The Committee approved the revised nomination form (CC-79/CONF.003/7) subject to the following:
(a) the text should be revised to reflect the decisions taken by the Committee on the criteria for the inclusion of properties in the World Heritage List and guidelines for the evaluation of nominations (see session XI above); the attention of States Parties should be drawn, in particular, to the essential criterion of outstanding universal value that should be met by properties nominated;
(b) The form should emphasize the importance of adequate buffer zones and ask for details on measures ...
The Committee heard the report of the working group on the management of the Convention and its financial implications and took note of the following points:
i) The Convention was now entering its operational phase particularly as regards technical co-operation, emergency assistance and the training of specialists, which implied a considerable increase in the workload of the Secretariat. An amount of approximately $210,000 had been spent by the Unesco Secretariat in 1979 under its Regular Budget for the management of the Convention.
ii) Funds actually obligated in 1979 under the World ...
The Committee then decided:
a) that it was not opportune at the present time to retain a fixed percentage such as 14%, as indicated in paragraph 26 of document CC-79/CONF.003/12, to cover direct management costs of the Convention;
b) to ask the Director-General of Unesco to make additional efforts to provide the Secretariat with an adequate permanent staff to enable it to meet the substantial increase in workload due to the fact that the Convention has now entered its operational phase. Until the Secretariat could be fully constituted and a sufficient number of Member States ratified ...
The Committee took note of the statement of account of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period which ended on 31 December 1978 and the interim statement of account of the Fund for the two-year financial period 1979/80 as set out in document CC-79/CONF.003/9.
The Committee adopted the following budget for the period October 1979 to December 1980.
BUDGET (October 1979 - December 1980)
Activities / Brought forward from 1978-1979 / Additional funds allocated / Total funds authorized for period October 78- December 80
I. Preparatory Assistance / $69,234 /$ 80,000 / $ 149,234 (30 m/m)
II. Technical Co-operation / -- / $165,400 / $ 165,400
III. Training / $4,700 / $ 200,000 / $ 204,700
IV. Emergency / $ 70,000 / $ 100,000 / $ 170,000
V. Promotional Activities / $ 500 / $ 36,400 / $ 36,900
VI. Programme Support
- ICOMOS } ...
The working group on natural criteria also reported to the Committee on its concern at the relatively low number of natural properties so far included in the World Heritage List. It considered that, if the List gave an initial impression of being a list of cultural properties, it would deter further nominations of natural properties. The working group was also concerned that the delegations of States Members at the third session of the Committee did not include a sufficient number of specialists in the natural heritage field which reduced the Committee's ability to evaluate properly ...
The Committee shared the concern of the group. It considered, however, that in view of the difficulty of determining precisely whether persons were competent in the fields of nature conservation or of the protection of cultural property, it would not be feasible to introduce such a rule on the quorum for meetings of the Committee. The responsibility for ensuring balanced representation lay with each State Member of the Committee.
The Committee requested the Secretariat to renew its efforts to ensure that the authorities in each State Party responsible for the natural heritage were fully informed of the activities undertaken under the Convention and of the meetings of the Committee. IUCN could also be of assistance through its direct contacts. It was decided that copies of letters of invitation would be sent to those authorities responsible for the national heritage in the States Parties. The Committee decided furthermore to take up the matter again if the situation did not improve.
Note was taken of the request from Yugoslavia for emergency assistance, in the form of equipment and consultant services, for the Natural and Culturo-historical region of Kotor. However, the Committee felt that further information should be made available on the equipment required and decided to grant in the first instance $20,000 for consultant services.
The Committee fully supported the appeal launched by Mrs. El-Sadat for assistance in preserving the Islamic heritage of Cairo and members declared that they would transmit details of the appeal to their respective governments.
Following an expression of thanks from the floor to the Egyptian authorities for the remarkable hospitality offered to the Committee, to the Chairman for the admirable way in which he had conducted the meeting and to all those who had contributed to the smooth running of the meeting,
the Chairman declared the session closed.
The Chairperson drew the attention of the Committee to the two main documents of relevance to their deliberations. WHC-99/CONF.205/5 entitled "Report on the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park, Australia" provided a summary of information and deliberations concerning Kakadu up until the date of finalization of the document at the end of May. WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.4 included the record of the deliberations of the twenty-third session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (5-10 July 1999).
The Chairperson reminded Committee members that a mission was sent to Kakadu National Park in late 1998, at the request of the twenty-second session of the Bureau in June 1998. The mission was led by the former Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Professor Francioni of Italy. Professor Francioni reported on the mission at the twentysecond session of the Committee in Kyoto in 1998.
The mission report (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3A) focused primarily on ascertained and potential dangers to the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park posed by the Jabiluka mining proposal, and presented a total of 16 recommendations.
The Committee,(a) Emphasizes the importance of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention. In particular the Committee emphasizes Article 6 (1) which states that:Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the States on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage (...) is situated, and without prejudice to property right provided by national legislation, the States Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate.(b) Recalls that ...
The Committee,(a) Recognizes, with appreciation, that the Australian Government, Australian Supervising Scientist, advisory bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM) and independent scientific panel (ISP) established by the International Council of Science (ICSU) have provided the reports requested by the twenty-second session of the Committee (Kyoto, 1998);(b) Acknowledges that there are indications that a new dialogue between the Mirrar Aboriginal people and the Australian Government has begun in relation to issues concerning the Jabiluka uranium mine and mill. The Committee considers this to be ...
With consideration of 1 and 2 above, the Committee will remain vigilant in reviewing and assessing the progress made by the Australian Government. To this end the Committee requests that the Australian Government submit a progress report on the following issues by 15 April 2000 for examination by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee:(a) progress made with cultural mapping of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease and the Boyweg-Almudj site and its boundaries and the completion of the cultural heritage management plan with the necessary co-operation of the Mirrar, ...
To resolve the remaining scientific issues, such as those raised in the ISP report, the Committee asks ICSU to continue the work of the ISP (with the addition of any additional members) to assess, in co-operation with the supervising Scientist and IUCN, the Supervising Scientist's response to the ISP report. The report of the ISP's assessment should be submitted to the World Heritage Centre by 15 April 2000 for examination by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 2000.