Distribution limited WHC-94/CONF.003/16 31 January 1995 Original: English/French UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Eighteenth session Phuket, Thailand 12-17 December 1994 REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Opening session, adoption of the agenda and 1-3 election of the new Bureau Reports: The Secretariat 4 The Rapporteur of the Committee 5 Constitution of Working Groups to examine 6 specific items on the Committee's agenda Examination of UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan 6-9 (1996-2001) and World Heritage Conservation Strengthening of the World Heritage Centre in 1994 and its further development 9-13 Monitoring of the state of conservation of the 13-41 World Heritage cultural and natural properties Progress Report on the preparation of a 41-44 Global Strategy for a representative World Heritage List Information on Tentative Lists and Nominations: 44-55 - Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List - Property inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger Requests for International Assistance 56-61 The World Heritage Fund and Budget 61-63 Revision of the Operational Guidelines 64-68 Promotional activities 69-75 General Assembly 75 Date and place of the nineteenth session 75-76 and other business Closing session 77 ANNEXES I. List of participants II. Agenda III. Address by Mr A. Badran, Deputy Director-General a.i. of UNESCO IV. Address by Mr Preecha Musikul, Deputy Minister of Science, Technology and Environment of the Royal Thai Government V. World Heritage Secretariat Report * I. OPENING SESSION I.1 The eighteenth ordinary session of the World Heritage Committee was held in Phuket, Thailand, from 12 to 17 December 1994. It was attended by the following members of the Committee: Brazil, China (People's Republic of), Colombia, Cyprus, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Niger, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Spain, Thailand and the United States of America. I.2 The following States Parties to the Convention who are not members of the Committee were represented by observers: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Cambodia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Holy See, India, Korea, Laos Democratic People's Republic, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Myanmar, Norway, Pakistan, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and Vietnam. I.3 Representatives of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restauration of the Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity. The meeting was also attended by the Representatives of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and the Organization of World Heritage Cities (OWHC). The complete list of participants, including the representatives of other nongovernmental organizations, is given in the Annex I. I.4 The outgoing Chairperson of the Committee, Ms Olga Pizano, opened the session by thanking the authorities of the Royal Thai Government, namely the Deputy Minister of Science, Technology and Environment, Mr Preecha Musikul, for inviting the Committee to convene its eighteenth session in Phuket, Thailand. She then invited Mr Musikul to address the Committee on behalf of the Royal Thai Government. I.5 The Deputy Minister of Science, Technology and Environment, Mr Preecha Musikul welcomed the delegates and other participants and thanked the Committee for accepting the invitation of the Royal Thai Government to hold its session in Phuket. Having underlined that the Royal Thai Government cherishes the philosophy and the noble objectives of the World Heritage Convention, and that it was therefore actively involved in the Committee since 1989, he stressed his Government's conviction of the effectiveness of the Committee as a mechanism established by the Convention for international co-operation and assistance designed to support States Parties to the Convention in their efforts to protect and conserve world heritage sites for the future of humankind. With the valuable services and assistance provided by the IUCN, * ICOMOS, ICCROM and the secretariat, he said, the World Heritage Committee has been able to alleviate the magnitude and the gravity of the dangers threatening, directly or indirectly, many properties on the World Heritage List. I.6 Congratulating the Committee for its success in implementing its programmes and projects and its effective use of the resources provided through the World Heritage Fund, Mr Musikul announced that, over and above Thailand's compulsory annual contribution, the Royal Thai Government will be making a voluntary contribution in the amount of three hundred thousand Bahts (i.e., US $ 15.000 ) to the World Heritage Fund. The Chairperson thanked the Royal Thai Government, on behalf of the World Heritage Committee, for this generous contribution. I.7 The Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Adnan Badran, Deputy Director-General, thanked the Royal Thai Government for its gracious offer to host this session, and expressed the Secretariat's gratitude to Dr Adul Wichiencharoen, in particular, for the excellent organization of the meeting. He then thanked the outgoing Chairperson, Ms Olga Pizano, for her contribution to the Committee as its Chairperson of these past twelve months. I.8 Recalling that the Committee had asked at its seventeenth session the Director-General of UNESCO to increase the World Heritage Centre's capacities to service the State Parties rapidly and effectively, Mr Badran was pleased to inform the participants that the Director- General took a number of steps, such as adding three high- level professional posts (including an administrative officer) which brings the actual total number of the Centre's staff provided under Regular Programme to nine professional posts and three general service. Furthermore, he noted, UNESCO's total contribution to the Centre through the Regular Programme budget adds up to some US $ 5.5 million per biennium when all costs, including indirect costs and staff, are taken into account. Nonetheless, he promised to help the Centre get additional staff, particularly general service posts. I.9 Another step in this direction may be the Director-General's intention to give the Centre an effective functional autonomy in regard to administrative and financial aspects, through procedures based upon the successful modalities already approved by the General Conference in regard to the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) and the International Bureau of Education (IBE), should the Committee endorse this and recommend further action in this regard. Similarly, acting upon the Committee's decision taken at the sixteenth session (Santa Fe, 1992) to include among its strategic goals the implementation of a professionally designed marketing strategy to increase public awareness, involvement and support, the Director-General commissioned * a report, which the Committee is invited to examine at this session. Consequently, the Director-General expects the Committee's advice on a number of questions and proposals raised in this report. A more detailed presentation of these is given under item XV of this report, paras 2 to 9. I.10 Mr Badran furthermore underlined the importance of the Committee's views on a possible decentralization of the World Heritage activities, the usefulness of the emergency fund which was created by the Committee at its seventeenth seession, and the progress made in the further development of a methodology for systematic monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties, which the Centre is working on in co-operation with the Committee's advisory bodies: ICCROM, ICOMOS and the IUCN. As regards monitoring, he reminded the Committee that the Executive Board of UNESCO, at its recently held session in October 1994, stated that "the monitoring of sites on the World Heritage List should be undertaken in accordance with the rules of the World Heritage Convention and the Guidelines that should govern its implementation, keeping in mind that Member States themselves will undertake the monitoring of their World Heritage sites, in consultation with UNESCO and other specialized organizations." He then concluded his statement by expressing the Director-General's satisfaction with the innovative interregional project "Young People's Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion" initiated in the past year by the Centre and the Education Sector, in cooperation with other units in the UNESCO Secretariat, the Norwegian authorities, some thirty National Commissions for UNESCO and various external public and private sector partners, the main purpose of which is to mobilize the enormous potential of schools, teachers' associations, parents' organizations and local communities for World Heritage awareness-building. II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA II.1 The proposed agenda was adopted unanimously, without modification. (See Annex II). III. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE- CHAIRPERSONS III.1 Dr Adul Wichiencharoen (Thailand) was elected by acclamation as Chairperson of the Committee. Mr Zhang Chongli (China) was elected Rapporteur, also by acclamation, and the following members of the Committee were elected as Vice-Chairpersons: Colombia, Germany, Italy, Oman and Senegal. * IV. REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT SINCE THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE IV.1 Mr Bernd von Droste, Director of the World Heritage Centre and Secretary of the Committee, reported on the activities undertaken since the seventeenth session of the Committee. Referring to information document WHC- 94/CONF.003/INF.5, he focused his presentation on outlining only some of the document's most salient parts. The first of this deals with the Centre's close co-operation with other partners, notably the advisory bodies (ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN), the secretariats of other international conventions, such as the "The Hague Convention", the "Biodiversity Convention", etc., as well as cooperation with other units in the UNESCO Secretariat. Speaking of this, he also welcomed the presence, for the first time, of the representative of the recently established Organization of World Heritage Cities with which the Centre has been fruitfully collaborating in the past year. IV.2 He then reviewed briefly those areas in which the Centre succeeded in breaking new ground in the past twelve months, namely: work on the global strategy for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention; monitoring the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List; tentative lists, nominations and international assistance, including training, technical co- operation and emergency assistance; awareness-building activities, particularly those addressed to young people and involving the active participation of youth through schools and extra-curricula projects; and the exploration of the private sector's fund-raising possibilities for World Heritage. IV.3 Before concluding, Mr von Droste drew the Committee's attention to the staffing of the World Heritage Centre, its financial resources, possible future functional autonomy and possible decentralization of its activities. Regarding the first, he thanked the Governments of Canada and the United States of America respectively for having provided a Fund-in-Trust under which the post of the senior natural heritage specialist was financed in the past year. He also thanked the Government of Italy for having seconded one architect whose term, however, ended in August 1994, the Government of Sweden for having seconded for three months a senior cultural heritage specialist, and the Government of Germany for providing an Associate Expert for cultural heritage working at the UNESCO Office in Bangkok. While this certainly reinforced the professional capacities of the Centre, its lack of general service staff remains an acute problem. IV.4 Speaking about the Centre's envisaged functional autonomy, Mr von Droste informed the Committee that, in response to the Director-General's wish, the Centre has studied arrangements concerning its financial autonomy, * taking into account the existence of the World Heritage Fund. Thus, he said, the General Conference could decide that a financial allocation under the Regular Programme be paid into the World Heritage Fund, which would provide for full transparency of the Centre's budget and streamline its administrative procedures. Such a special account would be administered by the Director of the World Heritage Centre under the authority of the Director-General of UNESCO, and be based on the Budget adopted by the World Heritage Committee. In this regard, he reminded the participants that a draft text of the proposed new financial regulations for the World Heritage Fund had been submitted to the Committee for comments in document WHC-94/CONF.003/10. V. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE SESSIONS HELD IN 1994 BY THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE V.1 Mr ZHANG Chongli (China), who accepted to be Rapporteur at the eighteenth extraordinary session of the Bureau, held in Phuket on 9 and 10 December 1994, to replace the former Rapporteur, Mr D. Jose Guirao Cabrera (Spain), elected at the seventeenth session of the Committee, in Cartagena, Colombia in December 1993, presented the report of the session which the Bureau held in Phuket, on 9 and 10 December 1994. V.2 Referring to the December 1994 session of the Bureau (Phuket), Mr Zhang informed the Committee that the Bureau had examined a great number of nominations of cultural and natural properties for inscription on the World Heritage List which had been referred back to States Parties or deferred at previous sessions of the Committee and the Bureau. As regards natural heritage, the Bureau recommended the inscription of eight properties and the approval of two extensions, while one nomination did not qualify for inscription. For cultural heritage, the Bureau recommended the inscription of twenty-two cultural properties, and the approval of three extensions, while for two nominated properties it felt that these did not meet the World Heritage criteria. V.3 As regards monitoring of the state of conservation of World Heritage properties, the Rapporteur reminded the Committee that the Bureau examined at its July 1994 session the state of conservation reports on forty World Heritage sites, while forty-four reports were to be presented at the Phuket session of the Committee. In order to facilitate the work of the Committee, the Bureau had considered it opportune to examine these reports and to propose to the Committee for further examination only those reports which required special attention and decisions. Finally, speaking of international assistance, he informed the Committee that the Bureau examined altogether eighteen requests for training, out of which seven concerned natural and the rest cultural heritage. Likewise, the Bureau * examined fourteen requests for technical cooperation, four of these for natural and ten for cultural heritage. Mr Zhang concluded by pointing out that a detailed information on the above was available in the report of the outgoing Bureau, and that the requests above the ceiling of US $ 30,000 would be examined by Working Group 1 (on Budget & the World Heritage Fund) and a final decision would be taken by the Committee at its session later in the week. VI. CONSTITUTION OF WORKING GROUPS TO EXAMINE SPECIFIC ITEMS ON THE COMMITTEE'S AGENDA VI.1 In order to facilitate and speed up the work of the Committee, the Chairperson proposed that two work groups be constituted, one on the World Heritage Fund, the 1995 budget and the further development of the World Heritage Centre, and the other group on the revision of Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention. Upon the suggestion of the Delegate of France, it was agreed that each delegation may participate in the work of both groups if it so wishes. The Committee then approved the Delegate of the United States of America, Mr Robert Milne, as Chairperson of the first work group, and Ms Olga Pizano, Delegate of Colombia, as Chairperson of the second work group. The reports of the two work groups would be discussed by the Committee towards the end of the session. VII. EXAMINATION OF UNESCO's MEDIUM-TERM PLAN (1996- 2001) AND WORLD HERITAGE CONSERVATION VII.1 The Director of the Centre recalled that this document, established in the framework of the preparation of UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan (1996-2001) and which will be submitted to the General Conference in 1995, was warmly received during the eighteenth sesion of the Bureau in July 1994. It should now be examined by the Committee for their comments and reactions. VII.2 This document presents to Committee members the different points (completion, representivity and credibility of the List/monitoring/international assistance/project policy/promotion), as well as its two areas of action: broadening of intellectual reflection (content and widening of the notion of cultural heritage/symbolic and ethnic heritage values/new insights into nature and humankind) and an approach both decentralized and federative. VII.3 The Delegate of Germany thanked the Centre for this important and well-formulated document, which provided guidelines for future work. In his view it contained five particularly important points: firstly the reciprocal and closely associated relationships between nature and culture and their equilibrium, the highlighting of several * questions and fundamental concepts which require new work mechanisms/infrastructures for the Convention, new perspectives on non-monumental cultural heritage which raise essential questions and implications which are very important to discuss in the framework of the Convention, monitoring of the state of conservation - one of the major tasks - which, carried out in a decentralized manner, could constitute a very efficient tool to achieve a better equilibrium between the regions. All this calls on the one hand for new work infrastructures and in particular for scientific meetings and specific work groups, and on the other a much more important appreciation of the need to improve the present representivity of the List and international cooperation with regard to the types of danger far more frequently experienced now than previously, such as, amongst others, civil wars, armed conflict and poverty. The above merits inclusion into the Guidelines and this reflection should be integrated in the work of Work Group 2. VII.4 The Delegate of France also congratulated the World Heritage Centre for the excellent document, the philosophy of which exactly corresponded to his views, in particular the excellent paragraphs on the promotion of the Conventions's values in the field of education, the convergence of knowledge, the policy of sustainable development and the culture of peace. A better equilibrium between nature and culture and between the regions should be achieved, whilst being very careful not to create, without realizing it, kinds of geopolitical or geo-economic balances which would only be easy solutions or even false solutions. In conclusion, he congratulated the authors of the document of which the philosophy was excellent but requested that attention be paid to the way in which it was applied. VII.5 The Delegate of Senegal also addressed his warm congratulations to the Centre for this well-conceived work which took into account his preoccupations and which should guide the work of the Committee. He strongly endorsed the Medium-Term Plan and requested that attention be given to its implementation to ensure that equally excellent results could be achieved. VII.6 The Delegate of Thailand requested that, in view of its interest, the document be utilized as one of the working documents for Working Group 2. * VII.7 The Delegate of Spain also thanked the Centre for the very interesting work and stated her appreciation of the consideration given to the ethical values of heritage which we have inherited and which we have to preserve and transfer to future generations. VII.8 The Representative of ICOMOS expressed great intellectual satisfaction after reading this strategic document which presented long-term perspectives for the preservation of heritage and for that of a federative character. This document would be distributed by ICOMOS to its National Committees by whom it will certainly be warmly received. Four points, which figure in the document, seemed to him to merit further development: 1) risks incurred by the heritage (particularly armed conflicts) and their prevention; 2) regional cooperation, with the need to develop new steps based on the specific scientific problems common to certain areas or regions; 3) the importance of the intellectual discussion on the place of cultural heritage in the society of today, the importance of going beyond a purely administrative conception of the Convention and achieving a scientific, doctrinal and conceptual perspective, as has been done this year on several occasions (expert meetings on a Global Strategy (June), Authenticity, Canals, Cultural Routes), this is a priority for ICOMOS; 4) use the tools and techniques of the 21st century for inventories, database creation and management, communication, etc. (e.g. Internet). He endorsed this action and requested UNESCO and the Centre to play the role of coordinators in this matter. VII.9 The Director of the Centre replied to the intervention of the German Delegation and indicated that, amongst others, the on-going reflection on geological sites and fossils will contribute to rectifying the imbalance between nature and culture. Links should also be strengthened with the Biodiversity Convention and the role of culture in the maintaining of this diversity and sustainability of ecological systems should be further developed. He emphasized his agreement with ICOMOS with regard to the importance of modern communication techniques and called upon States Parties to undertake the necessary action to link up site managers to networks such as Internet. * VII.10 The Representative of IUCN was of the view that their links with the Biodiversity Convention should also be strengthened and expressed his agreement with ICOMOS on the importance of specific regional interests. IUCN has already developed a partnership with regional organizations, particularly in the Pacific. He was also in agreement with the cultural implications of sustainable development and biodiversity conservation. VII.11 In conclusion, the Chairperson reiterated the very important questions emphasized by the Delegate of Germany such as non-monumental cultures, the imbalance between regions and the imbalance between nature and culture. He proposed that the Document be used for discussions by Work Group 2, which could also reflect on the links to be established between the World Heritage Convention and The Hague Convention, to strengthen the protection of World Heritage properties. VIII. STRENGTHENING OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE IN 1994 AND ITS FURTHER DEVELOPMENT VIII.1 This item was discussed first by the Work Group 1, and then by the Committee on the basis of the proposals made by the Work Group. Some of its points were already raised, however, in the presentation by the Director- General's Special Adviser when presenting his recommendations on fund-raising and marketing (summarized in Section XV of this report). VIII.2 Although the shortage of time did not allow a real debate on this item, a number of speakers in Work Group 1 referred to work Document WHC-94/CONF.003/5. The Delegate of Italy reiterated his Delegation's statement, previously expressed at the plenary, that their legal experts had examined carefully the proposals contained in this Document and found them unacceptable. Recalling that the Centre had been established only two years ago and that its competences were regulated by Articles 14, 15 and 18 of the Convention, he reminded that the Centre was meant to be simply a Secretariat for coordination, monitoring of the Convention's implementation, information and cooperation with the States Parties in order to assure follow-up actions. The proposal put forward in the above-mentioned document, however, seems to lead on the contrary to a full autonomy of the Centre by giving it functional and administrative autonomy. The Italian Delegation is opposed to this for philosophical/political, juridical and administrative reasons. As regards the philosophical/political concerns, he said, all actions of UNESCO need to be united in order to achieve a major impact, and to allow better linkage among the great themes it is committed to, including the protection of cultural and natural heritage. To detach the Centre from UNESCO would weaken it precisely at a time when UNESCO's mandate * and its message of peace, fraternity and mutual understanding needs to be strengthened in a world which is going through a difficult phase of transition, the breakdown of the previous sense of balance, and the precarious way to a new international order. Explaining the juridical implications, the Delegate of Italy reminded that according to Articles 3, 4 and 14 of the Convention, the Committee should express its advice on this matter. Furthermore, the examples given in the above-mentioned document, i.e., the institutional set-up of the International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP) and the International Bureau for Education (IBE), do not seem appropriate, as these have been established within the General Conference of UNESCO, which means that all Member States of UNESCO are included, and not just some, as is the case with the Centre. Moreover, the internal structure is quite different: the IIEP and IBE have each an administration council which, however, does not exist in the case of the Centre, as this is directly under the Director-General of UNESCO and is, as such, a simple Secretariat. Regarding the administrative aspects, the document compares the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) to the Centre, forgetting that this Commission deals with oceans, which are beyond the States' sovereignty, while the Centre is responsible for the protection of cultural and natural heritage which is a matter of the States' sovereignty. In conclusion, he reiterated that the Centre belongs to the UNESCO Secretariat and serves as the Secretariat of the Committee. The Centre was created by the Director-General in order to facilitate better implementation of the Convention. In Cartagena, the Committee expressed its wish to have a stronger Centre, and nothing more than that. On that occasion the Committee stated that it would achieve better its goals by relating its activities to those stemming from other legal instruments and other UNESCO competent services. The Centre should therefore continue to: (i) coordinate the actions decided by the Committee with other related actions in UNESCO and other organizations, and (ii) ensure within this framework the services of the Secretariat of the Committee and of the General Assembly of the States Parties. VIII.3 The Delegate of China stated that his country was in favour of a strengthened World Heritage Centre, and was therefore pleased with the Director-General's intention of giving functional autonomy to the Centre, and giving it support through a 'financial allocation', as expressed at the 145th session of the Executive Board. He felt that there need be no fear that the Centre may disassociate itself from UNESCO, since it would remain an integral part of UNESCO just like the case of IIEP and IBE. VIII.4 While expressing his regret that such an important item was discussed only in the Work Group, and having endorsed the statement made by the Delegate of * Italy, the Delegate of France said that his country is also in favour of a strong World Heritage Centre, but that this should by no means be understood as creating a unit which might lead to a separation from UNESCO, or to a modification in the terms of the 1972 Convention which foresaw the provision by UNESCO of a Secretariat to the World Heritage Committee. The evolution of the Centre should be administrative and structural within the Organization. Projects such as the Centre's current project on World Heritage education, which is carried out in collaboration with other units, is an example of intersectoral activities which should be encouraged. However, a private foundation cannot be created in the shadow of a Convention between States Parties, which is what appeared to be envisaged. VIII.5 The Delegate of Germany also spoke in favour of a strong Centre, underlining however that the spirit and letter of the Convention must be fully respected. Expressing his view that the statements made by Mr de Haes and Mr Badran on this matter gave conflicting messages on what the Centre's autonomy would imply, he reminded that the Committee cannot decide by itself on issues which may perhaps entail modifications of the Convention. VIII.6 The Delegate of Japan expressed his support for an increased 'functional effectiveness' of the Centre, but felt that the Committee needed more information in order to decide about a future 'functional autonomy' of the Centre. He also wished to know how the Centre would cooperate in the future with other units within UNESCO should autonomy be granted, and what the UNESCO Legal Adviser's view on this were. Finally, he suggested that a detailed study on this matter be prepared for the Committee. VIII.7 The proposal made by the Delegate of Japan was endorsed by the Delegate of Spain, stressing the comments made previously by the Delegates of France and Italy concerning the legal and institutional aspects of functional autonomy. VIII.8 Replying to the debate, the Director of the World Heritage Centre reassured the speakers that the Director- General laid great stress on coordinating the Centre's activities with those of other units in the Organization. He reminded that the Director-General had created to that effect a Steering Committee, chaired by the Assistant Director-General for Culture in the absence of the Director-General, the purpose of which is to provide guidance to the Centre and other units in matters of heritage protection. The Centre is under the authority of the Director-General and its staff is appointed by him in conformity with Article 14 of the Convention. Should there be any changes, these can be carried out only in strict respect of the Convention. He confirmed readiness to * prepare an indepth study on the question and proposed to contact the Representatives of, for example, Italy, France, China and the United States of America, in order to see how the Centre's functioning could be improved. He also suggested that the Centre prepare a detailed document which would express the different views expressed by the States Parties. Finally, Mr von Droste reiterated that the Centre has been created within UNESCO to coordinate World Heritage activities, and that some progress has been achieved in this sense. What is now important is that the General Conference at its 28th session approves a staffing table for the World Heritage Centre which would make it unnecessary to use the World Heritage Fund for supporting staff positions. VIII.9 Following this statement, the Chairman of the Work Group, Mr Rob Milne, proposed that the Group express its appreciation to the Director-General for having strengthened the staff of the Centre in response to the Committee's request expressed last year at the session in Cartagena. VIII.10 The Committee addressed this item in plenary when discussing the proposals made by Work Group 1. The Italian Delegation, endorsed by many other delegations, underlined that it was favourable to the stregthening of the Centre, provided that it is kept in mind that its autonomy is already defined by the World Heritage Convention, which expresses the sovereign will of the States Parties. Arguments of legal, administrative and philosophical nature can be made against the proposal for the Centre's future as defined, among others by items 8 and 15 of the Agenda. However, given the time constraints, the Delegation of Italy expressed in plenary only the juridical (legal) aspects. In order to define the status of the Centre and the Secretariat one has to consider the following elements: creation, composition and functions. The Delegate of Italy then stated the following: - "Foremost, Article 14 of the Convention affirms that the Committee is assisted by a Secretariat appointed by the Director-General of UNESCO; - Secondly, the Centre, created at a later stage by the Director-General in order to assure the functions of the Secretariat to the Committee, has been made up of staff coming from two UNESCO sectors (Science and Culture) which are already entrusted the responsibility of the Convention's implementation; - Finally, the same Committee has entrusted its Secretariat, through the World Heritage Centre, to ensure the coordination and information between the Committee and other UNESCO conventions concerned with the conservation of cultural and natural heritage. * The above-stated three elements reveal that the Centre is an integral part of the organization and of the Secretariat of UNESCO, and that any change of its legal status requires a new manifestation of the States Parties' will, which must be embodied in a new international agreement for the revision of the Convention. A decision by the Committee therefore cannot be regarded as sufficient." IX. MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES IX.1 The Committee examined the working documents that had been prepared for this agenda item by the Secretariat, the advisory bodies IUCN and ICOMOS, and by the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project for the Cultural, Urban and Environmental Heritage for Latin America and the Caribbean. SYSTEMATIC MONITORING AND REPORTING IX.2 In introducing this item the Secretariat recalled that Article 3 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention stipulates that one of the essential functions of the World Heritage Committee is to "monitor the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List." However, provisions had been made only for regular monitoring of the sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and where sites were threatened. At the request of the Committee, therefore, the Secretariat and the advisory bodies, in consultation with the States Parties and individual experts, proceeded to develop a concept and framework of systematic monitoring and reporting. IX.3 It was recalled that the initial discussions were held at the Committee's seventeenth session in December 1993 and that further proposals were endorsed by the Bureau at its eighteenth session in July 1994. On that occasion, the Bureau requested the Secretariat to prepare a draft text on monitoring for inclusion in the Operational Guidelines. IX.4 The Secretariat presented the Committee, in Working Documents WHC-94/CONF.003/6 and 003/9Rev., a detailed description of the proposed systematic monitoring methodology. The draft text on monitoring for the Operational Guidelines was presented under the corresponding agenda item (see Section XIV of this report). IX.5 The Committee commended the Secretariat for the progress made in defining the framework for the implementation of this important function of the Committee. It emphasized that one of the principal aims of monitoring was to assess if the values, on the basis of which the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List, have remained * intact. It also stressed that a monitoring methodology should be flexible and adaptable to regional and national characteristics, as well as to the natural and cultural specificities of the sites. Furthermore, it expressed the need to involve external advice in the periodic reporting through the non-governmental advisory bodies and/or the existing decentralized UNESCO structures. The Delegate of Italy insisted on clarifying that "writing of Reports with the participation of experts should be finalized in order to ensure better the monitoring in the management of properties". The Delegate of Italy also drew attention to the positive experiences in his country in involving the authorities from different levels and sectors as well as the civic community in the conservation and management of the sites. IX.6 The Observer of India informed the Committee of his Government's position that according to the World Heritage Convention's explicit stipulation it is the State Party which decides what measures are to be taken to ensure the preservation and protection of the World Heritage sites on its territory, and that monitoring procedures should not affect the decision-making prerogative of the States Parties. He also emphasized that any involvement of outside agencies in the monitoring process could be done only on the specific request and consent of the State Party concerned. IX.7 The Representative of ICOMOS introduced this organization's experiences in monitoring and offered its assistance in monitoring, World Heritage information management and the identification of needs for preventive action and its implementation. He drew particular attention to the need to develop guidelines for site specific monitoring and the identification of the World Heritage values of each site. He stressed that in his opinion the key to meaningful monitoring is the understanding of what impact time and circumstances have had upon these values. IX.8 The Representative of IUCN stressed that his organization had been monitoring World Heritage natural sites since 1983 and that, following the Operational Guidelines (para. 57), this is one of the functions attributed to it by the Committee. IX.9 Following the discussion, the Committee adopted the proposals presented in Document WHC-94/CONF.003/6, Section A, as the general framework for monitoring and reporting. The Committee also adopted a text on monitoring and reporting to be included in the Operational Guidelines. The adopted text is included in Section XIV of this report. IX.10 In order to implement its decisions regarding systematic monitoring, the Committee invited the Secretariat to undertake the following actions: * (a) Prepare a revised nomination format for presentation to the nineteenth sessions of the Bureau and the Committee, so as to provide adequate baseline information at the time of inscription of properties on the World Heritage List. (b) Organize in early 1995, with the participation of the advisory bodies and other relevant institutions, a meeting of experts on World Heritage information management, in order to develop guidelines for the establishment of a World Heritage Data Base. (c) Inform the States Parties of the decisions of the Committee, invite them to put monitoring structures in place and to report on the state of conservation of the property to the Committee on a 5-year basis. (d) Prepare workplans for and implement regional programmes to provide advice and assistance to the States Parties in setting up adequate monitoring and management systems, to promote the preparation of 5-year state of conservation reports, to handle and analyse these reports and to present 5-year Regional State of the World Heritage Reports to the World Heritage Committee. (e) Incorporate monitoring as a management tool in World Heritage training courses and other activities. (f) Report to the nineteenth session of the Bureau on the implementation of the decisions of the Committee and on the application of the new monitoring and reporting procedures. IX.11 Following the recommendations of Work Group 2, the Committee also invited the Secretariat in collaboration with the advisory bodies, to: (a) present to the nineteenth session of the Bureau a workplan for the implementation of regional monitoring programmes so that States Parties will have sufficient time to prepare the state of conservation reports; (b) develop a format for monitoring reporting as an aid to the States Parties and to facilitate the processing of the reports and the information contained in them through a computerized data base. * REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MONITORING INITIATIVES IX.12 As regards systematic monitoring and reporting, the Committee drew heavily on the positive experiences provided by different monitoring models that had been applied during the past years on an experimental basis. The Committee took note of monitoring reports prepared by States Parties (e.g. Mexico), non-governmental organizations at the invitation of the States Parties concerned (ICOMOS's involvement in monitoring of World Heritage sites in the United Kingdom, Norway and Sri Lanka) and through existing United Nations structures such as the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project for the Cultural, Urban and Environmental Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Committee concluded that all of these models had resulted in credible monitoring reports and that the framework for systematic monitoring should allow for these models to be applied, depending on the wishes of the States Parties and the particular conditions of the countries and the regions. Latin America and the Caribbean IX.13 The Director of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project, recalling that in 1991 the Committee commissioned the project to undertake a pilot monitoring programme in Latin America and the Caribbean and that since 1991 site specific monitoring reports had been presented at the annual sessions of the Committee, presented to the Committee the final report of this monitoring programme. IX.14 This synthesis report, entitled 'Systematic Monitoring Exercise, World Heritage Sites Latin America, the Caribbean and Mozambique: Findings and International Perspectives' contains an assessment of the implementation of the Convention in the region and describes in detail the methodology and modalities applied in undertaking the monitoring programme. It also provides an analysis of the trends and threats relevant to the conservation of historic sites in the region, seven essays on specific case studies that illustrates different types of World Heritage sites, as well as individual synthesis reports of thirty-one properties. IX.15 The Director presented to the Committee the recommendations on policies and guidelines for future action which emmanated from the monitoring programme. He confirmed that on-site monitoring arrangements are indispensable as well as sound baseline information on each of the sites, if credible reporting is to take place on a periodic basis. In this sense monitoring should be seen as a management tool, whereas the reporting should be the basis of decision-making by the Committee and its Bureau regarding requests for technical cooperation, regional policies and action plans. He strongly advocated a regional * approach to monitoring through the existing UNESCO structures to facilitate regional cooperation and networking. IX.16 The Committee and the advisory bodies unanimously commended the Regional Project's Director for the holistic and at the same time practical approach to monitoring and for the excellent presentation of its results in the synthesis report. Mexico IX.17 As requested by the Bureau at its eighteenth session, ICOMOS reviewed the report prepared by the Government of Mexico on the state of conservation of ten cultural World Heritage sites in Mexico. ICOMOS informed the Committee that it is very impressed by the high standard of these reports. They are objective and do not seek to disguise problems where these exist. The format adopted corresponds very closely with that proposed for the systematic monitoring programme. ICOMOS' involvement in monitoring in Europe and Asia IX.18 ICOMOS informed the Committee of several initiatives in Europe and Asia where ICOMOS was invited by the State Party concerned to collaborate in the monitoring of the World Heritage sites on their territories. Such monitoring had been undertaken in 1994 in Norway, the United Kingdom and in the Asian region. IX.19 The chief characteristics of the approach used in monitoring in Sri Lanka were its preparation through a survey of conservation issues and concerns in Asia with the aim to provide a broad framework within which to examine issues specific to Sri Lanka, followed by the mission of a monitoring team. This team included three external experts, three Sri Lankan experts and a team concerned with documentation issues. A series of seminars on conservation and World Heritage was also included in the mission programme. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES INTRODUCTION IX.20 The Committee recalled that the World Heritage Committee at its seventeenth session and the Bureau at its eighteenth session examined reports on the state of conservation of seven natural and six cultural properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and on seventeen natural and fifty-nine cultural properties on the World Heritage List. * IX.21 The Committee commended the States Parties which had responded to its recommendations or observations and urged the States Parties which had not done this, to do so. In this context, the Committee emphasized that, according to the Operational Guidelines, one of the essential functions of the Committee is to monitor the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and that a continuous communication between the Committee and the States Parties regarding the state of conservation of the World Heritage sites is indispensable in this respect. IX.22 The Committee examined the state of conservation reports prepared by the secretariat and the advisory bodies and concluded the following: NATURAL HERITAGE Natural Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria) The Committee was informed that the Secretariat is continuously in contact with the Bulgarian authorities, which presented a report on their restoration efforts at the last session of the Bureau and have recently updated this report. The Committee confirmed the decision of the Bureau at its eighteenth session that a detailed report on conservation measures should be presented to the nineteenth session of the Bureau in 1995. The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia) The site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992. Missions to the site were carried out in 1992 and 1993. Given the fact that there had been a recent outbreak in fighting in the Bihac region, the situation remains critical. The Committee decided, therefore, that another fact-finding mission to this area, particularly to the Korkaova Uvala Virgin forest should take place. The Committee decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Sangay National Park (Ecuador) The site was inscribed in 1983 and added to the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 due to threats from poachers, boundary encroachment and unplanned road construction. The situation at the site was discussed between a representative of the President of Ecuador and World Heritage Centre staff and the Committee's continuous * concerns were brought to the attention of the Government of Ecuador. The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and that another fact-finding mission should be carried out. Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire) The site was included on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 because of a proposed iron-ore mining project and threats due to the arrival of a large number of refugees. An expert mission was undertaken in 1993 and proposals to revise the boundaries of the site were endorsed by the seventeenth session of the Committee in 1993. An international assistance project under the World Heritage Fund was carried out in 1994. The Committee was informed that the French Ministry of Cooperation and the Ministry of the Environment in cooperation with IUCN France is carrying out a study and review of the site with regard to potential future investment. A report on this project is expected in due course. The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested that the Bureau at its nineteenth session be informed of the results of the French mission. Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) At its eighteenth session, the World Heritage Bureau took note of the response by the Indian Government concerning Manas Wildlife Sanctuary which was inscribed on the List of World Heritage In Danger in 1992. The Committee was informed that the Secretariat received a report on the conditions of the site from WWF-India. The report emphasises the critical situation in the area. Furthermore, the Government of India has indicated its interest in a joint mission to the site by World Heritage Centre staff and local NGOs. The Committee commended the Indian authorities on this initiative and recommended that this mission be undertaken when conditions in the area are sufficiently stable. The Committee decided to retain Manas Wildlife Sanctuary on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Aïr-Ténéré Natural Nature Reserves (Niger) The Committee was informed that the wildlife in this site has been decimated due to the consequences of the conflict between the Resistance Army of the Tuaregs and Government forces. Hence, the Committee was encouraged to * note that the warring parties had signed a peace accord on 9 October 1994. The implementation of this accord by the new Government is however an essential prerequisite for the conservation of this site. The Committee requested the Centre to write to the new Government, recalling Niger's international obligations under the Convention to safeguard the Aïr and Ténéré Reserves and encourage them to implement the peace accord. The Committee also wished that the Centre inform the Niger authorities that the continuous implementation of the peace accord will permit an assessment of the current status of wildlife populations and the resumption of the IUCN/WWF Project, funded by Denmark and Switzerland. Everglades National Park (United States of America) The site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1993 due to an increasing number of threats since the date of its inscription on the List in 1979. The State and Federal Governments and the Agricultural Industry are providing significant financial support for the management of the site and for its long-term restoration in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. The American authorities had prepared a report for the eighteenth session of the Committee. The Committee decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Virunga National Park (Zaire): The Committee recalled that at its last session it was deeply concerned about the civil unrest in Zaire which led to donors (EEC and USAID) suspending their support to this site. Many Park staff had not been remunerated for almost a year. Despite the fact the Bureau granted emergency assistance of US$ 20,000 to meet costs of field operations, poaching of wildlife has continued and the capability of staff to patrol the 650 km long boundary of the Park remains far below desirable levels. Human population in the fishing village near Lake Idi Amin has grown several fold and poses a serious threat to the integrity of the Park. Since July 1994, the threats to the Park have exacerbated several fold by the influx of almost 1 million refugees, fleeing the war in Rwanda, adjacent to the southern parts of the Park. The fuelwood demand of the refugees camped inside the Park, estimated at 600 metric tons/day, is leading to widespread depletion of forests in the lowlands; the Mountain Gorilla and its habitats at higher elevations, fortunately, have not been impacted so far. The Committee was informed by the Representative of IUCN that the Director of the Zairois Institute for the Conservation of Nature has verbally indicated his agreement to IUCN's suggestion of placing this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Accordingly, the Committee * included Virunga National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee recognized that a major effort over the next decade will be needed to rehabilitate and strengthen management of Virunga and obtain local support for its conservation. Furthermore, the Committee requested the Centre to communicate its decision to UNHCR and other agencies involved in the management of refugee camps in and around Virunga and express its concern over depletion of forest resources in the Park, stressing that utmost care be taken to avoid establishment of refugee camps in or near national parks. The Committee also asked the Centre to inform the Government of Zaire of its willingness to co-operate with IUCN as well as WWF, World Bank, UNDP, UNHCR and GTZ and provide technical cooperation and training assistance to address threats to the integrity of Virunga. Natural Properties on the World Heritage List Great Barrier Reef National Park (Australia) The Committee was informed that the Minister of Environment, Australia, has temporarily halted a 1500-bed, resort development project immediately adjacent to the boundary of this site to allow for a study of potential impacts on the World Heritage site. The Committee requested the Centre to write to the Minister of Environment, Australia, expressing support for his efforts to protect this site from the impacts of the proposed large scale tourism development project. Shark Bay (Australia) The Committee recalled that at the time of inscription of this site it requested IUCN to report back on the progress with respect to (1) implementation of the Commonwealth/State management agreement and (2) efforts to achieve more effective conservation of the site. As the Government of Australia had assured that the October 1990 agreement was to provide the management framework for this site, the Committee was concerned that most of the provisions of the agreement have not been operationalised. Therefore, the Centre wrote to the Australian authorities requesting positive and concrete action, and was informed by the national authorities that a copy of the new agreement would be available by early December. A report from the Australian authorities is anticipated shortly. Willandra Lakes Region (Australia) The Committee was informed of IUCN's field evaluation report on the state of conservation of this property. It requested the Australian authorities to review the * boundaries of the site and to continue their recent progress in improving the management of the site. Mount Athos (Greece) A report prepared by WWF and Ecumenical Patriachate of Constantinople (EPC) has pointed out that the ecology of this site is being impacted by overgrazing, chemical pollution and forestry activities. In early December the World Heritage Centre received a letter from the Greek authorities outlining the measures which are being implemented to address these concerns. The Committee requested that a field review together with the appropriate Greek authorities be carried out to evaluate these conflicting reports. Keoladeo National Park (India) The Committee recalled that this site was inscribed on the World Heritage List because of its importance as a wintering ground for the Siberian crane. At the time of inscription in 1985, there were 41 cranes which wintered in Keoladeo National Park. The Committee was informed that in 1994, no Siberian cranes wintered in Keolodeo; it was thought that due to hunting along their migratory routes in Afghanistan and Pakistan the population which used Keoladeo for wintering appears to have been extirpated. The Committee therefore requested that the Centre write to the Indian authorities expressing its concern and requesting that the status of the Siberian crane population be monitored for another year. The Committee noted that in the event that there are no signs of the return of the species to Keoladeo in 1995, then it might consider the prospect of delisting this site. In that case the Committee would request IUCN to make a detailed presentation on the subject at its next session. Banc d'Arguin National Park (Mauritania) The Committee recalled that IUCN reported to the Bureau at its eighteenth session on a planned capture operation of six monk seals from the sea population of the park. Subsequently, the Centre was informed by the French Ministry for the Environment that the experiment was carefully planned and coordinated with IUCN's Species Survival Commission and that the capture operation and breeding experiment is under the direction of the "Comité scientifique international pour le suivi du programme francais de sauvegarde du phoque moine". The Committee took note of the above information. * Te Wahipounamu (New Zealand) In July 1994 the Bureau was advised of threats to the integrity of this site arising from cattle grazing in some parts of the Park and the impact of potential logging operations in Maori-owned coastal forests immediately adjacent to the Park. As requested by the Bureau, the New Zealand authorities have submitted a report outlining measures being implemented for mitigating these threats. IUCN has expressed satisfaction with these measures and no further action is required at the present time. Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) (Tanzania) The Committee recalled that at its last session it expressed serious concerns over the Tanzanian Government's new policy to open NCA to agriculture. The Committee was informed that, though cultivation is continuing to spread, there appears to be some control preventing its random expansion. Nevertheless, the Committee remained concerned that the expansion of agriculture is taking away traditional pastoral lands of the Masai who, as a last resort to ensure their own food security, are being forced to clear lands for subsistence agriculture. The NCA is the most profitable of all Tanzanian State enterprises earning approximately US$ 4.5 million annually, of which the local people receive only a marginal share at present. Despite the concerns outlined above, the Committee was satisfied to note that the NCA management and NCA Board are actively seeking solutions to the issues and are cooperating with IUCN in preparing a management plan. The Committee requested the Centre to write to the Tanzanian authorities, reminding them of the international significance of, and the interest in NCA and encourage them to take urgent measures, e.g. sharing tourism revenues, which will ensure the conservation of natural resources and the welfare of the Masai and minimize the need for cultivating land within the vicinity of NCA. The Committee requested IUCN to prepare, in cooperation with its Regional Office in Nairobi, a follow-up report on the state of conservation of NCA for its next session in 1995. Serengeti National Park (Tanzania) The Committee noted that the state of conservation of this site has not been assessed since its inscription in 1981 and was pleased to note several improvements to the site effected by the Tanzanian National Park Authority (TANAPA); e.g. a management plan has been prepared and is now under implementation; work on a new and creative visitor- education centre is nearing completion; roads and other infrastructure have been upgraded; and long-term wildlife census, research and monitoring projects continue to * operate. However, the Committee recognized that several threats to Serengeti's integrity prevail; subsistence poaching has reached commercial levels resulting from a growing demand for meat and leading to significant reductions in wildlife populations. The rapidly growing human population (1.2 million at present) resident near the western boundary of the Park and adjacent buffer zone pose an ever-increasing demand for wildlife resources of Serengeti and expose wildlife to risk of transmission of disease from domestic stock and dogs. Poorly designed ad- hoc tourism development projects, introduced into Serengeti without consultation with the TANAPA, should be discouraged. Coordination with the trans-border Masai Mara Reserve in Kenya needs to be strengthened. The Committee requested that the Centre write to the Tanzanian National Park Authorities (TANAPA) commending them for the improvements that they have implemented for the management of Serengeti. At the same time the Committee suggested that TANAPA be alerted to threats to the integrity of Serengeti due to growing human population near Serengeti's borders, increased demand and poaching for meat and ad-hoc tourism development projects. The Committee also suggested that the Centre contact the Kenyan authorites and request them to consider nominating the Masai Mara Reserve as an extension of the Serengeti World Heritage site. Redwood National Park (United States of America) The Committee was informed of a proposal of the California Department of Transportation (CDT) regarding a road re- alignment of the US Highway 101 in Del Norte County which will result in the removal of about 200 trees in this World Heritage site. Although CDT has prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS), the Committee was informed that the EIS made no mention of the World Heritage status of the area. The Committee therefore requested the Centre to write to the American authorities and suggest that the CDT recognize the international significance of this site and hence the special consideration it should receive vis-à-vis potential impacts of the road re-alignment project. The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to report on this matter at the next session of the Bureau. Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia and Zimbabwe) The World Heritage Centre was informed by letter of 5 August 1994 from the National Heritage Conservation Commission of Zambia that the proposal to build the Batoka Dam was dropped. The Batoka Gorge Hydro Electric Scheme would have had a major environmental impact on the World Heritage site and would have flooded the Batoka Gorge of the Zambezi River, a two million year old unique geological and geomorphological formation. * The Committee commended the Government of Zambia on the decisions taken to ensure the integrity of this World Heritage site. Mana Pools, Sapi and Chewore Reserves (Zimbabwe) The Committee regretted that with the relocation of the ten remaining rhinos from this Park to an intensive protection zone, this World Heritage site has lost one of its "flagship" species. The Committee urged the Centre that in order to protect populations of similar species in other World Heritage sites, it should expand its cooperation with IUCN's Species Survival Commission and the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species (CITES). NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE (MIXED SITES) Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru) The Committee was informed on proposed helicopter flights from Cusco to the village of Aguas Calientes, which is only two kilometers from the ruins of Machu Picchu, authorization of which would be subject to the approval of an environmental impact study by the National Institute for Natural Resources (INRENA). IUCN informed that it was finalizing the examination of the impact study and that it will transmit its recommendations to the Secretariat as soon as these are available. The Committee requested that the Bureau at its forthcoming nineteenth session be informed of the outcome of IUCN's observations. CULTURAL HERITAGE Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger Palace of Abomey (Benin) The Committee commended the Government of Benin and ICCROM for the activities undertaken since 1992 in training in preventive conservation and for the project for the conservation and enhancement of the Royal Palaces of Abomey which is foreseen for 1994-1996 in collaboration with ICCROM and the Government of Italy. The Committee decided to retaine this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested the Secretariat to ensure that a monitoring mission be undertaken to Abomey to evaluate the state of conservation of the eleven palaces that have not yet been subject to restoration and to report on it to the Bureau at its nineteenth session. * Angkor (Cambodia) The Committee noted that at its eighteenth session, the Bureau expressed satisfaction with the progress accomplished by the Royal Cambodian Government in response to the requests formulated by the Committee at its sixteenth session, when Angkor was inscribed on the World Heritage List and List of World Heritage in Danger. At the invitation of UNESCO and at the request of the Chairperson of the Committee, the Minister of State of the Kingdom of Cambodia, H.E. Mr Vann Molyvann, made a presentation to Committee members, highlighting the main tasks undertaken by the Royal Government to ensure the safeguarding of Angkor (401 sq.km.) and the development of its historical, archaelogical and anthropological heritage, in the region of Siem Reap (10,000 sq.km). In particular, he emphasized, the implementation of the recommendations made in the framework of the UNESCO- implemented project "Zoning and the Environmental Management Plan for Angkor (ZEMP)", and which defined five categories of protected zones: i) monumental sites ii) protected archaeological reserves iii) protected cultural landscapes iv) areas of archaeological, anthropological and historical interest; v) perimeter for socio-economic and cultural development of the region of Siem-Reap. The Minister of State also recalled that legislation concerning the protection of cultural properties had been prepared and that proposals had been submitted to the Royal Government concerning the official establishment of a management organism for Angkor (the so-called APSARA Agency). Subsequently, he reviewed all actions undertaken by donor countries in the framework of the programmes implemented under the aegis of the International Coordinating Committee for the Safeguard and the Development of the Historic Site of Angkor (ICC), created by the Intergovernmental Conference of Tokyo in October 1993 and co-chaired by France and Japan. Finally, after having warmly thanked UNESCO and its Director-General, the members of the ICC and their co-chairs, he addressed an appeal to States Parties to the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Heritage, requesting strong and massive support to the Kingdom of Cambodia in its fights against illicit traffic of cultural heritage. Following this presentation, for which the Chairperson warmly thanked the Representative of the Royal Government of Cambodia, the Committee took note of the Report of Activities for 1994 established by the ICC Secretariat and presented by Mr A. Beschaouch. * Action by the Committee: The Committee adopted the following Declaration: Having taken note of the huge efforts undertaken by the Cambodian authorities despite the difficult conditions prevailing in the country, the Committee congratulated the the Royal Goverment of Cambodia for so far responding to the recommendations of the sixteenth session of the Committee. On the one hand, the Committee congratulated the International Coordinating Committee for Angkor, co-chaired by France and Japan, and on the other, UNESCO, which provides the Secretariat for this Committee, for the successful mobilization of a vast network of international aid for the safguarding action and for devising the conceptual framework linking archaeological conservation as an integral process in the promotion of sustainable development of the Angkor-Siem Reap region, as exemplified by the UNESCO-implemented project "Zoning and Environmental Management Plan for Angkor (ZEMP)". The Committee urged the Royal Government of Cambodia and its National Assembly to vote without delay the legislation concerning the protection of cultural properties. The Committee also requested the Royal Government of Cambodia to approve the creation of a management organism to enforce the application of the national legislation and regulations concerning the protection of Angkor in view of its status as a World Heritage property. The above-mentioned legislative texts and the statuts of the management organism for Angkor will be presented to the nineteenth session of the Committee for information purposes, together with cartographic data indicating the permanent boundaries of the Angkor World Heritage area and its buffer zone. Dubrovnik (Croatia) The Committee was informed that the restoration of what is called the fifth facade of the city -the roofs- was almost completed and that there remained but a few insulae awaiting repairs, and that important progress had been made in the restoration of several of the most important monuments of the city. The Committee commended the Government of Croatia and UNESCO on the progress made in the conservation and restoration of Dubrovnik. It noted, however, that after the priority needs had been taken care of, other works such as the restoration of nine destroyed palaces and details of Franciscan and Dominican cloisters needed to be undertaken. The Committee decided, therefore, to retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Timbuktu (Mali) The Committee was informed that the Government of Mali had fully endorsed the recommendations of a UNESCO mission that * was undertaken in early 1994 and which recommended a method of intervention involving the local population which, since the construction of the mosques, had been responsible for their upkeep, thus perpetuating a living religious cultural tradition. The Committee also endorsed this proposal and decided that it would support its implementation, if and when requested by the State Party. The Committee decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Bahla Fort (Oman) The Committee recalled that it was informed during its seventeenth session, that intensive restoration works were being undertaken at this site and that it appeared probable that the nature of the material used for the restoration work, the rapidity with which the work was being carried out and the methods used could raise a certain number of questions with regard to conserving the authenticity of the monument. The Committee was informed that the Director of the World Heritage Centre, at the invitation of the Government of Oman, undertook a mission to Oman in March 1994 during which he was able to examine the progress of restoration work underway. Following this mission it was agreed with the national authorities that an expert mission would take place from 10 to 19 December 1994. The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested that the results of this mission be presented to the nineteenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 1995. Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru) The Committee welcomed the initiative of the Government of Peru to organise in October 1995, in collaboration with ICCROM and CRATerre, a regional course on the conservation of adobe, parallel to which the participants and international experts would also evaluate the past conservation practices and experiences in Chan Chan and define new conservation policies for this site. The Committee requested the authorities to submit the results of the course and the assessment of the conservation policies and practices to the Secretariat so that recommendations for future actions can be presented at the next session of the Committee. It decided that this site be retained on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Wieliczka Salt Mine (Poland) The Committee took note of the long-term conservation strategy that had been developed for this site, which included a project for ventilation and dehumidification. The Committee encouraged the Polish authorities to * implement this long-term conservation strategy and requested to be kept informed of its implementation. It decided that this site be retained on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Cultural Properties on the World Heritage List Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria) The Observer of Algeria presented the annual report for 1994 entitled "The Results of the Interventions for the Safeguard of the Kasbah of Algiers" which was addressed to UNESCO in conformity with the request of the Committee at the time of the site's inception. She announced that a request for international assistance in order to ensure the training of architects for the safeguard of the site will shortly be addressed to the World Heritage Centre. Serra da Capivara (Brazil) The UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project presented a report on this complex site that contains 380 sites of historical interest and where the greatest threats come from fire and poaching. Tourism, although in the increase, had not had a negative impact on the site yet. A zoning plan was being introduced which defined the degree of access to five different types of area with various levels of access. The monitoring mission recommended that: - the zoning plan should be extended so as to cover the whole area of the park and that buffer zones be established to limit the threats form fires; - barriers be constructed at the more accessible sites to prevent visitors from damaging them and that interpretation panels should also be installed. Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur (Egypt) The Committee studied the report of the Secretariat and the information communicated by the Supreme Council of Antiquities on the situation at the World Heritage site of Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur concerning the following: a) the ongoing construction of a highway cutting in two the site of the World Heritage site at Zawyat al-Eryan, at about 2 kms south of the Sphynx; b) the ongoing construction of about 3,000 lodgings in the buffer zone at Kafr el Gabal and of houses on the site itself; * c) the numerous and new encroachments of the military camps on the listed site, notably at Zawyat al-Eryan, Shabramant and Dahshur, as well as pollution caused by an army factory at Dahshur; d) the construction of a tarmac road within the site allowing access to the two large refuse dumps, newly created, in the site. Thereupon the Committee expressed its strong concern to the Egyptian national authorities with regard to all of these developments which gravely threaten the integrity of the World Heritage site, its known and unknown archaeological treasures, and cause irreparable damage if not halted. Consequently, the Committee requested the Egyptian authorities to take the necessary measures to immediately halt these different activities and to repair the damage already caused without delay. It also requested the authorities to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 May 1995 a detailed report on the safeguarding activities undertaken at the site, which will be presented to the nineteenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee for examination and decision as to whether or not to recommend placing this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. It fully endorsed the Director-General's decision to thank President Moubarak of Egypt for his intervention to halt the work presently in progress. It also endorsed the Director-General's request that the President continues to be attentive to this matter and take action in order that an alternative route be traced beyond the boundaries of the World Heritage site and that the property be restored to its former state. Medieval City of Rhodes (Greece) The Committee requested the Greek authorities for precise information on the legal protection of the Medieval City as well as to define a legal framework for the main principles guiding the restoration of the buildings of the Medieval City of Rhodes. Quirigua (Guatemala) The Committee took note of a report presented by the UNDP/UNESCO Project which stated that the state of conservation of the site is very good, but that it had been demonstrated that the architecture and sculptures are subject to continuous, low-level erosion. In the mid- eighties thatch-roofed huts were built over the site's sculptures to protect them from rainfall. These do not, * however, protect the sculptures from wind-blown rainfall. Furthermore, it was noted that the storage areas for excavated objects do not meet minimal conservation standards. It was recommended: - that the size of the thatched roofs be increased so as to provide better protection to the sculptures; - to examine the possibility of removing the sculptures to a site museum and to replace them by copies. A technical mission should be undertaken from Quirigua to Copan, Honduras to consult with the Copan personnel who recently successfully completed a similar effort; - that the conditions of the storage areas be improved. Florence (Italy) The Committee recalled that the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee at its seventeenth session in 1993 was informed of the severe damage caused by a car-bomb in the historical centre of Florence in May 1993. The Delegate of Italy informed the Committee of the actions the Government of Italy had taken after the bombing. He confirmed that the restoration works would be entirely concluded by mid-1995. An analysis of the damages to the historical structures and the art objects had provided important information on the effectiveness of certain protection measures and new instructions were to be issued to prevent the repetition of such events or to limit damage. Petra (Jordan) The Committee was informed of the findings of the UNESCO mission which took place in April 1994, concerning: - impact of new hotels under construction in the vicinity of the World Heritage site of Petra - insufficiency or non-existence of sewage disposal facilities - uncontrolled development of villages in the vicinity of the site - proliferation of shops - insufficient conservation of antiquities, and - other encroachments upon the integrity of the site. It was informed that the report has already been submitted to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee during its eighteenth session in July 1994 and that the Bureau had already expressed its serious concern to the Jordanian authorities regarding the preservation of the integrity of the site (transmitted by the World Heritage Centre by letter of 18 July 1994) and had approved a request for the organization on site of a technical meeting associating the * national authorities, national and international agencies concerned, and the two UNESCO coordinators for the Management Plan in order to accelerate the effective implementation of the Petra National Management Plan. The Committee was informed that this technical meeting was held in Petra in October 1994 and that it had not resulted in any concrete decisions ensuring the preservation of the site, although the situation at the site had further deteriorated, notably by beginning to build two new hotels near the entrance of the site and the granting of building permits for several others. The Committee therefore expressed to the Jordanian authorities its serious concern with regard to the degradation of the site. It requested them to urgently undertake the following: 1) by measure of conservation, the prohibition to build any new hotel in the vicinity of the site; 2) the official creation of the Petra National Park and the implementation of the Petra National Park Management Plan established by UNESCO experts upon request from the national authorities of Jordan, which defines a precise perimeter for the Park, and including the creation of eight protected zones, the creation of a buffer zone in order to control the development of building construction, and establishment of a management authority; and 3) to adddress the World Heritage Centre before 1 May 1995 a detailed report on the measures that have been undertaken to be submitted to the nineteenth session on the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee. Megalithic Temples (Malta) The Committee was informed by the Secretariat on the state of conservation of the Megalithic Temples of Malta and the very serious problems concerning the insufficient surveillance, particularly in Mnajdra, Hagar Qim, Ta'Hagrat and Skorba; the collapse of one of the walls of the Temple of Mnajdra as a result of the 1994 April storms; the exploitation of vast stone quarries in the immediate vicinity of the monument and the serious dangers which this activity imposes permanently upon the conservation of the Temple and its environment, the very serious risks of collapse of one part of the Ggantija Temple. The Committee expressed to the national authorities of Malta its very deep concerns and insisted that these * serious problems be dealt with at governmental level and that all necessary technical, budgetary, manpower and legal means be immediately placed at the disposal of the national authorities which have been entrusted with the conservation in order to: a) restore the Temple of Mnajdra according to the recommendations of the Scientific Committee of the Museums Department, and take the necessary steps, especially regarding drainage, so that this type of accident does not reoccur; b) halt the exploitation of the quarries adjoining the site without delay; c) finish installing the Archaeological Park of Mnajdra and Hagar Qim by providing a sufficent number of well- qualified personnel; d) undertake the necessary work on the Ggantija site to avoid all risk of collapse, in accordance with the project established by the Univesity of Florence; e) provide the archaeological sites inscribed on the List with sufficient guards to ensure effective surveillance of the sites. The Committee requested the Maltese authorities to prepare a detailed report before 1 April 1995 on the progress made regarding all of the points on conservation and management of the site. Hal Saflieni Hypogeum (Malta) The Committee was informed by the Secretariat that the Hypogeum of Hal Saflieni has now been closed for three years and the air-conditioning works, partly financed by the World Heritage Fund, which should have begun two years ago, have not yet started. This situation is caused by the permanent trickling of water inside the monument as a result of the decayed sewage and water supply pipes layed under the streets adjoining the site. This constant dripping of water encourages the proliferation of micro- organisms and of calcium carbonate deposits on the walls which threaten to irreparable damage to the mural paintings. The Committee expressed to the national authorities of Malta its serious concerns and insisted that these problems be treated at government level and that all necessary technical, budgetary, manpower and legal means be immediately placed at the disposal of the national authorities entrusted with conservation in order to: a) proceed with the necessary repairs to the sewage pipe system to ensure that the Hypogeum is made impervious; * b) continue and finish enhancing the site, especially the work partially financed by the World Heritage Fund so that the Hypogium can finally be reopened to the public under conditions which will ensure its conservation. The Committee requested the authorities of Malta to submit a detailed report before 1 April 1995 on the progress made in the conservation and management of the site. City of Valetta (Malta) The Committee was informed that in the framework of UNDP's Action Plan for the Mediterranean, the Programme Coordinator for "100 Historical Sites of the Mediterranean" carried out a mission to Malta at the request of the World Heritage Centre. The Committee took note of the report and endorsed the mission's recommendations that, faced with the accelerated degradation affecting the historical buildings of Valetta, the authorities of Malta should take appropriate urgent measures so that: - the team of the Valetta Rehabilitation Project acquires legal recognition and may call upon a Works Division for the maintenance and restoration of the historical buildings of Valetta; - the Bill on the protection of Valetta can be finalized as soon as possible in an appropriate form, in keeping with the obligations for inscription on the World Heritage List; - a regulation on the signs, billboards and commercial storefronts can be better formulated and applied by the competent authorities, in order to preserve the characteristics of the historical buildings of Valetta. Puebla (Mexico) The Committee recalled that a rehabilitation plan for a part of the World Heritage site of Puebla, the Rio de San Francisco area, was briefly discussed at its seventeenth session and that more detailed information was provided at the eighteenth session of the Bureau on the basis of a report from the Mexican National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) and the report of a UNESCO expert in urban rehabilitation and conservation who visited Puebla in June 1994. The Committee was informed that following the eighteenth session of the Bureau and on the request of the Government of Mexico, the same expert had undertaken a series of * missions to Puebla to advise the authorities in the preparation of the urban development plan for the Rio de San Francisco area. The Committee commended the authorities of Mexico, the State of Puebla and the Municipality of Puebla on their positive response to the expert's advice, and invited them to report on a regular basis to the Secretariat on the further development of this project. Island of Mozambique (Mozambique) The Committee took note of a report presented by the UNDP/UNESCO Project on the state of conservation of the Island of Mozambique. It was reported that the stone city on the island was in a precarious state of conservation, a situation that was heavily aggravated by the cyclone Nadia which occured in March 1994. The predominantly privately owned houses in the macuti city were better maintained. With the process of pacification and the possibilities of a sound economic development of the region, the monitoring mission recommended that: - the recuperation of the island be undertaken within the framework of an integral development project; - UNESCO coordinates bilateral and inter/multilateral cooperation for the island, particluarly in the field of training; - a mission be fielded of a funding specialist and a conservation architect to oversee restoration. Kathmandu Valley (Nepal) The Secretariat recalled the concern raised over the state of conservation of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site and the debate during the seventeenth session of the Committee in December 1993 and the Bureau at its eighteenth session in July 1994 on the possible inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and the delisting of certain parts of the site damaged by uncontrolled development. The 16-point recommendation of the UNESCO/ICOMOS Review Mission of November 1993 and the pledge made by the Representative of His Majesty's Government at the seventeeth session of the Committee to follow-up on these recommendations were also recalled. The Committee was presented with a monitoring report prepared by the Department of Archaeology on progress made in the follow-up activities. In the absence of the Nepali Representative, the Secretariat summarized the main points of this report. Actions reported include: adoption of revised byelaws which came into effect in February 1994 requiring prior permit for any demolition within the core area of the city; * submission to Parliament of the proposed Fifth Amendment of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act strengthening the enforcement mechanism of design and development control within the World Heritage protected zones which could not be passed due to the dissolution of the Parliament; approval by the Government of the redefined boundary of Swayambunath and publication of this in the Nepal Gazette; completion of a map of the revised boundary of Patan Darbar Square checked on the ground, house-by-house, and agreed upon with the Municipality and other relevant bodies which is to be gazetted in the near future; completion of maps of the revised boundaries of the five other monument zones as recommended by the UNESCO/ICOMOS mission which will soon be verified through ground survey; completion of the inventories of public and religious monuments in Patan Darbar Square, Pashupati and Bauddhanath; publication of information pamphlets on the seven World Heritage monument zones containing general information on conservation norms, particularly the ban since July 1994 of the use of cement mortar in the repair of monuments; initiation of computerized documentation and manual recording of monuments zones; removal of commercial advertisement panels from the monument zones and the museum building of Swayambunath. The Secretariat also reported on the Nepal/UNESCO/ICOMOS strategy meeting held in mid-November 1994 immediately following the Kathmandu Valley International Campaign Review Meeting and drew the attention of the Committee to the action plan to be coordinated by an inter-ministerial task force which the representatives of the various ministries to the strategy meeting agreed to establish. This action plan contained in the monitoring report includes, inter alia, the development and publication of guidelines on building and conservation practice with graphic illustrations and establishment of a development control unit in the Department of Archaeology to work closely with the municipalities and town development committees. The Committee, having noted the efforts being made by the Nepali authorities to rectify the damage caused to the * Kathmandu Valley, requests UNESCO to support the Government of Nepal in strengthening the mechanism of coordination of all international conservation activities, whether bilateral or multilateral, especially with regard to the method of conservation to be applied. The Committee also calls upon the Government of Nepal to take into consideration, the recommendations made by the joint UNESCO/ICOMOS mission of November 1993 in ensuring the protection of the World Heritage Site from uncontrolled development, especially by adopting a more stringent policy in the granting of demolition and construction permits and other landuse authorization in both the core area and the buffer zone. Recognizing the limited national resources in carrying out the variety of required activities, the Committee requests UNESCO to assist the Nepali authorities in preparing a package of projects to seek international donor support including the documentation of the World Heritage Site, to be undertaken as a priority. In this connection, the Committee discussed the advantages of the Kathmandu Valley being put on the List of World Heritage in Danger to draw the priority attention of the international community and urged the Government of Nepal to reconsider this option. Historical Centre of Lima (Peru) The Committee took note of a report presented by the UNDP/UNESCO Project in which it was stated that the overall infrastructure presents a notorious state of degradation, although the monuments and landmarks, e.g. the Convent of San Francisco, are well maintained. The monitoring mission recommended that: - an integrated programme of rehabilitation and conservation for the historical centre should be set up, in which projects should be included for the readaptive use of historical structures, housing and infrastructure; - the technical assistance that was made available by the Committee in 1993 be used to organise an interdisciplinary workshop to design with the local authorities programmes of integral conservation and funding mechanisms. Rio Abiseo (Peru) The UNDP/UNESCO Project reported that the most serious threats to this mixed site are large-scale deforestation in the western zone of the park and traditional burning of fields for grazing in the higher areas. A limited number of park guards control the park in the south from outside the area. There is no regular vigilance and inspection and valuable archaeological objects are deteriorating and disappearing. * The monitoring mission recommended the following: . a coherent development plan for the Park, aiming at conserving both its natural and cultural resources, should be maintained; . measures should be taken urgently to stabilize/reinforce the archaeological remains, which are deteriorating rapidly; . it should be determined which security measures are needed to protect each of the archaeological sites; . a project should be implemented to avoid deforestation together with the local communities; . the remote nature of the site should have to be taken into account to establish practical step-by-step conservation activities. Kremlin and Red Square (Russian Federation) The Committee was informed that the Ambassador and Permanent Delegate of the Russian Federation to UNESCO informed the Director-General of UNESCO of a project concerning the possible erection of a monument in honour of Marshal G. Zoukhov on the Red Square. The Director- General, in a letter to the mayor of Moscow dated 2 December 1994, underlined that the responsibility for protecting a cultural property lies with the State Party concerned, which should conserve it and avoid taking any measures that would damage it. The Director-General suggested in his letter that another appropriate location be sought for the monument and requested that UNESCO be consulted prior to undertaking any proposed work on the Red Square and the Kremlin. The Committee fully endorsed this position and requested to be kept informed on any development in this World Heritage site. Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation) It was recalled that since 1991 ICOMOS had presented to the Committee and the Bureau reports on its involvement in the monitoring of this site and on the efforts to conserve and restore its monuments. ICOMOS reported that the legal protection of the monument and the buffer zone had been considerably improved and that a conservation professional had been assigned. The workplan for 1994 had been completed and included: - the installation of a system of lightning protection as part of a major reworking of fire protection and security at the site; * - studies of wood deterioration conditions; - measurement of deformations by hand and photogrammetric techniques; - analysis of defects to the iconostasis. Completion of the structural analysis is scheduled for the end of January 1995. A short and a long-term budget and workplans had been established and ICOMOS involvement was foreseen for its implementation. In view of the financial constraints in the Russian Federation, ICOMOS recommended the following: - high priority be given to undertaking with the Russian and other national authorities, a full discussion of feasible alternative strategies for continued support and activity in conjunction with the already planned March 1995 concept selection meeting; - on-going monitoring activity be continued; and - other funding sources be identified and coordinated with the approved conservation plan and priority site needs. The Committee endorsed these recommendations and requested ICOMOS in consultation with the Secretariat to implement them. Burgos Cathedral (Spain) The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its eighteenth session congratulated the various Spanish organizations involved in the actions taken for the conservation of Burgos Cathedral and that it, at the same time, expressed a desire to see those components of the total project which were still under negotiation put into effect with the minimum delay. The Committee noted that in August 1994, a statue fell off the façade of the cathedral and requested ICOMOS to continue to monitor the state of conservation of the cathedral and to report its findings to the nineteenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee. Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey) The Committee was informed that problems with the project's financing had caused some delays in the restoration of the mosaics and that UNESCO's experts present on the site had expressed their regret to the authorities responsible for the work that, in spite of their recommendations, the metallic covering of the Haghia Sophia was executed with a material which was too thin and therefore fragile. * Furthermore, it was informed that, according to the UNESCO experts on site, reconstruction of long portions of the Roman and Byzantine walls was being undertaken using new stones without taking account of the advice of archaeologists and art historians. The Committee recommended to the Turkish authorities to take the necessary steps to speed up the transfer of funds approved under the World Heritage Fund for the restoration of the mosaics in the Haghia Sophia to those responsible for its conservation. The Committee also requested that the Turkish authorities immediately stop the reconstruction of the Roman and Byzantine walls, and that they undertake their restoration, in accordance with principles accepted by the international community, and in collaboration with the Turkish antiquities services. Xanthos-Letoon (Turkey) In the framework of the UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan, the Coordinator of the Programme "100 Historical Sites of the Mediterranean" carried out a mission to Turkey at the request of the World Heritage Centre. Having taken note of the extensive and detailed report, which the Committee requested to be made available to the Turkish authorities, the Committee recommended the Turkish authorities: - to transmit to the World Heritage Centre the Protection Plan for the Development of the Patra/Xanthos/Letoon site, which should have been ready in 1992; - to implement the measures for the diversion of traffic on the roads crossing the sites of Xanthos and Letoon; - to review the construction of the superstructure of the television relay installed at the summit of the Xanthos Acropolis. Pueblo de Taos (United States of America) The Committee was informed by the Delegate of the United States on the actions taken by the Taos Pueblo and the US National Park Service to ensure the conservation and the integrity of the site and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be undertaken by the Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee reiterated its concerns about the airport extension plans and invited the authorities of the United States of America to pay * particular attention to the World Heritage values and living traditions of Pueblo de Taos when preparing the Environmental Impact Statement, and to report on this to the Committee at its nineteenth session. The Complex of Hue Monuments (Vietnam) The Observer of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam informed the Committee of the various measures undertaken in order to conserve and enhance the site since its inscription on the World Heritage List in 1993, and expressed the gratitude of the Government of Vietnam to UNESCO for its constant assistance. He assured the Committee of the vigilance of the national and local authorities of Vietnam for the preservation of the integrity of the site and gave detailed assurance that no new road would be constructed in the vicinity of the site along the River of Perfumes. IX.23 Following the examination of the state of conservation reports, the Committee adopted the following proposals for the monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of individual World Heritage properties in 1995 and invited the Secretariat to ensure their implementation: - The highest priority will be given to the monitoring of and reporting on sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger. - The Secretariat will again report to the Bureau at its nineteenth session in 1995 on the state of conservation of all sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger with an assessment of the appropriateness of their continued inclusion in this List. - The Secretariat, in collaboration with the advisory bodies, will continue to undertake reactive monitoring whenever deemed necessary. X. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PREPARATION OF A GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR A REPRESENTATIVE WORLD HERITAGE LIST X.1 At its seventeenth session in Cartagena, the Committee requested the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to continue their efforts in preparing a conceptual framework for "a global study, in order to advance in defining a concept and a methodology which could be widely accepted by the scientific community. * X.2 Consequently, the Centre and ICOMOS organized jointly at UNESCO, from 20 to 22 June 1994, a first meeting of experts representing different regions of the world and different disciplines concerned (specialists in cultural heritage, anthropologists, art and architecture historians, archaeologists, etc.) with the objective of reviewing the issues and considering all the different approaches, and especially all the work and contributions made to date, in an attempt to define a conceptual framework, a methodology and common goals. X.3 The Vice-President of ICOMOS, Ms Joan Domicelj, presented to the Bureau at its eighteenth session the report of this meeting of experts, as well as a major outline of its recommendations to the Committee, in order to implement a Global strategy to ameliorate the representativity of the List. These recommendations have been included "in extenso" in document WHC- 94/CONF.003/INF.6. X.4 Having taken note of the Secretariat's report concerning the proposals made by the experts, and its presentation of different thematic meetings which took place in 1994 on Heritage Canals (Canada), Routes as a Part of our Cultural Heritage (Spain) and Authenticity (Japan), the Committee adopted the following three proposals concerning work to be undertaken in 1995: 1) the revision of certain criteria for the inscription of cultural properties on the World Heritage List, based on Recommendation 7 proposed by the experts (see Section XIV of the Report). 2) the participation of one member of the World Heritage Centre or of ICOMOS at future regional or thematic meetings, in order to present to them the substance of the Global Strategy, place the discussions in the wider framework of current scientific thought concerning the concept of cultural heritage, and to identify potential partners for future regional meetings of a specific nature; 3) the allocation of an amount of US $ 40.000 for the organization, in cooperation with ICOMOS, and on a regional basis, of a first scientific meeting in Africa with States Parties and those that are not yet party to the Convention, which would deal with African cultural heritage and the Convention. The Committee agreed to allocate also US $ 5.000 for the preparation of this meeting. This meeting will deal with various types of cultural properties which presently are not represented on the List or inadequately so. The Committee also allocated an amount of US $ 30.000 for the organization, in collaboration with the National Commission of Philippines, ICOMOS, IUCN/ENPPA and UNESCO Regional Offices, a regional meeting on cultural landscapes of rice terraces of Asia and the Pacific. * X.5 The representative of ICOMOS stated that its cooperation with the Centre was excellent, particularly as regards the meeting of experts held in June 1994. He expressed his wish that the implementation of the Global Strategy would be done jointly in 1995 by the two institutions, as this action is for ICOMOS a part of a global scientific programme which includes other themes for reflection. X.6 At the suggestion of the German Delegation, the Committee adopted the following text as the basis for future deliberations by the Committee on the Global Strategy: "As a follow-up of the decisions of the Committee during the previous years, several initiatives were launched to improve the implementation of the Convention with regard to cultural properties. One of these initiatives was a working group on the Global Strategy, taking place in Paris in July 1994 (see working document CONF.003.INF.6.) For the cultural sites this document stresses imbalances on the List between regions of the world, types of monuments and period but this is not reflected for the natural sites in this working document. To reduce these imbalances for natural properties as well, the following measures would seem to be adequate: 1) expansion of Documents CONF.003/INF.6 and CONF. 003/6 to include an equal emphasis on natural properties; 2) adjustment of the formal and scientific criteria for the evaluation of nominated cultural and natural sites respectively, taking into consideration also the cultural landscape approach; 3) giving priority to thematic studies on the main types of ecosystems and developing strategies to implement the results without delay; 4) reconsideration of the procedure for the assessment of nominated natural sites with special respect to the term "integrity." To facilitate this, a specialists' meeting should be organized in the first half of 1995." X.7 The Chair asked the opinion of the Director of the Centre if it would be possible to organize such a expert meeting. The Director responded by warmly welcoming this suggestion and noted that if the Centre had a budget of USD 20,000 put at its disposal, it could organize such a meeting. The Director also called to the Committee's attention the relevance of such a study to Mixed Sites. * X.8 The Delegate of France, explained that in order to understand the concern expressed in the document prepared by the German Delegation and which met with the approval of the French Delegation, it must be recalled that the imbalance noted is partly due to the decisions taken during the sixteenth session of the Committee at Santa Fe: - deletion of criterion (ii) for cultural properties (interaction between man and nature) ; - modification of cultural criteria to allow the inscription of cultural landscapes, the recognition of which had been strongly endorsed by France. He indicated that the "natural" part of cultural landscapes was not sufficiently taken into account and that it would be appropriate to place more emphasis on paragraph 38 of the Guidelines. He suggested that in the future ICOMOS and IUCN proceed with a joint evaluation of properties proposed for inscription as cultural landscapes. X.9 Several other delegates, including those from the United States of America, Japan, Italy and Niger expressed their support for the German proposal for a expert working group on natural and mixed sites. The United States Delegate remarked on the importance of establishing computerized data bases for sites. The Delegate from Niger expressed his hope that, eventually, separate criteria for Natural and Cultural Sites could be eliminated in favour of an unified set of criteria applicable for all types of World Heritage Sites. X.10 Because of time constraints items D, E and F of this agenda item could not be considered by the eighteenth session of the Committee and were postponed for consideration by the nineteenths session of the Bureau. XI. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER XI.1 The Secretariat informed the Committee that all cultural properties nominated for inscription were included in the tentative lists of the respective countries. The Committee took note of information document WHC- 94/CONF.003.INF.7 in respect to tentative lists. NATURAL HERITAGE XI.2 The Committee inscribed eight properties on the World Heritage List, including two sites referred or deferred by the Committee in previous years. The Committee * also approved extensions of two World Heritage sites and deferred one proposal for extension of a property. The Committee did not inscribe one nominated property. Properties which the Committee inscribed on the World Heritage List Name of Identification State Party Criteria Property Number having submitted the nomination (in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention) Australian 698 Australia N (i)(ii) Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh/Naracoorte) The Bureau had recommended the inscription of the site as Riversleigh/Naracoorte Fossil site, excluding the site of Murgon until its significance can be more convincingly demonstrated. The Committee noted that Riversleigh provides outstanding examples of middle to late Tertiary mammal assemblages and one of the world's richest Oligo-Miocene mammal records in a continent whose mammalian history has been most isolated and distinctive, whereas Naracoorte preserves an outstanding variety of terrestrial vertebrates and illustrates faunal change spanning two ice ages. Moreover, the Committee underlined that the inscription of the fossil sites is a new challenge, as there are only very few sites with fossil values on the List and that this inscription is a major precedent for the work of the Committee. As suggested by the Australian authorities, the Committee decided that this site shall be inscribed on the World Heritage List as Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh, Naracoorte). Los Katios 711 Colombia N(ii)(iv) National Park The Committee inscribed this site, which adjoins Darien World Heritage site in Panama, and represents a rich biota comprising elements of both the North and the South America and is a centre of endemism for flora and fauna. The Committee commended both the Colombian and the Panamanian Governments for the bilateral cooperative management agreement and recommended that the two States Parties consider the inscription of the transfrontier site as a single entry on the List. * Arabian Oryx 654 Oman N(iv) Sanctuary The Committee recalled that the nomination of Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (then referred to as Jiddat-al-Harasis) was originally submitted in August 1992 and deferred for clarification of the legal structures, boundaries and management plan. It noted that the area was renowned for the success of the re-introduction of the White Oryx Project and acknowledged that the Royal Decree No. 4/94 of January 1994 concerning the legal responsibilities for the management of the area was a partial response to an earlier request of the Bureau for further strengthening the conservation of the site. The Decree, however, requires the issuance of appropriate byelaws and directives. The Committee took note of Ambassador Musa Bin Jaafar Bin Hassan's letter of 21 November 1994 which included a preliminary response to the Bureau request for a Management Plan. The framework of the Plan submitted was considered to be technically sound and hence the Management Plan should provide clarification of the boundaries, as well as a zoning plan and improved management regime of the site. The Committee was informed that due to the late arrival of the letter and the framework plan, IUCN was unable to apply its full evaluation process to the nomination but noted that in the evaluation of the 1992 nomination IUCN had said that the site had potential for World Heritage listing. The Committee was satisfied with the new information provided and the political will of the Omani Government to implement a management regime and inscribed this site on the World Heritage List under criterion (iv) which focuses on the conservation of the site's biodiversity, including the Arabian Oryx, the Houbara Bustard and other threatened wildlife species inhabiting the Sanctuary. The map representing the "essential values" of the Sanctuary prepared for the original nomination, was accepted by the Delegate of Oman in consultation with IUCN and a representative of the World Heritage Centre, as the basis for the inscription. The Committee recommended that: 1) the Omani authorities continue to strengthen the management of the site by passing the byelaws and directives called for by the decree and appoint additional field staff to implement the management regime; 2) the consultant who will prepare the management plan should clearly define the World Heritage values in accordance with the Operational Guidelines and should define the exact boundaries of the area, including a zoning plan which excludes any land uses that may be in conflict with World Heritage values; * 3) the consultant should make clear recommendations on the applicability of criterion (iii), by 1 April 1995; 4) that the IUCN should present at the nineteenth session of the Bureau an evaluation of the revised boundaries and additional World Heritage criteria (if applicable), based on the consultant's report and whatever further information it required; 5) that the Bureau should review at its nineteenth session the revised boundaries and additional criteria in accordance with its normal procedures. Donaña National 685 Spain N(ii)(iii) Park (iv) The Committee inscribed this site as an exceptional example of a large Mediterranean wetland with diverse habitats such as marshes, forests, pristine beaches, dunes and lagoons, which supports high faunal diversity, particularly large numbers of migratory birds of the palearctic region. The Committee complemented the Spanish authorities on measures taken to improve protection of the site during the past two years and their efforts to maintain the integrity of the site. The Committee, however, alerted the Spanish authorities to continuing threats to the integrity of the site arising from hydrological projects and encouraged them in their on-going efforts to restore disturbed parts of the Park. The Committee requested that the Spanish authorities submit a report on the site, particularly highlighting the results of the project to regulate water supply by 1998. Bwindi 682 Uganda N(iii)(iv) Impenetrable National Park The Committee inscribed this site which has one of the richest faunal communities in East Africa, including almost half the population of the world's mountain gorillas, and one of Africa's most important forests for butterflies and bird diversity. The Committee commended the Government of Uganda as well as the international donors for their efforts in generating resources necessary for the establishment of an effective management regime. * Rwenzori 684 Uganda N(iii)(iv) Mountains National Park The Committee inscribed this site, also known as "Mountains of the Moon", for its aesthetic and scenic values and for its significance as the habitat for an exceptional variety of species, spanning the extraordinary altitudal range of the Park. Canaima National 701 Venezuela N(i)(ii) Park (iii(iv) The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its last session held in June 1994, had requested the Venezuelan authorities to revise the boundaries of the nominated area in accordance with the recommendations of IUCN, i.e. to exclude the savannah area which did not meet World Heritage criteria. The Committee was informed that, although there was no formal written response from the Venezuelan Park authorities with respect to the Bureau's recommendation, a senior staff member had verbally indicated that it would be difficult to consider revising the boundaries of this site. The Committee noted that a population of about 10,000 was resident in the savannah (nearly 1 million ha of the 3 million ha area of the Park) and have not been consulted regarding the nomination of the area. Nevertheless, the Committee was satisfied that the area met all four natural World Heritage criteria and decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List. However, the Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to cooperate with the State Party to initiate a process to review the boundaries of the site, taking into consideration the interests of the local people and the need to focus the nomination on the tepui portion (approximately 2 million ha) of the Park. Ha Long Bay 672 Vietnam N(iii) The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its last session referred the consideration of this nomination pending the establishment of a legal framework, a revision of the boundaries of the proposed site and the initiation of a managment programme. The Committee was satisfied to note that the Vietnamese authorities have revised the boundaries to nominate a smaller site which met natural heritage criterion (iii), introduced a reasonably satisfactory legislation and provided a boat and appointed a minimum number of staff to patrol the area. * The Committee therefore inscribed the site on the World Heritage List and recommended that the Vietnamese authorities cooperate with IUCN to: a) review and further strengthen the legislation and its applicability to the protection of the site; b) initiate processes to prepare a management plan, which will define, amongst others, objectives and a zoning scheme; c) implement management activities such as purchase of basic equipment and appointing more staff to strengthen management of the site and, d) conduct surveys to monitor the growing number of tourists visiting the area and plan regulatory measures. Extensions to natural World Heritage Properties approved by the Committee Central Eastern 368bis Australia N(i)(ii)(iv) Rainforest Reserves (Australia) (extension of the Australian East Coast Temperate & Sub- tropical Rainforest Park) The Committee inscribed the extension proposed to this site by the Australian authorities, noting that the extension increased the size of the World Heritage site by 35%. The Committee commended the Australian Government for acting on the recommendation of the Committee made in 1986 and agreeing to adopt the name "Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves (Australia) for the enlarged property. The Committee requested the Australian authorities to complete the management plans of individual sites, particularly those within Queensland. Tatshenshini- 72bis/rev. Canada/USA N(ii)(iii) Alsek Provincial (iv) Wilderness Park (extension of the Glacier Bay/Wrangell/ St. Elias/Kluane site) The Committee inscribed this site as an extension to the Glacier Bay/Wrangell/St. Elias/Kluane World Heritage site. The Committee commended the Government of British Columbia/Canada on the action taken to protect the area and it complimented the government agencies involved in moving * towards the establishment of an International Advisory Council. The Committee noted that the World Heritage designation of this area does not prejudice the titles and rights to land used by the Champagne-Aishihik First Nations. The Committee suggested that the two States Parties may consider proposing a new and shorter title, e.g. "St. Elias Mountain Parks" to the site. Property which the Committee did not inscribe on the World Heritage List Murchison Falls 683 Uganda National Park The Committee recognized Murchison Falls as an important natural phenomena and as a habitat of elephants, giraffes and Nile crocodile, though populations of these species have been seriously reduced due to civil disturbances of the past decade. However, the Committee decided not to inscribe this site on the List because it considered its international significance to be secondary in comparison to similar sites in the region. The Committee, nevertheless, commended and encouraged the Government of Uganda and the GTZ for their efforts to restore the site and suggested that the Ugandan Government may consider recognition of this site as a core of a biosphere reserve. Extension to a natural World Heritage site deferred by the Committee Galapagos Marine 1bis Ecuador Reserve (extension of the Galapagos Islands) The Committee recognized that the Marine Reserve met natural heritage criteria. However, in accordance with the recommendation of IUCN and the wish of the Observer of Ecuador, it deferred the inclusion of the Galapagos Marine Reserve as an extension of World Heritage site of Galapagos. The Committee commended the Ecuadorean authorities for their efforts to enlarge the World Heritage property to include marine habitats extending to 15 nautical miles from the islands. It also noted the proposal of the Ecuadorean authorities to extend marine habitats up to 40 nautical miles. But the Committee was seriously concerned that the proposed Marine Reserve and the Galapagos Islands faced the following threats to their integrity: - overfishing and illegal fishing of a wide range of species; - human pressures from the local population (growing at an estimated rate of 8.5% per year, mainly due to immigration) and tourism on both terrestrial and marine resources; * - inadequate management capacity and infrastructure; - adverse impacts of introduced animals and plants; These threats call for mitigative action vis-à-vis: - augmenting management capacity; - encouraging institutional cooperation; - stepping up law enforcement, and - conducting research on sustainability of resource use in the Marine Reserve. The Committee noted the commitment of the Ecuadorean Government which, in cooperation with IUCN, the Centre and a number of international conservation organizations, is considering several measures to ensure protection of the Marine Reserve and the Galapagos Islands. Furthermore, the Committee was informed that the Ecuadorean Government was considering a donors' conference in early 1995 to propose a series of actions to mitigate the prevailing threats to the integrity of the Marine Reserve and the Islands, as well as a financial plan for the implementation of those actions. Hence, the Committee requested IUCN and the Centre to report back to the Bureau at its nineteenth session on progress made to strengthen the conservation of the Marine Reserve and the Islands. Property inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger by the Committee Virunga National Park (Zaire) During its examination of monitoring reports, the Committee noted the serious threats to Virunga National Park arising from the Rwandan refugee immigration. Accordingly, the Committee agreed to place Virunga National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger. CULTURAL HERITAGE XI.3 The Committee examined twenty-four nominations of cultural properties for inscription on the World Heritage List and three requests for extensions of already inscribed properties. The Committee decided to inscribe twenty-two of the nominated properties and approved the three extensions. Two properties did not, in the view of the Committee, meet the criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List. XI.4 The Committee recalled that it decided at its seventeenth session in December 1993, that the inscription of Boukhara (Uzbekistan) (602rev) would only take effect if and when the tentative list of Uzbekistan is presented. The Secretariat informed the Committee that this tentative list, dated 10 October 1994, had been received. The Committee confirmed the inscription of Boukhara on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi). * Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List Name of Identifi- State Party Criteria Property cation having submitted No. the nomination in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention Uluru-Kata Tjuta 447Rev Australia N(ii)(iii) National Park C(v)(vi) (renomination of Uluru National Park under cultural criteria) The Temple of 704 China C(i)(iv) Confucius, the (vi) Cemetery of Confucius, and the Kong Family Mansion in Qufu The ancient 705 China C(i)(ii) building complex (vi) in the Wudang Mountains The Mountain 703 China C(ii)(iv) Resort and its Outlying Temples, Chengde The Potala 707 China C(i)(iv)(vi) Palace, Lhasa ICOMOS commended the quality of the conservation and restoration works undertaken at the Palace by the Chinese authorities in charge of its conservation. The Committee in approving the inscription of this site on the World Heritage List requested the Chinese authorities to envisage the possibility in the future of extending the site to include the historic village of Shöl, the Temple of Jokhang as well as the Chakpori Hill. The Delegate of China assured the Committee that the authorities will certainly take into account the recommendations made by the Committee regarding the extension. * The Pilgrimage 690 Czech Republic C(iv) Church of St. John of Nepomuk at Zelena Hora Jelling Mounds, 697 Denmark C(iii) Runic Stones and Church Petäjävesi Old 584 Finland C(iv) Church Discussions on whether the qualifications of the property should be considered on the basis of material or regional location ensued following a remark by one of the delegates that the comparative study of wooden churches carried out should have covered areas beyond Northern Europe. A consensus was reached to inscribe this property as representative of the wooden church architectural tradition of the North European region; it was not considered appropriate to compare it with wooden church traditions elsewhere in the world. The City-Museum 708 Georgia C(iii)(iv) Reserve of Mtskheta The Committee, in inscribing this property on the World Heritage List, suggested to the State Party to change the name to "Historic Churches of Mtskheta". Bagrati Cathedral 710 Georgia C(iv) and Gelati Monastery The Committee inscribed this property on the World Heritage List and requested the ICOMOS mission evaluation report to be transmitted to the State Party. The Collegiate 535rev Germany C(iv) Church, Castle, and Old Town of Quedlinburg In inscribing the town on the World Heritage List, the Committee commended the German authorities on the conservation programme undertaken over the last years and encouraged them to continue with its implementation. Völklingen 687 Germany C(ii)(iv) Ironworks * Vicenza, City of 712 Italy C(i)(ii) Palladio The Committee requested the very detailed ICOMOS/ICCROM evaluation report to be submitted to the Italian authorities. With the consent of the Delegate of Italy, the Committee decided to inscribe this city under the following name: "Vicenza, City of Palladio". Historic Monu- 688 Japan C(ii)(iv) ments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities) Vilnius Historic 541 Lithuania C(ii)(iv) Centre The City of 699 Luxemburg C(iv) Luxemburg: its old quarters and fortifications The earliest 16th 702 Mexico C(ii)(iv) Century Monasteries on the slopes of Popocatepetl The Lines and 700 Peru C(i)(iii) Geoglyphs of (iv) Nasca and Pampas de Jumana The Church of 634rev. Russian C(ii) the Ascension, Federation Kolomenskoye The Rock Carvings 557rev. Sweden C(i)(iii) in Tanum (iv) Skogskyrkogärden 588Rev. *[sic; should be 558Rev.] Sweden C(ii)(iv) The Committee, in debating the universal value of this property, concluded that the merits of Skogskyrkogården lay in its qualities as an early-20th century landscape and architectural design adapted to a cemetery. The Committee in inscribing this site stressed the importance of explaining to the public the criteria for which it was accepted as a World Heritage cultural property. City of Safranbolu 614 Turkey C(ii)(iv)(v) * Extensions approved by the Committee Old City of 95 Croatia C(i)(iii)(iv) Dubrovnik (extension) The Historic 331bis *[sic; should be 313bis] Centre Spain C(i)(ii)(iii) of Cordoba (iv) (extension of the Mosque of Cordoba) The Committee approved the extension of the existing World Heritage site of the Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba to include its surroundings and endorsed the suggestion made by the Delegate of Spain to adopt the name "The Historic Centre of Cordoba". Alhambra, Generalife 314bis Spain C(i)(iii) and Albayzin, Granada (iv) (extension of the Alhambra and the Generalife, Granada, to include the Albayzin quarter) The Committee approved the proposed extension and endorsed the suggestion made by the Delegate of Spain to adopt the following name: "Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzin, Granada". Properties which the Committee did not inscribe on the World Heritage List The Monastery 691 Czech Republic Church of the Ascension of the Virgin Mary at Kladruby The Cathedral of 681 Slovak Republic St. Elizabeth, the Chapel of St. Michael and Urban's Tower, Kosice * XII. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE TECHNICAL COOPERATION Natural Heritage XII.1 The Committee took note that the Bureau, at its eighteenth session held on 9-10 December 1994: approved a sum of US$ 19,000 for Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria) for the purchase and installation of equipment for the measurement and monitoring of water-levels and water quality in the Srebarna Wetlands; and requested the Tanzanian authorities to reformulate their request for US$ 30,000 for developing a system of trails in the Kilimanjaro National Park (Tanzania), taking into consideration more urgent conservation priorities for the management of the Park which have been set by the new Management Plan. XII.2 The Committee approved the following requests for natural heritage sites of Indonesia: Ujung Kulon National Park Buffer zone development activities US$40,000 benefitting local people with agreement from the local people for cessation of resource extraction in the Park. Komodo National Park Purchase of a boat and a GIS-GPS system. The US$40,000 cost of the GIS-GPS system is to be kept below US$ 19,000 through competitive bidding. Cutural Heritage XII.3 The Committee noted that the Bureau in examining the ten technical cooperation requests for cultural properties, two submitted by ICCROM and eight by States Parties, gave priority to activities for properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger and to those having a catalytic affect rather than for the funding of specific restoration works, in accordance with previous decisions taken by the Committee . Requests approved by the Bureau: 1. The Historic Town of Ouro Preto (Brazil) - US$20,000 The Bureau approved US$20,000 out of the total amount of US$50,000, subject to obtaining assurance that the * balance of US$30,000 for the construction of five houses for the relocation of the affected inhabitants is funded by other sources. 2. ICCROM Technical Assistance - US$25,000 The Bureau approved this financial support to the ICCROM Technical Assistance Programme to supply institutions of State Parties, free of charge, with basic documentation, scientific and didactic equipment and conservation products. 3. Printing of Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, by B.M. Feilden and J. Jokilehto - US$6,900 The Bureau approved this request to support the printing cost of the French-language edition of this publication if other sources, notably of the Francophone community cannot be identified. Requests approved by the Committee: The Committee approved the following requests on the basis of the recommendations of the Bureau: 1. Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia) - US$50,000 The Committee approved the full requested amount of US$ 50,000 for, inter alia, the purchase of equipment for the documentation centre; expertise for the development of a tourism development plan; promotional and educational material and activities on World Heritage in Dubrovnik. 2. Wieliczka Salt Mine (Poland) - US$100,000 The Committee approved this request for US$100,000 to purchase the dehumidifying equipment required for the preservation of the salt sculptures of this World Heritage Site in Danger. 3. Kathmandu Valley (Nepal) - US$52,000 The Committee approved the requested US$ 52,000 for the deployment of a UNESCO international technical advisor for 6 months in view of the serious and urgent need for strengthen measures to redress the present state of conservation of the Kathmandu Valley. 4. The Complex of the Hue Monuments (Vietnam) (Upgrading of the Hue Conservation Laboratory) - US$108,000 * The Committee approved the amount of US$108,000 to meet the cost of laboratory equipment purchase (US$ 72,700) and related short-term training to enable the Hue authorities to have the basic facilities to overcome the present obstacles to conservation. The World Heritage Centre should, however, be consulted on the list of equipment, and approve the detailed specification and cost estimate; as well as the selection of the international experts. 5. Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey) (Restoration of the mosaics of Hagia-Sophia) - US$80,000 The Committee approved an amount of $80,000 to complete the final phase of this restoration project. Requests not approved by the Committee: 1. Ngorongoro Conservation Area (United Republic of Tanzania) (International Conference on Ngorongoro, in Bellagio, Italy) The Committee endorsed the Bureau's view not to approve this request although the value of the proposed international conference in Italy for the Tanzanian conservators is recognized, and in view of the fact that other funding sources are available for this Conference at the Rockefeller Foundation in Italy. 2. Palmyra (Syrian Arab Republic) The Committee did not approve this request for US$90,000 but suggested that the Syrian authorities submit an alternative request to prepare a global and coherent conservation programme for this site in accordance with the recommendations of the UNESCO expert mission which took place in December 1993. TRAINING Natural Heritage XII.4 The Committee noted that the Bureau, at its eighteenth session on 9-10 December 1994, considered eight requests for amounts not exceeding US$ 30,000 and approved the following seven: 1) 17th International Training Course US$30,000 for Protected Area Managers of Latin America, CATIE, Costa Rica * 2) Regional Training Course for Protected US$30,000 Area Managers of Arab States, Egypt 3) Support to participants from Francophone US$19,000 Africa to attend a Training Course on Protected Areas, organized by ENGREF, France, in Côte d'Ivoire 4) Regional Training Course for Protected Area US$20,000 Managers of West Africa, organized by School of Wildlife Specialists, Garoua, Cameroon (an additional US$ 5,000 for supporting the publication of the proceedings of the training seminar should be sought from other sources) 5) Fellowships to African World Heritage site and protected area managers at Regional Training Institutes: School of Wildlife Specialists, Garoua US$22,000 Cameroon Mweka College of African Wildlife US$20,000 Management, Arusha, Tanzania 6) Preparation of a strategy for training US$30,000 natural heritage site managers; a workshop is to be organized in cooperation with the United States National Park Service in September 1995. The Bureau urged the Centre to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the training supported by the World Heritage Fund in the past and to use the results of the assessment in the elaboration of the strategy XII.5 The Committee also noted that the Bureau did not approve the sum of US$ 20,000 requested by the organizers of a training seminar on protected area management in Europe and had urged the organizers to raise funds needed through alternative sources in Europe. Cultural Heritage XII.6 The Committee noted that the Bureau at its eighteenth session in December 1994, examined eleven requests for training activities related to cultural properties of which five were submitted by ICCROM and six by State Parties to the total amount exceeding US$ one million. The Bureau reported to the Committee that in view of budgetary constraints it gave priority to requests submitted by developing countries for activities benefiting site managers of World Heritage cultural properties. Funding of courses held in situ which take into account local training needs were given priority consideration over "regular contribution to annual courses" organised at the headquarters of training institutes. * XII.7 The Committee took note of the following decisions of the Bureau for training requests under the amount of US$30,000: Requests approved by the Bureau: 1. Sub-Regional Conservation Workshop on Western European Medieval Wall Paintings, 1 July - 10 September 1995, Sighisoara, Romania - US$28,000. 2. Scientific Principles of Conservation Regional Course for Latin America, June-July 1995, Belo Horizonte, Brazil - US$30,000. 3. Training of Technical Personnel, Cap Vert - US$25,000. 4. Training for the Region of Latin America in Conservation of the Adobe World Heritage, October 1995, Chan Chan, Peru - US$20,000. Requests not approved by the Bureau: 1. International Architectural Conservation Course ARC 95 (18 January - 26 May 1995, Rome, Italy)- US$25,000: was not approved by the Bureau in view of other priorities and due to the availability of other funding sources for this regular course. 2. Regional Training Courses in Architectural and Urban Heritage Conservation, 5 September 1994 to 30 June 1995, Bratislava, Slovak Republic - US$19,030: This request was not approved at this time due to budgetary constraints and other requests of higher priorities. Requests approved by the Committee: The Committee endorsed the recommendation by the Bureau to approve the following requests: 1. ICCROM/CRATerre (International Centre for Earthen Constructions): Training for a professional team; and craftsmen-technician team for the restoration and maintenance of the Palace of Abomey, Benin - US$ 33,000 approved out of the initial request of US$44,000. 2. Regional Training Course of Maghreb Architects for the Conservation and Protection of Cultural Monuments and Sites (1995 and 1996, Tunisia) - US$50,000 * 3. Regional Meeting of Directors of Cultural Offices in Latin America and the Caribbean (April 1995, Cartagena, Colombia) The Committee approved the requested amount of US$45,000 to be funded under the budgetary provisions of technical co-operation or other budget lines. Requests not approved by the Committee: On the recommendations of the Bureau, the following requests were not approved by the Committee for reasons indicated below: 1. International Course on the Technology of Stone Conservation, ICCROM, 30 March - 14 June 1995, Venice, Italy. Despite recognition of the importance of this course and the support given to it in previous years, this US$51,000 request from ICCROM was not approved in view of the fact that other funding sources were available for the organization of this regular course. 2. Training Programme in the Conservation of Architecture, Painting, Wood, Stone and Antique Objects for the Preservation of the Hue World Heritage Site (1995, dates not specified), Vietnam. The Committee endorsed the recommendation of the Bureau not to approve this request for US$40,790 in view of the approval under Technical Cooperation of US$ 108,000 for the purchase of conservation laboratory equipment and related training in Hue which was deemed to be of higher priority. XIII. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND, AND APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 1995 AND PRESENTATION OF A PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR 1996 XIII.1 The Committee approved the report of the Working Group on the World Heritage Fund, budget and development of the Centre. Revisions to the budget format were prepared and, following considerable discussions, a budget of US$ 2,935,000 was approved for 1995, and an indicative budget of US$ 2,885,000 for 1996 was noted. XIII.2 The Committee recommended that the Secretariat should continue to strengthen its efforts towards a more transparent budget. The budget document should clearly reflect increases or decreases in line items with a rationale for the action taken. * XIII.3 On more specific items, the Committee decided the following: a) the Committee recommended that the Emergency Fund be replenished and that the States Parties should be encouraged to make special contributions to that Fund; b) the Committee recommended that the technical assistance budget should respect the division of funds in the order of at least one-third for natural heritage and two-third for cultural heritage. With respect to training the budget should be divided evenly between the two sectors; c) the Committee, as in 1994, retained a sum of US$ 40,000 for monitoring activities of ICOMOS during 1995. d) the Committee did not approve any funds for the Organization of the World Heritage Cities; e) with respect to the promotion budget the Committee did not approve any funds to meet costs for the protection of the logo. The Committee, however, approved a sum not exceeding US$ 45,000 for the organization of an exhibit entitled "From Abou Simbel to Angkor" within the framework of the 50th anniversary of UNESCO; f) the Committee stressed that the Bureau must fully observe the Operational Guidelines with respect to all budgetary matters. In this regard the Committee requested that possible revisions to the Guidelines be submitted to the next session of the Bureau; g) The Committee approved a sum of US$ 360,000 for assistance to the Centre, including the expenses of a P-5 position for natural heritage for one transitional year (1995). XIII.4 The Committee approved the budget for 1995 and noted the indicative budget for 1996 as follows: Items 1995 1996 Approved Indicative 1. Preparatory assistance 150,000 150,000 2. Global Strategy 70,000 70,000 3. Basic support (Information systems) a. World Heritage Centre 15,000 b. WCMC 22,000 Total (Basic support) 37,000 37,000 * 4. Monitoring a. Meetings 50,000 b. Programme implementation Latin America-Carribean 50,000 Africa 50,000 Asia Pacific 60,000 Arab Region 30,000 c. ICOMOS 40,000 d. IUCN 28,000 Total (Monitoring) 308,000 308,000 5. Technical cooperation 750,000 850,000 6. Training a. ICCROM 91,000 b. IUCN 35,000 c. Others 326,000 Total (Training) 452,000 452,000 7. Promotion and Education 268,000 278,000 8. Attendence of experts in statutory World Heritage meetings 40,000 40,000 9. Assistance to the Centre 360,000 200,000 10. Advisory services a. ICOMOS 310,000 b. IUCN 190,000 Total (Advisory services) 500,000 500,000 Total Budget 2,935,000 2,885,000 Emergency Reserve 581,000 XIII.5 The Committee noted that projects with respect to Global Strategies will be carried out in cooperation with ICOMOS. XIII.6 The Observer from the Republic of Korea informed the Committee that his Government decided to make a voluntary contribution for 1995 of US$ 20,000 earmarked for advancing the notion of cultural landscapes and the application of modern informatics technology for World Heritage preservation. * XIV. REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES XIV.1 Work Group 2 examined working document WHC- 94/CONF.003/9Rev., particularly the proposed revisions of the Operational Guidelines regarding the 'criteria for the inclusion of cultural properties in the World Heritage List', 'monitoring and reporting' and the 'timetable for the processing of nominations'. XIV.2 The Committee decided that the following proposals, that had not been examined by the Work Group, should be brought forward to the nineteenth session of the Bureau in July 1995: 'deadline for presentation of requests for technical assistance', 'establishment of the World Heritage List' (role of the advisory bodies) and 'international assistance' (rules for approval of requests for preparatory, technical and training assistance). CRITERIA FOR THE INCLUSION OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST XIV.3 The Committee, having taken note of the recommendations made by the Work Group and discussed the proposal of the Delegate of Senegal, who, in order to encourage a less restrictive use of criterion (vi) proposed to replace, in this paragraph, "universal" by "regional", adopted the following text of the Operational Guidelines: "Para. 24. A monument, group of buildings or site - as defined above -which is nominated for inclusion in the World Heritage List will be considered to be of outstanding universal value for the purpose of the Convention when the Committee finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria and the test of authenticity. Each property nominated should therefore: (a) (i) represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; or [replace in the French version de l'homme by humain and, in the English version, delete a unique artistic achievement so that it corresponds with the French, and delete the and insert human]; (ii) exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture, monumental arts or town-planning and landscape design; or [replace have exerted great influence by exhibit an important interchange of human values so as to reflect better the interaction of cultures, instead of the present formulation, which * suggests that cultural influences occur in one direction only]; (iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; or [reverse the order of a civilization and cultural tradition, add to a and which is living,to include living cultures] (iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building or architectural ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; or (v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement or land-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change; or (vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance (the Committee considers that this criterion should justify inclusion in the List only in exceptional circumstances or in conjunction with other criteria cultural or natural); [add cultural or natural in order to encourage a more open interpretation of this criterion] and (b) (i) meet the test of authenticity in design, material, workmanship or setting and in the case of cultural landscapes their distinctive character and components (the Committee stressed that reconstruction is only acceptable if it is carried out on the basis of complete and detailed documentation on the original and to no extent on conjecture). (ii) have adequate legal and/or traditional protection and management mechanisms to ensure the conservation of the nominated cultural property or cultural landscapes. The existence of protective legislation at the national, provincial or municipal level or well-established traditional protection and/or adequate management mechanisms is therefore essential and must be stated clearly on the nomination form. Assurances of the effective implementation of these laws * and/or management mechanisms are also expected. Furthermore, in order to preserve the integrity of cultural sites, particularly those open to large numbers of visitors, the State Party concerned should be able to provide evidence of suitable administrative arrangements to cover the management of the property, its conservation and its accessibility to the public. XIV.4 Following the proposal of the Delegate of Japan, the Committee requested the Secretariat to undertake a study on the modifications which should be made to criterion (b)(i) of paragraph 24 to take into account the conclusions of the Nara meeting on Authenticity. XIV.5 Criterion (b)(ii) of paragraph 24 remains unchanged for the time being but coherence of its wording will be studied by the Secretariat and proposals for its revision will be presented, if deemed necessary, to the nineteenth session of the Bureau. MONITORING AND REPORTING XIV.6 The Committee, recalling the decisions it had taken already on the principles and framework for systematic monitoring (see Section IX) and having taken note of the recommendations of the Work Group, adopted the following text for inclusion in the Operational Guidelines as a new Chapter II: II. MONITORING THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST xx. One of the essential functions of the Committee is to monitor the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and to take action thereupon. In the following, a distinction will be made between systematic and reactive monitoring. a) Systematic monitoring and reporting xx Systematic monitoring and reporting is the continuous process of observing the conditions of World Heritage sites with periodic reporting on its state of conservation. The objectives of systematic monitoring and reporting are: World Heritage site: Improved site management, advanced planning, reduction of emergency and ad-hoc interventions, and reduction of costs through preventive conservation. State Party: Improved World Heritage policies, advanced planning, improved site management and preventive conservation. * Region: Regional cooperation, regional World Heritage policies and activities better targeted to the specific needs of the region. Committee/Secretariat: Better understanding of the conditions of the sites and of the needs on the site, national and regional levels. Improved policy and decision making. xx It is the prime responsibility of the States Parties to put in place on-site monitoring arrangements as an integral component of day-to-day conservation and management of the sites. States Parties should do so in close collaboration with the site managers or the agency with management authority. It is necessary that every year the conditions of the site be recorded by the site manager or the agency with management authority. xx The States Parties are invited to submit to the World Heritage Committee through the World Heritage Centre, every five years, a scientific report on the state of conservation of the World Heritage sites on their territories. To this end, the States Parties may request expert advice from the Secretariat or the advisory bodies. The Secretariat may also commission expert advice with the agreement of the States Parties. xx To facilitate the work of the Committee and its Secretariat and to achieve greater regionalization and decentralization of World Heritage work, these reports will be examined separately by region as determined by the Committee. The World Heritage Centre will synthesize the national reports by regions. In doing so, full use will be made of the available expertise of the advisory bodies and other organizations. xx The Committee will decide for which regions state of conservation reports should be presented to its forthcoming sessions. The States Parties concerned will be informed at least one year in advance so as to give them sufficient time to prepare the state of conservation reports. xx The Secretariat will take the necessary measures for adequate World Heritage information collection and management, making full use, to the extent possible, of the information/documentation services of the advisory bodies and others. b) Reactive monitoring xx Reactive monitoring is the reporting by the World Heritage Centre, other sectors of UNESCO and the advisory bodies to the Bureau and the Committee on the state of conservation of specific World Heritage sites that are under threat. To this end, the States Parties shall submit to the Committee through the World Heritage Centre, * specific reports and impact studies each time exceptional circumstances occur or work is undertaken which may have an effect on the state of conservation of the site. Reactive monitoring is foreseen in the procedures for the eventual deletion of properties from the World Heritage List as set out in paras. 50-58. It is also foreseen in reference to properties inscribed, or to be inscribed, on the List of World Heritage in Danger as set out in paras. 75-82. XIV.7 The Committee also decided to revise paragraph 57 as follows: 57. In this connection, the Committee recommends that States Parties co-operate with the advisory bodies which have been asked by the Committee to carry out monitoring and reporting on its behalf on the progress of work undertaken for the preservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. TIMETABLE FOR THE PROCESSING OF NOMINATIONS XIV.8 The Committee took note of the positive recommendation made by Work Group 2 to revise paragraph 66 and approved the following timetable for processing of nominations: 1 July: Deadline for receipt by the Secretariat of nominations to be considered by the Committee the following year. 15 September: The Secretariat: (1) registers each nomination and thoroughly verifies its contents and accompanying documentation. In the case of incomplete nominations, the Secretariat must immediately request the missing information from the States Parties. (2) Transmit nominations, provided they are complete, to the appropriate international non-governmental organization (ICOMOS, IUCN or both), which: immediately examines each nomination to ascertain those cases in which additional information is required and takes the necessary steps, in co-operation with the Secretariat, to obtain the complementary data, and (...) * July-November The report of the Bureau is transmitted by the Secretariat as soon as possible to all States Parties members of the Committee, as well as to all States Parties concerned. The Secretariat endeavours to obtain from the States Parties concerned the additional information requested on the properties under category (c) above and transmits this information to ICOMOS, IUCN and the States members of the Committee. If the requested information is not obtained by 1 October, the nomination will not be eligible for review by the Committee at its regular session in the same year. XIV.9 The Committee decided that this revision of the timetable would only be effective as of 1 July 1996 and that ample diffusion should be given of its revision. XV. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A PLAN FOR MARKETING AND FUND-RAISING XV.1 This item was presented in two parts, at the beginning and towards the end of the session. The first part, introduced by the Director-General's Special Adviser, focused on marketing and fund-raising, while the second part, introduced by the Secretariat, reported on the World Heritage information and education activities undertaken in the past twelve months as well as current and future projects. Fund-raising and Marketing XV.2 The item on marketing and fund-raising was presented by Mr Charles de Haes, Special Adviser to the Director-General of UNESCO in response to the request by the World Heritage Committee at its sixteenth session, for a professionally designed strategy to increase public awareness, involvement and support (Proceedings of Santa Fe session, Goal 5, Strategic Goals and Objectives). XV.3 Having focused his study, commissioned by the Director-General, on the aspect of enhancing the potential of fundraising from the private sector and through such activities, public-awareness building, Mr de Haes referred to the eight recommendations contained in his report entitled "Strategic Recommendations for Promotion & Fundraising for World Heritage" (WHC-94/CONF.003/11 Add). XV.4 Emphasizing the need to create a "World Heritage concept" that reflects the value of all World Heritage properties, rather than of individual sites, the adaptation of the existing World Heritage logo or the adoption of a new, more emotive one was recommended as an essential marketing tool. The registration of this logo as a * trademark in major markets for relevant product categories was deemed necessary to enable the commercial licensing of the logo. The question, therefore, of the legal entity of the owner of this logo was raised as a major point in Mr de Haes' oral presentation to the Committee. XV.5 Mr de Haes stated that in his opinion, the legal entity should be the World Heritage Committee itself, rather than UNESCO, which to date has controlled its use. UNESCO, having a much wider global mission far beyond the scope of World Heritage protection and preservation, Mr de Haes felt that the 'image' of World Heritage needed to be distinct from that of UNESCO, which already enjoys an international stature as one of the United Nations agencies, for which a widely recognized logo already exists. XV.6 On the day-to-day management of the logo licensing and the related fundraising activities, Mr de Haes presented the options of: (a) the World Heritage Centre, as the Secretariat of the Committee, being entrusted by the Committee with this function; or, (b) commissioning an outside entity on the basis of profit- sharing of up to 30% on the funds raised from the private sector. XV.7 In pursuing marketing activities through whatever institutional framework the Committee may wish to adopt, Mr de Haes, stressed the need to clarify the ill-defined functional responsibilities of the numerous organizational units within UNESCO which are actually implementing World Heritage-related activities, whether they be conservation, promotional, public information or fundraising. Efficiency, effectiveness and above all, financial transparency being fundamental in creating public trust, Mr de Haes emphasized the paramount importance of the Committee and the Director- General of UNESCO ensuring that the main executing agent of World Heritage activities be rendered more effective. In this connection, he hoped that UNESCO and the States Parties of the Convention will provide the World Heritage Centre with the means to finance its staff costs from the regular budget of UNESCO so that all funds raised from the public can be devoted to operational activities with direct benefit to World Heritage conservation. XV.8 In presenting the slides of the existing logo, an amended version thereof and a possible new logo, Mr de Haes stated the need for the logo to be easily identifiable, commercially marketable and above all, appealing to the younger generation which, as the future guardians of World Heritage properties, must be the main target of the public awareness activities related to fundraising. Slides of various examples of the logo use, in on-site plaques, sign- boards, publications, letter-heads, T-shirts, caps, etc were shown to the Committee. * XV.9 Concluding his oral presentation, Mr de Haes stated that the budgetary appropriation of US$50,000 foreseen for the marketing activities, notably to finance the registration of the existing or new World Heritage logo as a trademark would enable, as a first step, the logo protection in several of the major target fundraising countries which would be desirable in addition to the protection of the logo obtainable under the Paris Convention. Mr de Haes also informed the Committee that guidelines on the use of the World Heritage logo and its associated use with the UNESCO logo were currently under preparation at the request of and financed by the Director- General. XV.10 The Delegate of France took the floor to express his appreciation for the inclusion of the UNESCO initials within the World Heritage logo to symbolize the fact that World Heritage protection has been one of the pillars of UNESCO activities. He stated that if the World Heritage Committee and its logo were not well-known to the public, UNESCO and its logo are universally known. He felt that rather than disassociating the image of World Heritage from that of UNESCO in the process of promoting the World Heritage concept through the logo, as one of the means, there should be a move towards "integration". Any future activities on the logo registration and marketing of the logo should be cancelled, as agreed in Working Group 1, and as adopted by the Committee during its debate on the budget. XV.11 The Delegate of Germany while welcoming the work carried out in devising measures to enhance fundraising and public awareness-building questioned the potentials of private sector fundraising for World Heritage in view of the proliferation of charity organizations now engaged in raising funds from industries and other business sectors. Especially in view of the many non-governmental and national bodies dependent on private sector funds, he questioned the virtues of the Committee's engagement in such activities which would be regarded as a competition. XV.12 The virtues of changing the World Heritage logo and "commercialization" of World Heritage through marketing, were questioned by the Delegates of Italy and Lebanon, especially in view of its implications to the fundamental role of the Committee and the World Heritage Centre vis-à-vis the Convention. In particular, the Italian Delegation opposed the adoption of a new logo. It considered the study submitted to the Committee insufficient and therefore of no utility for an eventual future decision in this connection. The consequences on the Convention itself of any attempt towards the "privatization" of World Heritage work should be carefully considered. On the separation of identity between UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee, the Italian Delegate stressed the need to promote further linkage between the * World Heritage concept and other UNESCO activities for peace and development. XV.13 The Delegate of Brazil, while congratulating Mr de Haes for his interesting report, stated, inter alia, that the World Heritage logo should not be seen as a trademark but rather as a symbolic representation of the philosophy and high values consacrated in the World Heritage Convention. XV.14 The Delegate of the United States of America thanked the Director-General of UNESCO for responding to the Committee's request to study fundraising potentials, stating the vital need to widen the source of additional funds to meet the increasing financial requirements for World Heritage conservation. XV.15 The Representative of ICOMOS, as one of the advisory bodies to the Committee, thanked Mr de Haes for sharing his most valuable experience in marketing and for the interesting report. He mentioned however, that the document made no specific proposals on actual fundraising activities, nor to the successful safeguarding campaigns launched by UNESCO in the past, which led to the awareness by the international community to adopt the World Heritage Convention. Continued linkage with UNESCO, given the interdisciplinarity of World Heritage with all aspects of culture, social science, education and communication, is an essential part of the World Heritage concept that needs to be further promoted. XV.16 Representing the Assistant Director-General for Culture, Ms Lourdes Arizpe, Mr. Azedine Beschaouch, first of all remarked that there was no justification for the linking, in Mr Charles de Haes' report, of the autonomy of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre with the "commercialization" of World Heritage products. But, essentially, his remarks concerned the following points: 1. The Committee and the Secretariat have, for very many years, continually encouraged the States Parties to promote the World Heritage emblem and to implement on-site action likely to further development at the local level. It would therefore seem illogical to accuse the States of abusive use of the logo and to reproach their commercialization, within their frontiers, of products linked to their sites inscribed on the List. A new practice may be called for, but it would require wise judgement and a thorough knowledge of the history of the Convention and a true consultation with the States Parties. 2. To entrust the "commercialization" of products linked to World Heritage sites to a private foundation, without taking prior precaution to reflect upon the ethical and juridical consequences of this innovation, nor taking into * consideration the "national" sensitivities, would truly constitute an abomination. It is necessary to undertake such a study with a new approach and to renounce the à priori which has so far accompanied the whole exercise: "the foundation is a necessity and this cannot be discussed". 3. The allocation of extrabudgetary funds, gifts and donations, and the expected resources from the eventual "commercialization" exclusively to the sites inscribed on the World Heritage List could have serious repercussions. To neglect the non-inscribed sites is contrary to the text and spirit of the 1972 Convention. But above all, this risks to create a two-tier heritage: a privileged World Heritage on the one hand, and on the other, national treasures of remarkable value which, in the long-term, would be given lesser consideration due to lack of funds and promotion. XV.17 Mr de Haes, in responding to the various observations assured the Committee that the idea was not to take World Heritage away from UNESCO nor to abandon idealism for "commercialism". To give the World Heritage a strong identity, distinct from that of UNESCO, does not imply disassociation from UNESCO; to the contrary, the two can and should be mutually supportive. If, however, the objective is to raise funds from the private sector and to build public awareness and support, as he understood his assignment to be, "marketing" the "concept" of World Heritage entails commercialization and benefits for the sponsoring company. In response to the question of competition, Mr de Haes replied that there is a limit to funds for charity, and competition is increasingly strong, hence evident that those organizations which can best market their cause will obtain the funds. XV.18 Mr Badran, as the Representative of the Director- General thanked Mr de Haes for his excellent and thought- provoking presentation and report as well as the logo designs. Noting the strong links between UNESCO and the World Heritage, which he felt was forcefully demonstrated in Mr de Haes' treatment of the associated logo use suggestions stated that this important issue of marketing and fundraising needed to be discussed in greater details by the Committee. He requested the Committee to come up with specific decisions on the logo and on the future course of activities for fundraising. On the internal organization of functions within UNESCO raised by Mr de Haes, Mr Badran assured the Committee that this is being addressed by the Director-General who, as the first step has already decided on the functional autonomy of the World Heritage Centre and the delegation of authority to the Director of the Centre. As well, he mentioned the Director-General's readiness to absorb progressively the * Centre's staff costs, especially for the General Service staff, in future biennial allocations. XV.19 The question of the logo was further touched upon in Work Group 1, which prepared recommendations to the Committee concerning the World Heritage Fund, the 1995 Budget and the future development of the World Heritage Centre. When dealing with budget line 7 (Promotion and Education) of Annex V, doc. WHC-94/CONF.003/10 and the annex to doc. WHC-94/CONF.003/11, the Work Group decided to delete US $ 50.000 foreseen for the protection of the World Heritage Logo, and to reallocate these funds under other budget lines. The Committee endorsed this by accepting the overall 1995 budget proposal, as submitted by Work Group 1. Information and education XV.20 Introducing the second part of this item, i.e., the World Heritage information and education activities, the Secretariat referred to parts A and B of work document WHC-94/CONF.003/11 and the accompanying document WHC- 94/CONF.003/INF.11 which outlines UNESCO's interregional project "Young People's Participation in World Heritage Promotion and Preservation". The presentation focused on two major sets of activities undertaken in the past year by the Centre in cooperation with various units within and outside UNESCO, notably, OPI, CLT, DIT, ED, SC/ENV, ICOMOS and the Organization of World Heritage Cities. The first set includes work on the development of an appropriate World Heritage database and its linking up with other relevant databanks and networks, such as INTERNET, an area in which the World Heritage Centre has begun to develop systematic cooperation, particularly with ICOMOS and the OWHC (for specific data on cities). This further includes preparation of information for the general public (brief descriptions of all World Heritage sites), co-production of films on specific WH properties, such as the film co- produced with FR2 on Timbuktu, one of the sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger, which was shown in more than 15 countries. Special attention is given under this heading to the preparation of major photo exhibits of World Heritage properties, such as the exhibits presented jointly with CLT at the United Nations in New York, or the planned exhibit "From Abou Simbel to Angkor" to mark the 50th anniversary of UNESCO, and the photo-exhibit of some one hundred cities with World Heritage sites, which is to be presented next summer in Bergen, Norway, at the Second General Assembly of the World Heritage Cities as well as in Paris, New York, Geneva and other places. Such exhibits have proven to be popular and are very much in demand by the States Parties. XV.21 The second set of activities undertaken by the Centre in collaboration with different partners, in the * first place the Education Sector and its Associated Schools Project, various National Commissions for UNESCO, ICOMOS, the IUCN and OWHC, aims at introducing World Heritage awareness-building through schools and extra-curricula programmes. Drawing upon the potential offered by the networks of secondary schools, teachers' and parents' associations, local communities (mostly through municipal administrations of cities having World Heritage properties) and other similar entities, the interregional project "Young People's Participation in World Heritage Promotion and Preservation" acts as a catalyst of the growing interest for World Heritage that has been identified in at least some thirty countries which participate in this project. One of the project's highlights will thus be the first "World Heritage Youth Forum", which will be hosted by the Norwegian authorities in the City of Bergen, from 26 to 28 June 1995, as part of the Second General Assembly of the World Heritage Cities. Its results are to be presented at the 28th General Conference of UNESCO (October 1995) and to be integrated into UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan 1996-2001. Thanking the Norwegian authorities for all the support they are giving to this project, the representative of the Secretariat thanked also the Government of Sweden for accepting to provide the World Heritage Centre in 1995 with an associate expert who will be working on information and education projects. Finally, it was underlined that this project has attracted a major private sponsor, the Rhone- Poulenc Corporation, whose financial assistance has made it possible to enlarge the number of participating countries in the project and to finance the presence in Bergen of the representatives of the participating schools from some thirty countries from all regions of the world. XV.22 In the ensuing debate, the Chairman congratulated the Secretariat for its achievements in this area and informed the participants of the International Youth Seminar for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Heritage which was organized by the Thai National Commission for UNESCO and the Ministry of Education from 14 to 20 November 1994 in Bangkok and Sukhotai. The Delegate of France also congratulated the Secretariat for its work on consolidating a World Heritage database and its commitment to develop appropriate pedagogic approaches and material for World Heritage awareness-building. She welcomed the Centre's cooperation with private sponsors such as Rhone-Poulenc, Ford Foundation, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co, etc. which, in their opinion, shows that UNESCO is by itself able to attract important partners from the private sector for at least some of its programmes. The Representative of the IUCN informed briefly the Committee of IUCN's promotion and education work, and reminded that the World Monitoring Conservation Centre had an immense databank which should be kept in mind. Finally, the representative of the Secretariat, endorsed by the Delegate of Spain and the Chairman, stressed the importance of organizing even better in the future the exchange of * information among WH sites and the Centre, which would be reflected in The World Heritage Newsletter. The newsletter enjoys a growing popularity and, although it has already opened up to information coming from the advisory bodies, its content could be enriched further by regular inputs from the State Parties and the sites. XVI. ORGANIZATION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES IN 1995 XVI.1 The Committee took note of document WHC-94/CONF- 003/14 which reported on the deliberations of the eighteenth session of the Bureau with regard to a proposal for the modification of paragraphs 8 and 12 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. XVI.2 The Delegations of Italy and France presented the following proposal for an amendment to the Rules of Procedure: "The proposal of the Bureau to simplify the procedures of the election of the Committee is certainly to be supported. However, we believe that a shift from the absolute majority to a simple majority after only two ballots may be an obstacle to the aim of obtaining the necessary consensus. Therefore, it is proposed to shift to the simple majority after four ballots and that the proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly (Arts. 13.8, 13.9 and 13.10) be modified in this way." This proposed amendment was endorsed by the Committee. XVI.3 It was noted from the Chair that the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly could be changed only by the General Assembly itself. Therefore the Committee's proposal would be presented to the General Assembly for its consideration. XVII. DATE AND PLACE OF THE NINETEENTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE XVII.1 The Committee decided that the nineteenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee would be held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 26 June - 1 July 1995, pending confirmation of the availability of UNESCO conference facilities for those dates. (Please see NOTE at the bottom of this page.) 1 _________________________ 1NOTE: Upon further consultation of the Chairman and the Bureau members, it was agreed that the nineteenth session would be from 3 to 8 July 1995 in Paris. * XVII.2 The Committee took note of the fact that the UNIDROIT conference on cultural property would take place in Rome from 5 to 23 June 1995. XVII.3 The Provisional Agenda for the nineteenth session of the Bureau as outlined in Document WHC-94/CONF.003.12 was adopted with the addition of the following items from the agenda of the eighteenth session of the Committee which time did not permit to be considered: -- Revision of the Operational Guidelines - Deadline for Presentation of Requests for Technical Assistance for Consideration by the Bureau; - Establishment of the World Heritage List (Role of the Advisory Bodies in the Evaluation of Nominations); - International Assistance (Approval of Requests for Preparatory, Technical and Training Assistance); and with the addition of the following new agenda items: -- Report by the World Heritage Committee to the 28th General Conference of UNESCO; -- Report on the Madrid expert meeting on Routes as Cultural Heritage 24-25 November 1994); -- Report on the Ottawa expert meeting on Heritage Canals (15-19 September 1994); -- Report on the forthcoming expert meeting proposed by the Delegation of Germany on the procedure for assessment of nominated natural sites with special reference to "integrity." XVII.4 The Secretariat noted that reports on the three above-mentioned expert meetings could be included in Agenda item 7: "Progress report on the implementation of the Global Strategy." XVIII. DATE AND PLACE OF THE NINETEENTH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (DECEMBER 1995) XVIII.1 The Delegate of Germany transmitted the invitation of the German Government to host the nineteenth session of the Committee in Berlin from 4 to 9 December 1995. The Committee session will be preceded by a meeting of the Bureau to take place, also in Berlin, on 1 and 2 December 1995. XVIII.2 The Chairman thanked the Delegate of Germany for his Government's kind invitation which was warmly acclaimed by all delegates. * XIX. OTHER BUSINESS XIX.1 There was no other business. XX. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE AND CLOSURE OF THE SESSION XX.1 The Committee adopted the Report with a number of amendments, most of them submitted in written form by the Delegates and Observers, which have been taken into consideration when preparing the final version of the Report. XX.2 The Delegate of France, speaking on behalf of the participants, thanked the Chairman, Dr Adul Wichiencharoen, for his efficient and wise chairing of the meeting and the Royal Thai Government for hosting so graciously the meeting. This was endorsed by the Delegate of Italy who, moreover, thanked also the Secretariat for its "understanding and remarkable efficiency". XX.3 The Director of the World Heritage Centre, on behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO, thanked the Committee, its Chairman and the Rapporteur for a report which was longer than any in the past, but which at the same time was of good quality. He also thanked the representatives of the advisory bodies for their constant cooperation and the Royal Thai Government for the excellent and most generous collaboration in the preparation of the meeting. XX.4 The Chairman, Dr Adul Wichiencharoen, thanked everyone for the kind words addressed to the Royal Thai Government and to him, personally, and reminded the participants, in his closing remarks, of the irreplaceable virtue of international cooperation as manifested in the work of the World Heritage Committee. He thereupon declared the closure of the eighteenth session of the Committee. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ANNEX I LIST OF PARTICIPANTS LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE BRAZIL/BRESIL Mr Antonio Luis DIAS de ANDRADE Institut du Patrimoine historique et artistique national Mrs Maria Dolores PENNA DE ALMEIDA CUNHA Second Secretary of the Embassy Division of Intellectural Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs CHINA/CHINE Mr ZHANG Chongli Deputy Secretary-General Chinese National Commission for UNESCO BEIJING 100 816 Mr GUO Zhan Director, Division No.1 State Bureau of Cultural Relics BEIJING 100 009 Mr JING Feng Programme Officer Chinese National Commission for UNESCO BEIJING 100 816 Mr ZHOU Jinsheng Executive Member, Association for the Protection of Mountain Resort CHENGDE CITY Hebei Province Mr XING Zhenfeng Office of Foreign Affairs CHENDGE CITY Hebei Province *[Annex I/2] COLOMBIA/COLOMBIE Ms Olga PIZANO Deputy Director of Cultural Heritage COLCULTURA Colombian Isititute of Culture Calle 9# 8-31 BOGOTA CYPRUS/CHYPRE Dr Sophocles HADJISAVVAS Curator of Ancient Monuments Department of Antiquities Ministry of Communications and Works NICOSIA FRANCE Mme Françoise BERCE Conservateur Général du Patrimoine Ministère de la Culture et de la Francophonie PARIS Mme Anne LEWIS-LOUBIGNAC Conseiller technique Commission nationale française pour l'UNESCO 42 avenue Raymond Poincar, 75116 PARIS M. Jean-Louis PONS Chargé de mission pour les Affaires internationales à la Direction de la Nature et du Paysage inistère de l'Environnement Avenue du Saxe 75007 PARIS M. Léon PRESSOUYRE Vice-President Université de Paris I 75005 PARIS GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE Dr Hans CASPARY Conservator of Historic Monuments Landesamt fur Denkmalpflege Rheinland-Pfalz Gottelmannstrasse 17D-55130 MAINZ *[Annex I/3] Prof.Dr Harald PLACHTER University of Marburg Fachbereich Biologie Karl-von-Frisch-Strasse D-35032 MARBURG Mr Thilo KOHLER Federal Foreign Office (Referat 611-9) Postfach 1148 D-53001 BONN INDONESIA/INDONESIE Mr SAMIDI Head, Restoration Division Directorate for Protection & Development of Historical & Archaeological Heritage Ministry of Education and Culture JAKARTA ITALY/ITALIE Ministre Giorgio RADICATI Chef de Bureau pour la coopération culturelle multilaterale Direction générale des Relations culturelles Ministère des Affaires etrangères ROME Professeur Umberto LEANZA Directeur de l'Institut de Droit international Université "Tor Vergata" ROME Mrs Margherita SABATINI Attachée au Secteur UNESCO Direction général des Affaires culturelles Ministère des Affaires Etrangères ROME Mr Vitantonio BRUNO Cabinet du Ministère des Biens culturels et naturels Via Collegio Romano 27 00156 ROME Mr Luciano MARCHETTI Directeur et Coordinateur Ministère des Biens culturels et naturels - sur Intendence de Florence Piazza Pitti 1 FLORENCE *[Annex I/4] JAPAN/JAPON Mr Masaru WATANABE Deputy Director Second Cultural Affairs Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs TOKYO Ms Fumiko ISHIDA Section Chief Planning Division Nature Conservation Bureau Environment Agency TOKYO Dr Akiyoshi WATANABE Councillor on Cultural Properties Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs TOKYO Dr Makoto MOTONAKA Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties Monuments and Sites Division Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs TOKYO Dr Nobuko INABA Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties Monuments and Sites Division Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs TOKYO Mr Mikito SAKATA Assistant Director Management Planning Division National Forest Management Department Forestry Agency LEBANON/LIBAN Mr Noel FATTAL First Secretary Deputy Permanent Delegate Delegation of Lebanon to UNESCO UNESCO House 1, rue Miollis 75015 PARIS *[Annex I/5] MEXICO/MEXIQUE Mr Salvador DIAZ-BERRIO Deputy Director Technical Support and Training (INAH) CORDOBA 45 Mexico D.F. 06710 NIGER Mr Michel LE BERRE Technical Advisor EA631 Socio-Ecologie - UCBl1 43 Bd. 11-11-1918 69622 VILLEURBAUNE France OMAN Dr Sadiq Bin Abdul Hussain AL-MASCATI Director-General of Nature Protectorates Ministry of Regional Municipalities and Environment P.O. Box 461, P.C. 112 MUSCAT PERU/PEROU Dr Pedro GJURINOVIC Chief Instituto Nacional de Cultura LIMA 1 Mr. Juan German KOSTER Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores LIMA PHILIPPINES Mr Augusto F. VILLALON Commissioner for Philippine Cultural Heritage Philippine National Commission for UNESCO 107 Wilson Circle SAN JUAN 1500 M. MANILA SENEGAL Mr Mbaye Bassine DIENG Directeur Patrimoine Historique et Ethnographique Ministère de la Culture B.P. 4001 DAKAR *[Annex I/6] SPAIN/ESPAGNE Mr D. Jesús VINUELAS GONZALEZ Director-General Bellas Artes y Conservación y Restauración de Biens Culturales MADRID Ms María MARINE Deputy Director of Monuments and Archaeology ICRBC GRECO SN 25048 MADRID THAILAND/THAILANDE Professor Dr. Adul WICHIENCHAROEN Chairman National Committee for Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Office of Environmental Policy & Planning 60/1 Phibulwattana, Rama 6 Road BANGKOK 10400 M.C. Subhadradis DISKUL Vice-Chairman National Committee for Protectionof the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Office of Environmental Policy & Planning 60/1 Phibulwattana, Rama 6 Road BANGKOK 10400 Mr. Wadanyu NA THALANG Member of National Environmental Board 901 Soi Tanakarn Akarnsongkroh Ngamwongwan Road NONTABURI 11000 Mr Sudjit NIMITKUL Governor, Phuket Province Mr Pong LENG-EE Director-General Royal Forestry Department BANGKOK 10900 Mr Sunthad SOMCHEVITA Secretary-General Office of Environmental Policy & Planning 60/1 Phibulwattana Rama 6 oad BANGKOK 10400 *[Annex I/7] Mr Nikom MUSIGAKAMA Inspector General Ministry of Education BANGKOK 10200 Mr Seree WANGPAICHITR Governor Tourism Authority of Thailand 372 Bamrung Muang Road BANGKOK Mr. Manit SIRIWAN Director, Natural and Cultural Heritage Conservation Division Secretary to the National Committee for Protection of the World Culture and Heritage Office of Environmental Policy & Planning 60/1 Phibulwattana, Rama 6 Road BANGKOK 10400 Mr. Norachai SRIPIMOL Bureau of Budget Rama 6 Road BANGKOK 10400 Mr. Prachot SANGKANUKIJ Director, Archaeology Division Fine Arts Department Si Ayutthaya Road BANGKOK 10300 Mr. Montri CHUNTRUPOL Tourism Authority of Thailand 372 Bamrung Muang Road BANGKOK 10100 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE Mr Robert MILNE Special Advisor, International Affairs National Park Service Department of the Interior P.O. Box 37127 WASHINGTON D.C. 20013 Ms Sharon J. CLEARY Chief, Office of International Affairs National Park Service Department of the Interior P.O. Box 37127 WASHINGTON D.C.20013 *[Annex I/8] Mr E. Blaine CLIVER Chief, Preservation Technology National Park Service Department of the Interior P.O. Box 37127 WASHINGTON DC 20013-7127 II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS) Mr Jean-Louis LUXEN Secretary General 75 rue du Temple 75003 PARIS Mr Henry CLEERE World Heritage Co-ordinator 75, rue du Temple 75003 PARIS Ms Carmen ANON FELIU Member of the Executive Committee Puerto Santamaria 49 MADRID 28043 Spain Ms Regina DURIGHELLO Assistant to the World Heritage Coordinator 75 rue du Temple 75003 PARIS Mr Peter STOTT ICOMOS-US 23 Bellevue Street MEDFORD MA 02155, USA THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)/UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE(UICN) Dr James THORSELL Senior Advisor - Natural Heritage Rue Mauverney, 28 CH-1196 GLAND Switzerland Mr P.H.C. (Bing) LUCAS 1/268 Main Road Tawa WELLINGTON New Zealand *[Annex I/9] INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM) Mr Jukka JOKILEHTO Chief Architectural Conservation Programme Via di S. Michele, 13 00153 ROME Italy III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS ALGERIA Mr Mohamed BEN GHERABI Membre de l'Association "Sauvons le Casbah" 9 Rue Ruffon El Bier ALGIER Ms Fouzia BOUMEIZE Membre Ministère des Affairs Etrangeres ALGIER Mr Houria BOUTTIRED Secretaire général du Comite de "Casbah d'Algier" Association "CASBAH" 9 Rue Buffon El Bier ALGIER ARGENTINA/ARGENTINE Mr Hector ARENA National Heritage Director R.A. Siria 2885 BUENOS AIRES AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE Dr Warren NICHOLLS World Heritage Unit Department of the Environment, Sport & Territories GPO Box 787 CANBERRA, ACT 2611 Dr Anthony PRESS Australian Nature Conservation Agency DARWIN *[Annex I/10] Mr Yami LESTER Chairman, Uluru Kata Tjkatu Board of Management P.O. Box 1260 DARWIN Ms Barbara Tjkatu Uluru Kata Tjuta Board of Management ULURU Ms Kunbry PEIPEI Board Representative P.O. Box 1260 DARWIN Mr Jon WILLIS Mututjulu Community ULURU Mr Robert OSBORNE Harper-MacRae 38 Lodge Street GLEBE, NSW Mr Tony TJAMIWA Board Representative P.O. Box 1260 DARWIN AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE H.E. Mr Nikolaus SCHERK Ambassador Embassy of Austria in Thailand BANGKOK Thailand CANADA Mme Gisèle CANTIN Chef, Affaires Internationales Parcs Canada Ministère du Patrimoine Canadien 25, rue Eddy HULL, Quebec K1A OM5 CAMBODIA/CAMBODGE Mr Molyvann VANN Senior Minister in charge of Culture & Fine Arts Council of Ministers Phnom Penh *[Annex I/11] CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE Mr Miroslav PODHAJSKY First Secretary Embassy of the Czech Republic BANGKOK Thailand DENMARK/DANEMARK Mr Allan ANDERSEN Commercial Officer The Royal Danish Embassy BANGKOK Thailand ECUADOR/EQUATEUR Mr Luis CARRERA DE LA TORRE President of Environmental National Commission Av. 10 de Agusto 3560 QUITO FINLAND/FINLANDE Ms Marja Terttu KNAPAS Architectural Conservator National Board of Antiquities Department of Historic Monuments P.O. Box 187 00171 HELSINKI HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE H.E. Mr Ernesto Gallina Archbishop, Apostolic Nuncio Delegate for International Governmental Organizations Vatican City ROME Reverand Father Carlo VELARDO Skills Development Centre for the Blind 78/2 Tivanont Road Pakkred NONTHABURI 11120 Thailand *[Annex I/12] INDIA/INDE Mr M. JAYARAMAN Attache, and Assistant Permanent Representative of India to ESCAP Embassy of India BANGKOK Thailand JAPAN/JAPON Mr Masanobu NISHIMURU Kyoto City Government Kawaramachi OlKe Nakagyo-Ku 604 KYOTO Mr Masami NAKATSUJI Kyoto City Government Kawaramachi Olke Nakagyo-Ku 604 KYOTO Mr Yuga KARIYA Kyoto City Government Kawaramachi Olke Nakagyo-Ku 604 KYOTO KOREA/COREE Mr Jae Hong LIM Director Human Rights and social Affairs Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs SEOUL Mr Soo Young JEONG Director Department of Culture and Communication Korean National Commission for UNESCO SEOUL Mr Jae Soo KANG Assistant Director Tangible Cultural Properties Division Office of Cultural Properties Ministry of Culture and Sports SEOUL *[Annex I/13] LAOS DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE DEMOCRATIQUE POPULAIRE LAO Mr Bounhom CHANTHAMAT Deputy-Director Department of Archaeology and Museums Ministry of Information and Culture VIENTIANE LUXEMBURG/LUXEMBOURG Mr. Jean-Pierre KRAEMER President Luxemburg National Commission for UNESCO LUXEMBURG MALAYSIA/MALAYSIE Mr Keromo PAIWAN Department of Museums & Antiquity Damansara Road 50566 KUALA LUMPAR MYANMAR Mr Nyunt HAN Director Department of Archaeology 32-D, 6 Mile, YANGON NORWAY/NORVEGE Dr Oivind LUNDE Director-General Directorate for Cultural Heritage P.O. Box 8196 Dep. 0034 OSLO Ms Anne-Kristin ENDRESEN Ass. Director-General Ministry of Environment P.O. Box 8013 Dep. 0030 OSLO Ms Mari HAREIDE Secretary-General Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO P.O. Box 1507 Vika 0117 OSLO *[Annex I/14] PAKISTAN Mr S. Mushtaq H. RAZVEE Counsellor & Alternate Permanent Representative of Pakistan to UN ESCAP Embassy of Pakistan BANGKOK Thailand ROMANIA/ROUMANIE Mr Cristian MOISESCU Director-General for Historical Monuments Ministry of Culture BUCHAREST SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE Mr Jozef BOZEK Ambassador of the Slovak Republic in Thailand BANGKOK Thailand SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE Mr Joze OSTERMAN State Secretary in the Ministry of Culture 61000 Lubljana CANKARJEVA 5 SWEDEN/SUEDE Ms Birgitta HOBERG Principal Administrative Officer Central Board of National Antiquities and the National Historical Museum P.O. Box 5405 11484 STOCKHOLM Mr Per Olof JACOBSSON Chairman Planning and Building Committee 62011 HARDHEM Ms Maria JONSSON Chief, Regional Antiquarian Gotland County Administrative Board Lansstyrelsen 62185 VISBY Mr Rolf LOFGREN Conservation Officer Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 17186 SOLNA *[Annex I/15] Mr Ulf BJORKMAN Head of the County Council of Tanum Koltrastvagen 48 45731 TANUMSHEDE Mr Henry CARLSSON Member of the Tanum County Administrative Board Ljungbytorp 45793 TANUMSHEDE SWITZERLAND/SUISSE Mr Thierry REGENASS Attache Swiss Embassy BANGKOK Thailand VIETNAM/VIET NAM Mr Nguyen Thanh SY Chief of the Board for Culture and Information Quang Ninh Province Mr Truong Quoc BINH Senior Expert Cultural and Natural Sites Ministry for Culture and Information HANOI Mr Dan Viet TRUNG Permanent Secretary Vietnamese National Commission for UNESCO HANOI IV. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ORGANISATIONS NON- GOUVERNEMENTALES INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MUSEUMS/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MUSEES(ICOM) Dr Don McMichael P.O. Box 4 Monaro Crescent ACT 2603 Australia *[Annex I/16] ORGANISATION OF WORLD HERITAGE CITIES/ORGANISATION DES VILLES DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Mr Marcel JUNIUS Secrétaire général 56, rue Saint Pierre QUEBEC G1H 4A1 Canada Dr Celine SAUCIER Directrice des projets speciaux 56, rue Saint Pierre QUEBEC G1H 4A1 Canada THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS/INSTITUT INDIEN DES ARCHITECTS Mr Akhtar CHAUHAN c/o The Indian Institute of Architects Prospect Chambers Annexe, 3rd floor Dr. DN road, FORT BOMBAY India VI. PRESS Mr Kenji Goto Mr Sathit Sanyawut NTV TOKYO Japan Mr Rachada Dangehamroon Pacific News Centre BANGKOK Thailand Mr Werapong Waitayawongskul Television of Thailand Channel 11 PHUKET Thailand Mr Prasith Chueynark Mrs Wanwipha Linoanda Mr Pisek Manachit Mr Vittasak Samuay Radio Thailand PHUKET Thailand *[Annex I/17] Mr Wichai Paksawong Mr Keartchai Juntaradat Public Relations Department Radio Thailand PHUKET Thailand Mr Jalert Jeddawan Mr Yotapan Sarayout BANGKOK Thailand Mr Vichien Boonyaprasat PRD TV Thailand PHUKET Thailand Ms Pornsiri Nakthongroop Reporter Thai News Agency BANGKOK Thailand Mrs Achadtaya Chuenniran Mr Tuanthong Sokmuang Miss Thuenchai Kaokem Reporters PHUKET Thailand Mr Supachai Jirayut Mr Phinyo Thummanon Reporters BANGKOK Thailand Mr Watchara Santakamonpong Mass Communication Organization of Thailand BANGKOK Thailand Mr Steve Rosse The Nation BANGKOK Thailand Mr Ron MOREAU Newsweek Magazine Bangkok Bureau Chief BANGKOK Ms Ellen Teper LOCHAYA Associated Press (AP) P.O. Box 261 83000 PHUKET *[Annex I/18] VII. SECRETARIAT Mr Adnan BADRAN Deputy Director-General a.i. Mr Azedine BESCHAOUCH Representative of the ADG/CLT Mr Bernd von DROSTE Director World Heritage Centre Ms Breda PAVLIC World Heritage Centre Ms Minja YANG World Heritage Centre Mr Laurent LEVI-STRAUSS World Heritage Centre Mr Harold EIDSVIK World Heritage Centre Mr Herman van HOOFF World Heritage Centre Mr Alexandre ANDREYEV Interpretation Division Ms Francesca TRUEL Interpretation Division Ms Jane DEGEORGES World Heritage Centre Ms Jocelyne POUTEAU World Heritage Centre Mr Sylvio MUTAL UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project Manager Casilla 4480 LIMA Peru Mr Charles de HAES Special Advisor to the Director-General Mr Hedayat AHMED Director, UNESCO - PROAP Bangkok Mr Richard ENGELHARDT Regional Advisor for Culture in Asia/Pacific, Bangkok Mr Natarajan ISHWARAN UNESCO/ROSTSEA - Jakarta *[Annex I/19] Ms Valai NA POMBEJR Specalist in International Education, Bangkok Ms Reiko NOGUCHI Press Officer, UNESCO/Bangkok Ms Supimol VIJARNPOL Secretary, UNESCO/Bangkok Mr Paul Box GIS Expert, UNESCO/Bangkok ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ANNEX II Distribution limited WHC-94/CONF.003.1 Paris, September 1994 Original: English UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Eighteenth session Phuket, Thailand 12-17 December 1994 PROVISIONAL AGENDA 1. Opening of the session by the Director-General of UNESCO or his representative 2. Adoption of the Agenda 3. Election of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons and the Rapporteur 4. Report on the activities undertaken by the Secretariat since the seventeenth session of the Committee 5. Report of the Rapporteur of the sessions held in 1994 by the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee 6. Constitution of working groups to examine specific items on the Committee's agenda 7. Examination of UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan 1996-2001 and World Heritage Conservation 8. Strengthening of the World Heritage Centre in 1994 and its further development 9. Monitoring of the state of conservation of the World Heritage cultural and natural properties, with particular focus on properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger 10. Progress report on the preparation of global strategy for a representative World Heritage List *[Annex II/2] 11. Information on tentative lists and examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties to the World Heritage List and List of World Heritage in Danger 12. Requests for International Assistance 13. Examination of the World Heritage Fund and approval of the budget for 1995, and presentation of a provisional budget for 1996 14. Revision of the Operational Guidelines, including the introduction of a new chapter on monitoring 15. Promotional activities, including adoption of a plan for marketing and fund-raising 161. Organization of the General Assembly of States Parties in 1995 17. Date and place of the nineteenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee 18. Date and place of the nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee (December 1995) 19. Other business 20. Adoption of the Report of the Committee 21. Closure of the session ___________________________ 1 This item was omitted in the draft Agenda approved by the Bureau at its eighteenth session in July 1994 and is being submitted in accordance with the Report of the Bureau. As regards the item "Evaluation of training activities and definition of a future strategy", the Secretariat proposes that it be postponed until the results of the 1995 workshops are available. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ANNEX III Address by Mr A. Badran Deputy Director-General of UNESCO at the 18th session of the World Heritage Committee Phuket, Thailand, 12-17 December 1994 Madam Chairperson, Honoured Representatives of the Government of Thailand, Members of the World Heritage Committee, Ladies and Gentlemen, It is with great pleasure that I address again the members of the World Heritage Committee, a year after its successful meeting in Cartagena, Colombia, which I am happy to recollect, thanks to the excellent organization and charming hospitality of our Colombian hosts and in particular you, Madam Pizano. I have every reason to believe that the Committee's present session, hosted by the Royal Thai Government in this magnificent place, and organized by one of the Committee's most remarkable members, Mr Wichiencharoen, and his team, will be another important contribution to the further implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Speaking on behalf of Mr Federico Mayor, the Director-General of UNESCO, I wish to thank the Royal Thai Government, and Mr Wichiencharoen in particular, for this gracious hospitality. A year ago, as you will remember, you entrusted me to convey to the Director-General a number of suggestions and recommendations the purpose of which was to increase the World Heritage Centre's capacities to service rapidly and effectively, the States Parties in all matters concerning the implementation and promotion of the World Heritage Convention. Today, I am happy to inform you that the Director-General responded to this to the best of his abilities, and that important results have been achieved in these past twelve months. These are explained in more detail in the report of the Secretary of the World Heritage Convention, submitted to you for this session, and which the Director of the World Heritage Centre will present to you shortly. Allow me, however, to recall briefly some of the initiatives undertaken, and to underline those for which the Director-General wishes particularly to receive your further reflections and possible guidance. *[Annex III/] As a result of your deliberations in Cartagena, the Committee expressed "its strong concern that every effort be made to secure funding and staff necessary to perform adequately the tasks" and requested "the Director-General to take this concern into consideration for further action". Acting upon this, the Director-General therefore added three professional posts (two P5 and one P4) to the Centre's staff, one of them being an administration officer. The Centre thus has today altogether nine professional and three general service posts financed through UNESCO's Regular Programme budget. The low number of GS posts remains, obviously, a serious handicap, and we hope to be able to improve this in the coming year. As regards the funds allocated to the World Heritage Centre under the Regular Programme, the total for 1994 amounts to just a little less than US $ 460,000. This may seem as a relatively modest sum, but seen within the context of UNESCO's entire Regular Programme budget, and keeping in mind moreover that UNESCO contributes to the Centre also "in kind", i.e., the office space, infrastructure, etc., it is by no means insignificant. However, the time may have come to envisage other possible solutions by which to increase the Centre's efficiency, and the Director-General has started to take some steps in this direction. As you may well be aware, in his oral report to the Executive Board at its recently held 145th session (October-November 1994), Mr Mayor stated: "I find it is timely for UNESCO to take certain measures that will institute the practical conditions for effective functional autonomy of both IOC (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission) and WHC (World Heritage Centre) within the Organization. The procedures by which UNESCO would confer to IOC and WHC an effective functional autonomy in regard to administrative and financial aspects would be based upon the successful modalities already approved by the General Conference in regard to the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) and the International Bureau of Education (IBE). In accordance with the precedents established for these two institutions, a proposal could be included within the Draft UNESCO Programme and Budget for 1996-1997 (Draft 28 C/5) by which UNESCO would provide its regular programme support to IOC and WHC through a 'financial allocation'." (Footnote: UNESCO document 145 EX/INF.3 Add.3: Introduction by the Director-General to his Report on the Activities of the Organization since the 144th session.) Consequently, this idea has been further elaborated in Document CONF.003/5, prepared for the present session. It is now up to you, members of the World Heritage Committee, to examine the proposal in view of its possible repercussions, and to recommend to the Director-General further action in this regard. Similarly, acting upon your decision, taken at the sixteenth session (Santa Fe, USA, December 1992), to include among the strategic goals and objectives also the need to "implement a professionally designed marketing strategy to increase public awareness, involvement and support", the Director-General commissioned a report to that effect, prepared by his Special *[Annex III/3] Adviser, Mr Charles de Haes, and Mr David Mitchell, which you are invited to examine at this session. The Director- General would appreciate receiving the Committee's advice on all the points that you may wish to comment. Specifically, as regards recommendations 1 to 5, he seeks your views on the following: should there be a new World Heritage logo, or should the existing one be kept but in a revised (improved) version? What legal entity would be the most appropriate owner of the WH logo, and would as such be entrusted to license the use of the logo for commercial purposes? One possibility would be that the World Heritage Centre assumes this role, but you may have other proposals. Furthermore, how much is the Committee willing to invest for the legal protection of the WH logo? Finally, how to ensure that World Heritage and UNESCO are mutually supportive in the presentation of their respective logos? Regarding recommendation 8, the Director-General invites the Committee to express its views on contracting private sector expertise for integrated communications and fundraising. As for recommendations 6 and 7, both of which concern directly the functioning of the WH Centre, in addition to what I have already said on the subject of the Centre's possible functional autonomy, let me underline that the Director-General intends to define the responsibilities of the Centre upon examining the recommendations and decisions which will result from this 18th session of the World Heritage Committee. The above-mentioned matters are certainly among the topics which will be in the forefront of your deliberations. Before concluding, however, I would like to mention a few other points which merit to be brought to your attention. The first of these is the decentralization of the Centre's work, which would be an important future task, should the Committee endorse this. In the past few months, some of the States Parties, having anticipated such a move, informed us of their readiness to provide facilities, including personnel, for a possible establishment of international World Heritage offices in different parts of the world. Such eagerness may be an encouraging sign but, here again, it is for the Committee to examine what possible implications this may have in the long run. The Emergency Fund, established by the Committee last year for the first time, has proven its great usefulness. In the case of the Galapagos National Park, in which a fire burned some 8,000 hectares of Isabela Island, US $ 50,000 were immediately provided out of this fund. The President of Ecuador thanked the Director-General for the prompt assistance provided by the WH Committee and the Centre. The same amount of money was given to the Kahuzi-Biega National Park and the Virunga National Park, in Zaire, both of which are, as you know, the last reserves of mountain gorillas. Due to the tragic events in Rwanda, both Parks have been threatened by the massive arrival of refugees. Again, the Chairperson's and the Centre's rapid action helped redress, at least for the time being, the destabilization which could have had irreversible consequences for the protected fauna of these Parks. *[Annex III/4] These cases, as also those that have been perhaps less dramatic, show clearly the importance of monitoring of the state of conservation of the World Heritage properties, which is one of the principal tasks of the Centre. The Director-General is therefore happy that progress is being made in the further development of a methodology of systematic monitoring and reporting, which the Centre has undertaken in cooperation with the Committee's advisory bodies, namely ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN, and other experts. Your further advice on this, once you have examined the document prepared on this subject for this session, (CONF.003/6), will be particularly helpful. May I bring to your attention in this regard that the Executive Board of UNESCO adopted at its recently held 145th session a resolution on "Preliminary proposals for Medium-Term Planning from 1996 (28 C/4) and the Draft Programme and Budget for 1996-1997 (28 C/5)" in which it has stated, concerning the preservation of cultural heritage, the following: "(xiii) the monitoring of sites on the World Heritage List should be undertaken in accordance with the Rules of the World Heritage Convention and the guidelines that should govern its implementation, keeping in mind that Member States themselves will undertake the monitoring of their World Heritage sites, in consultation with UNESCO and other specialized organizations." Finally, I wish to underline that the Centre has developed in the past year certain new projects which are carried out in cooperation with other UNESCO units and external partners. Among these, the Director-General is particularly pleased with the Centre's interregional project "Young People's Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion", which is being implemented with the Sector for Education, other units in the Secretariat, as well as some thirty National Commissions for UNESCO and important external partners, among which also the Rhone-Poulenc Company. (Detailed information on this is given in Document CONF.003/INF.11). The entire project, including next summer's "World Heritage Youth Forum", to be hosted by Norway, is an innovation in many respects, and may indeed be an important step in mobilizing the enormous potential provided by schools, teachers' associations, parent associations and the local communities in general, for World Heritage awareness-building. May I conclude on this hopeful note, and wish the Committee, on behalf of the Director-General and personally, every success in its deliberations. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ANNEX IV ADDRESS BY HIS EXCELLENCY DR. PREECHA MUSIKUL DEPUTY MINISTER OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT AT THE OPENING SESSION OF THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE MONDAY, 12TH DECEMBER 1994 LE MERIDIEN PHUKET HOTEL, PHUKET, THAILAND Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen, On behalf of the Royal Thai Government and the Prime Minister who regrets his inability to be with you in person, I have the honour and privilege to extend our warm welcome to each and everyone present at the eighteenth session of the World Heritage Committee and to express our appreciation and gratitude to the Intergovernmental Committee for accepting our invitation to hold its meeting in Thailand, right here on Phuket Island with its natural beauty and unspoilt charm. First of all, I am pleased to say with certainty that the Royal Thai Government cherish the philosophy and the noble objectives of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. We fully share the ideal that the cultural and natural properties of outstanding universal value, to whatever States they may belong, constitute as parts of the world heritage of mankind as a whole, and that it is incumbent on Thailand to join the international community to participate in the collective efforts of safeguarding the heritage of all the nations of the world. For these reasons, the Royal Thai Government appreciate and attach great importance to the tasks, the responsibility and the significant role of the World Heritage Committee in implementing the provisions of the Convention for the good of humanity. *[Annex IV/2] Following the acceptance of the World Heritage Convention in 1987, Thailand was elected to the World Heritage Committee in 1989. Since then, we have been even more convinced of the effectiveness of the work and activities of the World Heritage Committee as a mechanism established by the Convention for international co-operation and assistance designed to support State Parties to the Convention in their efforts to protect and conserve world heritage sites for the future of mankind. With the valuable services and assistance provided by IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM and the secretariat, the World Heritage Committee has been able to alleviate the magnitude and the gravity of the dangers threatening, directly or indirectly, a number of properties on the World Heritage List. On this special occasion for the Royal Thai Government of having the opportunity of hosting the eighteenth session of the World Heritage Committee, we, in Thailand, would like to congratulate the Intergovernmental Committee for its success in the implementation of its programmes and projects to meet the requirements of Member States to secure the protection, conservation, presentation or rehabilitation of world heritage properties, as well as for its discrete and effective use of the resources of the World Heritage Fund established under the Convention for such purposes. The forms of international assistance provided by the World Heritage Committee are also appropriate and carefully considered to meet the specific needs of the recipient Member States, such as the provision of experts, supply of equipment, training of staff and specialists in the field of protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of the cultural and natural heritage, studies concerning the artistic, scientific and technical problems consistent with the objectives of the Convention, as well as the emergency assistance wherever and whenever there are such needs in the case of natural calamities or man-made disasters. Thailand is dedicated and fully committed to support the endeavours of the World Heritage Committee to fulfill the noble objectives of the Convention. Again on this special occasion, I am pleased to announce that, over and above Thailand's compulsory annual contribution, the Royal Thai Government will be making a voluntary contribution in the amount of three hundred thousand Bahts to the World Heritage Fund. *[Annex IV/3] Lastly, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to say that I have no doubt that the eighteenth session of the World Heritage Committee will be a great success. But I also hope that in addition to the tight schedules of meeting and strenuous work, you will be able to find time to make use of the available facilities so that your stay here will be an enjoyable, pleasant, and memorable one. I wish each and everyone all the best, and thank you for your kind attention. Thank You.