World Heritage Centre https://whc.unesco.org?cid=305&l=en&searchDecisions=&search_theme=15&&action=list&mode=rss World Heritage Centre - Committee Decisions 90 en Copyright 2024 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre Thu, 23 May 2024 19:04:30 EST UNESCO, World Heritage Centre - Decisions https://whc.unesco.org/document/logowhc.jpg https://whc.unesco.org 3 COM VI.12 Report by former Chairman and Rapporteur on activities undertaken during the period September 1978-October 1979 and Action to be taken thereon In reporting to the Committee on activities undertaken during the previous year, the former Chairman, Mr. David Hales, focussed on significant successes noted by the Committee and he also referred to serious problems for the future. He drew attention to the increase in the number of ratifications or acceptances of the Convention which totalled 48, to the substantial increase in the number of fellowships provided under the World Heritage Fund as well as in the assistance provided for the protection of sites. Mr. Hales also laid stress on the vast increase in the number of nominations received for inscription on the World Heritage List. However, he had become aware over the past year of the fact that the Convention remained largely an unknown body in the majority of countries and that many Governments did not fully understand its implications. He expressed his concern with respect to the extremely heavy workload for the Secretariat, the advisory organizations, the Bureau and the Committee itself, and he noted that the staff on the Secretariat of the Committee was still insufficient. Another problem was raised by the increasing imbalance between cultural and natural representation on the Committee and he felt that appropriate action should be taken by the States members of the Committee to redress this situation so that the credibility of the World Heritage List should not be put in doubt. Lastly, he underlined the serious responsibility of the Committee with respect to the List, stressing that the Committee's wisdom would be judged by the composition of the List.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2169 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM VI.13 Report by former Chairman and Rapporteur on activities undertaken during the period September 1978-October 1979 and Action to be taken thereon The Rapporteur then proceeded to report on the last two sessions of the Bureau. The written report of the 2nd session, which took place in Paris from 28-30 May 1979, gave rise to no comments from the members of the Committee.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2170 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM VI.14 Report by former Chairman and Rapporteur on activities undertaken during the period September 1978-October 1979 and Action to be taken thereon The report on the third session of the Bureau which took place in Cairo on 21 October 1979 was read before the Committee. Those points raised by the Bureau which called for decisions by the Committee and which were not the subject of an item on the Agenda were then taken up by the
Committee.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2171 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM VI.15 Report by former Chairman and Rapporteur on activities undertaken during the period September 1978-October 1979 and Action to be taken thereon Thus, with respect to paragraph 16 of the report on the different types of recommendation formulated by the Bureau to the Committee on nominations, the Committee decided to adopt for its third session the procedure proposed by the Bureau which is as follows: nominations would not be examined by the Committee: (a) when the deadlines for their submission had not been respected, (b) when their proper processing had not been possible and (c) when it was evident that the supporting documentation was incomplete and/or inadequate; on the other hand those nominations which raised problems of application of the criteria (calling in some cases for the submission of additional documentation) would be submitted to the Committee for consideration with a recommendation from the Bureau that action be deterred, together with those recommended to the World Heritage List and those definitively not recommended for inscription on the List.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2172 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM VI.16 Report by former Chairman and Rapporteur on activities undertaken during the period September 1978-October 1979 and Action to be taken thereon The Committee agreed with the proposal or the Bureau that in the case of properties which fully met the criteria for inclusion in the World Heritage List and which had suffered damage from disasters, the normal deadlines for the submission and processing of dossiers may be waived by the Bureau.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2173 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM VI.17 Report by former Chairman and Rapporteur on activities undertaken during the period September 1978-October 1979 and Action to be taken thereon The Committee also shared the concern of the Bureau at the establishment in the United Kingdom of an organization bearing the name of "World Heritage Association" and of a Fund called "Heritage Trust". The Committee felt strongly that the use in names of the term "World Heritage" should be strictly limited to those activities directly related to the Convention and considered that the use of these terms in the titles of other organizations could only lead to confusion which would be regrettable. It therefore requested the Chairman to write to the above-mentioned Association, expressing the concern of the Committee, requesting it to modify its name so that the terms "World Heritage" no longer appeared therein and suggesting that the Association adopt a name such as the sub-title proposed by its Chairman designate ("International Federation of Independent Organizations for the protection of the cultural and natural heritage").

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2174 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM VI.18 Report by former Chairman and Rapporteur on activities undertaken during the period September 1978-October 1979 and Action to be taken thereon Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee decided to set up three working groups, as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2175 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM X.26 Promotional Activities The Committee took note of the report of the Secretariat on public information activities undertaken during the preceding year. This report called for decisions by the Committee on the publication of the World Heritage List and on the proposal received from the Swedish firm, Upsala Ekeby, to produce glass and silverware commemorating the World Heritage Convention.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2183 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM XI.36 Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of cultural and natural properties in the World Heritage List and Guidelines for the evaluation of Nominations to the World Heritage List by ICOMOS and IUCN The Committee took note of the typology proposed in Mr. Michel Parent's report. It considered that it was on the basis of the inventories submitted by States Parties that such a typology could be finalized. The question will therefore continue to be studied until its next session.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2193 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
5 COM VI.11 Report of the fifth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee The Rapporteur, Mr A. Beschaouch, referred to the main points of the report on the fifth session of the Bureau of the Committee, held in Paris from 4 to 7 May 1981. In particular, he draw attention to the twenty-seven properties recommended for inclusion in the World Heritage List.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5233 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 26 Oct 1981 00:00:00 EST
6 COM V.11 Report on the sixth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee The Rapporteur, Mr. A. Beschaouch, referred to the main points of the report on the sixth session of the Bureau of the Committee which was held in Paris from 21 to 24 June 1982. In particular, he drew attention to the twenty-four properties which had been recommended for inclusion in the World Heritage List and to the Bureau 's request to IUCN and ICOMOS to draw up draft guidelines for the inscription of cultural and natural properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger. He added that, in response to this request, a report was presented to the Committee by these two organizations on this question.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5268 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 13 Dec 1982 00:00:00 EST
6 COM VI.12 Report of the Representative of the Director-General on activities undertaken since the fifth session of the World Heritage Committee In his report on the activities undertaken for the implementation of the Convention since the fifth session of the World Heritage Committee, the representative of the Director-General, Mr. Michel Batisse, Deputy Assistant Director-General for Science indicated that a total of sixty-nine States had now ratified, accepted or acceded to the Convention, and that one hundred and twelve properties nominated by thirty-three States Parties were now included in the World Heritage List. He reported on the activities which had been decided upon by the Committee at its fifth session and drew attention in particular to the training programme and to the various initiatives taken to produce and disseminate information material to a wide public. Finally, he indicated that the surplus in the World Heritage Fund as at 31 October 1982 amounted to over 2.3 million dollars. He considered that, despite some difficulties to be foreseen in the receipt of contributions, the overall situation of the Convention and of the Fund was satisfactory and constituted an excellent example of international co-operation in the present circumstances.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5269 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 13 Dec 1982 00:00:00 EST
6 COM XVII.52 Report of the 22nd session of the Bureau of the General Conference The Committee took note of the draft report prepared for the period September 1980 to November 1982, given in document CLT-82/CONF.015/7. It agreed to the suggestion of the Secretariat that the report would be completed with information on the implementation of the Committee's decisions adopted at its sixth session and be submitted to the Bureau at its next meeting for approval and submission to the next General Conference. The Committee decided that a reference shall be added to the report which stresses the need for adequate staff resources particularly in view of the increasing number of properties on the World Heritage List.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5295 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 13 Dec 1982 00:00:00 EST
8 COM VI.12-14 Report of the Eighth Session of the Bureau: Historic Towns & Centres 12. Mr. da Silva Telles (Brazil), Rapporteur of the previous Bureau, presented the report of the eighth session of the Bureau held on 4-7 June 1984. He furthermore presented a report of the complementary meeting of the Bureau which had taken place on 29 October prior to the eighth session of the Committee itself. This complementary Bureau meeting aimed first of all at considering the conclusions of a group of experts brought together by ICOMOS to study the criteria applicable to historic towns and secondly examining the nominations of the historic centres of Quebec, Canada (N° 300) and of Salvador, Brazil (N° 309) in the light of these conclusions. It was attended by Mrs. Vlad-Borrelli (Chairperson), the representatives of Algeria, Australia, Guinea and Norway (Vice-Chairmen), Mr. A. da Silva Telles, Rapporteur, as well as the representatives of ICOMOS. The representatives of Bulgaria, Cyprus and Senegal attended as observers.

13. The bureau examined the conclusions of the Meeting of Experts to Consult on Historic Towns which met in Paris from 5 to 7 September 1984 and which was organised by ICOMOS. While commending ICOMOS for the work it had accomplished and adopting the proposed methodology, the Bureau suggested that several amendments might be made to this document, which was intended for wide distribution as a set of guidelines. Moreover, at the proposal of the representative of Guinea, the Bureau laid particular stress on the point that in the selection of towns for inclusion in the World Heritage List, the more general values of renown and cultural representativity should be considered, in so far as possible, along with the technical criteria defined by the experts. Since the selection of a town for inclusion in the World Heritage List called for a common conservational effort by its inhabitants, the latter must be closely associated with any decision upon which the future of the property in question depended.

14.   After examining the ICOMOS report and the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee adopted the following text: 

'Article 1 of the Convention provides for the inclusion in the World Heritage List of "groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science".

Groups of urban buildings eligible for inclusion in the World Heritage List fall into three main categories, namely:

i towns which are no longer inhabited but which provide immutable archaeological evidence of a past; these generally satisfy the general criterion of authenticity and can be easily managed;

ii historic towns which are still inhabited and which, by their very nature, have developed and will continue to develop under the influence of socio­economic and cultural change, a situation that renders the assessment of their authenticity more difficult and any conservation policy more problematical;

iii new towns of the twentieth century which paradoxically have something in common with both the aforementioned categories: while their urban organization is clearly recognizable and their authenticity is undeniable, their future is unclear because their development cannot be controlled.

The assessment of towns that are no longer inhabited does not raise any special difficulties other than those related to archaeological sites in general. The general criterion of the uniqueness or exemplary character of a town has been used to make decisions regarding cultural properties that are clearly representative of a specific urban type or structure and contain dense concentrations of monuments. Examples include Timgad (Algeria), Mohenjo-­Daro (Pakistan) and Machupicchu (Peru). Sometimes as in the case of Cyrene (Libya) and Kilwa Kisiwani (Tanzania) the decisive criterion has been the town's important historical associations.

It is important for urban archaeological sites to be listed as integral units. A cluster of monuments or a small group of buildings is not adequate to suggest the multiple and complex functions of a city which has disappeared; remains of such a city should be preserved in their entirety together with their natural surroundings whenever possible.

In the case of inhabited historic towns the difficulties are numerous, largely owing to the fragility of their urban fabric (which has in many cases been seriously disrupted since the advent of the industrial era) and the runaway speed with which their surroundings have been urbanized. To qualify for inclusion, towns should possess architectural interest and should not be considered only on the intellectual grounds of the rule they may have played in the past or their value as historical symbols. under criterion (vi) of the Guidelines. To be eligible for inclusion, the organization of space, structure, materials, forms and, where possible, functions of a cultural property should essentially reflect the civilization or succession of civilizations which have prompted the nomination of the property.

Four categories of towns can be distinguished:

  1. Towns which are typical of a specific period of culture, which have been almost wholly preserved and which have remained largely unaffected by subsequent developments. Here the property to be listed is the entire town together with its surroundings, which it is essential to protect as well. Examples include Ouro Preto (Brazil) and Shibam (Democratic Yemen).
  2. Towns that have evolved along characteristic lines and have preserved, sometimes in the midst of exceptional natural surroundings, spatial arrangements and structures that are typical of the successive stages in their history. Here the clearly defined historic centre takes precedence over the present-day outskirts. Examples include Cuzco (Peru), Berne (Switzerland) and Split (Yugoslavia).
  3. "Historic centres" that cover exactly the same area as ancient towns and are now enclosed within modern cities. Here it is necessary to determine the precise limits of the property in its widest historical dimensions and to make appropriate provision for the management of its immediate surroundings. Examples include Rome (Italy), the old city of Damascus (Syria), and the Medina of Tunis (Tunisia).
  4. Sectors, quarters or isolated units which, even in the residual state in which they have survived, provide clear evidence of the character of a historic town which has disappeared. In such cases surviving areas and buildings should be adequate as an indication of the former whole. Examples include the Islamic district of Cairo, (Egypt) and the Bryggen district in Bergen (Norway).

Historic centres and ancient districts should be listed only where they have a large number of ancient buildings in a sufficiently good state of preservation to provide a direct indication of the characteristic features of a town of exceptional interest. Proposals regarding groups of isolated and unrelated buildings which allegedly represent, in and of themselves, a town whose urban fabric has ceased to be discernible should not be encouraged.

However, proposals could be made regarding works that occupy a limited space .but have had a major influence on the history of town planning, such as the squares of Nancy (France) and the Meidan-e-Shah square in Ispahan (Iran).

In such cases, the nomination should make it clear that it is the group of monuments that is to be listed and the town is mentioned only incidentally as the place where the property is located. Similarly, if a building of clearly universal significance is located in severely degraded or insufficiently representative surroundings, it should, of course, be listed without any special reference to the town. Examples include the Mosque of Cordoba (Spain) and the Cathedral of Amiens (France).

It is difficult to assess the quality of new towns of the twentieth century. History alone will tell which of them will best serve as examples of contemporary town planning. The files on these towns should be shelved until all the traditional historic towns, which represent the most vulnerable part of the human heritage, have been entered on the World Heritage List.

In conclusion, under present conditions, preference should be given to inclusion in the World Heritage List of small or medium-sized towns, which are in a position to manage any potential growth, rather than the great metropolises, which cannot readily provide files that will serve as a satisfactory basis for their inclusion as complete units.

In view of the effects which the inclusion of a town in the World Heritage List could have on its future, this should remain a limited measure.

Inclusion in the List implies that legislative and administrative measures must first be taken to secure the protection of the property and its environment. Informed awareness on the part of the population concerned, without whose active participation any conservation scheme would be impractical, is also essential.

Unesco should be kept informed, through regular reports by competent authorities, of the current situation of cultural property that is protected under the World Heritage Convention.'

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3894 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 29 Oct 1984 00:00:00 EST
9 COM V.8-12 Report of the Secretariat on Activities Undertaken since the Eighth Session of the World Heritage Committee 8. The Secretary, Mr. B. von Droste, Director, Division of Ecological Sciences, reported on activities undertaken since the Committee's eighth session held in Buenos Aires from 29 October to 2 November 1984. He began by reviewing the general status of implementation of the Convention, announcing that six new States, viz. in chronological order, Qatar, New Zealand, Sweden, Dominican Republic, Hungary and Philippines had adhered to the Convention, bringing the number of States Parties to 88. The Convention thus continued to arouse the interest of an increasing number of States. It was to be noted, however, that the geographical representation of States was still very uneven, with few States Parties from the Asian and Eastern European regions. Furthermore, while the number of nominations for inclusion in the World Heritage List was growing steadily, too few States (only 23) had as yet provided tentative lists, which were needed for evaluations of nominations to the List. It was also necessary to make sure that a balance was maintained between cultural and natural properties so as to abide by the spirit of the Convention; the present ratio being two-thirds/one-third. The state of the World Heritage Fund continued to be a major concern, despite the payment of a number of mandatory contributions. The level of the Fund's resources was in fact lower than in previous years (1980-1983), whereas the number of States Parties and entries on the World Heritage List had grown substantially.

9. He then reviewed activities since the Committee's eighth session in terms of preparatory assistance, technical co-operation, training and emergency assistance. On the subject of promotional activities, the Secretary said that an exhibit had been produced with the support of the Spanish Ministry of Cultural Properties and shown successively in Madrid, Canada and in the metro in Paris. He called on States to avail themselves of the Secretariat's copy of the exhibit - or to have it reproduced - for circulation in their own countries.

10. The Secretary stressed the excellent co-operation with ICOMOS and IUCN, but emphasized the fact that the Secretariat's workload had increased considerably while the number of staff working for the implementation of the Convention had remained the same since the Convention had become operational. He thanked the Canadian authorities for having provided the Secretariat with the services of an expert for two years.

11. He concluded his statement by underscoring the challenges to be faced at the beginning of the second decade of the Convention - its universality, commitment and mobilization of States Parties, in particular by establishing national structures for the implementation of the Convention, and making the public aware of the need to safeguard the world heritage.

12. In response to the Secretary's report, the Committee expressed the view that the Director-General's attention should be drawn to the situation of the Secretariat and the need to strengthen it. The Chairman of the International Fund for the Promotion of Culture and the representative of ALECSO reiterated their offer to co-operate with the World Heritage Committee.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3832 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 02 Dec 1985 00:00:00 EST
9 COM VI.13 Report on the Ninth Session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee 13. The Secretariat presented the report of the ninth session of the Bureau and an amendment to that report proposed by the representative of Algeria. The Committee took note of the report as amended.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3833 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 02 Dec 1985 00:00:00 EST
9 COM XIII.38-39 Monitoring of the State of Conservation of the World Heritage Properties: General Issues 38. The Committee thanked IUCN for these comprehensive reports and for regularly providing information on the status of natural properties. It furthermore welcomed the proposal of ICOMOS to submit similar reports, as far as its means would allow, in the near future.

39. Finally, the Committee welcomed document SC-85/CONF.008/INF.2 reporting on the measures taken by Yugoslavia to implement the World Heritage Convention and encouraged other States Parties to prepare such national reports for submission to the Committee.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3887 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 02 Dec 1985 00:00:00 EST
9 GA 9 Report of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6523 wh-support@unesco.org Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 EST 10 GA 9 Report of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6513 wh-support@unesco.org Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST 11 GA 11-16 Report by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee for the period 1996-1997 11. The Chairperson, Mrs Teresa Franco, recalled the last sessions of the World Heritage Committee which were held in Berlin (Germany - nineteenth session) and Merida (Mexico - twentieth session). During these sessions, the World Heritage Committee decided to include 66 new properties on the World Heritage List, bringing the total to 506, with 380 cultural, 108 natural and 19 mixed properties.

12. After a quarter of a century of implementation, it appears that the 1972 Convention is one of the most successful instruments in the field of heritage protection. The Chairperson recalled the efforts undertaken by the World Heritage Committee to ensure that properties correspond to evaluation criteria, and then spoke of the low number of natural properties listed and proposed for inscription. She underlined the imbalance between the number of sites proposed and listed in Europe in comparison to the number of sites from other regions of the world.

13. In this respect, she mentioned assistance approved by the Committee for emergency requests. The budgetary allocation has been considerably increased: from US$ 150,000 per year in 1994/1995 for preparatory assistance, it was increased to US$ 175,000 in 1996 and to US$ 300,000 in 1997. The amount approved for training activities increased from US$ 440,000 to US$ 452,000 in 1994/1995, to US$ 550,000 in 1996 and to US$ 745,000 in 1997.

14. She expressed concern about the low number of requests for international assistance, especially in the field of preparatory assistance, probably due to the lack of knowledge regarding procedures to follow to apply for this assistance.

15. She indicated that during its forthcoming session in Naples, the Committee would be able to examine the Auditor's report on the management of the Convention, thus providing a basis for future planning of the work of the Convention.

16. The President of the General Assembly once again expressed his satisfaction with the work accomplished.

]]>
https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6501 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:00:00 EST