Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Capacity Building
Credibility of the World Heritage ...
Inscriptions on the World Heritage ...
International Assistance
List of World Heritage in Danger
Operational Guidelines
Outstanding Universal Value
Periodic Reporting
Reinforced Monitoring
Tentative Lists
Working methods and tools
World Heritage Convention

2029 27 GA
2027 26 GA
2025 25 GA
2025 47 COM
2024 46 COM
2023 24 GA
2023 45 COM
2023 18 EXT.COM
2022 17 EXT.COM
2021 16 EXT.COM
2021 23 GA
2021 44 COM
2021 15 EXT.COM
2020 14 EXT.COM
2019 13 EXT.COM
2019 22 GA
2019 43 COM
2018 42 COM
2017 12 EXT.COM
2017 21 GA
2017 41 COM
2016 40 COM
2015 11 EXT.COM
2015 20 GA
2015 39 COM
2014 1 EXT.GA
2014 38 COM
2013 19 GA
2013 37 COM
2012 36 COM
2011 10 EXT.COM
2011 18 GA
2011 35 COM
2010 34 COM
2010 9 EXT.COM
2009 17 GA
2009 33 COM
2008 32 COM
2007 16 GA
2007 8 EXT.COM
2007 31 COM
2006 30 COM
2005 15 GA
2005 29 COM
2005 29 BUR
2004 7 EXT.COM
2004 7 EXT.BUR
2004 28 COM
2004 28 BUR
2003 14 GA
2003 27 COM
2003 27 BUR
2003 6 EXT.COM
2002 26 COM
2002 26 BUR
2001 25 COM
2001 25 EXT.BUR
2001 5 EXT.COM
2001 13 GA
2001 25 BUR
2000 24 COM
2000 24 EXT.BUR
2000 24 BUR(SPE)
2000 24 BUR
1999 23 COM
1999 23 EXT.BUR
1999 4 EXT.COM
1999 12 GA
1999 3 EXT.COM
1999 23 BUR
1998 22 COM
1998 22 EXT.BUR
1998 22 BUR
1997 21 COM
1997 21 EXT.BUR
1997 2 EXT.COM
1997 11 GA
1997 21 BUR
1996 20 COM
1996 20 EXT.BUR
1996 20 BUR
1995 19 COM
1995 19 EXT.BUR
1995 10 GA
1995 19 BUR
1994 18 COM
1994 18 EXT.BUR
1994 18 BUR
1993 17 COM
1993 17 EXT.BUR
1993 9 GA
1993 17 BUR
1992 16 COM
1992 16 BUR
1991 15 COM
1991 8 GA
1991 15 BUR
1990 14 COM
1990 14 BUR
1989 13 COM
1989 7 GA
1989 13 BUR
1988 12 COM
1988 12 BUR
1987 11 COM
1987 6 GA
1987 11 BUR
1986 10 COM
1986 10 BUR
1985 9 COM
1985 5 GA
1985 9 BUR
1984 8 COM
1984 8 BUR
1983 7 COM
1983 4 GA
1983 7 BUR
1982 6 COM
1982 6 BUR
1981 5 COM
1981 1 EXT.COM
1981 5 BUR
1980 3 GA
1980 4 COM
1980 4 BUR
1979 3 COM
1979 3 BUR
1979 2 BUR
1978 2 GA
1978 2 COM
1978 1 BUR
1977 1 COM
1976 1 GA

Decision 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.'

Decision Code
8 COM VI.12-14
Inscriptions on the World Heritage List, Reports
Report of the rapporteur