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 22:41:46 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 The information on this web page may be out of date.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 SC/83/CONF.009/8
Paris, January 1984
Original: English and French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC
AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION
OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
World Heritage Committee
Seventh Ordinary Session
Florence (Italy), 5-9 December 1983
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Seventh Ordinary Session of the World Heritage Committee was held at
the invitation of the Government of Italy in the Villa Medicea of Poggio a Caiano,
Florence, from 5 to 9 December 1983. It was attended by the following States
Members of the World Heritage Committee: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil,
Cyprus, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Guinea, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Norway, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey.
2. Representatives of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation
and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council of
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and the International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity.
3. The meeting was also attended by representatives of the following States
Parties who are not members of the Committee: Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica,
Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Holy See, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Portugal,
United States of America. The International Union of Architects (IUA) and the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) also sent representatives. The full list of participants
can be found in Annex I of this record.
II. OPENING OF THE SESSION
4. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the session was opened by
Mr. J. Gazaneo of Argentina, since the outgoing Chairman, Prof. R. Slatyer,
could not attend the meeting. Mr. Gazaneo welcomed the delegates and observers
and introduced the opening addresses by the Representative of the Director-General
of Unesco, Mr. M. Batisse, and the Italian authorities. Mrs. L. Vlad-Borrelli,
(SC-84/WS/1)
*[2]
Representative of the Minister of Cultural Properties and Cultural Environment
conveyed the greetings of the Minister and recalled that the town of Florence
is one of the Italian cultural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List.
Welcoming addresses were also given by: the Superintendent of Architectural
Properties and the Cultural Environment of Florence and the Region of Pistoia,
M. A. Calvani; the Cultural attaché to the Mayor of Florence, Mr. M.G. Morales,
the representative of the President of the Regional Authority of Tuscany,
Mr. M. Mayer and the Mayor of Poggio a Caiano, Mr. S. Pezzati.
5. The Acting Chairman then requested H.E. the Honourable Mr. G. Whitlam,
Australia, to read the message to the Committee from the outgoing Chairman,
Prof. R. Slatyer. The full text of this message is reproduced in Annex II to
this Report.
6. On behalf of the Committee, the Acting Chairman conveyed his gratitude to
Prof. Slatyer for his firm dedication and continuous effort in promoting the
World Heritage Convention during the last few years.
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
7. The Committee adopted the agenda for the meeting with the amendment to
discuss the difficulties encountered in evaluating nominations of historic towns
after point 6 of the agenda.
IV. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRMEN AND RAPPORTEUR
8. The Committee elected by acclamation Mrs. Vlad-Borrelli (Italy) as Chairman
of the Committee and Mr. da Silva Telles (Brazil) as Rapporteur. The following
States were elected also by acclamation as Vice-Chairmen: Algeria, Australia,
Guinea, Norway and Sri Lanka.
V. REPORT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
9. Mr. Batisse, Assistant Director General (Science Sector) presented the report
of the Secretariat and drew attention to the report of the seventh session of
the Bureau held on 27-30 June 1983. He noted that since that date, the 4th
General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention had taken place on
28 October 1983 during the 22nd session of the Unesco General Conference.
As stipulated by the Convention, the mandate of 7 countries expired and the
following countries were elected: Algeria, Australia (re-election), Lebanon,
Malawi, Norway, Sri Lanka, and Turkey. He indicated that 64 countries were
present to elect these new Committee members, which is indicative of a growing
interest in the Convention and its work. This interest was also manifested at
the General Conference itself. However, although the number of States adhering
to the Convention - 78 as of the end of November 1983 - continues to grow, this
was, unfortunately, not the case for the financial contributions. Although 18
countries had paid their obligatory contributions since 1 August 1983, there were
still delays in the payments of voluntary contributions, some of which represent
considerable amounts.
*[3]
10. He indicated that in view of this financial situation, more effort had
been made to launch promotional activities which, at little or no cost to
Unesco, could generate income for the World Heritage Fund. One example was
the series of books entitled "El Patrimonio de la Humanidad" which is being
produced by the Spanish Institute for Wildlife Photography (INCAFO).
The first volume of this series, richly illustrated and prefaced by the
Director General of Unesco, had already been published.
11. Mr. Batisse then described briefly the many activities supported by the
World Heritage Fund undertaken since the previous session as indicated in
document SC/83/CONF.009/INF.4. He added, however, that these numerous activities
are handled by a Secretariat which must also work on other programmes, such as
international campaigns for the cultural heritage and the Man and Biosphere
Programme (MAB). The Secretariat also has endeavoured to improve the balance
between culture and nature within the Convention and in this connection, it
was noted that tentative lists for natural sites had now been received from
several countries.
12. Mr. Batisse expressed his appreciation to ICOMOS and IUCN for their
contribution towards the implementation of the Convention.
VI. UPDATED OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
13. At its seventh session, the Bureau had expressed the wish that the
Operational Guidelines (document WHC/2 Revised) be updated to incorporate the
decisions taken by the Committee at its fifth and sixth sessions and the recom-
mendations formulated by the Bureau at its seventh session. The Secretariat
presented the updated version of the Operational Guidelines (revised as of
November 1983) and indicated to the Committee where changes and revisions had
been made. The Committee took note of the updated version of the guidelines
and in addition accepted the ICOMOS recommendations concerning the documentation
which should be submitted in support of all nominations of architectural
ensembles or other cultural areas. The Committee asked the Secretariat to
insert a description of this documentation into paragraph 41 of the revised
Guidelines.
VII. TENTATIVE LISTS
14. The Committee noted that tentative lists for natural properties had been
submitted by Brazil and Portugal, presented in document SC/83/CONF.009/INF.3.
15. The Committee was greatly interested in the ideas presented by Mr. Parent,
President of ICOMOS, in his report given at the seventh session of the Bureau,
notably concerning the difficulties currently encountered in applying the
cultural criteria to the nominations of historic towns, cultural properties
representative of a series and the criterion of authenticity. After discussion,
the Committee stated its full agreement with the ideas expressed by Mr. Parent.
*[4]
16. The Committee recalled that, as early as 1979 it had recommended to States
Parties to draw up tentative lists of cultural and natural properties suitable
for nomination to the World Heritage List. In conformity with Article 11.1 of
the Convention concerning the presentation of inventories, the Committee
requested all States Parties that had not already done so to send this tentative
list to the Secretariat during the course of 1984.
17. Should any State meet particular difficulties in rapidly preparing a tenta-
tive list, it could request help from ICOMOS or IUCN according to the characte-
ristics of the property in question, and if necessary request preparatory assis-
tance under the World Heritage Fund.
18. The nominations of cultural properties by States which had not submitted
such a tentative list after this time period could not be examined thereafter
by ICOMOS. The submission of tentative lists for natural sites is also requested
in order to facilitate the evaluation of nominations by IUCN.
19. The Committee, having requested ICOMOS to examine all the cultural nominations
in the light of comparative studies, noted that tentative lists are also desirable
for the examination of cultural nominations submitted before 1 January 1984.
20. Tentative lists, as their name implies, do not definitely commit the States
nor the Committee. They should therefore be treated in a confidential manner.
Their aim is to enable the Committee and the non-governmental organization
concerned to carry out comparative and serial studies which are necessary for
a methodical approach in building up the World Heritage List.
21. Consequently, each State submitting a tentative list should provide the
following information for every property on that list:
a) reference as to the category of properties defined in the Convention,
b) reference to the criteria that warrant the nomination:
c) In the case of cultural properties, a reference can be added to the
cultural area or to the type of property implicitly concerned,
particularly when the reference to the criteria relates to the
representativity of a series.
d) Finally, whenever a State includes in its tentative list a cultural
property with the intention to associate with it an entire series
of other properties similar in character and whose cultural value
is due to this multiplicity and similarity, the State should specify
this intention and should leave open the alternative of retaining
eventually only one or a limited number of such properties as
representing the series.
22. States having no need of assistance in preparing tentative lists of
cultural properties could submit these lists before 1 June 1984. This would
permit a first typological sorting before the next meeting of the Bureau.
An account thereof would be given by ICOMOS at the next meeting of the Committee.
*[5]
23. At the same time, the Committee invites ICOMOS to prepare a preliminary
typological study, based on all cultural properties already included in the
World Heritage List and on a review of the tentative Lists already submitted.
24. As far as a certain number of criteria are concerned which raise problems
of interpretation pointed out in Mr. Parent's report, ICOMOS will convene small
groups of experts who are specialists in specific fields so that they may, on
the basis of the information obtained through the nomination documents of sites
already inscribed on the World Heritage List and through the tentative lists
already deposited, formulate suggestions towards the interpretation of these
criteria which will then be submitted to the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee and to the next session of the Committee. This would in particular
be the case with regard to:
- "historic cities",
- properties representing events, ideas or beliefs, and
- clarifying the notion of authenticity.
25. The representative of IUCN noted that India had not yet submitted nominations
of natural properties although this country had a number of sites which possibly
could meet World Heritage criteria. The Committee noted that other States
Parties had similarly not yet submitted natural nominations and expressed concern
that appropriate balance with cultural properties be obtained on the World
Heritage List. In the case of India, the Committee encouraged the Indian
authorities to submit a tentative list of natural properties.
26. The Committee expressed its gratitude to both ICOMOS and IUCN for their
work towards preparing tentative lists of cultural and natural properties
respectively.
VIII. NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
27. Before the Committee examined the cultural and natural nominations to the
World Heritage List, ICOMOS and IUCN respectively presented a series of slides
illustrating the cultural and natural features of each proposed property.
28. The Committee noted that the nominations of the Church of St. Elizabeth of
Marburg and the Hanseatic City of Lübeck (Federal Republic of Germany), as well
as the nomination of the Palais des Papes, the Old Cathedral of Notre-Dame-des-
Doms, Pont Saint-Bénézet and ramparts of Avignon (France) had been withdrawn.
29. The Committee examined the nominations to the World Heritage List, taking
note of the comments of the representatives of ICOMOS and/or IUCN which had
made an evaluation of each property. The Committee decided to enter in the
World Heritage List the twenty-nine cultural and natural properties as follows:
*[6]
Contracting State Identification Name of Property Criteria
having submitted the No.
nomination of the
property in accordance
with the Convention
Fed. Rep. of Germany 271 The Pilgrimage Church of Wies C (i)(iii)
Brazil 275 The ruins of Sao Miguel das C (iv)
Missoes
It was pointed out that this property belongs to a series of
similar properties and that Argentina, on its side, has announced
its intention of proposing the Jesuit missions of San Ignacio
Mini and Santa Maria la Mayor.
Bulgaria 217 The Ancient City of Nessebar C (iii)(iv)
Bulgaria 216 Rila Monastery C (vi)
This property was not considered as a testimony of mediaeval
civilisation but rather as a symbol of the 19th Century Bulgarian
Renaissance which imparted slavic cultural values upon Rila in
trying to re-establish an uninterrupted historical continuity.
The reconstruction of Rila (1834-1962) thus illustrates cultural
criterion (vi) of the Operational Guidelines.
Bulgaria 219 Srebarna Nature Reserve N (iv)
Bulgaria 225 Pirin National Park N (i)(ii)(iii)
Canada 256 Wood Buffalo National Park N (ii)(iii) (iv)
The Committee drew attention to the harmful consequences that
the eventual construction of a dam on the Slave River could
have on those natural characteristics which make the property
of outstanding universal value. It therefore recommended that the
Canadian authorities take all possible measures to protect the
integrity of the site.
*[7]
Costa Rica 205 Talamanca Range-La Amistad N(i)(ii)(ill)
Reserves (iv)
The Committee reiterated the Bureau's wish that the Panamanian
authorities take the initiative of nominating the part of the
Friendship (Amistad) Park located in their territory.
Ivory Coast 227 Comoé National Park N(ii)(iv)
The Committee recommended that the authorities should consider
extending the protected area to include Mts. Gorowi and Kongoli
thus enhancing the ecological and touristic value of this
property.
Ecuador 280 Sangay National Park N(ii)(iii)(iv)
*[sic; 260]
United States of America 259 Great Smoky Mountains National N(i)(ii)(iii)
Park (iv)
United States of America 266 La Fortaleza and San Juan Historic C (vi)
Site in Puerto Rico
France 229 Place Stanislas, Place de La C(i)(iv)
Carrière and Place d'Alliance,
Nancy
France 230 Church of Saint-Savin-sur- C (i) (iii)
Gartempe
It was noted that this property becomes part of the series of
important groups of Romanesque mural paintings.
France 258 Cape Girolata, Cape Porto and N (ii) (iii) (iv)
Scandola Nature Reserve in Corsica
*[8]
India 242 Ajanta Caves C(i)(ii)(iii)
(vi)
The Committee recommended that the authorities take all possible
safeguarding measures, especially as concerns constructions on the
summit of the cliff which could be detrimental for the site.
India 243 Ellora Caves C(i)(iii)(vi)
The Committee recommended that the authorities establish a
protection zone which would safeguard the surrounding land-
scape and the cliff, and provide a map indicating the delimitation
of this zone.
India 251 Agra Fort C (iii)
The Committee recommended that the authorities create a buffer zone
of protection between the Fort and the Taj Mahal so as to safeguard
the landscape and the environment between these two quite different
monuments.
India 252 Taj Mahal C (i)
Peru 273 City of Cuzco C (iii)(iv)
The Committee 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.
*[9]
Peru 274 Santuario historico de C(i)(iii)
Machu Picchu N(ii)(iii)
The Committee noted that this site is inscribed for both its
cultural and natural values, as this property also meets natural
criteria (ii) and (iii). The Committee furthermore recommended
that to enhance the cultural and natural value of this property,
the site should be extended to include the lower courses of the
Urubamba River and the sites of Pisac and Ollantaytambo in the
"Valley of the Gods".
Portugal 206 Central Zone of the Town C(iv)(vi)
of Angra do Heroismo (Azores)
Portugal 263 The monastery of the C (iii) (vi)
Hieronymites and the Tower of
Belem (Lisbon)
Portugal 264 The monastery of Batalba C(i)(ii)
Portugal 265 The convent of Christ (Tomar) C (i) (vi)
Seychelles 261 Vallée de Mai Nature Reserve N(i)(ii)(iii)
(iv)
The Committee recommended that
the Government of the Seychelles
should extend this property to
include the whole of Praslin
National Park and that the mana-
gement plan for the park (which
encompasses the Vallée de Mai)
be fully implemented.
*[10]
Switzerland 268 The Convent of St. Gall C (ii)(iv)
Switzerland 269 The Benedictine Convent of C (iii)
St. John at Mustair
Switzerland 267 The Old City of Berne C (iii)
The Old City of Berne was
inscribed on the World Heritage
List. While taking account of
the significant modifications that
have been made since its foundation
in the 12th Century, the Committee
considered that it constituted a
positive example of how a mediaeval
urban structure can be adapted to
fulfill functions which are incre-
singly complex, notably the function
of a capital city of a modern State.
30. Following the recommendations of its Bureau, the Committee decided to deter
examination of the nominations which are listed below until it receives the
necessary information:
Afghanistan 207 The City and Monuments of Herat
Afghanistan 211 The Minaret of Jam
Ghana 226 Bia National Park
Ghana 279 Traditional Mosques of Northern Ghana
India 234 Churches and Convents of Goa
Iraq 276 Ancient Samarra
Sudan 262 Sanganeb Atoll
*[11]
31. In addition,the Committee deferred the examination of the following properties
since the conditions under which the Bureau had recommended their inscription on
the World Heritage List had not yet been fulfilled:
Afghanistan 208 The Monuments of Bamiyan Valley
Afghanistan 209 The Archaeological City of Al Khanum
India 240 Khajuraho group of monuments
India 241 Group of monuments at Hampi
Iraq 277 Hatra
Iraq 278 Babylon
Syrian Arab Republic 21 Ancient City of Aleppo
32. The Committee also decided not to include the Ancient City of Plovdiv nominated
by Bulgaria on the World Heritage List. The Committee considered that it was
difficult at this stage to include urban sites on the list for their vernacular
architecture and that the problems concerning the types of towns characteristic
of the different regions of the World would first have to be clarified.
IX. STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND BUDGET FOR 1984
33. The Representative of the Director General recalled that the Bureau, at its
last session in June 1983 had expressed its concern over the unsatisfactory
situation of the World Heritage Fund. At that date, the Bureau had envisaged that
the budget for 1984 should not exceed approximately $500,000. However, he suggested
that this working figure could be slightly raised in the light of the fact that
18 States Parties had paid their obligatory contributions during the period
1 August to 30 November 1983, that interest had been accrued and that the Secretariat
had made savings on the budget approved for 1983 in accordance with the Bureau's
wishes.
*[12]
34. The Committee accordingly adopted the following budget for the period
1st January - 31 December 1984.
US $
I. Preparatory assistance
and regional studies 60,000
II. Technical co-operation
- requests approved by the Committee: 150,000
- "small" requests: 50,000 200,000
III. Training 150,000
IV. Emergency assistance 50,000
V. Promotional activities and information 70,000
VI. Advisory services
- ICOMOS : 65,000
- IUCN : 35,000 100,000
VII. Temporary assistance
to the Secretariat 90,000
_________
720,000
3% contingencies 21,600
Total 741,600
=======
35. The Committee indicated its grave concern about the situation resulting
from delays in payment of obligatory or voluntary contributions. Concerning
the voluntary contributions mentioned in Article 16, paragraph 4 of the Convention,
the Committee underlined that in the spirit of the Convention, voluntary contri-
butions should not be less than what they would have been if the States Parties
concerned had opted for payment of obligatory contributions. The Committee
expressed the hope that the discrepancy between resources available to the World
Heritage Fund and the growing interest in the Convention would be reduced in the
near future and appealed to all States Parties to help in this respect.
*[13]
X. REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL COOPERATION
36. The Secretariat informed the Committee of the new requests received for
technical cooperation (presented in document SC/83/CONF.009/4) and of the
situation concerning the implementation of projects approved previously. On
the basis of the recommendation of a working group set up during the session
the Committee approved the following requests:
Costa Rica Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserve US $ 25,000
Request No. 205.1 (Rev.2)
Ivory Coast Tai National Park US $ 30,000
Request No. 159.1 (Rev.1)
Haiti Citadel Henry Natural History Park US $ 20,000
Request No. 180.1
Honduras Maya Ruins of Copan US $ 20,000
Request No. 129.1
Honduras Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve US $ 20,000
Request No. 196.1 (Rev.2)
Nepal Sagarmatha National Park US $ 10,000
Request No. 120.1(4)
Panama Darien National Park US $ 25,000
Request No. 159.1 (Rev.2)
______________________________________________________
Total concerning cultural and natural
properties. . . . . . . . US $ 150,000
Plus 25% reserve for small-scale
projects . . . . . . . . US $ 50,000
_____________________________________________________
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US $ 200,000
*[14]
37. The following requests for training activities which were submitted as part
of technical cooperation requests were also approved:
Costa Rica Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserve US $ 5,000
Request No. 205.1 (Rev.2)
Honduras Maya Ruins of Copan US $ 26,000
Request No. 129.1
Honduras Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve US $ 6,000
Request Mo. 196.1 (Rev.2)
______________________________________________________
Total of requests in the field of
cultural and natural heritage
conservation US $ 37,000
38. Concerning the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, the Secretariat
informed the Committee of the decision taken by the Executive Board at its
116th session and of the resolution that had bean adapted by the General
Conference at its recent 22nd session which invited the Committee to continue
its efforts for the preservation of this exceptional universal legacy in
accordance with the provisions of the World Heritage Convention. The Secretariat
explained that every effort was being made to implement the technical cooperation
request (No. 148.1) for which an amount of $100,000 had been approved by the
Committee at its 6th Session. However, it had not been possible in 1983 to
organize the missions of specialists which had been requested. Therefore, this
amount was still earmarked for possible utilization in 1984. The Committee took
note or this situation and considered that the project could be initiated with
the amount of funds kept available. Should additional funds prove necessary in
the course of 1984, the request for such funds could be submitted to the Chairman
of the Committee and could be met from the reserve for small-scale projects or
for emergency assistance.
39. The World Heritage Committee was greatly moved by the declaration of the
representative of Lebanon concerning the current tragic situation of the
cultural heritage of his country. The Committee unanimously expressed its very
grave concern about the immediate dangers threatening a number of sites in
Lebanon which could be considered for inscription on the World Heritage List.
The Committee appealed to all parties concerned by the events occurring in
Lebanon to make every effort to safeguard the rich cultural heritage of this
country and to avoid any harmful action in this respect. The Committee requests
its Bureau, in cooperation with ICOMOS, to proceed with the utmost expediency in
examining the nominations to the World Heritage List deposited by the Lebanese
authorities. The Committee also invites the Secretariat to provide the emergency
assistance which could be requested by these authorities in the framework of the
Convention and to take every possible step to bring its appeal to the attention
of international public opinion.
*[15]
XI. PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
40. The Committee took note of a background document prepared by IUCN on the
question of monitoring natural World Heritage properties.
41. The Committee considered that it was highly desirable to be regularly
informed on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties, particularly
on measures undertaken to protect and manage these properties and on the way
in which the funds allocated under the World Heritage Fund are used. However,
the Committee preferred not to establish a formal reporting system at the present
time and rather encouraged IUCN, ICOMOS, and ICCROM to collect information from
through their experts. The Committee will continue to seek information from
States Parties on an ad hoc basis whenever this is necessary for making its
decisions.
42. In this connection, the Committee took note of the information provided by
the Government of Australia concerning the Western Tasmania Wilderness National
Parks explaining the reasons why the Government of Australia deems it inappro-
priate to consider this property for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
43. The representative of IUCN informed the Committee of the serious short-
comings in the management of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. The Committee
asked the Secretariat to communicate with the Government of Tanzania in order to
initiate the procedure for including this property in the List of World Heritage
in Danger.
44. Finally, it was recalled that the Committee had suggested at its previous
session that the Government of Senegal should propose the Djoudj National Bird
Sanctuary for the List of World Heritage in Danger.
XII. REVIEW OF PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
45. The Committee examined document SC/83/CONF.009/7 concerning activities for
the promotion of the World Heritage Convention and expressed its satisfaction
on the activities that had been accomplished.
46. The Committee decided that the funds foreseen in the budget for promotional
activities should essentially be used, on the one hand, to make World Heritage
properties better known to the public and heighten the public's awareness of
the need to safeguard them and, on the other hand, to generate income to the
World Heritage Fund. In this respect, the Committee approved the proposals for
future activities made by the Secretariat and asked in particular that as far as
possible, income or profits from the sale of materials relating to World Heritage
be deposited in the World Heritage Fund.
47. The Committee asked States parties concerned to provide the Photothèque
of Unesco, if possible, with the highest-quality photographic material available
on World Heritage properties located within their territories.
*[16]
48. The Committee asked the Secretariat to prepare a mock-up of a poster/
pamphlet to be examined by the Bureau at its next session.
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS
49. The Committee noted with gratitude the Government of Argentina's invitation
to hold its next session in Buenos Aires. The delegate of Cyprus reiterated the
intention of his country to invite the Committee in 1985, on the occasion of the
50th Anniversary of the creation of the Antiquities Department.
50. The representative of the Holy See, as observer, conveyed a cordial
greeting to all participants from his Holiness the Pope Jean Paul II and informed
the Committee that the buildings and monuments of the Holy See had been recently
nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List.
51. Mr. Serangelli, the representative of Mr. Gullotti, Minister of Cultural
Properties and Cultural Environment of Italy, conveyed the Minister's regrets
on not being able to attend the session and his thanks to all participants for
having come to this meeting in Italy. The Minister forthermore informed the
Committee that Italy would proceed to nominate other monuments and sites for
inscription in the World Heritage List in the near future.
52. The Committee, expressed his thanks to Mrs. Vlad-Borrelli for the efficient
and gracious manner in which she had chaired the meeting. It also thanked the
Italian authorities for their warm hospitality.
53. After thanking all those who contributed to the meeting,
Mrs. Vlad-Borrelli, as Chairman, declared the meeting closed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SC/83/CONF.009/8/Annexe I-Annex I
CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION DU
PATRIMOINE MONDLAL, CULTUREL ET NATUREL
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL/WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Septième session ordinaire/Seventh Ordinary Session
Florence, 5 - 9 décembre 1983
LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS/LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
I. ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE/STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
ALGERIE/ALGERIA
M. Sid Ahmed BAGHLI
Délégation permanente auprés de l'Unesco
M. Said DAHMANI
Conservateur, Musse d'8ippone/ANNABA
ALLEMAGNE (Rép. fad. d')/GERMANY (Fed. Rep. of)
S. Exc. M. Alfred B. VESTRING
Ambassadeur, Délagué permanent auprés de l'Unesco
Dr. Hans CASPARY
Oberkonservator
Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Rheinland-Pfalz (Mainz)
Dr. Werner BORHEIM
ARGENTINE/ARGENTINA
M. Jorge GAZANEO
Directeur de l'Institut d'art américain et du
Centre pour la Préservation du patrimoine monumental
Université de Buenos Aires
*[ANNEX I/2]
AUSTRALIE/AUSTRALIA
H. E. The Honourable E.G. WHITLAM
Ambassador, Permanent Delagate to Unesco
Dr. W. NICHOLLS
Acting Director
Australian Heritage Commission
Mr. J.M.C. WATSON
Deputy Permanent Delagate to Unesco
BRESIL/BRAZIL
M. le Professeur Marcos Vinicios VILACA
Secrétaire à la Culture, Ministére de l'Etucation
et de la Culture
M. Augusto Carlos DA SILVA TELLES
Directeur du Service du Classement et de la Conservation
des Monuments Historiques du Secrétariat à la Culture
M. Carlos Alberto LOPES ASFORA
Deuxième secrétaire d'Ambassade, membre de la Délagation
permanente augrés de l'Unesco
CHYPRE/CYPRUS
H. E. Mr. Constantinos LEVENTIS
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. Christos CASSIMATIS
Deputy Permanent Delagate to Unesco
FRANCE
M. André ZAVRIEW
Délagué permanent adjoint auprés de l'Unesco
M. Lucien CHABASON
Chef du Service de l'espace et des sites
Ministére de l'urbanisme et du logement
M. Pierre KALFON
Attaché culturel auprés de l 'Ambassade de France en Italie
M. Jean ROZAT
Sous-Directeur
Direction du Patrimoine, Ministére de la Culture
*[ANNEX I/3]
GUINEE/GUINEA
M. Youssouf DIARE
Délagué permanent auprés de l'Unesco
ITALIE/ITALY
Mme Licia VLAD-BORRELLI
Inspecteur central pour l'archeologie
M
M. Branko S. LOVRECIC
Ministére des affaires étrangéres - DGRC/II (Rome)
M. Angelo CALVANI
Soprintendente ai Beni -\mbientali e Architettonici di Fireuze e Pistoia
M. Gian Franco BORSI
Vice-Président, Comité de la Culture, Commission nationale pour l'Unesco
JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE/LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Dr. Abdullah SHAIBOUB
Director-&eneral;, Department of Antiquities
SARY - Al Hamra - Tripoli
JORDANIE/JORDAN
M. Mohammad AL-BATAINEH
Cultural Counsellor
Jordan Embassy, Rome
LIBAN/LEBANON
M. Wagih GUOSSOUB
Chargé des affaires culturelles
Délagation permanente auprés de l'Unesco
NORVEGE/NORWAY
Mr. Staphan TSCHUDI-MADSEN
Director-General of the Central Office of Historic Monuments
Riksantikvaren, Bygn. 18, Akershus Festning, Oslo, Norway
Miss Oda Helen SLETNES
Deputy Permanent Delagate to Unesco
*[ANNEX I/4]
SRI LANXA
S. Exc. M. Nadarejah BALASUBRAMANIAM
Ambassadeur, Délagué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
SUISSE/SWITZERLAND
S. Exc. M. Ch. HUMMEL
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
M. Ernest MARTIN
Architecte SIA/FAS
Membre correspondant de la Commission fédérale
des monuments historiques
TURQUIE/TURKEY
Mme. Vera INAL
Conseiller, Délagation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
Mme. Nusin ASGARI
Director, Istanbul Archaeclogical Museum
II. ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF/
ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES/
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)
M. Michel PARENT
Président
M. Léon PRESSOUYRE
Professeur à l'Université de Paris I
UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE ET DE SES RESSOURCES (UICN)/
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESSOURCES (IUCN)
M. Jeffray A. McNEELY
Programme Director
Dr. James W. THORSELL
Executive Officer Designate, CNPPA
*[ANNEX I/5]
CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS
CULTURELS (ICCROM) / INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND
THE RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY (ICCROM)
M. Alejandro ALVA
Coordinateur assistant
Cours de conservation architecturale
III. OBSERVATEURS/OBSERVERS
A. AUTRES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL/
OTHER STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
BULGARIE/BULGARIA
Mme. Magdalina STANTSCHEVA
Directeur du Musse de l'Histoire (Sofia)
M. le Prof. Simeon NEDIALKOV
Directeur de l'Institut de l'environnement
Académie des Sciences de Bulgarie
CANADA
M. Alex T. DAVIDSON
Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada
COSTA RICA
S. Exc. M. Francisco Antonio PACHECO-FERNANDEZ
Ambassadeur à Rome
DANEMARK/DENMARK
Mme. Lisbeth SAABY
National Agency for the Protection of Nature, Monuments and Sites
EGYPTE/EGYPT
M. Ali EL-KHOULI
Director-General, Egyptian Antiquities Organization
M. Saad DARWISH
Cultural Counsellor, General Egyptian Book Organization
*[ANNEX I/6]
EQUATEUR/ECUADOR
M. Laurato POZO
Deuxième Secrétaire
Ambassade d'Equateur en Italie
ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Mme. Susan RECCE
Staff Assistant to Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks
Department of the Interior
Mme. Pamela BELLAMY
Cultural Attaché, Permanent Delegation to Unes co
Mr. Richard COOK
National Park Service, Department of the Interior
MAROC/MORROCO
M. Driss DKHISSI
Directeur du patrimoine culturel, Rabat
NIGERIA
Mme. J.S. ATTAH
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
PEROU/PERU
S. Exc. M. Luis Felipe ALARCO
Ambassadeur, Délagué permanent auprés de l'Unesco
POLOGNE/POLAND
M. Marian ARSZYNSKI
Professor of the History of Art and protection of monuments
University of Torun
PORTUGAL
M. Alvaro MONJARDINO
Président de l'Assemblée régionale des Açores
M. Manuel LOPES CARDOSO
Conseiller d'Ambassade, Rome
*[ANNEX I/7]
PORTUGAL (suite/cont'd)
M. Luis Antonio GUIZADO DE GOUVEIA DURAO
Architecte, Bureau des affaires culturelles des Açores
M. Luiz dos Santos CASTRO LOBO
Ministère de la Culture
SAINT SIEGE/HOLY SEE
S. Exc. Mgr. Ernesto GALLINA
Secrétariat d'Etat, Section Organisations internationales
Cité du Vatican
B. ORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALES NON GO WERNEMENTALES/INTERNATIONAL
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
M. Romano VIVIANO
Union internationale des architectes
M. Tommaso RISTORI
Conseiller régional du WWF
IV. SECRETARIAT DE L'UNESCO/UNESCO SECRETARIAT
M. Michel BATISSE
Sous-Directeur général
(Secteur des Sciences)
M. Bernd VON DROSTE
Division des Sciences écologiques
Mme. Anne RAIDL
Chef, Section des Normes internarionales
Division du Patrimoine culturel
Mme. Jane ROBERTSON-VERNHES
Division des Sciences écologiques
M. Richard BILL
Consultant
Division des Sciences écologiques
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SC/83/CONF.009/8/Annex II
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 7TH SESSION
FLORENCE, DECEMBER 1983
ADDRESS BY THE OUTGOING CHAIRMAN OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE, PROFESSOR RALPH SLATYER
It has been an honour to participate in all but
one meeting of this Committee, to have served on the
Bureau since 1980 and to have served as Chairman since
1981.
In this farewell message I would first like
to thank members of the Committee for the confidence
shown in me by my election in 1981 and re-election in
1982. As Chairman, one has the opportunity to work
closely with members of the Bureau, members of the
Secretariat and with representatives of non-government
organizations, particularly ICOMOS and IUCN. I have
been greatly stimulated by these contacts and have
developed a keen sense of admiration for the dedicated
people in each of these groups. Let me take this
*[ANNEX II/2]
opportunity to thank them most warmly for the role they
have played and will continue to play in the
Committee's important work for the protection of the
world's cultural and natural heritage.
The World Heritage List now contains 137
properties; more will be added at this Session of the
World Heritage Committee. They represent nominations
by 40 countries in all continents. As a result I think
that we can now say that the World Heritage List is
taking its rightful place as the definitive List of the
world's most outstanding cultural and natural
properties.
However, much remains to be done and I hope you
will permit me to identify briefly some of the matters
which I hope you will bear in mind at this Session of
the Committee and in the years ahead.
In the first place I would hope that you would
continue your efforts to encourage additional countries
to ratify or accept the Convention. The number of
States Parties to the Convention has increased rapidly,
from the first, the United States of America in
December 1973, to the most recent, a few weeks ago.
While this number now reflects representation from all
continents there are still significant gaps with the
*[ANNEX II/3]
Asia-Pacific region, containing outstanding examples of
the world's heritage, being particularly poorly
represented. In fact, in eastern and south-east Asia,
and in the south-west Pacific there is only one State
Party at the present time. Only when all countries
become Parties to the Convention will the opportunity
exist for the World Heritage List to include all the
world's cultural and natural heritage.
The second matter which I wish to raise
concerns a convention adopted by the Committee over the
past six years which has become important in its work
but which is not yet embodied in the Rules of
Procedure. It concerns the difficulties which can
arise when nomination of a property for inscription on
the World Heritage List is made by a country which is a
member of the Committee.
From the beginning of the Committee's work
it became apparent that such nominations could cause
difficulties if the Committee member from the country
making the nomination was expected to act as the
advocate for the nomination. Such advocacy was seen to
place considerable pressure on the Committee to make a
favourable decision, thereby giving a distinct
advantage to nominations coming from States which were
Committee members in comparison to those from States
*[ANNEX II/4]
which were not. It was also felt that the State's
representative was placed in an embarrassing
position.
In order to minimise these problems the
Committee has adapted the procedure whereby Committee
members do not speak on behalf of their own
nominations. Instead, IUCN or ICOMOS, as appropriate,
present each nomination to the Committee and respond to
questions about it. The relevant Committee member is
asked to respond only to requests for specific
technical information if IUCN or ICOMOS do not have the
necessary information.
I think this procedure is so desirable that I
would encourage the Committee to incorporate it into
its formal rules of procedure. Otherwise there is the
possibility that it will not be strictly observed,
particularly in view of the frequent changes in
Chairmanship that characterise the Committee's
operations.
Indeed I consider objectivity and freedom of
bias so important to the quality and interpreting of
the World Heritage List that I would go one step
further and ask you to consider the proposition that,
whenever a State party is serving on the Committee,
*[ANNEX II/5]
none of its nominations should be dealt with. If you
felt able to accept such a provision I believe the
World Heritage Convention would be further
strengthened. On a lighter note, I could mention
another benefit - there would be less competition for
places on the Committee at the biennial elections!
A corollary to what I have just said is that,
over the years, the role played by IUCN and ICOMOS has
become progressively more important. I think this is
entirely appropriate and consider that these
organizations are serving us well. But I believe that
there is scope for them to raise their standards even
higher in the evaluations which they make of such
nominations and in the presentations which they make to
the Committee and the Bureau. Both organizations must
act with the highest integrity and objectivity,
avoiding favouritism or prejudice. I would hope that
they would continually review their procedures with
this aim in view.
Finally may I refer to tue actual protection of
properties on the World Heritage List. This is the
basic purpose of the Convention. Over the past years
the Bureau and the Committee have set in train two
important and closely related matters: to build into
the operational guidelines procedures for inscription
*[ANNEX II/6]
of properties on the List of World Heritages in Danger,
and to develop procedures for monitoring the condition
of properties on the World Heritage List.
On the first matter, the Committee has
visualized the List of World Heritage in Danger as
being a provisional list for properties under threat.
Thus, when a threat exists a property should be placed
on the List of World Heritage in Danger. If the
threat is averted, the property should revert to being
simply on the World Heritage List, If the threat
becomes a reality, there may be a possible case for
de-listing if those characteristics which originally
warranted inscription on the World Heritage List no
longer exist. I think this concept is valid and its
implementation is desirable; to give it extra strength
it must now be incorporated in a more straightforward
manner into the operational guidelines.
In addition, attention must be given to the
wording of the Convention which requires that, for
inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger,
various conditions must be met. One of them requires
that assistance under the Convention must have been
requested. This wording creates a problem since some
States parties may not need to request assistance or
may not wish to do so. The property could then not be
*[ANNEX II/7]
placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger even
though it may be under threat. This creates a
situation where the Committee could proceed to remove a
damaged property from the World Heritage List without
it having been placed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
It is difficult to know how to deal with this
problem since inscription on the List of World Heritage
in Danger should always be a cooperative process
between the Committee and the State party concerned. On
the one hand, therefore, it can be argued that if the
State party does not wish the property to be listed,
then its wishes should be respected. After all, it is
only the State party which can guarantee the protection
of property, so listing without its consent may not
assist protection. On the other hand, unless a
threatened property is placed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger, assistance cannot be provided under
the Convention and it is also unlikely that the maximum
amount of international assistance can be provided to
protect the property.
I hope that the Committee can find a way of
solving this problem which is in the best interests of
protection of the properties themselves.
*[ANNEX II/8]
With respect to monitoring the condition of
properties, the Committee has before it at this Session
the Bureau's proposals for monitoring. I commend these
to you for adaption. Only by such a monitoring
program will the Committee be aware of the condition of
properties on the World Heritage List and be in the
strongest possible position to assist in their
protection.
In conclusion, may I extend my best wishes to
the incoming Chairman and all members of the Committee.
I have found my association with the World Heritage
Convention one of the most rewarding activities I have
undertaken and I know that you will have a similar
experience in the important work which lies ahead.