tunisia on the Committee was due to expire at the end of the 22nd session of the Unesco General Conference to be held in October/November 1983, the Tunisian authorities could not issue an invitation at this stage. 58. The delegate of Guinea, speaking on behalf of the members of the Committee, expressed his appreciation for the admirable way in which Professor Slatyer, due to his wisdom, tranquil force and perfect knowledge of the problems of nature conservation, had chaired the sixth session of the Committee. The delegate also paid tribute to the enthusiasm and dynamism of Mr. Beschaouch, the Rap- porteur of the Committee. 59. Following an expression of thanks to all those who had con- tributed to the smooth running of the meeting, the Vice- Chairman from Bulgaria, acting as Chairman, declared the meeting closed. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CLT-82/CH/CONF.015/8/Annex I 17 December 1982 CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL, CULTUREL ET NATUREL WORLD HERITAGE COMITTEE/COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Sixth Ordinary Session/Sixième session ordinaire Paris, 13-17 December 1982 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE ARGENTINA/ARGENTINE Prof. Carlos GELLY y OBES Vice-Chairman/Président Presidente de la Comision Nacional de Mussos, Monumentos y Lugares Históricos S. Exc. M. Victor MASSUH Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire de la République argentine en France Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco M. Javier FERNANDEZ Ministre plénipotentiaire Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE Professor R. O. SLATYER Chairman/Président Professor of Environmental Biology Australian National University, Canberra Dr Donald McMICHAEL Secretary Department of Home Affairs and Environment Mr Max BOURKE Director, Australian Heritage Commission Mr Ernst WILHEIM Attorney-General's Department Mr John WATSON Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco *[Annex I/2] BRAZIL/BRESIL M. Augusto Carlos da SILVA TELLES Directeur du Service du Classement et de la Conservation du patrimoine artistique et historique national Secrétariat à la Culture M. le Professeur Marcos Viniclos VILACA Secrétaire à la Culture Ministère de l'Education et de la Culture M. Carlos Alberto LOPES ASFORA Deuxième secrétaire d'Ambassade Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco BULGARIA/BULGARIE Mme M. STANTSCHEVA Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président Maitre de recherches, Archéologue CYPRUS / CHYPRE H. Exc. Mr Constantinos LEVENTIS Ambassador Permanent Delogate to Unesco Mr Christos CASSIMATIS Deputy Permanent Delogate to Unesco EGYPT/EGYPTE Dr Ahmed KADRY HELMY Deputy Minister of Culture President, Egyptian Antiquities Organisation M. Abdalla El ATTAR Chief, Islamic and Coptic Section Egyptian Antiquities Organization Dr Ahmed Abdel-Hamid YOUSSEF Director, Centre of Documentation on Ancient Egypt FRANCE M. Jean ROZAT Sous-Directeur, Direction du Patrimoine Ministère de la Culture M. André ZAVRIEW Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco M. François ENAUD Inspecteur général des monuments historiques M. Lucien CHABASON Chef du Service de l'espace et des sites Ministère de l'urbanisme et du logement *[Annex I/3] FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY/REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE Dr Magnus BACKES Bayerisches Landesamt fur Denkmalpflege (State Office for Protection of Ancient Monuments) H. Exc. Mr Alfred B. VESTRING Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary Permanent Delegate to Unesco Dr Nils GRUEBER Deputy Permanent Delogate to Unesco GUINEA/GUINEE Monsieur Youssouf DIARE Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président Délégué permanent auprés de l'Unesco IRAQ/IRAK Dr Adill NAJI Archaeology expert State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage ITALY/ITALIE S. Exc. M. Guglielmo FOLCHI Ambassadeur Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco Mme Licia VLAD BORRELLI Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président Inspecteur central pour l'archéologie JORDAN / JORDANIE S. Exc. M. Taher N. MASRI Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire de Jordanie en France Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco M. A. AL-TAWIL Conseiller, Ministère de l'Education M. S. BADER Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco *[Annex I/4] LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA/JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE Dr Abdullah SHAIBOUB Director-General of the Department of Antiquities S. Exc. M. Abdulgader EL-ATRASH Ambassadeur Délagué permanent auprès de l'Unesco M. A. H. ZOUBI Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco NEPAL H. Exc. Mr K. R. ARYAL Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Nepal to France Permanent Delegate to Unesco Mr N. D. SHRESTHA Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco Mr. R. SHARMA Technical Officer Ministry of Education and Culture PAKISTAN H. Exc. Mr Jamsheed K. A. MARKER Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Pakistan to France Permanent Delogate to Unesco Mr Mir Abad HUSSAIN Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco Mr Mustafa Kamal KAZI First Secretary, Embassy of Pakistan PANAMA S. Exc. Mme Josefa Maria PRADO Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco SENEGAL M. Henri MENDY Conseiller Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco *[Annex I/5] SWITZERLAND/SUISSE S. Exc. M. Charles HUMMEL Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco M. Ernest MARTIN Architecte SIA/FAS Membre correspondant de la Commission fédérale des monuments historiques Mme Sylvie MICHL-KELLER Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco TUNISIA / TUNISIE M. Ahmed KHALED Chef du Cabinet du Ministre des Affaires culturelles S. Exc. M. A. GUELLOUZ Ambassadeur Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco M. Azedine BESCHAOUCH Rapporteur Directeur des Recherches Institut national d'archéologie et d'art Mme Mounira RIAHI Sous Directeur de l'Institut national d'archéulogie et d'art UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE Mr Russell E. DICKENSON Director, National Park Service Department of the Interior Mr Philip RIZIK Director, Unesco Affairs Bureau of International Organization Affairs Department of State Mr Robert C. MILNE U.S. National Park Service ZAIRE M. Makili BOGUO Ministre Conseiller Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco Mme M. MBOKOLO Secretaire d'Ambassade *[Annex I/6] II. ORGANISATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/ ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)/ CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES M. Abdeleziz DAOULATLI Secretaire général de l'ICOMOS Président du Comité national tunisien de l'ICOMOS M. Jacques DALIBARD Délégué général aux finances Monsieur Jorge Osvaldo GAZANEO President, Argentine Committee of ICOMOS M. François LEBLANC Directeur du Secrétariat M. Léon PRESSOUYRE Professeur à l'Université de Paris 1 INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (IUCN)/ UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE ET DE SES RESSOURCES Mr Jeffray A. McNEELEY Executive Officer Commission on National Parks and Protected Aress INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION IN ROME/ CENTRE INTERNATIONAL POUR LA CONSERVATION A ROME (ICCROM) Mr Jukka Jokilehto Architect III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS A. OTHER STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION AUTRES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL AFGHANISTAN Mr Rafi SAMIZAY First Secretary Liaison Officer Permanent Delegation to Unesco *[Annex I/7] ALGERIA/ALGERIE M. S. D. Ahmed BAGHLI Délagation permanente auprès de l'Unesco CANADA M. Benoit FORTIN Architecte CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE CENTRAFRICAINE M. Gaston AZIBOLO Premier Secrétaire Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco CHILE/CHILI S. Exc. M. Alfredo PRIETO Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco M. Dennis BIGGS Conseiller, Delegation permanente auprès de l'Unesco CUBA Sra Nilda ALBA ARANGO Funcionaria, Organismos Internacionales Ministerio de Cultura Sra Marta ARJONA Directora de Patrimonio Cultural HAITI M. Arnold BASTIEN Ministre Conseiller auprès de l'Unesco HONDURAS Sra Alma RODAS de FIALLOS Ministro de Educacién P6blica Mme Sonia MENDIETA de BADAROUX Premier Secrétaire Ambassade du Honduras INDIA/INDE Mr Inam RAHMAN Permanent Representative of India to Unesco *[Annex I/8] IRAN M. Riza FEIZ Délagué permanent auprès de l'Unesco MAURITANIA/MAURITANIE M. J. OULD ABDI Directeur de l'Institut mauritanien des Recherches scientifiques MOROCCO/MAROC M. Abdeslam BENSOUDA Ministre plénipotentiaire Conseiller à la Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco NIGER M. Souleymane DAN-BOUZOUA ABARRY Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco POLAND/POLOGNE M. Krzysztof PAWLOWSKI Directeur général adjoint du Service des Monuments historiques PORTUGAL M. Luiz dos Santos CASTRO LOBO Directeur du Département du patrimoine architectonique Institut portugais du patrimoine culturel SPAIN/ESPAGNE M. Jose Miguel MERINO DE CACERES Arquitecto Jefe de Zona de Bellas Artes Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid SRI LANKA Mr Roland SILVA Director General Ministry of Cultural Affairs SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE ARABE SYRIENNE S. Exc. M. Youssef CHAKKOUR Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire de la République arabe syrienne en France Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco *[Annex I/9] B. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS /ORGANISATIONS INTER GOUVERNEMENTALES ARAB EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION/ ORGANISATION ARABE POUR LiEDUCATION, LA CULTURE ET LA SCIENCE (ALECSO) M. Ahmed DERRADJI Représentant permanent auprès de l'UNESCO COUNCIL OF EUROPE/CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE Melle Graziella BRIANZONI Chef du Bureau de Paris C. INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALES NON GOUVERNEMENTALES INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MUSEUMS/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MUSEES (ICOM) Mr Luis MONREAL Secretary General ORGANIZATION FOR MUSEUMS, MONUMENTS AND SITES OF AFRICA (OMMSA)/ ORGANISATION POUR LES MUSEES, LES MONUMENTS ET LES SITES D'AFRIQUE Mr Kwasi MYLES Secretary General INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ARCHITECTS/UNION INTERNATIONALE DES ARCHITECTES (UIA) M. Emile DUHART Membre de la Section française Représentant du Secrétariat international *[Annex I/10] IV.UNESCO SECRETARIAT/SECRETARIAT DE L'UNESCO Mr. Makaminan Makagiansar Assistant Director-General for Culture Mr. Michel Batisse Deputy Assistant Director-General Science Sector Mr K. Vasak Director, Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs Mr. F. Di Castri Director Division of Ecological Sciences Mr. S. Naqvi Acting Director Division of Cultural Heritage Mr D. de San Chief, International Standards Division Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs Mrs. Anne Raidl Chief, International Standards Section Division of Cultural Heritage Mr. Bernd von Droste Division of Ecological Sciences Mrs. Margaret van Vliet Division of Cultural Heritage Mrs. Jane Robertson Division of Ecological Sciences ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CLT-82/CH/CONF.015/8 Annex II DEVELOPING GUIDELINES FOR INSCRIPTION OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER A report of IUCN and ICOMOS in response to a request from the World Heritage Bureau 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. The World Heritage Convention states that the World Heritage Committee is required to establish both the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger. While criteria and procedures for the World Heritage List have been elaborated in the Operational Guidelines (October 1980), criteria and procedures for the List of World Heritage in Danger have not yet been established. 1.2. At the meeting of the World Heritage Bureau, held in Paris from 21 to 24 June 1982, ICOMOS and IUCN were asked to develop guidelines for cultural and natural sites, respectively, for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger. A working group met in Paris on 1-2 October 1982 at the invitation of ICOMOS to develop guidelines for cultural sites. A paper was prepared on natural sites by IUCN's Commission on Environmental Planning in cooperation with the Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas; this paper was presented to the World National Parks Congress in Bali, Indonesia, from 11 to 22 October and revised on the basis of discussions. 1.3. The approaches of these two separate but related exercises were so similar that it was felt advisable to combine them into a single document for presenta- tion to the World Heritage Committee. The following paper results from a combination of the views of ICOMOS and IUCN. 2. The World Heritage Convention 2.1. The Cultural and the Natural Heritage are defined under Articles 1 and 2 of the World Heritage Convention. 2.2. In conformity with the provisions of Article 11, Paragraph 4 of the Convention, a World Heritage property, as defined in Articles 1 and 2, may only be proposed for inscription on the "List of World Heritage in Danger" if the following conditions are fulfilled: a) the property under consideration is on the World Heritage List; b) the property is threatened by serious and specific dangers; c) major operations are necessary for the conservation of the property; d) assistance under the Convention has bean requested for the property; e) an estimate of the cost of such operations has bean submitted. 3. The List of World Heritage in Danger 3.1. Essentially the List of World Heritage in Danger has three objectives: a) to support national efforts towards safeguarding the integrity of a property; *[Annex II/2] b) to demonstrate to world opinion the reality of the danger threatening a property; c) to contribute to the effectiveness of international fund- raising campaigns by identifying the property for which the public is being asked to contribute. 3.2. This list is conceived as being a short list, limiting operations by the international authority to a reasonable number. 3.3. By definition, inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger is an exceptional action for an emergency measure of limited duration. The inscription on the List will remain valid so long as serious threats and specific dangers persist. 3.4. The site is removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger when the action of the State Party and the international community has brought about the removal of the threats or caused the undertaking of conservation activities which, in the opinion of the Committee, are leading to the removal of the threats. 3.5. If the "serious and specific dangers" are not removed and there is severe deterioration or irreversible modifications entailing the loss of those character- istics which determined its inclusion in the World Heritage List, the property shall be removed both from the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List. The procedure for the deletion of properties from the World Heritage List as set out in the Operational Guidelines will be applicable. 4. CONSIDERATIONS FOR INSCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER 4.1. A World Heritage property -- as defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention -- can be entered on the List of World Heritage in Danger by the Committee when it finds that the condition of the property corresponds to at least one of the criteria in either of the two cases described below, both of which are elaborated upon in the draft criteria which follow. 4.2. ASCERTAINED DANGER. The property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger. 4.3. POTENTIAL DANGER. The property is faced with major threats which could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics. 4.4. In addition, the factor or factors which are threatening the integrity of the property must be those which are amenable to correction by human action. 4.5. The Committee may also wish to bear in mind supplementary factors concern- ing the nature of threats when considering the inclusion of a cultural or natural property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. These are elaborated upon in the draft criteria which follow. 4.6. The Committee may also wish to bear in mind that the inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger necessarily implies an aware- ness of the dangers by the concerned State Party and its will to seek remedy by requesting assistance and otherwise conforming to the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the Convention. *[Annex II/3] 5. PROCEDURE AND CALENDAR FOR PROCESSING REQUESTS FOR INSCRIPTION ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER 5.1. In compliance with the provisions of the Convention, the Committee may at any time and whenever circumstances shall so require inscribe on the List of World Heritage in Danger a property which meets the requirements of Article 11 of the Convention. This inscription should be made on the basis of a professional assessment, including, when required and upon the request of the Chairman of the Committee, expert missions which will be organized with the help of the World Heritage Secretariat, in consultation with the competent NGO(s). 5.2. In case of emergency, (e.g. immediate danger of severe deterioration or total destruction of the property) the Chairman of the Committee, after consult- ing with the Director-General of Unesco and the competent NGO, may initiate any measure necessary for the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger (expert reports, missions, supply of equipment for analysis or evaluation, etc.). These activities will be organized with the help of the World Heritage Secretariat in consultation with the competent NGO(s). 5.3. The Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (Document WHC 2/Revised October 1980, paragraphs 20 to 32) present criteria for the selection of properties for the World Heritage List and for the deletion of properties from the List. In adding criteria for the List of World Heritage in Danger, it would seem appropriate to consider that List as being of transitional character; before deleting a property from the World Heritage List, the property should first be recognized as being in danger and steps should be taken to remove the source of that danger. 5.4. In practice, this would mean that following the inclusion of a property in the World Heritage List, the World Heritage Committee might evaluate whether it should also be considered for the List of World Heritage in Danger. If the property is considered to be so endangered, the Committee should take steps to ascertain what measures should be undertaken to improve the situation. 5.5. In view of the above, it is suggested that the following be inserted as a new section E in the Operational Guidelines (requiring the current paragraph E to become paragraph F, and all following paragraphs to be renumbered): - E. Guidelines for the inclusion of properties in the List of World Heritage in Danger 24. In accordance with Article 11, Paragraph 4 of the Convention: "The Committee shall establish, keep up to date and publish, whenever circumstances shall so require, under the title of "List of World Heritage in Danger", a list of the property appearing in the World Heritage List for the conservation of which major operations are necessary and for which assistance has been requested under this Convention. This list shall contain an estimate of the cost of such operations. The list may include only such property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage as is threatened by serious and specific dangers, such as the threat of disappearance caused by accelerated deterioration, large-scale public or private projects or rapid urban or tourist development projects; destruction caused by changes in the use or ownership of the land; major alterations due to unknown causes; abandonment for any reason whatsoever; the outbreak *[Annex II/4] or the threat of an armed conflict; calamities and cataclysms, serious fires, earthquakes, landslides; volcanic eruptions; changes in water level, floods, and tidal waves. The Committee may at any time, in case of urgent need, make a new entry in the List of World Heritage in Danger and publicize such entry immediately." 25. The Committee may include a property in the List of World Heritage in Danger when the following requirements are met: (i) the property under consideration is on the World Heritage List; (ii) the property is threatened by serious and specific danger; (iii) major operations are necessary for the conservation of the property; (iv) assistance under the Convention has bean requested for the property; (v) an estimate of the cost of such operations has bean submitted. - PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES IN THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER 26. A World Heritage property -- as defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention -- can be entered on the List of World Heritage in Danger by the Committee when it finds that the condition of the property corresponds to at least one of the criteria in either of the two cases described below. 26.1. In case of cultural properties 26.1.1. ASCERTAINED DANGER - The property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger, such as : a) serious deterioration of materials; b) serious deterioration of structure and/or ornamental features; c) serious deterioration of architectural or to'=-planning coherence; d) serious deterioration of urban or rural space, or the natural environment; e) significant loss of historical authenticity; f) important loss of cultural significance. 26.1.2. POTENTIAL DANGER -.The property is faced with threats which could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics. Such threats are, for example : a) modification of juridical status of the property diminishing the degree of its protection; b) lack of conservation policy; c) threatening effects of regional-planning projects; d) threatening effects of town planning; e) outbreak or threat of armed conflict; f) gradual changes due to geological, climatic or other environmental factors. 26.2. In the case of natural properties. 26.2.1 ASCERTAINED DANGER - The property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger, such as : *[Annex II/5] a) A serious decline in the population of the endangered species or the other species of outstanding universal value which the property was legally established to protect, either by natural factors such as disease or by man-made factors such as poaching. b) Severe deterioration of the natural beauty or scientific value of the property, as by human settlement, construction of reservoirs which flood important parts of the property, industrial and agricultural development including use of pesticides and fertilizers), major public works, mining, pollution, logging, firewood collection, etc. c) Human encroachment on boundaries or in upstream areas which threaten the integrity of the property. 26.2.2. POTENTIAL DANGER - The property is faced with major threats which could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics. Such threats are, for example : a) a modification of the legal protective status of the area; b) planned resettlement or development projects within the property or so situated that the impacts threaten the property; c) outbreak or threat of armed conflict; d) the management plan is lacking or inadequate, or not fully implemented. 26.3. In addition, the factor or factors which are threatening the integrity of the property must be those which are amenable to correction by human action. In the case of cultural properties, both natural factors and man- made factors may be threatening, while in the case of natural properties, most threats will be man-made and only very rarely will a natural factor (such as an epidemic disease) be threatening to the integrity of the property. In some cases, the factors threatening the integrity of a property may be corrected by administrative or legislative action, such as the cancelling of a major public works project or the improvement of legal status. - SUPPLEMENTARY FACTORS 26.4. The Committee may wish to bear in mind the following supplementary factors when considering the inclusion of a cultural or natural property on the List of World Heritage in Danger : a) Decisions which affect World Heritage properties are taken by Governments after balancing all factors. The advice of the World Heritage Committee can often be decisive if it can be given before the property becomes threatened. b) Particularly in the case of ascertained danger, the physical or cultural deteriorations to which a property has been subjected should be judged according to the intensity of its effects and analyzed case by case. c) Above all in the case of potential danger to a property, one should consider that: -- the threat should be appraised according to the normal evolution of the social and economic framework in which the property is situated; -- it is often impossible to assess certain threats -- such as the threat of armed conflict -- as to their effect on cultural or natural properties; *[Annex II/6] -- Some threats are not imminent in nature, but can only be anticipated, such as demographic growth. d) Finally, in its appraisal the Committee should take into account any cause of unknown or unexpected origin which endangers a cultural or natural property. - PROCEDURE FOR THE INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES IN THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER 27. When considering the inclusion of a property in the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Committee shall develop, and adapt in consultation with the State Party concerned, a programme for corrective measures. 28. In order to develop the programme referred to in the previous paragraph, the Committee shall request the Secretariat to ascertain, in cooperation with the State Party concerned, the present condition of the property, the dangers to the property and the feasibility of undertaking corrective measures. The Committee may further decide to send a mission of qualified observers from IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM or other organizations to visit the property, evaluate the nature and extent of the threats and propose the measures to be taken. 29. The information received, together with the comments of the State Party and the advisory organization(s) shall be brought to the attention of the Committee by the Secretariat. 30. The Committee shall examine the information available and take a decision. Any such decision shall be taken by a majority of two-thirds of the Committee members present and voting. 31. The State Party concerned shall be informed of the Committee's decision. 32. The Committee shall allocate a specific, significant portion of the World Heritage Fund to meeting funding requests for assistance to World Heritage properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. 33. The Committee shall review at regular intervals the state of property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. This review shall include such monitoring procedures and expert missions as might be determined necessary by the Committee. 34. On the basis of these regular reviews, the Committee shall decide, in consultation with the State Party concerned whether : (i) additional measures are required to conserve the property ; (ii) to delete the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger if the property is no longer under threat; (iii) to consider the deletion of the property from both the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List if the property has deteriorated to the extent that it has lost those characteristics which determined its inclusion in the World Heritage List, in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 24 to 32 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. (WHC/2 Revised, October 1980).