8050 Decisions
146 Resolutions
By Year
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.
Sites: Simien National Park
The Committee elected by acclamation Mr. Firouz Bagherzadeh (Iran) as its Chairman.
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.
7. 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 ...
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.
The definition of “universal” given in paragraph 17 of the working document was found to be incomplete, in that time also was a factor that modified the appreciation of values.
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 ...
With the above modifications and some minor changes in form, the criteria were unanimously adopted by the Committee.
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 ...
The Committee decided to defer to a later session decisions relating to the form and periodicity of publication of the "World Heritage List".
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 agreed that a draft text of the standard agreement would be prepared by the Secretariat and sent to members of the Committee well in advance of the second session.
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 had no comments on the text of the Financial Regulations prepared by the Secretariat, and already noted by the General Assembly of States Parties and the Executive Board of Unesco.
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;
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 ...
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.
The Scientific Director of the International Organization for the Protection of Works of Art presented the offer of collaboration of that Organization.
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 Arab Republic of Egypt supplemented the information provided, giving further details on Professor Badawy's offer.
The Committee expressed sincere thanks to Professor Badawy for his offer and authorized the Secretariat to study further the exact conditions of the offer and to report to it at its second session.
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.
It was further decided that the Bureau would meet in Paris on 8 and 9 June 1978. The Rome Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN would be invited to attend.
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 ...
The Rapporteur's oral report has been incorporated into the present summary record, of which it forms a substantial part.
5. The Committee elected by acclamation Bulgaria and Senegal as Vice-Chairmen.
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 ...
1 GA 6
Election of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons and Rapporteur of the General Assembly and adoption of the Rules of Procedure
6. After the meeting had been opened by Mr. John E. Fobes, Deputy Director General of Unesco, the General Assembly adopted its Rules of Procedure, with the amendments to Article 12, paragraphs 3 and 6, proposed by the representative of the Director General of Unesco. The Assembly thereafter elected by acclamation His Excellency Ambassador Hamid Rahnema (Iran) as its Chairman, the representatives of Algeria Bulgaria, Ecuador, Senegal and the United States, as Vice-Chairmen, and Mr. Michel Parent (France) as ...
15. The results of the vote, announced by the Chairman, were as follows :
Number of States Parties present and voting 25
Number of valid voting papers 25
France 25 votes
Iran 23 votes
Nigeria 23 ...
1 GA 20
Determination of the amount of the contributions to the World Heritage Fund in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the World Heritage Convention
20. With respect to the amount of the compulsory or voluntary contributions that States Parties will make to the World Heritage Fund, the delegations of Switzerland and Poland proposed that it.be fixed at 0.75% of the contribution to the Regular Budget of Unesco, whereas the delegations of Zaire, Nigeria, Algeria, Syria and Australia proposed 1%. Since no objection was lodged when the Chairman asked the General Assembly if it accepted this latter percentage, this was adopted without recourse to a vote. The delegation of Switzerland stated that, had a vote occurred, it would have ...
The Assembly took note without discussion of the method and procedure for payment set forth in the information document on the World Heritage Fund and did not formulate any comments concerning the draft financial regulations of the Fund.
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.
Sites: Antigua Guatemala
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.
Sites: Galápagos Islands
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.
Sites: Ngorongoro Conservation Area
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.
Sites: Historic Cairo
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.
Sites: Rock-Hewn Churches, Lalibela
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.
Sites: Bale Mountains National Park
2 BUR V.28
Technical co-operation requests - Syrian Arab Republic (requests n°20.I, 21.I, 22.I, 23.I)
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.
Sites: Ancient City of Damascus
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 full list of participants will be found in Annex III to this report.
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."
With the above additions, the agenda was adopted.
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 amended Articles 12.1 and 13 of the Rules of Procedure accordingly.
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.
2 COM IV.14
Consideration of a draft text of a standard agreement between the World Heritage Committee and States receiving technical cooperation
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.
2 COM IV.15
Consideration of a draft text of a standard agreement between the World Heritage Committee and States receiving technical cooperation
Until the adoption of such an agreement by the Committee, UNESCO's rules and procedures would be followed in the provision of technical cooperation to States Parties.
2 COM IV.16
Consideration of a draft text of a standard agreement between the World Heritage Committee and States receiving technical cooperation
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 ...
2 COM IV.23
Consideration of a draft text of a standard agreement between the World Heritage Committee and States receiving technical cooperation
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.
2 COM V.24
Examination of the form and Periodicity of Publication of the World Heritage List, the List of World Heritage in danger and the List of Properties for which technical cooperation is granted
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.
2 COM V.25
Examination of the form and Periodicity of Publication of the World Heritage List, the List of World Heritage in danger and the List of Properties for which technical cooperation is granted
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.
After considerable discussion, the Committee agreed to form a sub-Committee for in-depth study of future public information and educational activities of the Committee.
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.
Sites: Ichkeul National Park
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 ...
Sites: Aachen Cathedral City of Quito Galápagos Islands Historic Centre of Kraków Island of Gorée L’Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site Mesa Verde National Park Nahanni National Park Rock-Hewn Churches, Lalibela Simien National Park Wieliczka and Bochnia Royal Salt Mines Yellowstone National Park
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.
Sites: Simien National Park
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.