The Bureau felt that more precise information was needed regarding the details of the project, the realism of the salary scales proposed and the likelihood of the effective implementation of the project in the near future.
The first session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") was held in Paris from 27 June to 1 July 1977 and was attended by representatives of the fifteen States members of the Committee.
Representatives of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, the International Council of Monuments and Sites and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as the "Rome Centre", "ICOMOS" and "IUCN" respectively) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity. The discussions were also followed by representatives of two other States Parties to the Convention, of the United Nations and of a non-governmental organization.
After welcoming the representatives of States members of the Committee, the Director-General underlined the importance of the meeting for the pursuit of one of the fundamental objectives of the Organization - the promotion of the preservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage of mankind. He stressed the innovative character of the World Heritage Convention under which the Committee was established: for the first time, an international convention was concerned with both the cultural and the natural elements of the environment of man and, again for the first time, the ...
A member of the Committee proposed that Rule 12 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure should be amended to provide for the election of four Vice-Chairmen. This proposal was supported by two members and adopted by the Committee. The Committee then proceeded to elect by acclamation the representatives of the Arab Republic of Egypt, France, Nigeria and Poland, as Vice-Chairmen, and Peter H. Bennett (Canada) as Rapporteur.
The Chairman invited the members of the Committee to examine the Provisional Agenda prepared by the Secretariat. The representative of the Director-General proposed that an item on "other matters" be added to the Agenda; under this item would be considered the offer of collaboration from the International Organization for the Protection of Works of Art (document CC-77/CONF.OO1/5) and the proposed donation of Professor Badawy (document CC-77/CONF.OO1/7). He also suggested that the methods of work of the Committee should not be discussed separately but rather in conjunction with items 7 and ...
In reply to a suggestion that the Rules of Procedure should be examined by a working group which would report back to the Committee at a later plenary meeting, the Legal Adviser stated that, in the absence of a text formally approved by the Committee, the Provisional Rules of Procedure would prevail and he therefore proposed that they be examined at an early plenary meeting; this would not prevent the Committee from amending the Rules of procedure at a later stage, if necessary. He added that the Rules of Procedure would probably only assume their final form after two or three sessions of ...
Several amendments were proposed to bring greater clarity to the text or to reflect more closely the terms of the Convention. The Rules relating to the election of officers and to the voting procedures gave rise to some comment.
With respect to the eligibility for re-election of members of the Bureau, participants considered that, although rotation in the membership of the Bureau was necessary, continuity in the work of the Committee was of paramount importance. Various proposals followed, some providing for re-election of all officers and others for re-election of the Vice-Chairmen and the Rapporteur only. A further proposal which sought to limit the eligibility of all officers for immediate re-election to a second term of office was finally accepted.
An explanation was requested on the different weightings required for a majority vote under the terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Rule 28. The Legal Adviser referred members to paragraph 8 of Article 13 of the Convention·which stipulated that "Decisions of the Committee shall be taken by a majority of two-thirds of its members present and voting". This provision was included in an Article of the Convention dealing with substantive questions and not with procedural matters. It was therefore considered that a two-thirds majority should be required on substantive questions. However, ...
Participants requested that two points raised in connection with the Rules of Procedure be noted in the summary record. The first related to the meetings of the Committee which, in the opinion of one member, should be given wide publicity. The second concerned the suspension of the Rules of Procedure which, as confirmed by the Legal Adviser, could be initiated by any State member of the Committee.
A corrigendum setting cut the modifications made by the Committee, as well as an amendment proposed by the representative of the Director-General to Rule 8.2, was examined at the last meeting of the Committee which then proceeded to adopt unanimously the revised text of its Rules of Procedure. (Annex II)
The Chairman invited the members of the Committee to consider the main working document and gave the floor to the representative of the Director-General who introduced the document which had been prepared with the assistance of the Rome Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN.
Some discussion ensued on the method to be followed in examining the different points raised in the document and it was decided to establish two working groups with which the Rome Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN would be associated and which would review the proposed criteria for the inclusion of cultural and natural properties in the World Heritage List, and drafting group which would formulate the decisions taken by the Committee on other matters. The Committee proceeded to debate the general principles involved in establishing the World Heritage List and to examine, one by one, the other ...
It was the opinion of several members that the Committee should issue a statement on the whole philosophy underlying the Convention and, in particular, the need for a World Heritage List. Others felt that the discussion on the criteria for inclusion of properties in the List would necessarily raise the philosophical concepts involved.
Several members felt strongly that the World Heritage List should be exclusive and that, because of its impact, the List - in which balance would be sought geographically and between cultural and natural properties - should be drawn up with extreme care. Responsibility for ensuring the exclusive character of the List would rest first of all, with the States nominating properties and secondly, with the Committee which would have the right to reject nominations; the adoption of criteria which would be used by the Committee to filter nominations therefore constituted a very important first ...
The feasibility of adopting criteria gave rise to some discussion, with member's referring to the difficulty already experienced in establishing criteria at the national level, to the changing and subjective nature of evaluations of qualities, to the impact of Western thought and to the difference between perception from within a given culture and perception from outside. The representative of ICOMOS, in reply, recognized the difficulty of drafting criteria to be applied to cultural property throughout the world and of translating concepts into words that were meaningful on a universal ...
Hope was expressed that sufficient information would be provided to States to enable them to select properties that were truly eligible for inclusion in the List and that the criteria adopted would assist States in restricting their choice of properties nominated. In this connection, one proposal put forward sought to impose on States a limit in the number of properties that they might submit in the first instance but, on reflection this was not considered advisable. It was, however, decided that States would be advised to limit the number of nominations submitted at a given time, on the ...
Questions were raised with respect to the calendar for the submission of nominations to be examined at the second session of the Committee. Many members mentioned difficulties for their own national authorities in meeting the deadline of 1 April 1978, particularly in those countries where complete inventories had not yet been established. Several members strongly urged that technical co-operation should be financed under the Fund for the preparation of these inventories. The representative of the Director-General referred participants in this respect to the Convention which explicitly ...
Several members considered that an independent assessment by experts of the nominations submitted would be essential and it was proposed that the nominations should be transmitted, for comments and evaluation, to the Rome Centre, ICOMOS or IUCN, as appropriate.
One member considered that States not Parties to the Convention should be able to have properties nominated by a State Party for inclusion in the List. Other participants inquired about the possibility of nominating properties not situated in national territories, such as international sites, for instance the United Nations building in New York, or regions such as Antarctica. However, it was pointed out that the Convention was very explicit in this respect, Article II referring to the submission by each State Party of inventories of properties situated in its territory.
The Committee then proceeded to examine the working document paragraph by paragraph and to put forward their comments which would be taken into account by the drafting committee in formulating the decisions taken by the Committee.
Several participants felt that the fundamental notion of the Committee's complete independence in evaluating nominations of States Parties should be more emphatically underlined. Others foresaw that certain properties would be re-evaluated in the light of new discoveries which may lead to the deletion of properties from the List. The "loss of integrity" referred to as a reason for the deletion of property from the List did not appear pertinent in the case of cultural property; for example, monuments in ruins, obviously having lost their integrity, could be eligible for inscription.
An emphasis given to properties which combine cultural and natural features demonstrating the interaction between man and nature might, in the opinion of some participants, be confusing in that it might appear to diminish the value of properties outstanding only from the cultural or natural points of view.
Another participant suggested that it should be indicated at the site itself that that site is included on the World Heritage List. On this point, the representative of the Director-General informed members that a World Heritage emblem was under preparation and this could well be used inter alia at the sites. It was feared by another participant that sites not included in the List and not marked by the emblem might be neglected by States.
It was proposed by several participants that, in the final text of the criteria, no examples should be cited, in order not to prejudice the decisions of the Committee. There was general agreement on this point.
The interpretation given of authenticity was challenged by several members who did not consider that it necessarily entailed maintaining the original function of property which, to ensure its preservation, often had to be adapted to other functions. Another member specified that functions could change but when this different function entailed fundamental and irreversible changes to the original form, authenticity should be considered as lost. The same member went on to plead that due recognition be given to "progressive authenticity", for example, monuments and buildings that are ...
Taking into account the comments made in plenary, a working group under the chairmanship of Mr. Michel Parent (France) reformulated the criteria for cultural property. The Chairman of the working group presented to a later plenary meeting the revised text on which several comments were formulated.
On the first criterion, the use of the word "spirit" was questioned and was replaced by "genius". One member requested that the word "scientific" referring to development be reinserted in criterion (iv). Another member proposed that "significant" be added to criterion (v) before the words "traditional style of architecture..". The same member queried the use of the word "site" in the introductory lines and asked that this should be interpreted as covering also groups of sites and large areas. This interpretation was accepted by the Committee. There was some discussion on the advisability ...
Some members questioned several changes made to the original draft text prepared by IUCN. For instance, there had been a change of emphasis from "representative" examples to "outstanding" examples in the different criteria, with which one member did not agree. The same participant found that too much emphasis had been laid on superlative examples (the highest, the largest, etc.). Another member sought to reinsert manageability as a criterion; in reply the IUCN representative considered that this should rather be taken into account at the stage of allocating funds. It was decided that, as ...
A working group under the chairmanship of Mr. David F. Hales (U.S.A.) then reviewed in detail the criteria and presented a revised text to a later meeting. With some minor changes in form proposed by the Chairman of the working group, the criteria were unanimously adopted by the Committee.
The proposal to prepare one printed form for nominations of cultural and natural properties that would provide brief explanations on the information to be given was endorsed by the Committee which decided that it would be used on a trial basis until changes became necessary. The list of information to be provided by States Parties, which had been modified by one of the working groups, was approved by the Committee.
On the question of model nomination files, there was some discussion on the organizations to be entrusted with this work, on the feasibility of associating the Bureau, and of the timing of their preparation. Whereas members of the Committee felt that model files would be extremely valuable to States Parties in preparing their nominations, they recognized that it was no easy task to prepare fictitious dossiers. It was finally decided that ICOMOS and IUCN would prepare model files which would be reviewed with the Secretariat before they were dispatched to States Parties. One participant ...
The very tight calendar proposed was discussed in some detail, with many participants referring once more to the difficulties their own governments would have to face in preparing in time their nominations. The question of limiting the number of nominations to be submitted by States was again raised, and whereas the decision previously taken in plenary not to impose any limit was maintained, it was decided that States would be requested to indicate an order of priority among the nominations submitted. States would, at the same time, be reminded that the process of submitting nominations ...
The exact role to be played by the Rome Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN gave rise to some discussion, one member proposing that all nominations should be transmitted automatically by the Secretariat for comments and evaluation to the competent organization. The representative of the Director-General agreed that the organizations had an extremely important role to play in reviewing the dossiers submitted by States Parties, and in particular in putting them into order but he feared that the addition of another step in the already tight calendar might entail delays. It was therefore decided that the ...
In order to present the Committee at its second session with a set of nominations that would be balanced by category and by geographical and cultural region, it was decided that the Bureau, meeting in June 1978, would review all the nominations received and decide which would be forwarded to the Committee. The following calendar would thus be followed:
November 1977: dispatch to States Parties of Director-General's letter, together with printed nomination form;
1 April 1978: receipt of nominations from States Parties;
April/May 1978: dossiers will be received and completed, if ...
Although one member found the list of information to be provided by States in making requests for assistance under the Fund to be rather too complicated and sophisticated, the Committee approved the content of requests for small-scale and large-scale projects.
The procedure proposed in the working document for the consideration of requests gave rise to few comments and was adopted by the Committee. Following the request by one member that assistance in documentation work should be added, the drafting group felt that there was no need to add a specific reference to documentation which appeared to be covered by the other activities mentioned in Article 22 of the Convention.
With respect to the granting of international assistance, it was suggested that, in view of the limited funds available, a fixed maximum sum should be made available for each project. This would be difficult, responded another participant, since each case would have to be considered separately in the light of resources available under the Fund and arrangements for complementary financing. Another proposed that such decisions should be taken on the basis of an annual budget submitted to the Committee at each session.
General agreement was expressed on the factors proposed for consideration in determining an order of priorities but some comments were made on the concepts of "educational value" and "socio-economic benefits".
It was therefore proposed that this question be taken up in depth at a later session. In the meantime, the phrase "consequences from the social and economic points of view" was adopted.
It was decided that requests for emergency assistance would be receivable only from States Parties and only with respect to property included or nominated for inclusion in the World Heritage List. If these two conditions were met, the Secretariat would submit the request to the Chairman for decision in consultation with the Director-General on the type and extent of assistance to be granted.
The Committee decided that, at the request of States Parties, technical co-operation would be provided under the Fund for these two purposes*, in accordance with the terms of Article 21(1) of the Convention and within the limits of the approved budget (see paragraph 57 below). Such assistance would be in the form of expert services or equipment. Authority would be delegated to the Chairman who would decide, in consultation with the Director-General, on the type and extent of preparatory assistance to be granted.
* These purposes were referred to in the previous paragraph: (i) nominations ...
The Committee decided to defer until a later session its decisions on the establishment and publication of the List of World Heritage in Danger and of the List of properties for which international assistance is granted and also with respect to the share to be contributed by the recipient State in any given project.
The Committee had before it the proposals of the Director-General on organizations that could be invited to send observers to future sessions of the Committee, as follows:
United Nations Environmental Programme;
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;
World Food Programme;
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development;
Interamerican Development Bank;
Arab Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization;
Council of Europe;
Organization of American States;
South-East Asian Ministers of ...
The representative of the Director-General indicated that the Secretariat would closely re-examine the approved list of observers and should it appear that additional organizations ought to be included, the matter would be submitted to the meeting of the Bureau in June 1978.
At the last meeting of the Committee, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee presented his report which, after a statement on the philosophy underlying the Convention, set out the decisions taken by the Committee on the various questions raised in the main working document. He drew the attention of participants to Section IV of the document in which several recommendations addressed to States Parties were formulated. With a certain number of modifications, which are referred to in the appropriate section of this record, the report under the title of "Operational Guidelines for the ...
On the basis of resources available in the World Heritage Fund, the Secretariat proposed in document CC-77/CONF.001/6, a budget covering (i) the preparation of model nomination files, (ii) technical co-operation to States Parties in preparing their nominations and requests for assistance, and (iii) emergency assistance required before the next session of the Committee.
Members found the sums available to be very modest indeed and some felt that additional funds might be required. It was decided that the Bureau should have authority to increase the budget provisions, if necessary in the light of requests received and of funds available. With this provision, the Committee unanimously adopted the proposed budget.
While-some members encouraged the Committee to accept the proposed offer which had no financial implications, others were uncertain as to whether the objectives of that Organization were the same as those of the Convention, particularly since the work of the Organization in question appeared to relate to movable cultural objects. This led to an exchange of views on the difficulty of distinguishing clearly between movable and immovable cultural property.
It was subsequently decided that the International Organization for the Protection of the Works of Art would be invited to attend future sessions of the Committee, in an observer capacity. However, a member of the Committee asked that it be noted that this decision was in no way to be interpreted as recognizing a special status for that Organization within the framework of the World Heritage Convention and that there was no commitment on the part of the Committee to grant a special status in the future.
The representative of the Director-General introduced document CC-77/CONF.001/7 which, at this stage, was submitted to the Committee for information only. He explained that the offer included a house in Cairo and a capital fund of $240,000 from which the interest could be used to finance a number of fellowships in Egyptian archaeology; he pointed out that the administrative and practical problems involved in the upkeep of the house would make it difficult to accept that part of the donation.
The representative of the United States of America, on behalf of the Secretary of State invited the Committee to hold its next session in Washington. The Committee expressed its gratitude to the United States for this generous offer, which was accepted by acclamation.
It was decided that the exact dates of the next session, which would take place between 15 September and 31 October 1978, would be fixed by the Chairman, in consultation with the Government of the United States of America and the Director-General.
At the last plenary meeting the Rapporteur presented an oral report in which he highlighted the main conclusions and decisions of the Committee. In concluding his report, he referred to one issue that had not been discussed during the session, namely Secretariat assistance to the Committee: in view of the volume and complexity of the administrative work involved both in the preparation of documentation for the sessions of the Committee and in implementing its decisions, which would be particularly heavy as from 1979, he suggested that Unesco should carefully examine the situation and ...
10. ICOMOS confirmed that the description of the property comprised the totality of the Old City and its Walls, and included both the list of buildings submitted with the original nomination and the supplementary list.11. The Committee registered this confirmation. It agreed that "The Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls" constituted an historic ensemble which should be considered in its totality as a coherent whole whose balance and specific character depend on the synthesis of the elements of which it is composed and where the preservation should be carried out taking into account the ...
The first General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage (1972) met in Nairobi on 26 November 1976.
Of the twenty-six States Parties to the Convention at the date of 26 November 1976 and thus having the right to vote, the following States were represented:
Federal Republic of Germany
Syrian Arab Republic
United States of ...
7. The General Assembly held two meetings devoted to the election of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of Outstanding Universal Value, called the World Heritage Committee and to different questions relating to the establishment of the World Heritage Fund.8. Nineteen States Parties were candidates to the World Heritage Committee : Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Nigeria, Poland, Senegal, Sudan, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United States of America,. and Yugoslavia.9. After explaining ...
19. In introducing the information document concerning the World Heritage Fund, the representative of the Director General explained that the draft financial regulations set out in Annex I of the document, were communicated to the General Assembly to enable the Director General to take into consideration any comments made by the Assembly before he reported thereon to the Executive Board, in conformity with Article 6.7 of the Financial Regulations of the Organization.20. With respect to the amount of the compulsory or voluntary contributions that States Parties will make to the World ...
The Government of Guatemala has requested emergency assistance for the town of "Antigua Guatemala" which has been damaged by an earthquake and torrential rains. This assistance amounting to US$ 50,000 and intended for the purchase of equipment was granted by the Bureau.
The Government of Ecuador has requested US$ 50,000 for the purchase of the necessary equipment to eliminate animals which are foreign to the Galapagos Islands and which are destroying the local flora. The Bureau recommends that the Committee should grant this technical cooperation for the site which is included in the List.
The Tanzanian Goverment has requested the services of an architect-museologist for thre weeks in order to draw up a project for the conservation and presentation of the prehistoric sites of Olduvai and Laetolil. The Bureau recommended that the Committee grant this technical co-operation if the property is inscribed on the List.
The Egyptian Government has requested the services of specialists in cultural heritage (6 m/m) as well as equipment (amounting to a total cost of US$ 30,000) to draw up a project for the restoration and development of the old Islamic Centre of Cairo. The Bureau recommends that the Committee accept this request if the property is entered on the List.
The Ethiopian Government has requested technical co-operation for the purpose of carrying out a photogrammetric survey of the monuments of Lalibela (at an estimated cost of US$ 144,500). In view of ICCROM's opinion, the Bureau - while generally in favour of technical co-operation for the preservation of the Lalibela monuments - considered it advisable to defer its decision.
The Ethiopian Government has requested the services of two experts (36 m/m) and equipment for two natural sites in order to systematically investigate these parks and to consider the possibility of reinstalling elsewhere the population living here. The Bureau decided to defer its decision until the nominations to the World Heritage List, which had been received too late, could be examined.
The Syrian Governement has requested equipment (cranes, lorries, jeeps, etc...) for the restoration of Damascus (20.I), Aleppo (21.I), Bosra (22.I) and Palmyra (23.I). However, since the additional information requested has not been received and only the site of Damascus had been recommended for inscription on the List, the Bureau preferred to defer its decision until the information required had been received.
The second session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") was held in Washington from 5 to 8 September 1978. The session was attended by the following members of the World Heritage Committee: Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Poland, Tunisia, United States of America and Yugoslavia.
Representatives of the International Centre for Conservation, the International Council of Monuments and Sites, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as "ICCROM", "ICOMOS" and "IUCN" respectively) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity.
Observers from five States Parties to the Convention not members of the Committee, namely Brazil, Morocco, Panama, Switzerland and the Syrian Arab Republic, also attended the session, as well as observers from ten international governmental and non-governmental organizations and a wider public audience.
The second session of the Committee was opened by its Chairman, Mr. Firouz Bagherzadeh. In welcoming members of the Committee, representatives of advisory organizations and all other participants, he recalled the great progress already achieved in the implementation of the Convention thanks to the efforts of the States Parties, Bureau members, the Secretariat and the advisory organizations. He concluded by expressing his confidence that the session would be both fruitful and enjoyable.
Mr. David Hales, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, welcomed delegates to Washington on behalf of the United States of America. He conveyed to the Committee a written message from the President of the United States of America, Jimmy Carter, the text of which is given in Annex I. The Committee greatly appreciated the personal message from the President of the United States of America and requested the Chairman to convey to the President its gratitude for the message with which he had honoured the opening of the second session.
The Deputy Assistant Director General for Operations (Culture and Communication) responded on behalf of the Director General of UNESCO. Mr. Bolla expressed UNESCO's sincere appreciation for the invitation by the Government of the United States of America to hold the second session in Washington. In greeting members of the Committee and wishing them success in their work, he indicated the important role of international organizations such as UNDP, UNEP, IBRD, IDB, WFP, OAS and ALECSO in providing crucial support to conservation measures. In this context, he also expressed UNESCO's ...
The Chairman invited the members of the Committee to examine the provisional agenda prepared by the Secretariat. At the request of members of the Committee, two new items were added to the agenda: "Revision of the Rules of Procedure" and "Review of the Procedure for Nominations to the List of World Heritage in Danger."
The Committee discussed the need to increase the number of officers constituting the Bureau in view of the greater workload of the Bureau in the future. Committee members also felt that a larger number of officers would be advisable to allow for:
(i) better representation of geographical regions in the Bureau; and,(ii) enhanced expertise for both natural and cultural properties.
Having also in mind that the membership of the Committee itself would be increased from 15 to 21 delegates at the second General Assembly, the Committee agreed to elect henceforth 7 officers for the Bureau which ...
The Committee elected by acclamation Mr. David Hales (USA) as its Chairman. The Committee then proceeded to elect by acclamation the delegates of Ecuador, Egypt, France, Iran and Nigeria, as Vice-Chairmen, and Professor Krzysztof Pawlowski (Poland), as Rapporteur. The new Chairman then called for a standing ovation to thank Mr. Firouz Bagherzadeh for the excellent leadership he had provided to the Committee during the past year.
The Committee, after reviewing and commenting on each article of the draft agreement, asked the Secretariat to take note of the observations made by the delegates and to elaborate a new, less detailed text for consideration by the Committee at its next session. It was also noted that the new text should be formulated in such a way as to accommodate the specific requirements and practice of States Parties. In doing so UNESCO's general principles for the provision of technical cooperation should be retained.
16. The Committee expressed the wish that the Secretariat, in the preparation of a new draft agreement, take note of the following observations and recommendations made by delegates during the discussion:
17. With regard to Article 2 paragraph 5: The delegate of Poland recommended rewording to avoid obligation to meet expenses (for instance, for medical treatment) in convertible currency for countries with a non-convertible currency. Several delegates considered that governments should be encouraged to employ the fellow to the extent possible upon his return, in the field for which he ...
The Committee invited other members who wished to comment on the draft text to transmit their observations to the Secretariat by 31 December 1978. These comments would be circulated by the Secretariat to all members of the Committee and would be taken into account in the preparation of a revised text to be considered by the Committee at its third session.
The Committee followed the recommendation of the Bureau and agreed to publish and disseminate annually the World Heritage List, the World Heritage in Danger List and the list of properties for which technical cooperation is granted from the World Heritage Fund as combined lists. (see document CC-78/CONF.010/6). It was pointed out that this arrangement would allow for timely updating of these lists after each annual session of the Committee.
The representative of ICOMOS and the delegate of France drew the attention of the Committee to the introductory part to the World Heritage List in which some terms used in the French text did not correspond to the English text. In order to overcome this the Committee adopted the following changes in the French text: the criteria against which cultural properties would be evaluated, which are set out in point a) (ii) should read "... sur le développement de l'architecture, de la sculpture monumentale, de la conception des jardins et paysages, des arts connexes, des conceptions de ...
The former Rapporteur presented the views of the Bureau on this matter. He pointed out that the Bureau agreed that consideration should be given urgently to a general ongoing publicity campaign to promote the objectives of the Convention and the work of the Committee. Such a campaign would help to inform the public of the importance of conserving the World heritage, accelerate ratifications by Member States of the Convention, stimulate contributions to the World Heritage Fund, and generally start fulfilling the educational mandate outlined in the Convention.
The Chairman then nominated Mr. Peter Bennett as Chairman and appointed the delegates of Ecuador, France, Iran, Iraq, USA and representatives of the advisory organizations as members of the sub-Committee.
In reporting on the work of the sub-Committee, its Chairman outlined the objectives of the proposed public information programme, in the following terms. Firstly, the programme should focus upon the aims of the Convention, the work of the Committee, the criteria for the inclusion of sites in the World Heritage List and the types of assistance available to States under the Convention, providing examples of assistance already granted; the World Heritage List should be de-emphasized until such time as there were sufficient sites on the List to make it appear truly representative of the ...
After discussing the proposed programme, the Committee decided that the following three activities would be undertaken during the forth-coming year and authorized expenditure of up to $30,000 for that purpose :
(a) a brochure in five UNESCO languages (Arabic, English, French,Russian and Spanish) aimed primarily at opinion-makers in States not yet adhering to the Convention, to describe the objectives of the Convention, the criteria for nominations to the World Heritage List, the types of assistance available and the ways of applying for such assistance;(b) a simple, four-panel leaflet on ...
The decision to limit the number of activities to be undertaken during the next twelve months stemmed from the Committee's wish to pursue only those which would be of immediate interest in relation to the present stage of its work. The Secretariat was, however, requested to study the feasibility of carrying out at a later stage other activities proposed by the sub-Committee, such as the creation of a photo library of World Heritage sites, the preparation of a radio documentary and of a slide show with audio track, both in five languages and dealing with the objectives of the Convention, ...
The Committee recalled Article 20 of the Convention under which international assistance may not only be granted to property already included in the World Heritage List but also to property which had not yet been added to the World Heritage List. International assistance for property which had not yet been included in the World Heritage List, for which the working term "preparatory assistance" had been adopted by the Committee may be granted:
(i) for identifying cultural and natural properties of universal importance and preparatory work with a view to nominating properties for inclusion ...
After examining the budgetary situation of the World Heritage Fund (see document CC-78/CONF.010/INF.2) and discussing in depth appro- priate use of the Fund, the Committee decided to authorize the Chairman to grant, in consultation with the Director General of UNESCO, preparatory assistance to States Parties up to a total amount of US $140,000 (as shown in document CC-78/CONF.010/8) with a budgetary ceiling of US $15,000 per project. The Committee agreed with the proposal mentioned in paragraph 33 as put forward by the Secretariat and consequently decided that this preparatory assistance ...
The former Rapporteur presented to the Committee the list of properties which, according to the Bureau, would be eligible for inclusion in the World Heritage List. He then called the attention of the Committee to three properties on this list which would meet the criteria for inclusion in the World Heritage List but which, at the time of the Bureau meeting had lacked the required documentation.
The Committee examined these three cases first and stated with satisfaction that appropriate documentation for two properties had in the meantime been received. As regards the third case (National Park of Ichkeul) the Committee decided, in agreement with the delegate of Tunisia, to defer its decision to its next session subject to receipt of the requested information.
The Committee, upon finding itself in full agreement with the list proposed by the Bureau, decided to enter the following 12 properties in the World Heritage List:
NAME OF PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST (STATE PARTY)
L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Park (Canada)
Nahanni National Park (Canada)
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
City of Quito (Ecuador)
Simien National Park (Ethiopia)
Rock Hewn Churches, Lalibela (Ethiopia)
Aachen Cathedral (Federal Republic of Germany)
Cracow's Historic Centre (Poland)
Wieliczka - salt mine ...
The Committee further decided to defer consideration of all other nominations listed in document CC-78/CONF.010/7 until its third session. All these nominations, as well as those received after the Bureau meeting and listed in document CC-78/CONF.010/7 Add.1 (for which it had been impossible to complete the technical review, translation and transmission to all States members of the Committee in time before the second session) would be transmitted to the Bureau for examination prior to their consideration by the Committee at its next session.
The Chairman then thanked the States Parties for their efforts, which had made it possible to initiate the establishment of the World Heritage List. He also recalled that the time and order of entry of a property in the World Heritage List should by no means be interpreted as an indication of the qualification of a property or judgment on its value in comparison to other properties in the list, as all of them had met the criteria adopted by the Committee.
The Committee continued its work by discussing suitable future closing dates for the submission of nominations and agreed that nominations, in order to be examined at the next Bureau meeting, should be with the Secretariat by 1 March 1979 at the latest. Thereafter, however, the deadline for submission of nominations would be 1 January so that more time would be available to the Secretariat, ICOMOS and IUCN for the processing and technical review of the new dominations.
There followed considerable discussion as to whether the number of nominations per country and year should be limited or not and how to solve the problem of the increasing workload for all parties involved in the evaluation process, which may become rather time-consuming and may even exceed the capacity of the advisory organizations, the Bureau, the Committee and the UNESCO Secretariat in the future.
In this connection, reference was made to Article 11 (1) of the Convention which stipulates no limit for the number of nominations by a single State Party. However, in recognizing this stipulation the Committee, for purely practical reasons, authorized the Chairman to convene, if necessary, a special Bureau meeting after the closing date for submission of nominations in order to examine, together with the advisory organizations and the Secretariat, the possibility of evaluating all new nominations and to adopt a procedure which would take into account the capacities of all parties ...
Following a proposal made by the delegate of Yugoslavia who underlined the importance of the decisions taken by the Committee for the establishment of the World Heritage List, the Committee decided that a document concerning the nominations of States and presenting the recommendations of the Bureau thereon, would be prepared for the Committee which would examine the nominations one by one and would decide on the inclusion or non-inclusion in the List of each individual site.
The delegate of Poland then drew the attention of the Committee to paragraphs 20 and 21 of the report of the Rapporteur on the first meeting of the Bureau. As noted in the report, Poland was the only State affected by the decision that on this first occasion, States Parties would be limited to nominating only two properties each for inclusion in the World Heritage List, since it had nominated three sites which clearly qualified for inclusion and for which complete documentation had been submitted: Auschwitz, Cracow and the Salt Mines of Wieliczka. It would, therefore, appear justified ...
In response to this proposal the Committee agreed that in all future cases where eligible nominations were deferred by the Bureau, such nominations would be given priority consideration at the following Bureau meeting, unless these nominations had in the meantime been withdrawn by the State concerned.
At the suggestion of the delegate of France a general discussion took place on the problems of typology, comparability, complementarity and universality of cultural and natural properties of universal importance. Some delegates felt it desirable that States Parties sharing cultural or natural properties of a comparable nature should consult each other for the purpose of harmonizing approaches in the selection of properties for the World Heritage List. It was also stated that the criteria for selection of properties for the World Heritage List should be discussed in more detail in the ...
The Committee, fully aware of the urgency to assist Ethiopia in the great task of preserving this threatened property, agreed to make available to Ethiopia, if requested, preparatory assistance, deemed necessary by the Committee for the elaboration of a more comprehensive technical assistance request and the conduct of a feasibility study. Subject to the outcome of this preparatory work, technical assistance may be granted by the Committee or emergency assistance by the Chairman, for the Simien World Heritage site, as appropriate.
The Chairman invited the delegate of Canada to take the floor since this item had been added to the agenda upon his proposal. The delegate of Canada explained that after discussing with the Secretariat of UNESCO the terms of Article 11.4 of the Convention he considered that there was no need for a special procedure to be adopted for the establishment of the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Secretariat of UNESCO presented to the Committee the initial design and a later version, modified according to the suggestions of the Bureau, of the proposed World Heritage Emblem, prepared by Mr. Michel Olyff.
As conceived by the artist, this emblem symbolized, "in a form sufficiently simple to be inserted on a map and to identify sites", the interdependence of cultural and natural properties. The central square was a form crested by man; the circle represented nature, the two being intimately linked. The emblem was round, like the world, but it was also a symbol of protection. The two designs, identical in their concept, differed in their graphic approach. (Both designs are shown in Annex II.)
The Committee examined the proposed designs very carefully. The delegate of Yugoslavia emphasized that the choice of an emblem was of great importance. The emblem would symbolize for future generations the principles embodied in the Convention. The Committee felt that the proposed emblem fully satisfied the criteria of universality and simplicity, and conveyed the essential objectives of the Convention. Consequently it decided to adopt the emblem in its two graphic versions both to be used, in any colour, depending on the use to be made of them, the technical possibilities and ...
Following the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided that a booklet explaining how nominations to the World Heritage List should be prepared, should be drawn up by ICOMOS and IUCN instead of the model nomination files which they had previously been asked to prepare and that the Secretariat of UNESCO should follow up this decision. This booklet should be published in Arabic, English, French, Russian and Spanish.
In this connection, the delegate of France pointed out that there was also need to develop tools for alleviating the workload involved in the processing and technical review of nominations by the Secretariat of UNESCO, ICOMOS and IUCN. The Secretariat informed the Committee that forms to simplify the correspondence necessary to complete the nominations and relevant documentation were already used and others would be worked out.
At the invitation of the Chairman, the representative of the Director General presented the proposed expenditures for 1978-1979 (document CC-78/CONF.010/8) divided into five different Chapters. The first three chapters concerned what could be considered as purely operational activities - preparatory assistance, technical cooperation including training, and emergency assistance. The fourth chapter provided for programme support - IUCN and ICOMOS participation, and public information activities. The fifth and last chapter covered temporary assistance for the UNESCO Secretariat in order to ...
In connection with the provisions made for training, the delegates of Canada and of the Federal Republic of Germany stressed the importance of the training of administrators and reference was made to the annual International Seminar for parks administrators organized by the School of Natural Resources in cooperation with the U.S. National Park Service at the University of Michigan. The representative of the Director General of UNESCO confirmed that fellowships for such a course could be granted, if requested by a State Party for one of its nationals.
The delegate of Iraq stated the intention of the Regional Centre for Conservation of Cultural Property in the Arab States to submit for approval at the next session of the Committee a project for a course on the conservation of ancient buildings, to be organized in co-operation with the Committee.
The proposed expenditure for programme support , i.e. contracts with ICOMOS and IUCN and public information activities, as well as the funds allocated to temporary assistance for the UNESCO Secretariat, were supported by the delegates of Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iran, Nigeria and the United States of America. The latter having suggested that a certain amount of flexibility be introduced for Chapters IV and V of the proposed expenditure, the Committee, at the proposal of the delegate of Canada, decided to provide for a contingency allocation of 3% of the total ...
Taking into account the total resources available in the World Heritage Fund which, as shown in document CC-78/CONF.010/INF.2, amounted to $555,695.25 as at 31 July 1978, the Committee adopted the following revised budget for the period September 1978/September 1979 :
Item of expenditure / Funds authorized
I. Preparatory Assistance
Preparation of nominations to the World Heritage List and(or) preparation of requests and feasibility studies for technical cooperation projects (provision of experts, equipment or financial grants required for the work foreseen under this item), as ...
The delegate of the United States of America expressed his concern with the workload imposed on the Secretariat by the various activities carried out under the Convention. This concern was shared by all the other members of the Committee who at the same time stated their appreciation of the work already undertaken by the Secretariat. The Committee consequently requested the Chairman to write to the Director General informing him of the decision to grant temporary assistance from the World Heritage Fund for a one-year period and drawing his attention to the need for additional permanent ...
The Committee authorized the Secretariat to amend the above-mentioned Operational Guidelines, adopted by the Committee at its first session, to bring them into line with the decisions taken at the second session.
The Committee approved the draft text of its report to the General Conference of UNESCO at its 20th session, as set out in document CC-78/CONF.010/9, and authorized the Secretariat to complete this report with the decisions taken at its second session.
In his statement, the observer of the World Food Programme indicated that his Organization gave food assistance to social and economic development projects. He went on to describe the project undertaken by the Egyptian Government in co-operation with UNESCO and the World Food Programme for the preservation of the Philae temples, to which the WFP had made a substantial contribution in the form of food assistance as part- payment of wages for about 1,700 workers engaged in the restoration of the monuments. The project, in addition to its evident cultural value, would also provide an ...
The delegate of Egypt invited the Committee to hold its third session in Cairo in September 1979. This invitation was greatly appreciated by the Committee which accepted by acclamation the kind offer of the Egyptian Government.
The Second General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) met in Paris on 24 November 1978.
Of the 40 States which were Parties to the Convention as at 24 November 1978, and thus had the right to vote, the following 34 States were represented at the meeting :
7. The General Assembly then adopted its Rules of Procedure and elected by acclamation . Punisa A. Pavlovic as Chairman, the representatives of .Ecuador and Norway as Vice-Chairmen, and Mr. Tidjani Hamet (Niger) as Rapporteur.
8. The agenda of the meeting was approved unanimously by the General Assembly which devoted two sessions to the election of members of the Committee and to the determination of the amount of the contribution to the World Heritage Fund.
9. Twenty-one State Parties had presented their candidature for election to the World Heritage Committee : Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Idea, Cyprus, :Ethiopia, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Senegal, Sudan, Switzerland, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zaire.
10. The Chairman explained to the General Assembly the procedure to be followed for the election of members of the Committee. As a result of the increase in the number of States having ratified or accepted the Convention, the number of members of the ...
17. The General Assembly then considered Item 7 of the Agenda, and decided unanimously that the amount of the contribution foreseen in Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention would be fixed at of the contribution of States Parties to the Regular Budget of the Organization for 1979-1980. In-reply to a question raised by one of the delegates, the Deputy Assistant Director-General (Operational Activities) of the Sector of Culture and Communication, explained that the amounts of the contributions to the World Heritage Fund indicated in the annex to document CC-78/CONF.011/4 had been ...
18. The observer from Guatemala announced to the General Assembly that his government had decided to ratify the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and that he was depositing that day with the Secretariat two nominations for inclusion in the World Heritage List relating to Tikal National Park and the Old City of Guatemala.19. One delegate underlined the importance of the work already accomplished by the Committee and invited the delegations to take note of two fundamentally important documents which could serve as a basis for future action to ...
The Bureau decided to recommend that this site be entered on the two lists provided that the Committee agreed with a special procedure for the emergency inscription of properties on the World Heritage List.
The Bureau decided that the technical cooperation request should be examined after the Committee had taken decisions on the above mentioned matters.
The Bureau noted that the Secretariat had received a request for $60,000 for technical co-operation for Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal. However, this request had been received after the deadline and had not been fully processed. The Bureau consequently decided to examine it at a later session.
The third session of the World Heritage Committee was held in Cairo, Egypt (22 October 1979) and in Luxor, Egypt (23-26 October) at the kind invitation of the Egyptian Government. The meeting was attended by the following States members of the World Heritage Committee: Australia, Bulgaria, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Iran, Italy, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama, Senegal, Switzerland, United States of America and Yugoslavia.
Representatives of the International Centre for Conservation (ICCROM), of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity.
Observers from three States Parties to the Convention which were not members of the Committee, namely Canada, Federal Republic of Germany and Honduras also attended the session, as well as observers from two other international organizations: the Organization for Museums, Monuments and Sites of Africa (OMMSA) and the International Union of Architects (IUA).
This Proposal was accepted by the Committee which proceeded to examine the Provisional Agenda prepared for the meeting. The Chairman proposed that:
i) an additional item be added to the agenda as item 5, namely"Report by former Chairman and Rapporteur on activities undertaken during the period September 1978-October 1979 and action to be taken thereon";
ii) items 5 and 6 of the Provisional Agenda be examined as one item, and
iii) item 14 should be reworded as follows "Support services to the Secretariat and to the advisory international organizations".
With those modifications, the ...
The Committee had before it a recommendation from the Bureau that the Committee's Rules of Procedure be amended to provide for the replacement of the Rapporteur when the Rapporteur was unable to act at any session of the Committee or part thereof or was unable for any reason to complete his term of office (document CC-79/CONF.003/2). The procedure proposed for the replacement of the Rapporteur was identical to that foreseen in the Rules of Procedure for the replacement of the Chairman.
After examining the Bureau's proposal, the Committee therefore decided to amend its Rules of Procedure by inserting immediately after Rule 14 an additional Rule providing for the replacement of the Rapporteur. Rules 15 to 37 would be re-numbered accordingly.
Dr. Shehata Adam (Egypt) was elected as Chairman of the Committee by acclamation. The Committee then elected by acclamation the following States members of the Committee as Vice-Chairmen: Bulgaria, Nepal, Panama, Senegal and United States of America and Mr. Michel Parent (France) as Rapporteur.
In a reply to a member of the Committee, Dr. Shehata Adam, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee, stated that States members of the Bureau would be invited to designate as their representatives at meetings of the Bureau persons qualified in both the natural and the cultural heritage, so that a proper balance would be maintained.
The Committee was honoured by the presence of H. Exc. Mrs. Jihan El-Sadat, First Lady of Egypt and of H. Exc. Dr. Mansour Hassan, Minister of Presidency, Information and Culture, who both addressed the meeting during the inaugural ceremony; the representative of the Director General, Mr. G. Bolla, and the Chairman of the Committee also addressed the meeting.
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 ...
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.
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 theCommittee.
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 ...
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.
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 ...
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 ...
After examining the document before it, the Committee approved, as recommended by the Bureau, the revised draft text as prepared by the Secretariat. Furthermore, it decided to delegate authority to the Chairman to sign such agreements on its behalf. However, in exceptional cases or where necessary for practical reasons, the Committee authorized the Chairman to delegate authority for this purpose to a member of the Secretariat, to be designated by him.
The document on this item which proposed a procedure with respect to the deletion of properties from the World Heritage List was introduced by Mr. Bolla who drew attention to the different stages in the proposed procedure. A wide exchange of ideas ensued, during which several participants expressed the hope that the State Party on whose territory the property was located would inform the Secretariat of the Committee if any property inscribed on the List had seriously deteriorated and others drew attention to the obligation contracted by the States Parties under the Convention to properly ...
With respect to the source of information on the deterioration of a world heritage site, the Committee presumed that it would in most cases be the State Party on whose territory the property was located which would transmit such information to the Secretariat. However, information on the deterioration of a site may be made available by other sources and it would be for the Secretariat to check, as far as possible, on the source of the information and on the substance in consultation with the State Party concerned. The Committee requested the Secretariat in such cases to inform the ...
After some discussion, the Committee retained the proposal that decisions such as the sending out of fact-finding missions should be taken by the Committee, except in the case where emergency action was necessary, when the Bureau would be authorized to request the Secretariat to take such measures. It was understood that in all cases, the State Party concerned would be consulted. The question of organizing regular inspection missions was also raised, but the Committee felt that each action should not be taken, particularly in view of the States' obligations to adequately preserve ...
The representative of ICOMOS proposed that ICOMOS should be consulted on the choice of experts to be sent on fact-finding missions in connection with the state of preservation of cultural properties. In reply, Mr. Bolla indicated that ICOMOS was regularly consulted on the roster of experts maintained by the Secretariat but that any obligation for the Secretariat to consult ICOMOS, in addition to the State Party which was always consulted on the choice of experts, would invariably lead to delays in the sending out of missions.
The Committee adopted the procedure proposed by the Secretariat subject to amendments to stage A on the source of information on the deterioration of a property and subject to reference to cases where the necessary corrective measures for threatened natural sites have not been duly taken (see paragraph 40 below). It was decided to incorporate this procedure in the "Operational Guidelines". The full text of the procedure is to be found in Annex II to this report.
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.
On the publication of the World Heritage List, the Committee decided:
(a) to retard the publication of the List in order to include the properties placed thereon at its third session;
(b) that the List of World Heritage in Danger and the List of properties for which international assistance has bean granted would be published as appendices of the List;
(c) that the list of properties for which international assistance has been granted would include reference to properties for which technical assistance has been granted but would make no mention of preparatory assistance;
(d) to ...
The proposal from Upsala Ekeby to produce glass and silverware gave rise to considerable discussion, since it raised the principle of using tho World Heritage Emblem and depictions of World Heritage Sites for commercial purposes. There was some reticence among members of the Committee to authorize any commercial company to use the Emblem or pictures of the sites for such purposes. On the other hand the Committee underlined the need to create a world-wide interest in the Convention and recognized the importance of publicity. The Committee therefore decided:
(a) that the World Heritage ...
After examining the proposals of the Secretariat for promotional activities for 1980 (document CC-79/CONF.003/6.2) the Committee authorized the Secretariat to proceed with the following activities within a total budget of $36,900:
(a) creation of a photo library of world heritage sites 9,600
(b) slide series and sound-track 7,000
(c) poster 7,500
(d) postcards 4,000
(e) journalists' seminars 2,800
(f) postage stamps 6'000// $36,900
In response to a question from a member of the Committee who sought to avoid the publication of information on cultural and natural world heritage sites in separate publications, Mr. Batisse indicated that the Secretariat was studying the possibility of enlarging the scope of the Cultural Heritage bulletin to cover not only cultural sites but also natural heritage sites.
The question was raised as to whether the Committee would authorize States Parties to the Convention to produce material bearing the Emblem such as postage stamps and postcards for publicity purposes and for raising financial contributions to the Fund. The Committee was of the opinion that States Parties were free to use the Emblem for such purposes, and could make additional voluntary contributions to the Fund by this means.
In view of the difficulty of assessing nominations without an adequate inventory, the Committee decided to encourage States Parties to prepare such inventories. It was furthermore decided to ask IUCN to prepare a proposal for the next meeting of the Bureau relating to the methodology and cost of preparing an inventory on a global basis.
The Committee decided to instruct IUCN to use great caution in the application of criterion (iv) when it was the sole criterion for recommending sites for the World Heritage List. The sites nominated under this criterion should be habitats where "significant populations" or "concentrations of populations" of rare or endangered species of plants or animals survive, that is, sites representing in some way "superlative situations".
The Committee noted that several areas nominated which meet the criteria may be marginal because of the inability of States, for various reasons to apply the rigid management criteria which they believe is necessary. The Committee was concerned that this could lead to further deterioration of these sites if corrective measures were not implemented. The Committee therefore decided to amend the "Operational Guidelines" by adding a sub-paragraph (vi) to paragraph 11 as follows:
"Where the intrinsic qualities of a World Heritage site are threatened by action or works of man and yet meet the ...
The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a revised text of the "Operational Guidelines" reflecting the above-mentioned decisions and to present this text to the Bureau at its next session. One question that should be studied in this connection would be the possibility of adding a criterion on integrity for the evaluation of cultural properties.
The Committee considered that it would be desirable to be able to examine nominations at its fourth session within the framework of a national inventory of cultural and natural properties which the State Party considers suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List. This would allow for a preliminary evaluation of the comparative value of properties within that State. The Committee therefore expressed the hope that each State Party concerned would make available to the Committee before its next session a list of those properties which it intends to nominate to the World Heritage List ...
The Committee considered that it was absolutely essential that the List contained only properties which were of outstanding universal value. Unless this general criterion was applied to every nomination, the List could rapidly decline in value and indeed in credibility. With this in mind, the Committee recommended that the wording in the "Operational Guidelines" and the nomination forms should more adequately reflect this overriding consideration, and that ICOMOS and IUCN should be instructed to regard this requirement as of critical importance in their evaluation of nominations.
On the general question of the number of inscriptions to be entered on the World Heritage List, as well as of the selection criteria to be applied, the Committee recalled that the Convention foresees in Article 11 paragraph 1 that each State Party "shall in so far as possible submit to the World Heritage Committee _an inventory of property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage_, situated in its territory and _suitable for inclusion_" in the World Heritage List (passages not underlined in the text of the Convention). The Committee recommends that States Parties in future ...
In response to specific questions raised by Mr. Michel Parent's report, the Committee adopted the following principles:
(i) States Parties may propose in one single nomination several individual cultural properties, which may be in different geographical locations but which should:
-be linked because they belong to the same historico-cultural group, or-be the subject of a single safeguarding project, or-belong to the same type of property characteristic of the zone.
the geographical zone in which these properties are situated should be delimited and the cultural properties individually ...
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.
The Committee considered the complex issues concerning sites occupied by migratory species on a seasonal basis and decided to add to paragraph 11 on integrity in the "Operational Guidelines" a new sub-paragraph (v) as follows:
"In cases of migratory species, integrity will require critical areas necessary for the survival of the species to be included in the nomination. States which are parties to the Convention are requested to seek the co-operation of other States which contain seasonable sites for populations of World Heritage species so as to ensure that these species are protected ...
The Australian Delegation drew attention to the fact that, on several occasions, members of the Committee and representatives of IUCN and ICOMOS had referred to the threat to which certain nominated sites were exposed, and had suggested that this factor should influence the favourable and rapid acceptance of the site in question. The Delegation expressed concern at this development, pointing out that acceptance should be based only on the established criteria dealing with the intrinsic properties of the site and, further, that if the threat affected the integrity of the site, acceptance ...
The Committee took up one by one those nominations which had been recommended by the Bureau for inscription on the List, those which had been recommended by the Bureau not to be entered on the List and nominations which raised a problem of application of the criteria, in accordance with the Committee's decision mentioned in paragraph 15 above. In each case the Committee heard, as appropriate, the comments of the representatives of IUCN and/or ICOMOS who referred to the criteria met by the property in question.
The Committee decided to enter in the World Heritage List the following 45 properties:
No. Name of property / State Party___________________________________________
19 Fasil Ghebbi, Gondar Region / Ethiopia
20 Ancient City of Damascus Syrian / Arab Republic
The Committee noted the reservation expressed by ICOMOS concerning the threat to the site from rapid urban development.
31 Auschwitz concentration camp / Poland
The Committee decided to enter Auschwitz concentration camp on the List as a unique site and to restrict the inscription of other sites of a similar nature.
The Committee decided furthermore to defer the following sites:
No. Name of property / State Party
8 Ichkeul National park / Tunisia
The Committee deferred this nomination until the Tunisian Government has contacted the other States concerned to ensure adequate protection of summering and wintering areas of major migratory species found in Ichkeul.
79 Paphos, Birthplace of Aphrodite / Cyprus
The Committee deferred this nomination until more precise information was available on the possible adverse impact on the sites of the pressing needs of tourism development.
92 Sta. Giulia/St. ...
The Committee furthermore decided not to inscribe the following two sites on the World Heritage List:
No. 5: Zembra and Zembretta Islands National Park (Tunisia) andNo. 73: the Madeleine Island (Senegal).
In order to facilitate the examination by the Committee of nominations, it was decided that in future documents submitting nominations to the Committee would include indication of the criteria under which each nomination was to be considered.
After examining the requests received from States Parties and the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to grant technical co-operation as follows:
Equipment to enable the authorities to ensure the integrity of tho natural environment of the Galapagos Islands through protective measures.
up to a maximum of $50,000
After examining the requests received from States Parties and the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to grant technical co-operation as follows:
Services of an architect-museologist for three weeks in order to draw up a project for the conservation and presentation of the prehistoric sites of Olduvai and Laetolil.
estimated cost $5,400
After examining the requests received from States Parties and the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to grant technical co-operation as follows:
Services of specialists in cultural heritage as well as equipment to draw up a project for the restoration and development of the Islamic Centre of Cairo.
up to a maximum of $ 30,000
The Committee was informed that requests for technical co-operation were forthcoming for the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania and Virunga National Park in Zaire and agreed to delegate authority to the Chairman to approve these requests after consultation with members of the Bureau if he considered it desirable.
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 ...