World Heritage Centre https://whc.unesco.org?cid=305&l=en&search_theme=5&year_start=1988&action=list&mode=rss World Heritage Centre - Committee Decisions 90 en Copyright 2024 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:42:43 EST UNESCO, World Heritage Centre - Decisions https://whc.unesco.org/document/logowhc.jpg https://whc.unesco.org 7 EXT.COM 5 First cycle of Periodic Reporting
  • Having examined Documents WHC-04/7EXT.COM/5A, WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/5B, WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/5C, WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/5D, and WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/5E,
  • Aware of the need to:
    1. study and reflect on the first cycle of Periodic Reporting;
    2. develop strategic direction on the forms and the format of the Periodic Reports, training priorities and international cooperation priorities; and
    3. to streamline the Committee's consideration of matters raised through Periodic Reporting relating to inscribed properties;
  • Decides to suspend for one year the commencement of the next cycle of Periodic Reporting.
    • ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/40 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST     7 EXT.COM 5A.1 Progress report on the preparation of the Periodic Report for Europe and North America The World Heritage Committee,

    1. Having examined Document WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/5A, 
    2. Recalling its Decision 25 COM VII.25-27 at its 25th session (Helsinki, 2001)  to examine at its 29th session (Durban, 2005), the Periodic Report for North America, 
    3. Notes the report on the progress of such Periodic Report.
    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/42 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST     7 EXT.COM 5B Follow-up to Periodic Report for the Arab States The World Heritage Committee,

    1. Having examined Document WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/5B,
    2. Recalling its Decisions 24 COM VII.1-4 and 27 COM 20B.I, adopted at its 24th session (Cairns, 2000) and its 27th session (UNESCO, 2003), respectively,
    3. Takes note of the progress made in the implementation of the Regional Programme for the Arab States and in responding to the priority needs identified in the Periodic Report for the Arab States;
    4. Thanks the Dutch Government for supporting the publication of such Periodic Report;
    5. Requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to continue developing the Assistance Modules, as well as projects, as part of the strategy outlined in the Regional Programme, and to consult the concerned States Parties in the process;
    6. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to report at its 30th session (2006) on the outcome of the Regional Meeting foreseen in 2005 – with particular attention to the review of the Assistance Modules and the mobilization of extra-budgetary resources for their implementation.
    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/45 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST     7 EXT.COM 5C https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/49 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST 7 EXT.COM 5D https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/50 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST 7 EXT.COM 5E https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/48 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST 7 EXT.COM 5E https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/51 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST 7 EXT.COM 5F https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/52 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST 10 GA 15-33 New monitoring activities related to World Heritage sites 15. This agenda item was introduced by the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee, Dr Adul Wichiencharoen (Thailand), who summarized the contents of his report on this subject as reflected in Working Document WHC-95/CONF.204/7 (see note [1] ) and the proposed resolution that had been prepared by him for this General Assembly (WHC­95/CONF.204/DR.1). He recalled that the World Heritage Committee, after a long process of consultations, discussions and practical experiences in several States Parties and regions, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean, decided, at its eighteenth session in December 1994, to introduce a voluntary system of on-site monitoring of the state of conservation of World Heritage properties by the States Parties themselves, with a periodic reporting by the States Parties to the World Heritage Committee. With reference to specific provisions in the Articles 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 and the eighth preambular clause of the Convention, the Chairman emphasized that the Committee considered monitoring and reporting to constitute the appropriate modern and scientific means to meet the requirements and responsibilities of the States Parties and the World Heritage Committee as set out in the World Heritage Convention for ensuring the collective protection and conservation of properties on the World Heritage List. Therefore, he concluded, the reporting, i.e. the presentation of periodic state of conservation reports as proposed by the Committee, is a technical instrument for the implementation of the Convention and is of a different order than the reports to the General Conference of UNESCO mentioned in Article 29 of the Convention.

    16. The Delegate of India introduced a draft resolution submitted by her country together with Indonesia, Jamaica, Oman and the Republic of Korea (see Document WHC­95/CONF.204/DR.2 which was replaced by WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.2.Corr.1). Another draft resolution was also submitted by India as an amendment to the Chairman's proposed resolution (see Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3). She proposed to use the terminology 'systematic observation' instead of 'systematic monitoring' in order to avoid any misunderstanding and misinterpretation. She also pointed out that, in her country's view and based upon Article 29 of the Convention, reports from States Parties can only be required by the General Conference of UNESCO and not by a 'select outside body' such as the World Heritage Committee.

    17. The UNESCO Legal Adviser replied to some specific questions that were raised in the draft resolution DR.2.corr. 1. He clarified that the World Heritage Convention only foresees a reporting by the States Parties to the General Conference of UNESCO and that no legal basis exists for the Committee to demand reports on a mandatory The Committee could, however, request reports as long as this would be done on a voluntary basis.

    18. In reply to a question posed by the Delegate of India, the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee emphasized that it is the responsibility of the Committee to make detailed provisions for the implementation of the different aspects of the Convention which are subsequently reflected in the 'Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention'. In this sense, he repeated that monitoring and reporting were conceived by the Committee as a technical means of implementing the Convention and as an effective tool for management and planning remedial actions by the States Parties themselves and for the Committee to undertake the tasks entrusted to it in the Convention. He reiterated that the World Heritage Committee can only undertake its tasks to establish and keep up-to-date the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger as well as to provide international assistance for the safeguarding of World Heritage properties, if it has updated and reliable information on their state of conservation available.

    19. In the ensuing debate, the decisions taken by the World Heritage Committee and the Chairman's proposed resolution WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.1. were fully supported by the Delegates of Cambodia, Argentina, Colombia, Netherlands, Croatia, Mexico, Italy, Sweden, Poland, Cuba, United States of America, Canada, among others, whereas the resolution WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3 tabled by India was favoured or considered suitable for revision by the Delegates of Germany, Greece, France, Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Laos, China, Mali, Sudan, among others. The Delegate of Germany, however, expressed reservations about the final part of paragraph 7 of the draft resolution DR.3 and proposed that the text 'on a totally voluntary basis and without any obligation under the Convention to do so' be deleted.

    20. The Delegate of Canada then pointed out that it seemed that the main divergence was not on the need for monitoring or reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties in itself, but on the question if reports should be submitted to the World Heritage Committee or to the UNESCO General Conference. Upon her suggestion that reports could be presented to the General Assembly of States Parties, the President of the General Assembly decided to adjourn the session to give the delegates the opportunity to discuss and prepare a consensus resolution. After the recess, a 'revised amendment' was submitted by India (see Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3.Rev.1). This document was then distributed to all delegates.

    21. The Delegate of Germany expressed his support for this DR.3.Rev.1, whereas the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee expressed his strong opposition towards it. In view of the fact that many delegates wished to consult with their respective governments on this new text, the President of the General Assembly decided to defer the debate until after the elections of the new members of the Committee (item 10 of the agenda).

    22. After the conclusion of the elections, the President of the General Assembly stated that he had received a written statement from the Delegates of Sweden, Denmark and Finland which supported the resolution DR.1 proposed by the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee and which proposed specific amendments to the DR.3.Rev.1 in case the DR.1 were not accepted by the General Assembly (for the full text of this statement see Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3.Rev.2). A revision to DR.3.Rev.1 was also submitted to the President of the General Assembly in a written statement submitted by the Delegate of Brazil and reproduced in Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3.Rev.3. The President then proposed to amend DR.3.Rev.1 in the sense that reporting would take place to the 'General Assembly of States Parties as well as to the General Conference of UNESCO'. He also proposed amendments to paragraph 4 of the same document regarding the 'prime responsibility' of the States Parties in the observation of the conditions of World Heritage properties, and paragraph 5 regarding the role of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the advisory bodies in providing expert advice to States Parties (for the full text of this proposal see Document DR.3.Rev.4).

    23. The Chairman of the World Heritage Committee intervened to express his disappointment that not all members of the World Heritage Committee openly defended the Committee's decisions. Hereafter, the Delegate of Italy requested that his country's full support to the Committee's decisions be recorded in the report of the session. The Chairman, supported by the Delegates of Italy, Australia and Canada, also raised objections that his proposed resolution was not taken as the basis for the discussions. The President referred to Rules 12.6 and 12.7 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly to justify his decision to first invite discussions on the draft resolutions submitted by India (DR.3.Rev. I) and himself (DR.3.Rev.4).

    24. The discussions then focused on the DR.3.Rev.4 proposed by the President of the General Assembly.

    25. The Delegates of Brazil and Italy supported the President's proposal to bring paragraph 4 of DR.3.Rev.1 in line with Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention which stipulates that 'the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage (...) belongs primarily to that State'. As to paragraph 5 of the President's proposal, the Delegate of Brazil, supported by the Delegates of Italy, Madagascar, Australia and the Netherlands, found this too restrictive and proposed to replace its text by the following: "Emphasizes further that with the expressed agreement of the State Party concerned, UNESCO, through the World Heritage Centre and/or the advisory bodies mentioned in Art. 13.7, may provide expert advice on ...." (see Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3.Rev.3). The Delegate of Italy questioned the meaning of paragraph 9 of DR3.Rev.3 and DR.3.Rev.4 inviting the World Heritage Committee to explore the possibility of activating the reporting procedure mentioned in Article 29.

    26. The Delegate of Australia expressed the view that the Assembly did not seem to be close to a consensus on the matter of monitoring and reporting. In response to the fear he felt among some of the delegates for excessive bureaucracy and an intrusion on the sovereignty of the States Parties, the Delegate stated that the World Heritage Committee's decisions on monitoring and reporting indeed strengthen the role of the Convention and the Committee but that these are in no way intrusive. Given the fact that the Convention as such, of course, cannot reflect the experiences gained since 1972, he felt that there is an important role to play for UNESCO in setting standards in this field. He concluded that he would not concur with the President's proposal DR.3.Rev.4.

    27. Adding to this, the Delegate of Canada referred to specific articles in the World Heritage Convention, particularly Article 6, to illustrate the delicate balance between the sovereignty of the States Parties and the responsibility of the international community to cooperate in the conservation of the World Heritage properties, and to the importance of paragraph 5 (a) of the proposed resolution DR.1. She concluded that both DR.3.Rev.1 and DR.3.Rev.4 would imply a step back as compared to the Convention.

    28. In response to the President's draft resolution (DR.3.Rev.4), the UNESCO Legal Adviser remarked that this proposal would encounter the same legal difficulties as the one proposing reporting to the Committee. He again recalled that, according to Article 29 of the Convention, it is to the General Conference of UNESCO to determine the dates and the manner in which the States Parties to the Convention shall give information on the legislative and administrative provisions which they have adopted and other actions which they have taken for the application of the Convention, together with details of the experience required in this field. He stressed that Article 29 could be used in a flexible way and that 'the manner' of the reporting could very well be, if the General Conference would so decide, through the General Assembly or the World Heritage Committee.

    29. During the debate, the Delegate of Zimbabwe observed that the decisions taken by the World Heritage Committee address the concerns of, what he called, the practitioners and that monitoring is crucial for their work and that he therefore supported the Committee's position. He also proposed to mandate the Committee to look again into this matter. The Delegates of Australia and Austria equally stressed the need to develop, on the basis of the past experiences, standards for management and monitoring of World Heritage properties including a format for periodic state of conservation reports and the important role the World Heritage Committee and UNESCO, in collaboration with the advisory bodies ICCROM. ICOMOS and IUCN, should play in this matter.

    30. The Delegates of Algeria and Morocco remarked that the positions defended by the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee and the Delegate of India differed fundamentally from each other and that more reflection was needed on this matter. They proposed to defer the discussion and decision-making to the next General Assembly in 1997. This was supported by the Delegates of Australia, Canada, Sweden, Malta and Pakistan. As the discussion continued on various related matters, the Delegate of Sweden requested the President to bring the proposal to defer the debate to a vote. The President did so and the proposal was adopted by forty-one votes in favour. Ten delegates voted for the continuation of the debate and five abstentions were recorded.

    31. As a conclusion, - the General Assembly decided to continue the debate on the systematic monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties at the eleventh General Assembly of States Parties that will be held in 1997. The General Assembly requested the World Heritage Committee to prepare a report and a proposed resolution for the eleventh session of the General Assembly of States Parties taking into account the discussions and experiences gained over the past years as well as the documents that had been presented to the Tenth General Assembly and the discussions thereon.

    32. The Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Assembly that the report of the session will be finalized by the Rapporteur and will be distributed, in English and French, to all States Parties before the nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee (4-9 December 1995). Furthermore, he indicated that the item 'the state of conservation of World Heritage cultural and natural properties' figured already on the provisional agenda of the nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee and that the Committee would certainly examine this matter in the light of the debate at the Tenth General Assembly very seriously. He furthermore informed that the Committee will decide whether financial support will be given to States Parties upon their request, for monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage properties and for training of site managers in this field. He also indicated that guidelines were being prepared jointly with ICCROM for on-site recording, and documentation.

    33. Subsequently, upon the proposal made by the Delegate of the United States of America, the General Assembly thanked the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee for the work undertaken by the Committee and for his personal commitment and professional input in the debate at this General Assembly.


    [1] The Rapporteur decided, for the sake of clarity, to re-number the proposed draft resolutions and revisions to these resolutions submitted to the General Assembly in their chronological order. All these documents as well as the Report of the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee for this agenda item are included among the official documents of the General Assembly and are included in Annex II. Reference numbers used in this report are the ones attributed to them by the Rapporteur.]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6517 wh-support@unesco.org Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST     11 GA 22-25 Monitoring and reporting the state of conservation of World Heritage properties 22. The Director of the World Heritage Centre recalled that the Tenth General Assembly examined the monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties and that it decided the following (paragraph 31 of the Summary Record of the Tenth General Assembly):

    'As a conclusion, the General Assembly decided to continue the debate on the systematic monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties at the Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties that will be held in 1997. The General Assembly requested the World Heritage Committee to prepare a report and a draft resolution for the Eleventh session of the General Assembly of States Parties taking into account the discussions and experiences gained over the past years as well as the documents that had been presented to the Tenth General Assembly and the discussions thereon.'

    23. In response to this request, the World Heritage Committee submitted working document WHC-97/CONF.205/5 which included a report and a draft resolution. The Committee proposed in its report that the methodology and procedures of monitoring and reporting should be governed by the following principles:

    i) monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage properties is the responsibility of the State Party concerned and is part of the site management;
    ii) the commitment of the States Parties to provide regular reports on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties is consistent with the principles of the World Heritage Convention and should be part of a continuous process of collaboration between the States Parties and the World Heritage Committee;
    iii) regular reports may be submitted in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention. The General Conference of UNESCO should be asked to activate Article 29 of the Convention and to entrust the World Heritage Committee with the responsibility to respond to these reports;
    iv) the World Heritage Committee should define the form, nature and extent of the regular reporting in respect of the principles of State sovereignty.

     24. After long discussion and taking into account interventions of several States Parties, the General Assembly adopted, by consensus, the following resolution :

     

    1. Noting that the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage has recognized that the cultural and natural heritage 'are increasingly threatened with destruction, not only by traditional causes of decay, but also by changing social and economic conditions which aggravate the situation with even more formidable phenomena of damage or destruction';
    2. Considering the twenty-five years of experience in the implementation of the Convention;
    3. Reaffirms that 'deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world';
    4. While reaffirming the sovereign right of the State Party concerned over the World Heritage sites situated on its territory, considers that a well-reflected and formulated common policy for the protection of cultural and natural heritage is likely to create a continuing interaction between States Parties;
    5. Emphasizes the interest of each State Party to be informed of the experience of others with regard to conservation methods and the possibilities so offered, through voluntary international co-operation, for the general improvement of all actions undertaken;
    6. Reaffirms the standard setting role of the General Assembly as well as of the World Heritage Committee;
    7. Concludes that monitoring is the responsibility of the State Party concerned and that the commitment to provide periodic reports on the state of the site is consistent with the principles set out in the Convention in

                              (i)                     the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth preambular clauses,

                              (ii)                    Art. 4

                              (iii)                   Art. 6.1. and 6.2.

                              (iv)                   Art. 7

                              (v)                    Art. 10

                              (vi)                   Art. 11

                              (vii)                  Art. 13

                  `           (viii)                 Art. 15

                              (ix)                   Art. 21.3

                              (x)                   Art. 29;

    8. Emphasizes that monitoring is part of the site management which remains the responsibility of the States Parties where the site is located, and that periodic reports may be submitted in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention;
    9. Recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that 'Each State Party....recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage...situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State';
    10. Recalls that Article 6 lays down the concept of world heritage 'for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate', and that Article 7 requires the establishment of a 'system of international co-operation and assistance' designed to support States Parties' efforts to identify and conserve that heritage;
    11. Emphasizes that periodic reporting should be an integral part of a consultative process and not treated as a sanction or a coercive mechanism;
    12. Notes that within the broad responsibility of the World Heritage Committee in standards setting, the form, nature and extent of the periodic reporting must respect the principles of State sovereignty and that the involvement of the Committee, through its Secretariat and/or advisory bodies, in the preparation of the periodic reports would be with the agreement of the State Party concerned;
    13. Further notes that the States Parties may request expert advice from the Secretariat and/or the advisory bodies and that the Secretariat may also commission expert advice with the agreement of the States Parties;
    14. Suggests the General Conference of UNESCO to activate the procedures in Art. 29 of the Convention and to refer to the World Heritage Committee the responsibility to respond to the reports;
    15. Encourages States Parties to take advantage of shared information and experience on World Heritage matters;
    16. Invites other States to become States Parties to the Convention.

     

    25. The General Assembly requested the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee to transmit to the General Conference of UNESCO its views on monitoring and reporting, as well as its suggestion to the General Conference to activate the procedures in Art. 29 of the Convention and to refer to the World Heritage Committee the responsibility to respond to the reports.]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6505 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:00:00 EST     12 BUR VII.14 State of conservation 14. The representative of IUCN reported on the status of three natural sites, two of which are inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, as follows:

    Manu National Park (Peru): A commercial discovery of natural gas had beenmade next to the park and further exploration work was imminent. This work would bring in many workers and settlers next to the western boundary of the park and could result in encroachments and associated problems. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Peruvian authorities and to seek* further explanation.

    Djoudj National Park (Senegal): The water supply to this park which wasmodified by dam construction was now being assured by a sluice which had been built with the support of the World Heritage Fund. A management plan was also under preparation with funds from WWF. Although there was still a need to improve the management of this site, the Bureau recognized that the main threats were under control and requested the Secretariat to contact the Senegalese authorities with a view to removing this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

    Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania): The general situation of this sitehad greatly improved. Equipment had been made available through the World Heritage Fund and IUCN was working to strengthen policy, planning and train­ing activities for the site with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism of Tanzania. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Tanzanian authorities with a view to removing this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5300 wh-support@unesco.org Tue, 14 Jun 1988 00:00:00 EST     12 BUR VII.16 State of conservation 16. The Permanent Delegate of Iran to Unesco made a statement regarding the damages incurred by the Meidan Emam (Meidan Nagh Cheh Jahan) at Isphahan which was hit by a rocket during the recent attacks on Iranian cities. In the Permanent Delegate's opinion, the Meidan Emam should be considered for the List of World Heritage in Danger.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5301 wh-support@unesco.org Tue, 14 Jun 1988 00:00:00 EST     12 COM X.A SOC: Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania) 1) Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania)

    The Committee was glad to be informed that the conservation status of this property had greatly improved but that the Tanzanian authorities had requested that it be maintained on the List of World Heritage in Danger, particularly in view of the continued threat of poaching. The Committee agreed to maintain this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger but expressed the wish that it be removed from this List in 1989.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3659 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 05 Dec 1988 00:00:00 EST     12 COM X.A SOC: Djoudj National Park (Senegal) 2) Djoudj National Park (Senegal)

    The Committee was glad to learn that due in part to assistance provided from the Fund, the conservation status of this property had greatly improved. The Committee decided to comply with the request of the Senegalese authorities to remove this property from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3660 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 05 Dec 1988 00:00:00 EST     12 COM X.A SOC: Tai National Park (Cote d'Ivoire) 3) Tai National Park (Cote d'Ivoire)

    The Committee noted that the natural values of this property had declined due to various illegal activities within the park. The Committee was, however, glad to learn of a forthcoming project financed by WWF, US-AID and possibly with a contribution from the World Heritage which could help mitigate the current situation, and requested IUCN to report back to the Committee at its next session.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3661 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 05 Dec 1988 00:00:00 EST     12 COM X.A SOC: Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras) 4) Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)

    The representative of IUCN reported that this property was currently under extreme pressure with the invasion of some 50,000 refugees and settlers into the Reserve. The Committee requested the Secretariat to contact the Honduran authorities to obtain further information and to ask them to consider inscribing this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3662 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 05 Dec 1988 00:00:00 EST     12 COM X.A SOC: Yellowstone National Park (USA) 5) Yellowstone National Park (USA)

    The Committee noted that an exceptionally large fire had occurred in the Park during 1988 but that no World Heritage values had been lost. The Committee welcomed the proposal of the representative of the USA to provide further information on the results of the review of the fire management policy for wilderness areas and the restoration/recovery plan aimed at showing visitors how Yellowstone was being "reborn".

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3663 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 05 Dec 1988 00:00:00 EST     12 COM X.B.34-40 Monitoring of the State of Conservation of the World Heritage Cultural Properties: General Issues B. Cultural Properties

    34. At the request of the Chairman, the Secretariat informed the Committee of its observations concerning the results at the present stage of implementation of the experimental monitoring system adopted by the Committee at its eleventh session. The attention of the Committee was drawn to the difficulties of a number of States in meeting the deadlines; a modified timetable was suggested, so as to enable both the Secretariat and ICOMOS to process replies and to report to the Bureau before reporting to the Committee. The Secretariat stated that the results obtained were encouraging, but that conclusions would be premature. It therefore suggested that implementation of the system be extended for another year. As requested by the Chairman, ICOMOS then stated that the information provided, although necessary and valuable, was insufficient. Exceedingly brief answers provided little information on the extent of danger referred to and very succinct analyses prevented any serious evaluation of problems raised. He further regretted the lack of information on museum installations on archaeological sites and the lack of data on the environment. To conclude, he stated that procedures could no doubt be improved, either by reformulating the questionnaire or by encouraging States to answer in greater detail.

    35. Several members, however, were doubtful as regards the usefulness and efficiency of the questionnaire in its present form. One speaker suggested that it might be considered an aide-memoire to remind the States of the need to present a report on the state of conservation of their properties. He further wondered whether a single questionnaire was applicable to all types of properties and suggested reflection on this matter. He added that it might be proper to distinguish between simple and complex properties, between urban centres and archaeological sites, etc.

    36. A member suggested that an explanatory letter be attached to the questionnaire, to explain to States Members as clearly as possible the objectives of the Committee with respect to the monitoring system. Another member backed this proposal and further suggested sending a new letter to the States who had submitted incomplete answers. A member felt that it would be desirable to attach typical examples of satisfactory answers to the questionnaire as models. It was concluded however that the experiment should be pursued and that the state of conservation of the next fifty cultural properties be examined in 1989 (Annex II). The Secretariat would report to the Committee at its next session. This proposal was adopted by the Committee, which further approved the new timetable proposed by the Secretariat.

    37. The representative of UNDP expressed to the Committee his views on the monitoring system. In his opinion, monitoring, technical cooperation, planning and evaluation were closely linked in any project. Any efficient monitoring system would require adequate strategies and methodologies. It would have to be a dynamic process, to be initiated and implemented in the field to the extent possible. Monitoring was also a mode of cooperation and therefore an excellent means to link various sectors beyond culture and nature. In this respect, he noted the very close relationship between conservation and the environment. Finally, he stated that he was ready to cooperate with the Secretariat, ICOMOS, ICCROM and governments in all monitoring activities. Several Committee members expressed their appreciation of the UNDP Representative's comment.

    38. In the context of the statement of a member of the Committee, the representative of ICCROM drew the Committee's attention to the specific problem of historic towns and to the need to define the principles and objectives of conservation in each case. He confirmed ICCROM's eagerness to co-operate with the Committee in all aspects of monitoring and training. One member of the Committee then underlined the need for joint reflection on methods of intervention and techniques for the restoration of ancient structures. The representative of ICOM, by means of a precise example, drew the attention of the Committee to the importance of museums in the global process of conservation and rehabilitation of historical towns. The Committee took note of these comments.

    39. The importance of conserving the environment of cultural properties was stressed by the representative of France, who referred to the problem of Mont Saint-Michel, a site where the environmental issue was particularly crucial. The Committee noted the information he provided on methods of intervention used by the French authorities at this site and strongly encouraged them to pursue such work.

    40. The representative of Senegal requested a progress report on the international campaign for the protection of Goree and inquired about the procedures for the inscription of this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Secretariat provided him with the information requested.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3664 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 05 Dec 1988 00:00:00 EST     12 COM X.B.41-43 SOC: Old Quebec (Canada), Goreme (Turkey) & Studenica Monastery (Yugoslavia) 41. The Secretariat informed the Committee of problems that had arisen in the case of the three World Heritage sites. First, in the case of the city of Quebec, two real estate projects had given rise to concern in 1987 and the Canadian authorities had provided a report on the subject. The representative of Canada stated that, although several projects were still under study, the cultural heritage of Old Quebec would be safeguarded and the Committee would be advised of any change in the property.

    42. As regards the site of Goreme in Turkey, the Secretariat informed the Committee of an ICOMOS report indicating two serious problems concerning the environment of this site. The Turkish authorities advised the Committee of the intent of their government to take all measures required for the protection of this vulnerable site.

    43. The case of the Studenica Monastery was also submitted to the Committee. To evaluate the impact of the possible construction of a dam some ten kilometres from this property, Unesco had asked ICCROM, at the request of the Government of Yugoslavia, to investigate the situation. The Chairman invited the ICCROM representative, who had been part of the investigating team, to report on the matter. He stated that there did not seem to be technical grounds for preventing the dam project as presently contemplated. However, the ethical problem of protecting cultural and historical values linked to the Studenica valley, eponym of the monastery, was highly important and should be taken into account. He also advised the Committee as to the possibility of alternative although more costly dam locations much farther away from the monastery. The main purpose of constructing the dam was to ensure the water supply of a region where other rivers are already polluted. This raised the basic problem of protecting the environment, underlying other equally essential matters. Finally, the question was whether it was indeed necessary to sacrifice the admirable Studenica site since there were alternative in order to improve economic and social conditions in Serbia. The Committee took note of the report and requested the Secretariat to convey its concern to the Yugoslav authorities.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3665 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 05 Dec 1988 00:00:00 EST     12 COM XVI.73 Other Business: Concerns About the Situation of Architectural Heritage, Both Urban and Rural, in Romania 73. The Secretary-General of ICOMOS read out a telex message from Professor Roberto di Stefano, President of ICOMOS, expressing the grave concern of his Organization about "the situation of architectural heritage, both urban and rural, in Romania". After describing the measures taken by ICOMOS, the message stated that this organization was ready to help the Committee in any way possible. The Committee noted that Romania was not a State Party to the Convention and that when the matter had been raised in the recent 130th session of Unesco's Executive Board, the Director-General had informed that body of the measures he was taking to obtain clarifications form the Romanian authorities on the effects on the architectural heritage of its "rural systematisation" policies. The Committee endorsed the concern expressed by ICOMOS and expressed the wish that this concern be communicated to the Romanian authorities. An observer from a States Party suggested that in the "global study" it would be carrying out ICOMOS could give priority attention to Romanian properties of World Heritage significance.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3687 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 05 Dec 1988 00:00:00 EST