You are viewing an archived web page, collected at the request of
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) using
Archive-It. This page was captured on 22:41:42 Dec 09, 2015, and is part of the
UNESCO collection. The information on this web page may be out of date. See
All versions of this archived page.
Limited distribution CLT-83/CONF.021/8
Paris, 1st August 1983
Translated from French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD
CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
Seventh Session
Paris, 27 - 30 June 1983
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The seventh session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee was
held at Unesco Headquarters in Paris from 27 to 30 June 1983 and was attended
by Prof. Ralph 0. Slayter (Australia), Chairman, Prof. Carlos Maria Gelly y
Obes (Argentine), Mrs. Magdalina Stantscheva (Bulgaria), Mr. Youssouf Diare
(Guinea), Mrs. Licia Vlad Borrelli (Italy), Mr. Mir Abad Hussain (Pakistan),
Vice-Chairmen, and Mr. Azedine Beschaouch (Tunisia), the Rapporteur. Six
other States Members of the Committee were represented by observers. Repre-
sentatives of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and
of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN) and of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and
Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) attended the meeting in an advisory
capacity. The full list of participants is to be found in Annex I of this
report.
2. Mr. R. O. Slayter, Chairman of the Committee, opened the meeting and gave a
welcome address in which he underlined, in particular, the important role of the
Committee and the positive evolution of its action in the implementation of the
World Heritage Convention.
3. The Bureau then adopted the agenda for the session, with the proposed
modification that the study of the nominations of cultural properties to the
World Heritage List should follow examination of the budget and the technical
co-operation requests.
4. As was foreseen in the agenda, the representative of the Director-General, Mr.
Michel Batisse, Deputy Assistant Director-General (Science Sector) reported on
the activities undertaken since the sixth session of the Committee. He
*[2]
particularly noted that, since December 1982, five additional States had ratified
or accepted the Convention, bringing the total number of ratifications and
acceptations to seventy-four. With regard to technical co-operation he stated
that the Secretariat had made all the necessary arrangements to ensure the
effective implementation of the requests approved by the Committee under the 1983
budget. He described training activities which had been undertaken in the form
of fellowships, seminars and group training. He also called attention to the
number of promotional activities which had been launched. As to the financial
situation, he draw attention to the discrepancy between the budgetary provisions
and the actual receipts, caused by delays in the payment of a certain number of
obligatory contributions, as well as the non-payment of an important volontary
contribution. Consequently, the Bureau should examine possibilities for savings
in 1983 and foresee a smaller budget for 1984.
5. Before presentation by the competent advisory body of the evaluations
pertaining to each nomination, the President of ICOMOS, Mr. Michel Parent,
presented the Bureau with a series of methodological and practical
considerations, recalling different phases in the implementation of the World
Heritage Convention, and underlining the noted development in considering the
criteria for properties, in particular the criterion of authenticity, and drawing
special attention to the complexity of the approach to historic towns. In view
of the importance of these reflections the Bureau decided to submit them for
consideration to the Committee at its next session.
II. NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE
IN DANGER
6. Forty-seven nominations submitted by States Parties were presented to the
Bureau, thirty-six of which concerned essentially cultural properties and eleven
of which concerned essentially natural properties. Thirty-five properties were
recommended to the Committee for inclusion in the World Heritage List; these are
listed in section A below. Certain reservations or recommendations were made for
some of these nominations. Additional information was considered necessary for
other nominations. The information requested from the States Parties should be
forwarded to the Secretariat before 30 September 1983, in order to be transmitted
on time to the members of the Committee before its seventh session (5-9 December
1983). Examination of the eleven nominations listed in section B below was de-
ferred because their files require revision of additional essential information,
or because they are in need of a more thorough examination. Finally, sharing the
opinion expressed by ICOMOS, the Bureau recommended to the Committee not to
inscribe on the World Heritage List the property listed in section C below.
7. After consideration of the competent advisory body's evaluation of each
nomination the Bureau formulated the following preliminary recommendations:
1. that ICOMOS carry out a detailed study for the agents of the World
Heritage Convention on the question of "historic towns" and on the
problems they present for inscription on the World Heritage List;
2. that, in evaluating the files, particular attention be given to the
criteria of authenticity and integrity as well as to juridical
protection and to safeguarding or management plans.
8. The Bureau made the following recommendations to the Committee :
*[3]
A. PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
Name of property Identifi- Contracting State Criteria
cation No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
Ancient City of Aleppo
- on the condition that the authori- 21 Syrian Arab Republic C (iii)
ties
(1) define the area of the historic
centre to be protected (intra-mural
and buffer zones) and present a map
indicating the boundaries of these
zones (2) complete the juridical
protection by effective urban re-
gulations, and (3) provide the
documents pertaining to this
protection.
The Monuments of the Bamiyan Valley 208 Afghanistan C (ii)
(iv)
- on the condition that the authori-
ties define a large perimeter of
protection which would include the
cliffs and the valley, and provide a
map indicating the delimitation of
this zone.
The Archaeological City of Ai Khanum 209 Afghanistan C (ii)(iii)
(iv)
- on the condition that the authori-
ties provide a safeguarding plan for
the structures brought to light by
the excavations of 1965-1978, and in
particular the earthen wall.
Sao Miguel das Missoes 275 Brazil C (iv)
It was pointed out that this property
belongs to a series of similar proper-
ties and that Argentina, on its side,
has announced its intention of pro-
posing the Jesuit missions of San
Ignacio Mini and Santa Maria la Mayor.
The Ancient City of Nessebar 217 Bulgaria C
(iii)(iv)
*[4]
Name of property Identifi- Contracring State Criteria
cation No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
Srebarna Reserve 219 Bulgaria N (iv)
The Bureau requests the authorities
to provide additional details con-
cerning the buffer zone foreseen
in the perimeter of protection.
Pirin 225 Bulgaria N (i)(ii)
(iii)
Wood Buffalo National Park 256 Canada N (ii)(iii)
(iv)
The Bureau calls attention to the
harmful consequences that the even-
tual construction of a dam on the
Slave River could have for the
integrity of the site, and urges
the authorities to inform the
Bureau in the event that such a
project were planned.
Talamanca Range-La Amistad 205 Costa Rica N (i)(ii)
(iii)(iv)
The Bureau expresses the wish that the
Panamanian authorities take the ini-
tiative of nominating that part of
the site included in their territory.
Sangay National Park 260 Ecuador N (ii)(iii)
(iv)
The Pilgrimage Church of Wies 271 Federal C (i)(iii)
Republic
of Germany
Palais des Papes, old Cathedral of 228 France to be
Notre-Dame-des-Doms, Pont Saint- specified
Bénézet and ramparts of Avignon
- on the condition that the authori-
ties (1) more coherently define the
perimeter of protection (2) foresee
the inclusion of Villeneuve-lès-Avignon
within this perimeter, and(3) provide
a map indicating the delimitations of
the chosen zones.
*[5]
Name of property Identifi- Contracring State Criteria
cation No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
Place Stanislas, Place de la Carrière 229 France C (i)(iv)
and Place d'Alliance, Nancy
It is recommended that the perimeter
of protection be extended in accord-
ance with the suggestions of ICOMOS
Church of Saint-Savin-sur-Gartempe 230 France C (i)(iii)
It was noted that this property becomes
part of the series of important groups
of Romanesque mural paintings.
Classified site of Cape Girolata and 258 France N (ii)(iii)
and Cape Porto and Scandola Nature (iv)
Reserve
Khajuraho group of monuments 240 India C (i)(iii)
- on the condition that the authori-
ties (1) define a large perimeter non
aedificandi in order to protect the
entire site, including the area
containing unexplored temples, and
(2) provide a map indicating the
delimitation of this perimeter of
protection.
Group of monuments at Hampi 241 India C (i)(iii)
(iv)
- on the condition that the authori-
ties (1) provide a map which precisely
indicates the delimitation of the zone
of protection (2) plan of protection.
Ajanta Caves 242 India C (i)(ii)
(iii)(vi)
It is recommended that the authori-
ties provide further details on the
safeguarding messures, especially
as concerns the construction on
the summit of the cliff.
*[6]
Name of property Identifi- Contracring State Criteria
cation No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
Ellora Caves 243 India C (i)(iii)
(vi)
It is recommended that the authorities
establish a protection zone which would
safeguard the surrounding landscape and
the cliff, and provide a map indicating
the delimitation of this zone.
Agra Fort 251 India C (iii)
It is recommended that the authorities
create a buffer zone of protection bet-
ween the Fort and the Taj Mahal so as
to safeguard the landscape and the
environment between these two monuments.
Taj Mahal 252 India C (i)
Hatra 277 Iraq C (vi)
- on the condition that the authorities
(1) more precisely define the perimeter
of protection and (2) provide a map in-
dicating the delimitation of this
perimeter.
Babylon 278 Iraq C (i)(ii)
(iii)(vi)
- on the condition that the authorities
(1) more precisely define the perimeter
of protection (2) provide a map indica-
ting the delimitation of this perimeter,
and (3) provide a safeguarding plan
giving details on restoration work in
progress or envisaged.
Comoé National Park 227 Ivory Coast N (ii)(iv)
It is recommended that the authorities
strengthen the protective measures and
that the zone of protection of the site
be extended to include the Mts. Gorowi
and Kongoli.
*[7]
Name of property Identifi- Contracring State Criteria
cation No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
City of Cuzco 273 Peru C (iii)(iv)
It is recommended that the zone of
protection be extended to the
surroundings of the city in order
to include the Canchas and the old
Inca villages. Once these measures
have been taken an addendum to the
nomination could be presented.
Santuario historico de Machu Picchu 274 Peru C (i)(iii)
It is recommended that the zone of
protection include the important
archaeological sites of the Valley
of Urubamba and their landscapes,
in accordance with the recommendations
of ICOMOS. Once these measures have
been takan, an addendum to the nomina-
tion could be presented. The Bureau
specified that the natural aspects of
the site will be evaluated by IUCN.
Central Zone of the town of Angra do
Heroismo (Azores) 206 Portugal C (iv)(vi)
The monastery of the Hieronymites
(Lisbon) 263 Portugal C (iii)(vi)
- on the condition that the "Tower
of Belem" be included in this
inscription.
The Monastery of Batalha 264 Portugal C (i)(ii)
The Bureau requests the authorities to
state their intentions concerning the
project for the re-routing of the
highway next to the Monastery.
The Convent of Christ (Tomar) 265 Portugal C (i)(vi)
*[8]
Name of property Identifi- Contracring State Criteria
cation No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
Vallée de Mai Nature Reserve 261 Seychelles N (i)(ii)
(iii)(iv)
- on the condition that the authorities
extend the proposed site to include the
entire National Park of Praslin or an
equivalent protected area.
The Convent of St. Gall 268 Switzerland C (ii)(iv)
The Benadictine Convent of St. John at
Mustair 269 Switzerland C (iii)
Great Smoky Mountains National Park 259 United States of N (i)(ii)
America (iii)(iv)
La Fortaleza and San Juan Historic Site
(Porto Rico) 266 United States of C (vi)
America
- on the condition that the authorities
(1) extend the envisaged zone of pro-
tection (2) provide a map indicating the
delimitation of this zone (3) take safe-
guarding messures to ensure the equilibrium
between the historic zone and the modern
town and (4) provide the documents relevant
to these measures.
B NOMINATIONS TO BE DEFERRED
Name of property Identifi- Contracring State
cation No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
The City and Monuments of Herat 207 Afghanistan
The Bureau deferred examination of this
nomination until the conclusions of an expert
mission, to be sent to the area to report on
the state of preservation and the safeguarding
conditions of the site, are made available.
*[9]
Name of property Identifi- Contracring State
cation No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
The Minaret of Jam 211 Afghanistan
The Bureau requests the authorities to re-
define the limits of the zone of protection
and to provide precise information on the
present state of conservation of the monument.
Rila Monastery 216 Bulgaria
The nomination file should be revised in the
light of the ICOMOS recommendations.
Ancient City of Plovdiv 218 Bulgaria
The nomination file should be revised and
completed by a list of urban and rural
ensembles of specific types of Bulgarian
architecture.
The Hanseatic City of Lübeck 272 Federal Republic of
Germany
The nomination file should be revised as
concerns the perimeter of protection. This
property could also be included in a global
historical perspective of Hanseatic cities.
Bia National Park
The Bureau requests that the authorities 226 Ghana
provide a management plan and especially
that they state their intentions concerning
messures which can be takan to ensure main-
taining the integrity of the park and its
effective protection.
Traditional Mosques of Northern Ghana 279 Ghana
The nomination should be revised in the light
of the ICOMOS recommendations.
Churches and Convents at Goa 234 India
The nomination should be revised with a view
to extending the proposed zone.
*[10]
Name of property Identifi- Contracring State
cation No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
Ancient Samarra 276 Iraq
A revised file should be presented which
would precisely indicate the perimeter
of protection and which would include a
safeguarding plan for the area. The
Bureau strongly recommends that a zone
non aedificandi be foreseen to afford
protection to all of the vestiges of
the ancient city, including the pottery
kilns.
Sanganeb Atoll 262 Sudan
The Bureau requests that the authorities
declare this property a "Marine National
Park "and provide for its extension towards
the south to include the Wingate reef, to-
wards the West to include the fringe reefs
which begin at Mersa Waiai, and towards the
North to include the Mersa Darur reef.
The Old City of Berne 267 Switzerland
The nomination file should be revised in the
light of the ICOMOS recommendations and in
view of a more precise del imitation of the
perimeter of protection.
C. PROPERTY NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION IN THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST
Name of property Identifi- Contracring State
cation No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
The Church of St. Elizabeth, Marburg 270 Federal Republic
of Germany
9. The Bureau recalled that, at its sixth session in December 1982,
the Committee suggested that the Australian Government should
propose the Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks for
inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger, in view of the
intention of the Tasmanian authorities to build a dam in the area,
and because of damage being caused by the associated large scale
construction works. The Bureau received a statement from Australia
which said that legislation had been passed by the Australian
Government to prevent the construction of the dam, and that the
validity of the legislation was being examined by the High Court of
Australia. In view of these circumstances the Australian Government
had decided not to request that the property be placed on the List
of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau commended the Australian
Government for enacting the necessary protective legislation so
rapidly. The Bureau concluded that, regardless of whether the
legislation was found to be effective or not, the property should
still be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. If the dam
construction was stopped, it was expected that restoration
Work would commence immediately and that, as it became effective,
the property
could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. On the
other hand,
*[11]
if dam construction were continued, it was considered that the
Committee would probably wish to assess the threat to the property
in terms of the damage to those characteristics on which World
Heritage Listing was based. The Secretariat was asked to
communicate these views to the Australian authori-ties with a view
to providing up to date information on which the full Committee
could take the necessary decisions.
10. The Bureau recalled that, at its sixth session in December
1982, the Committee suggested that the Government of Senegal should
propose the Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary for the List of World
Heritage in Danger, in view of the threat which water impoundment
would have on the characteristics of the natural ecosystems which
are essential for the maintenance of the bird population of the
area. The Bureau recalled that a preparatory assistance mission to
Djoudj had recommended water management procedures which would
protect these characteristics and, at the same time, allow for
water resource development. The Bureau asked the Secretariat to
communicate with the Government of Senegal with a view to
proceeding with listing on the List of World Heritage in Danger and
to developing urgently a plan of action to protect the property and
a timetable for its implementation. The full Committee would then
be able to take the necessary decisions.
11. The Bureau received an emergency assistance request from the
Government of Zaire for a programme to protect populations of
several species of wildlife under threat of extinction in Garamba
National Park. The Bureau commended the Government, and also IUCN
and the Frankfurt Zoological Society for the co-operative manner in
which the plan of action had been prepared. The Bureau approved
financial support for the project (see paragraph 19 below) and
asked that the Secretariat, in co-operation with IUCN and the
Government of Zaire, prepare a nomination for the List of World
Heritage in Danger which could be considered by the Committee at
its forthcoming session.
III. STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND
BUDGET
12. The Secretariat presented to the Bureau the situation of the
World Heritage Fund as at 13 May 1983, as well as the state of the
budget for the period 1st November 1982 - 13 May 1983.
13. The Bureau expressed grave concern over the situation resulting
from delays in payment of obligatory or voluntary contributions.
Concerning voluntary contributions, the obligations mentioned in
Article 16, paragraph 4 of the Convention were recalled, and the
Bureau underlined that in the spirit of the Convention, voluntary
contributions were not to be less than what they would have been if
the States Parties concerned had opted for payment of obligatory
contributions.
14. Taking into account the noted discrepancy between the budgetary
provisions and the receipts, due to the non-payment of certain
contributions, the Bureau decided that it would be necessary to
economize $ 150,000 on the budget set by the Committee at its sixth
session. These savings are to be made on the balance for the
following activities :
*[12]
- preparatory assistance and regional studies ( - $ 40,000)
- emergency assistance ( - $ 85,000)
- promotional and information activities ( - $ 25,000)
15. Concerning the 1984 budget, the Bureau foresaw, at this stage,
a working figure not exceeding $ 500,000 and recommended the
following breakdown to the Committee :
a) preparatory assistance and regional studies $ 40,000
b) technical co-operation $150,000
c) training $100,000
d) emergency assistance $ 50,000
e) promotional activities and information $ 50,000
f) temporary assistance to the Secretariat $ 60,000
g) ICOMOS/IUCN advisory services $ 50,000
16. In the event of an increase in receipts during the period 13
May 1983 -31 October 1983, the Bureau recommended that the
Committee increase the budgetary provision for the following
chapters :
- technical co-operation
- assistance to the Secretariat
- support to ICOMOS and to IUCN
IV. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION REQUESTS
17. The Bureau recalled that, as the deadline of March 1st of the
current year had been decided upon by the Committee for the
registration of technical cooperation requests, it could not, in
principle, examine requests received after that date.
18. Given a foreseeable difficult budgetory situation for 1984,the
Bureau, rather than making specific recommendations on the
technical cooperation requests, recommended that the committee
reexamine these according to the following guidelines:
a) total budgetary allocation now proposed for technical
co-operation : $150,000;
b) priority given to requests for co-operation for:
- on the one hand, programmes already begun, with priority
given to properties in danger
- NB : It is recommended that the Secretariat negotiate
the budgetary cuts concerned, avoiding interruptions of
work already begun or hindering the success of the
project.
- on the other hand, new programmes proposed by States
Parties which have never participated in technical
co-operation activities.
8[13]
V. REQUESTS FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE
19. The Bureau accorded $ 40,000 in emergency assistance to the
Republic of Zaire to carry out - in collaboration with IUCN, the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Frankfort Zoological Garden
Society - a project to save the fauna of Garamba National Park (in
particular the white rhinoceros population decimated by poaching).
VI. REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
20. After a wide exchange of views on the evolution of the
implementation of the Convention, the Bureau made the following
recommendations to the Committee:
a) to alter the text of the "Guidelines" Document WAC
2/Revised, October 1980), on p. 10, Art. 35(2)b, by
deleting the phrase "to the States Parties to the
Convention which are concerned"so that Article 35(2)b reads
as follows: "undertakes a professional evaluation of each
nomination in terms of the criteria adopted by the
Committee and transmits their evaluation to the
Secretariat, which in turn transmits it to the members of
the Bureau of the Committee";
b) co modify the text of the "Guidelines for inscription of
cultural and natural properties on the List of World
Heritage in Danger" (Document prepared by IUCN and ICOMOS
and adopted by the Committee at its sixth session,
December 1982) only in the light of practical experience
gained from their application and on the basis of problems
which their application can raise;
c) to ensure that the procedure for the inclusion of
properties in the List of World Heritage in Danger, is
applied in accordance with Articles 27 - 34 of the
document cited in para. b) above.
21. In regard to the inscription of properties on the List of World
Heritage in Danger and, in this context, the notion of assistance,
as it appears in Article 11, para. 4 of the Convention of the world
cultural and natural heritage, the Bureau recommended that the
Committee study ways and means of obtaining a more flexible
application of this clause. In this connection, the Bureau
recalled, on the one hand, that Australia had proposed to present
a document on this question, and on the other hand, that it is
desirable to obtain a legal consultation. Finally, the Bureau
underlined the unanimously recognized necessity of obtaining the
participation of industralized countries in the implementation of
the Convention, which posses financial and technical resources and
which would not request aid in the framework of the Convention.
VII. SAFEGUARDING AND MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST
22. Although conscious of the present state of the infrastructures
in most countries, the Bureau recalled the usefulness þf a
permanent monitoring system and the necessity of obtaining
periodical statements on the condition of properties inscribed on
the World Heritage List.
23. ICOMOS recalled that the management of cultural properties
presents extremely complex problems, not only of a juridical and
financial nature, but aesthetic and ethical ones as well. A
separate monitoring system for historic towns should be
*[14]
envisaged. A standardized form could be prepared only on the basis
of periodic reports that States Parties would submit to the
Committee. Consequently, concerning the management of cultural
properties, the Bureau decided to wait for the different studies
which would be carried out under the aegis of ICOMOS. Furthermore,
the Bureau recommended that a separate form should be envisaged for
individual monuments and for historic ensembles.
24. IUCN recalled that its monitoring centre (for endangered
species and protected areas) is already operational at Kew
Gardereand at Cambridge in the United Kingdom. IUCN presented the
Bureau with the elements of a monitoring system for all of the
natural properties on the World Heritage List. Likewise, IUCN
indicated its readiness of presenting an initial report on the
protection and management of natural properties inscribed on the
World Heritage List to the Committee at its seventh session.
VIII. REVIEW OF PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
25. Document CLT/83/CONF.021/7 concerning activities for the
promotion of the World Heritage Convention was presented to the
Bureau by the Secretariat. Activities undertaken since the sixth
session of the Committee include a philatelic programme similar to
those of UNICEF. This activity could, with no additional cost to
the World Heritage Fund, bring in 10% of the total sales profit,
meaning earnings which could be evaluated at $ 100,000 per year.
Furthermore, a contract was signed with a Spanish editor
specializing in nature photography, INCAFO, for the publication of
a series of illustrated volumes on the World Heritage Sites (one
volume per year containing approximatively twenty properties per
volume). It is agreed that 5% of the income from these sales will
be attributed to the World Heritage Fund, and that Unesco will
acquire the use of all the photographic materiaLof INCAFO,
including a wide selection of good-quality slides, for nonprofit
making purposes. It was also recalled that a special issue of
"Ambio" devoted to World Heritage will be ready in September 1983
and that the periodical "Monumentum" will devote a special issue to
the World Heritage Convention in the spring of 1984. The
Secretariat then presented a series of proposals concerning
promotional activities to be undertaken in the near future, notably
INCAFO's plans for publishing weekly booklets based on the
illustrated volumes already foreseen - in order to reach a wide
audience.
26. The Bureau again underlined the importance of promotional
activities at a time when the implementation of the Convention was
rapidly developing but was also encountering serious problems as a
result of this very development. It was decided to entrust the
Secretariat with the task of finding the best possible means for
the diffusion of material on the World Heritage sites. In this
regard, the Bureau stated that the budgetary allocation for this
activity should be used by the Committee essentially for those
promotional activities which would produce sure and substantial
income for the World Heritage Fund.
IX. REPORT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE TO THE 22nd SESSION OF
THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF UNESCO
27. The Bureau approved Document CLT-83/CONF.021/5.
*[15]
X PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR THE SEVENTH SESSION OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE
28. For the seventh session of the Committee, the Bureau adopted
the following provisional agenda :
1. Opening of the session.
2. Adoption of the agenda.
3. Election of Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and Rapporteur.
4. Report on the seventh session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee (Paris, 27-30 June 1983).
5. Report of the representative of the Director-General on
activities undertaken since the sixth session of the World
Heritage Committee.
6. Updated operational guidelines, in particular guidelines for
the inscription of cultural and natural properties on the
list of World Heritage in Danger.
7. Nominations to the World Heritage List and to the List of
the World Heritage in Danger.
8. Statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund and budget
for 1984.
9. Requests for technical cooperation.
10. Protection and management of properties includes in the
World Heritage List - guidelines and reporting procedures.
11. Review of promotional activities and development of a World
Heritage Information Management System.
12. Other business.
13. Closure of session.
XI. THE OLD CITY OF JERUSALEM AND ITS WALLS
29. Mr. R. O. Slayter, the Chairman of the Committee, informed the
Bureau of the contents of a letter which had just been sent to him
by the Director-General of ALESCO, Dr. Mohi El-Dine Saber,
concerning the 4th Conference of Ministers responsible for cultural
affairs in the Arab countries (Algiers, 9-12 May 1983). This
congress acclaimed the activities of the World Heritage Committee
and hoped that it would continue its action to protect the Old City
of Jerusalem and its walls, which is inscribed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
30. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Executive Board of
Unesco, by a decision adopted at its 116th session, invited the
World Heritage Committee to continue taking action to safeguard the
Old City of Jerusalem and its walls, in accordance with the
provisions of the World Heritage Convention. The Secretariat will
bring this decision to the attention of the Committee at its next
session.
*[16]
XII. OTHER BUSINESS
31. The Bureau gratefully noted the arrangements the Italian
authorities were making to hold the 7th session of the Committee in
Florence from 5 - 9 December 1983.
32. The Rapporteur, Mr. A. Beschaouch, informed the Bureau that
ICOMOS celebrated monuments and sites day on 18 April of this year
and that the support of the States Parties to the World Heritage
Convention is being sought to declare the 18 April of each year as
"International Monuments and Sites Day", by the next Unesco General
Conference.
33. The Bureau noted, following a proposal from the Rapporteur,
that an international meeting on the theme of heritage
management (particularly in developing countries) was to be
organised in Tunis in January 1984, under the aegis of ICOMOS.
*[ANNEX I/1]
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE /
BUREAU DU COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
7th Session / 7éme Session
Paris, 27-30 June 1983 / Paris, 27-30 juin 1983
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU / ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU
ARGENTINA / ARGENTINE
Prof. Carlos Maria GELLY y OBES Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Presidente de la Comision Nacional
de Museos, Monumentos y Lugares
Históricos
M. Javier FERNANDEZ
Ministre plénipotentiaire
Délégation permanente auprés de l'Unesco
AUSTRALIA / AUSTRALIE
Prof. Ralph O. SLATYER Chairman/Président
Professor of Environmental
Biology Australian National
University, Canberra
BULGARIA / BULGARIE
Mme Magdalina STANTSCHEVA Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Maître de recherches, Archéologue
M. Simeon Todorov NEDIALKOV
Directeur du Centre d'Ecologie et
de l'Environnement auprés
de l'Académie des Sciences de Bulgarie
GUINEA / GUINEE
M. Youssouf DIARE Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Délégué permanent auprès de
l'Unesco
ITALY / ITALIE
Mme Licia VLAD BORRELLI Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Inspecteur central pour
l'archéologie
*[ANNEX I/2]
PAKISTAN
Mr. Mir Abad HUSSAIN Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Deputy Permanent Delegate
to Unesco
Mr. Mustafa Kamal KAZI
First Secretary, Embassy
TUNISIA
Mr. Azedine BESCHAOUCH Rapporteur
Directeur des Antiquités Romaines
et Byzantines (INAA/Tunisie)
II. OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
A. STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION /
ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
BRAZIL / BRESIL
M. Augusto Carlos DA SILVA TELLES Directeur de Classement et
Conservation du Patrimoine historique national -Ministère de
l'Education et Culture Rio de Janeiro
M. Carlos Alberto ASFORA
Deuxième secrétaire d'Ambassade
CYPRUS / CHYPRE
M. Christos CAS SIMATIS
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
ECUADOR / EQUATEUR
M. Fernando CHAMORRO
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
GREECE / GRECE
M. Alexis COGEVINAS
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
SWITZERLAND / SUISSE
M. Charles HUMMEL
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
Mme Sylvie MICHL-KELLER
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / ETATS UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mrs Elvira GARCIA CAMBEIRO
*[ANNEX I/3]
III. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY /
ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF
- International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and
the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) / Centre
international d'études pour la conservation et la
restauration des biens culturels
Mr. Jukka JOKILEHTO
Coordinator of Training
- International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) /
Conseil international des monuments et des sites
M. Michel PARENT
Président
M. Leon PRESSOUYRE
Professeur à l'Université de Paris I
M. Abdeleziz DAOULATLI
Secrétaire général
Ms. Danielle JOHNSON
Archéologue
Mme Delphine LAPEYRE
Directrice du Secrétariat International
Mme Florence SAVATIER
Documentaliste
- International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) / Union internationale pour la conservation
de la nature et de ses ressources (UICN)
Mr. Jeffrey A. McNeely
Executive Officer, CNPPA
*[ANNEX I/4]
IV. SECRETARIAT
Mr. Michel Batisse
Deputy Assistant Director-General
Science Sector
Mr. Francesco di Castri
Director
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mr. S. Naqvi
Acting Director
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mr. Bernd von Droste
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mme Anne Raidl
Chief, International Standards Section
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mr. Daniel de San
Chief, International Standards Division
Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs
Mrs. Jane Robertson
Division of Ecological Sciences
*[EOF]