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

*[2]

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.

*[3]

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


*[4]

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


*[5]

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


*[6]

                                     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


*[7]

                                     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


*[8]

                                     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 :


*[9]

        - 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.


*[10]

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-

*[11]

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.


*[12]

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 :


*[13]

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
                                                            =========

*[14]

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


*[15]
                                                                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


*[16]
                                                                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.


*[17]

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


*[18]

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.


*[19]

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-


*[20]

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


*[21]

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).