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.'

[...]

20. [...] In this connection, the Committee noted that Bulgaria and France had just submitted tentative lists of natural properties, which supplement those received from Brazil, Canada, Italy, Portugal, USA and Turkey.

22. Finally, Mr. Chabason felt that the Operational Guidelines of the Convention did not give sufficient guidance to States Parties regarding such "mixed" properties and suggested that, on the occasion of the next Bureau session, ICOMOS and IUCN call a meeting of a group of experts, including geographers, to elaborate a working framework for the identification and nomination of such properties.

23. Several States Members of the Committee expressed their agreement with Mr. Chabason's analysis and proposals. In particular, the representative of Italy described the difficulty of maintaining the traditional agricultural practices of the land around, a given cultural monument. She also referred to the First World Conference on Cultural Parks, organised by the U.S. National Parks Service at Mesa Verde on 16-21 September 1984 and at which there had been a long debate on how to define a "cultural park".

24. Mr. Batisse recalled that the spirit of the World Heritage Convention was to place both the cultural and natural heritage on an equal footing. Accordingly, there should not be a polarisation towards either "culture" or "nature" although there had perhaps been such a tendency in the past as States Parties had initially nominated the properties which clearly met either the cultural or natural criteria. In this respect, the representative of ICOMOS emphasised the influence of the natural environment on the cultures which have built the monuments of World Heritage quality. In his opinion, however, the role of the Convention was not to "fix" such landscapes but rather to conserve their harmony and stability within a dynamic, evolutive framework. IUCN recalled that one of the eight types of "protected area" recognised by their organisation was the "protected landscape" which included, for example, the national parks of the United Kingdom which consist essentially of man-modified and man-maintained landscapes. He warned, however, that care should be taken in the identification of such landscapes to ensure the nomination of only those properties of outstanding universal value. IUCN was to discuss the topic of "mixed" World Heritage properties at the IUCN General Assembly to be held in Madrid on 2-14 November 1984. Accordingly, the Committee requested IUCN to consult with ICOMOS and the International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA) to elaborate guidelines for the identification and nomination of mixed cultural/natural rural properties or landscapes to be presented to the Bureau and the Committee at their forthcoming sessions.

308

United States of America

N(i)(ii)(iii)

In response to the Bureau's request on clarification of the status of the proposed dam constructions in proximity of this property, the Committee noted that the authorities had assured that the implementation of such proposals was highly unlikely. The Committee nevertheless requested to be informed by the American authorities of any developments in this respect which could affect the Park. It also noted with interest that the relevant authorities had the intention to implement a programme to reduce the impact of tourism.

280

Zaire

N(ii)(iii)

The Committee requested the Zaire authorities to proceed as soon as possible to prepare and implement a management plan for the Park with due regard to creating an appropriate corridor linking the two sectors of the National Park.

304

Canada

N(i)(ii)(iii)

The Committee requested the Canadian authorities to consider adding the adjacent Provincial Parks of Mount Robson, Hamber, Mount Assiniboine and Kananskis to this property. Furthermore, the Committee agreed to incorporate the Burgess Shale site in this property, which henceforth would not be separately indicated on the World Heritage List. Finally, the Committee decided that the site be designated as the "Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks" to specify the precise boundary of the property within the entire chain of the Rocky Mountains.

291

Argentina

C(iv)

Under this name, the Committee decided to include jointly in the World Heritage List, along with Sao Miguel das Missoes, in Brazil (which is already included), the four missions nominated by Argentina, i.e. San Ignacio Mini, Santa Ana, Nuestra Senora de Loreto and Santa Maria la Mayor. It considered it would be desirable that certain missions located in Paraguay and Uruguay also be included in the World Heritage List, so that the whole group of monuments might provide a representative illustration of the Jesuit missions of the Guaranis. The Committee took this opportunity to invite the governments of Paraguay and of Uruguay to adhere to the World Heritage Convention. In addition, the Committee drew the attention of the authorities concerned to the necessity of protecting the surroundings of the missions.

303

Argentina

N(iii)(iv)

The Committee noted with satisfaction that the Argentine authorities firmly intend to expand the area of the Park and to complete the management plan in conformity with IUCN's recommendations. The Committee was furthermore glad to be informed by the representative of Brazil that the contiguous Iguacu National Park, on the Brazilian side of the river, would be nominated by the end of 1984 so that both parks could constitute next year a transfrontier World Heritage Site.

302

Zimbabwe

N(ii)(iii)(iv)

The Committee requested to be kept informed by the Zimbabwian authorities of the possible construction of a new dam on the Zambezi at Mapata Gorge. The Committee also requested the Zambian authorities to consider nominating the adjacent Lower Zambezi National Park in order to eventually constitute a joint inscription on the World Heritage List.

285

Colombia

C(iv)(vi)

Noting that the monuments and architectural ensembles included in the List were located within the unique natural setting of the bay of Cartagena, the Committee also recommended that the bay be given the best protection possible.

288

Germany (Fed. Rep. of)

C(ii)(iv)

286

Holy See

C(i)(ii)(iv)(vi)

246

India

C(i)(iii)(vi)

249

India

C(i)(ii)(iii)(vi)

293

Lebanon

C(iii)(iv)

The Committee wished that strict protection be given not only to the intra-muros vestiges but also to the building with a central courtyard extra-muros in the east which had been brought to light. It also suggested that the surroundings of the site, where a modern village was being developed, be strictly protected.

294

Lebanon

C(i)(iv)

The Committee, when inscribing this property, expressed the wish that the protected area include the entire town within the Arab walls as well as the south-western quarter extra­-muros between Bastan-al-Khan, the Roman works and the Mameluk mosque of Ras-al-Ain. During the discussion, the representative of Lebanon assured the Committee that the authorities of this country would follow these recommendations.