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 22:41:10 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 The information on this web page may be out of date.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-88/CONF.001/13
23 December 1988
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
Report of the World Heritage Committee
Twelfth Session
Brasilia, Brazil, 5-9 December 1988
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The twelfth session of the World Heritage Committee was held
upon the invitation of the Government of Brazil at the Itamaraty
Palace, Brasilia from 5 to 9 December 1988. It was attended by the
following members of the Committee: Algeria, Australia, Brazil,
Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, France, Greece, India, Italy, Lebanon,
Mexico, Norway, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Turkey, United States
of America and Yemen (Arab Republic of).
2. The following States Parties to the Convention who are not
members of the Committee were represented by observers: Argentina,
Chile, Ecuador, Germany (Federal Republic of), Holy See, Iraq,
Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Spain and Switzerland. Representatives
of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), the International
Union of Architects, (IUA), the United Nations High Commission for
Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations International Children's
Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) also attended the meeting. The full list of
participants appears as Annex I to this report.
3. Representatives of the International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Monuments (ICCROM), the
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory
capacity.
II. OPENING SESSION
4. The inaugural session was opened by H.E. Ambassador Bernardo
Pericas Neto, Under-Secretary General for Multilateral Political
Affairs who welcomed the participants on behalf of the Minister of
State for External Relations. H.E. Jose Aparecido de Oliveira,
Minister of State for Culture, then conveyed to the Committee the
wishes for a fully successful meeting of President Jose Sarney and
stressed the importance of the efforts of Unesco and the Committee
to safeguard the cultural and natural heritage. In his statement,
H.E. Joaquim Domingos Roriz, Governor of the Federal District,
stressed the wish of the local authorities to preserve the
characteristics of Brasilia which motivated the city's inscription
on the World Heritage List, in spite of the problems facing a
modern, fast-growing city. H.E. Josue de Souza Montello, Permanent
Delegate at Unesco, His Eminence Jose Freire Falcao, Cardinal of
Brasilia and H.E. Jose Israel Vargas, President of the Unesco
Executive Board, also were present at the inaugural session.
*[2]
5. After thanking the Brazilian authorities for their hospitality,
the representative of the Director General, Mr. Y.R. Isar, Director
of the International Fund for the Promotion of Culture and Chief,
International Standards, Division of Cultural Heritage, referred to
Brazil's commitment to heritage conservation, as shown by the
inscription of several Brazilian properties on the World Heritage
List, Brasilia in particular. He then referred to the success
achieved by the World Heritage Convention, to which seven
additional States had become Parties since the eleventh session of
the Committee bringing the total number to 106 at that time. Mr.
Y.R. Isar then stressed the challenges of this success -- to better
manage an increasing number of nominations so as to meet the
fundamental objectives of the Convention, i.e. the protection of
World Heritage properties, the monitoring of their state of
conservation and the mobilization of resources to ensure this. He
expressed confidence that the twelfth session of the Committee
would contribute significantly to a new phase in the life of the
World Heritage Convention.
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
6. The Committee adopted the draft agenda of the session with two
amendments, which consisted in inverting items 10, (Requests for
technical co-operation), and 11 (State of accounts of the World
Heritage Fund and budget for 1989), and the sequence of examination
of nominations of natural and cultural properties. Furthermore, the
Committee decided to examine the question of procedures for the
election of Committee members under item 14, "Other business".
IV. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-CHAIRMEN
7. Upon the proposal of the outgoing Chairman, Mr. J.H. Collinson
(Canada), Mr. A. da Silva Telles (Brazil) was elected Chairman of
the Committee by acclamation. Ms. A. Miltiadou (Greece) was elected
Rapporteur and the following members of the Committee were elected
Vice - Chairmen: Australia, Canada, France, India, and the Yemen
Arab Republic. A member of the Committee stressed that the
composition of the Bureau did not reflect a geographical balance
and was due to peculiar circumstances since representatives of
certain geographical regions were not present at this session of
the Committee; he requested that this composition of the Bureau not
be considered a precedent for the selection of future Bureaux.
V. REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE ELEVENTH SESSION
8. The Secretary for the session, Ms. J. Robertson Vernhes,
recalled the role of the Secretariat of the World Heritage
Committee, concerning the processing of the nominations to the
World Heritage List, the implementation of the decisions of the
Committee concerning projects financed under the World Heritage
Fund, as well as the promotional activities aimed at making the
Convention better known and at stimulating contributions to the
World Heritage Fund.
9. The Committee noted that the activities undertaken by the
Secretariat since its eleventh session were described in detail in
the working documents for the session. It took note in particular
of the projects for international assistance financed under the
World Heritage Fund which had been approved by the Committee, the
Bureau and/or its Chairman since the eleventh session of the
Committee and which were presented in Annex IX of document
SC-88/CONF.001/7. The Committee was especially satisfied to note
that the allocations for technical cooperation and for training
under the World Heritage Fund were being put to maximum use by
States Parties, which meant that the Convention and its Fund *[3]
were fully operational. The Committee also drew attention to the
fact that although in terms of numbers, the World Heritage List,
with only 77 natural or "mixed" sites out of a total of 288, would
appear biased in favour of the cultural heritage, the World
Heritage Fund was in fact used in a well balanced manner for
cultural and natural heritage.
VI. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR ON THE TWELFTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU
10. Since, unfortunately, the Rapporteur of the eleventh session
(Mrs. M. Stantcheva, Bulgaria) was absent, the Chairman of the
Committee invited Mr. Enaud of France, Vice-Chairman, to present to
the Committee the results of the twelfth session of the Bureau,
held in Paris from 14 to 17 June, 1988. Mr. Enaud informed the
Committee that the sessions of the Bureau had been highly
concentrated since the Bureau had to examine three additional and
important items. These concerned the report of the Working Group
set up by the Committee at its eleventh session (document
SC-88/CONF.001/2) and the Revision of the Operational Guidelines
for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (document
SC-88/CONF.001/3). Both these matters were to be examined by the
Committee as specific items on the agenda.
11. Furthermore, proposals for inscription featuring a combination
of cultural and natural elements (document SC-88/CONF.001/10) had
to be examined. Mr. Enaud clarified that this document resulted
from discussions between ICOMOS, IUCN and the Secretariat, as
requested by the Bureau. This document contained recommendations
drafted by this group as regards examination of properties
featuring an indissociable combination of cultural and natural
elements. It would be examined by the Committee under the item
devoted to the revision of the Operational Guidelines.
VII. REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMITTEE AT
ITS ELEVENTH SESSION
12. The Chairman of the Working Group, H.E. Ananda Guruge (Sri
Lanka) presented the recommendations drafted by the Working Group.
He stressed how important it was that the work of the Committee be
facilitated through careful preparation and submittance of
nominations of cultural properties by States Members, a more active
Secretariat contribution when checking files, and a selective
presentation of proposals by ICOMOS and by the Bureau. He also
noted the progress that could be achieved through a reorganization
of the Committee's agenda. The Chairman of the Working Group
clarified that these recommendations had, in part, guided the
revision of the Operational Guidelines. Furthermore, he presented
the Group's recommendation concerning a global study which might
include an international tentative list of references designed to
assist the States Parties in identifying their properties and the
Committee in evaluating nominations. Finally, the attention of the
Committee was drawn to the recommendation of complementary studies
of rural landscapes, traditional villages and contemporary
architecture.
13. Several members made a point of congratulating the Working
Group on the results achieved. The Committee approved the Working
Group's recommendations. However, several questions arose with
respect to items 4.7 and 4.8 of the Working Group's report (study
and global reference list, thematic studies of several categories
of properties). The Chairman of the Committee recalled that the
Bureau had requested ICOMOS to state its views on these points and
invited the representative of this organisation to comment.
*[4]
14. The proposal presented by the representative of ICOMOS would
define the principles of a retrospective and prospective global
reflectiOn on the Convention. Within the framework of such a
reflection ICOMOS would like to satisfy the Wish of the Working
Group with a view to establishing lists of examples of cultural
properties of countries throughout the world, whether or not they
were Parties to the the Convention. Research to this effect would
allow the identification of entities according to different
parameters of coherence - chronological, geographical, ecological,
functional, social, religious, etc.
15. The representative of IUCN also stated his views on the global
list. He reminded the Committee that in 1982 IUCN had already
established a list of this type and referred to its current
shortcomings. This list was to be revised in the near future and,
in his opinion, was a highly useful working tool. On the other
hand, he suggested that an a posteriori review of results achieved
during the first twenty years of implementation of the Convention
and a projection thereof over the coming twenty years be made in
1992 for cultural properties. Indeed, in 1992 IUCN would be
organizing the Fourth World Parks Congress at which it was planned
to hold a special session marking the twentieth year of the World
Heritage Convention.
16. The representative of ICCROM shared the views expressed by the
Working Group and ICOMOS as regards a global study. He stressed
that cooperation between ICCROM and ICOMOS would be most useful,
since this concerned matters of mutual interest. He further
stressed the need to conceive an evolutive list which, in
particular, should take into account recent progress in the field
of conservation doctrines.
17. A member of the Committee raised the question of the budgetary
implications of preparing a global list. Another member suggested
that it would be possible to call upon ICOMOS experts and the
historical monuments services of each country.
18. As regards tentative lists, several Committee members noted
that these were highly useful instruments and a significant basis
for the global survey. A member stressed that tentative lists were
of great importance in the context of natural properties as well,
since they allowed comparative studies. On the subject of specific
studies of rural landscapes, traditional villages and contemporary
architecture, a member stated that no deadlines had been set and
that it would be proper to define their general outline. The
representative of ICOMOS suggested that such studies might be
integrated into the global study. Two Committee members voiced
their doubts as to the need for a global study and specific
surveys. It was therefore suggested that an informal group
co-ordinated by the Chairman of the Working Group (Mr. A. Guruge)
further examine this matter.
19. This Working Group met twice. Besides already existing
documentation, it considered a short reflection note prepared by
Mr. J.S. Collinson. Discussions highlighted the need to define a
framework and principles prior to any further study, whether for
the "global" study or thematic surveys of traditional villages,
rural landscapes and contemporary architecture. The Working Group
requested that the Secretariat and ICOMOS examine these questions
in depth over the coming months and submit a more elaborate
proposal to the Bureau in June 1989. Meanwhile, it proposed to
include in the 1989 budget an amount of US$20,000 for the purpose
of the global study and the thematic studies. The release of these
funds would be considered by the Bureau. The Committee agreed to
this proposal.
*[5]
VIII. REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
20. The Secretary presented document SC-88/CONF.001/3 on the
revision of the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of
the World Heritage Convention. The Committee noted that the
modifications proposed in this document resulted from three
different actions, namely:
- changes introduced in accordance with the Committee's decisions
concerning the monitoring of cultural properties, the procedure for
nomination of extensions to World Heritage properties and
assistance for promotional activities;
- modifications required to update the Operational Guidelines to
make them conform with current practice in the implementation of
the Convention (notably the need for a condition of integrity of
natural sites relating to the protection and management regime, as
well as to requests for training activities financed under the
World Heritage Fund);
- changes resulting from the recommendations of the Working Group
on the procedures for processing the nomination of cultural
properties, for which the implications for the nominations of
natural properties had been also taken into account, following the
comments and suggestions of IUCN.
21. The Committee noted that the revised version of the Operational
Guidelines had been studied in great depth both by the Bureau at
its twelfth session in June 1988 and by subsequent meetings of the
Working Group set up by the Committee.
22. Several members of the Committee made some suggestions for
amendments and clarifications. The Committee requested that
paragraph 53 for the July-November period for the timetable of
processing nominations should clearly indicate that States Parties
should send additional information as requested by the Bureau to
the Secretariat no later than 9 weeks before the date of the
Committee session to enable it to be sent in adequate time to
ICOMOS and/or IUCN and the members of the Committee.
23. One member of the Committee drew attention to the contradiction
existing between paragraphs 39 and 42 and the Committee requested
the Secretariat to make the necessary modifications.
24. Another member of the Committee noted that paragraph 91(d)
concerning the marking of equipment and all products arising from
assistance provided under the Fund with the World Heritage emblem
and name was missing. The Secretariat assured the Committee that
this omission would be rectified in the final version.
25. Several members of the Committee drew attention to paragraph 7
and recalled the need for States Parties to comply with Article 11
of the Convention to provide tentative lists for both cultural and
natural properties. Some States members felt that for natural
properties a parallel should be made with cultural nominations
which the Committee had decided not to consider unless a tentative
list had been submitted to the Secretariat. The Committee noted
that such a step could in fact have a negative effect and serve to
slow down and even discourage the nomination of natural properties.
The Committee nevertheless considered it necessary to draw the
attention of States Parties to Article 11 of the Convention as
concerns natural properties in order to raise awareness of the need
to maintain an appropriate balance in the natural and cultural
aspects of the work of the Convention, and requested the *[6]
Secretariat to take the required measures to this end. The
Committee requested that paragraph 7 be amended to indicate that
priority would be given to the consideration of nominations of
natural properties for those States Parties who had submitted a
tentative list unless the State Party concerned had given a
specific explanation why such a list could not be provided.
26. Again concerning the nomination of natural properties, the
representative of IUCN indicated that the advancement of the
deadline for the submission of nominations to the Secretariat to 1
October was more than adequate for IUCN, and suggested that the
deadline for natural nominations be fixed at 1 November. The
Committee, however, noted that the fixing of two separate deadlines
was confusing and was not workable for nominations which were
proposed under both cultural and natural criteria.
27. The Committee requested the Secretariat to finalize the
Operational Guidelines as indicated in the paragraphs above and
decided that this version would be henceforth used by all States
Parties.
IX. EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS WITH A COMBINATION OF CULTURAL AND
NATURAL ELEMENTS
28. The Committee examined document SC-88/CONF.001/10 which arose
from the difficulty which the Bureau had encountered in the
examination of nominations which had an indissociable combination
of cultural and natural elements.
29. The Committee recalled the inconsistency between the
definitions of cultural and natural heritage in the Convention and
the criteria laid out in the Operational Guidelines, particularly
the fact that Article 2 defining natural heritage did not refer to
cultural aspects of such heritage and yet natural criterion (iii)
refers to "... areas natural beauty or exceptional combinations of
natural and cultural elements".
30. In order to simplify the work of the Committee and its Bureau,
the Committee agreed to the procedure whereby the evaluation of
nominations with a combination of natural and cultural elements
would be made by ICOMOS, which would take account of the cultural
criteria (paragraph 24 of the Operational Guidelines) and, in
consultation with IUCN, also of natural criterion (iii) relating to
natural beauty and the exceptional combination of cultural and
natural elements (paragraph 36(a)(iii)).
31. In the same manner, the Committee encouraged States Parties to
present the justification for such properties evoking both cultural
criteria and natural criterion (iii).
32. The Committee recognized that this procedure constituted only
an interim practical measure and did not resolve the issue of all
"mixed sites" which were neither specifically foreseen nor excluded
in the Convention itself.
X. MONITORING THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF WORLD HERITAGE
PROPERTIES
A. Natural Properties
33. The representative of IUCN reported on the status of
conservation of five following natural World Heritage properties:
*[7]
1) Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania)
The Committee was glad to be informed that the conservation status
of this property had greatly improved but that the Tanzanian
authorities had requested that it be maintained on the List of
World Heritage in Danger, particularly in view of the continued
threat of poaching. The Committee agreed to maintain this property
on the List of World Heritage in Danger but expressed the wish that
it be removed from this List in 1989.
2) Djoudj National Park (Senegal)
The Committee was glad to learn that due in part to assistance
provided from the Fund, the conservation status of this property
had greatly improved. The Committee decided to comply with the
request of the Senegalese authorities to remove this property from
the List of World Heritage in Danger.
3) Tai National Park (Cote d'Ivoire)
The Committee noted that the natural values of this property had
declined due to various illegal activities within the park. The
Committee was, however, glad to learn of a forthcoming project
financed by WWF, US-AID and possibly with a contribution from the
World Heritage which could help mitigate the current situation, and
requested IUCN to report back to the Committee at its next session.
4) Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
The representative of IUCN reported that this property was
currently under extreme pressure with the invasion of some 50,000
refugees and settlers into the Reserve. The Committee requested the
Secretariat to contact the Honduran authorities to obtain further
information and to ask them to consider inscribing this property on
the List of World Heritage in Danger.
5) Yellowstone National Park (USA)
The Committee noted that an exceptionally large fire had occurred
in the Park during 1988 but that no World Heritage values had been
lost. The Committee welcomed the proposal of the representative of
the USA to provide further information on the results of the review
of the fire management policy for wilderness areas and the
restoration/recovery plan aimed at showing visitors how Yellowstone
was being "reborn".
B. Cultural Properties
34. At the request of the Chairman, the Secretariat informed the
Committee of its observations concerning the results at the present
stage of implementation of the experimental monitoring system
adopted by the Committee at its eleventh session. The attention of
the Committee was drawn to the difficulties of a number of States
in meeting the deadlines; a modified timetable was suggested, so as
to enable both the Secretariat and ICOMOS to process replies and to
report to the Bureau before reporting to the Committee. The
Secretariat stated that the results obtained were encouraging, but
that conclusions would be premature. It therefore suggested that
implementation of the system be extended for another year. As
requested by the Chairman, ICOMOS then stated that the information
provided, although necessary and valuable, was insufficient.
Exceedingly brief answers provided little information on the extent
of danger referred to and very succinct analyses prevented any
serious evaluation of problems raised. He further regretted the
lack of information on museum installations on archaeological sites
and the lack of data on the environment. To conclude, he stated
that procedures could no doubt be improved, either by reformulating
the questionnaire or by encouraging States to answer in greater
detail.
*[8]
35. Several members, however, were doubtful as regards the
usefulness and efficiency of the questionnaire in its present form.
One speaker suggested that it might be considered an aide-memoire
to remind the States of the need to present a report on the state
of conservation of their properties. He further wondered whether a
single questionnaire was applicable to all types of properties and
suggested reflection on this matter. He added that it might be
proper to distinguish between simple and complex properties,
between urban centres and archaeological sites, etc.
36. A member suggested that an explanatory letter be attached to
the questionnaire, to explain to States Members as clearly as
possible the objectives of the Committee with respect to the
monitoring system. Another member backed this proposal and further
suggested sending a new letter to the States who had submitted
incomplete answers. A member felt that it would be desirable to
attach typical examples of satisfactory answers to the
questionnaire as models. It was concluded however that the
experiment should be pursued and that the state of conservation of
the next fifty cultural properties be examined in 1989 (Annex II).
The Secretariat would report to the Committee at its next session.
This proposal was adopted by the Committee, which further approved
the new timetable proposed by the Secretariat.
37. The representative of UNDP expressed to the Committee his views
on the monitoring system. In his opinion, monitoring, technical
cooperation, planning and evaluation were closely linked in any
project. Any efficient monitoring system would require adequate
strategies and methodologies. It would have to be a dynamic
process, to be initiated and implemented in the field to the extent
possible. Monitoring was also a mode of cooperation and therefore
an excellent means to link various sectors beyond culture and
nature. In this respect, he noted the very close relationship
between conservation and the environment. Finally, he stated that
he was ready to cooperate with the Secretariat, ICOMOS, ICCROM and
governments in all monitoring activities. Several Committee members
expressed their appreciation of the UNDP Representative's comment.
38. In the context of the statement of a member of the Committee,
the representative of ICCROM drew the Committee's attention to the
specific problem of historic towns and to the need to define the
principles and objectives of conservation in each case. He
confirmed ICCROM's eagerness to co-operate with the Committee in
all aspects of monitoring and training. One member of the Committee
then underlined the need for joint reflection on methods of
intervention and techniques for the restoration of ancient
structures. The representative of ICOM, by means of a precise
example, drew the attention of the Committee to the importance of
museums in the global process of conservation and rehabilitation of
historical towns. The Committee took note of these comments.
39. The importance of conserving the environment of cultural
properties was stressed by the representative of France, who
referred to the problem of Mont Saint-Michel, a site where the
environmental issue was particularly crucial. The Committee noted
the information he provided on methods of intervention used by the
French authorities at this site and strongly encouraged them to
pursue such work.
40. The representative of Senegal requested a progress report on
the international campaign for the protection of Goree and inquired
about the procedures for the inscription of this property on the
List of World Heritage in Danger. The Secretariat provided him with
the information requested.
41. The Secretariat informed the Committee of problems that had
arisen in the case of the three World Heritage sites. First, in the
case of the city of Quebec, two real estate projects had given rise
to concern in 1987 and the Canadian authorities had provided a
report on the subject. The representative of Canada stated that,
although several projects were still under study, the cultural
heritage of Old Quebec would be safeguarded and the Committee would
be advised of any change in the property.
*[9]
42. As regards the site of Goreme in Turkey, the Secretariat
informed the Committee of an ICOMOS report indicating two serious
problems concerning the environment of this site. The Turkish
authorities advised the Committee of the intent of their government
to take all measures required for the protection of this vulnerable
site.
43. The case of the Studenica Monastery was also submitted to the
Committee. To evaluate the impact of the possible construction of
a dam some ten kilometres from this property, Unesco had asked
ICCROM, at the request of the Government of Yugoslavia, to
investigate the situation. The Chairman invited the ICCROM
representative, who had been part of the investigating team, to
report on the matter. He stated that there did not seem to be
technical grounds for preventing the dam project as presently
contemplated. However, the ethical problem of protecting cultural
and historical values linked to the Studenica valley, eponym of the
monastery, was highly important and should be taken into account.
He also advised the Committee as to the possibility of alternative
although more costly dam locations much farther away from the
monastery. The main purpose of constructing the dam was to ensure
the water supply of a region where other rivers are already
polluted. This raised the basic problem of protecting the
environment, underlying other equally essential matters. Finally,
the question was whether it was indeed necessary to sacrifice the
admirable Studenica site since there were alternative in order to
improve economic and social conditions in Serbia. The Committee
took note of the report and requested the Secretariat to convey its
concern to the Yugoslav authorities.
XI. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
44. The Committee congratulated the Secretariat on the report on
activities carried out in 1988 (document SC-88/CONF.001/5), devoted
mainly to production and dissemination of general information
material on the objectives and operation of the Convention for a
variety of publics, and the mounting of photographic exhibitions.
45. Several members of the Committee referred to promotional
activities undertaken or planned in their countries, such as the
setting up of a National Committee in charge of coordination of
implementation and promotion of the Convention in France; placing
of plaques on World Heritage sites in France and Mexico; issuing of
a series of postage stamps in Brazil, production of leaflets on the
Convention and sites inscribed on the World Heritage List in India,
Australia and Canada; publication of a series of 60 booklets on
World Heritage sites' of which 300,000 copies were sold at
news-stands in Brazil; or events organized during the World
Heritage Day and those planned for the World Heritage Week in
India.
46. The representative of the United Nations Development Programme
informed the Committee on the positive results of a press seminar
he had organized in Salvador, Bahia (Brazil), with assistance from
the World Heritage Fund. He further stressed the complex
relationships between development, tourism and heritage; it would,
he felt, be appropriate to reflect on the drafting of clear
principles on the problem of tourism and heritage.
47. The Committee accepted the activities for 1989 proposed by the
Secretariat, which highlight the wish to increase knowledge of
sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, through preparation of
information sheets on such sites, new publications and a series of
films for the public at large. A member of the Committee requested
that co-publishers be sought for Arabic editions of such
publications.
48. Finally, the Committee recommended the creation and
strengthening of national bodies designed to act as relays for the
Secretariat's activities. In this respect, it noted that assistance
was now available for this purpose pursuant to paragraph 87 of the
Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the Convention.
*[10]
XII. STATUS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND BUDGET FOR 1989
49. The Committee took note of document SC-88/CONF.001/7 which
consisted essentially of a series of financial statements for
mandatory and voluntary contributions to the World Heritage Fund
for the financial periods covering 1981-83, 1984-85, 1986-87 and
1988-89 as at 30 September 1988. The Committee noted that since
this date a number of contributions had been received and that
several projects for international assistance had been approved,
which resulted in a revised balance available for 1989 amounting to
$2,112,974 as at 25 November 1988.
50. The Committee specifically took account of the need to allocate
a maximum of resources for technical cooperation and training
activities, which were of particular use to developing States
Parties. The representative of Yemen drew the Committee's attention
to the need to substantially increase the budget allocations for
training and technical cooperation in order to ensure the
protection of the cultural and natural heritage of the lesser
developed countries. The Committee requested the Secretariat to
work with States Parties in order to use the resources of the World
Heritage Fund as much as possible in a catalytic manner, for
example in combining World Heritage projects with those of other
international bodies such as UNDP, the World Bank, the World Wide
Fund for Nature, etc.
51. The Committee decided that the funds allocated for technical
cooperation and training should be used in a flexible manner such
that funds could be transferred in between these budget lines in
order to meet requests from States Parties.
52. The Committee also considered the need to maintain the high
quality of the advisory services provided to the Committee by
ICOMOS and IUCN, who were increasingly asked to monitor properties
inscribed on the World Heritage List and to advise on international
assistance requests and their implementation.
53. As regards the allocation for temporary assistance to the
Secretariat, the Committee was of the opinion that this budget line
should be reduced as much as possible to ensure the maximum use of
the World Heritage Fund for the protection of listed properties. In
this respect, the former Chairman, Mr. J. Collinson, recalled the
decision of the Director-General in reply to his letter dated 17
June 1988 to provide six additional posts under Unesco's Regular
Programme to meet the needs of the World Heritage Secretariat. The
Secretariat informed the Committee that owing to budget constraints
within the Organization, it had not yet been possible to establish
these posts but there were indications that this situation could be
resolved progressively in the near future, thereby releasing the
funds allocated for temporary assistance. The Committee recommended
that the Chairman write to the Director-General to reiterate the
Committee's grave concern to establish the Secretariat on a
permanent basis under the Unesco Regular Programme and to indicate
that an allocation for temporary assistance to the Secretariat
would probably not be granted by the Committee in future years.
54. The Committee recommended that a sum of $20,000 be earmarked
for the purpose of the global studies recommended by the Working
Group of the Committee. The use of these funds would be decided
upon by the Bureau at its thirteenth session in 1989.
55. In order to ensure equitable representation of the different
regions and cultural areas of States Parties, the Committee
requested the Secretariat to prepare a proposal for consideration
by the Bureau at its next session concerning the possibility of
allocating a portion of the Fund which would be used under very
strict conditions to support the participation of the experts in
cultural and/or natural heritage of the lesser developed States
Members at the sessions of the Committee and its Bureau.
*[11]
56. In accordance with the above considerations' the Committee
adopted the following budget for 1989.
ACTIVITY 1989
$
Preparatory assistance 100,000
Technical cooperation* 700,000
Training* 500,000
Emergency assistance 100,000
Promotional activities, including meetings 150,000
Advisory services
IUCN 103,600
ICOMOS 143,600
(Global studies, etc.) (20,000)
Temporary assistance to the Secretariat 210,700
2,027,900
3% Contingency funds 60,837
2,088,737
Reserve 24,237
TOTAL 2,112,974
-----------------------
* The funds for technical cooperation and training can be used
in an interchangeable manner.
7. The Secretariat informed the Committee that, in addition to the
budget it had approved, a sum of two million French Francs
($340,000 as of 9 December 1988) had been donated to Unesco in
November 1988 by a private association which had organized a
special cultural event "The Return of Marco Polo". This sum was to
be divided equally for use in the preservation of the Great Wall
(China) and Venice (Italy), two World Heritage properties.
*[12]
XIII. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
58. The Committee noted that the Bureau had examined in detail the
requests presented in document SC-88/CONF.001/6 and /6 Add. In
noted that a number of modifications for certain requests had been
received by the Secretariat since the document had been prepared.
The Committee also noted that the requests from Algeria, Ecuador,
Sri Lanka and Zaire had already been recommended for approval by
the previous Bureau at its twelfth session in June 1988.
59. In accordance with the procedures for granting international
assistance set out in the Operational Guidelines adopted by the
Committee (WHC/2 Revised, December 1988), the Committee approved
the following requests:
A. Technical Co-operation
1) Tassili N'Ajjer (Algeria)
Equipment and a financial contribution to improve visitors'
services and protection of the cultural and natural heritage
$ 53,000
2) Sao Miguel des Missoes (Brazil)
Financial contribution for the inventory of the documentation
on the site $ 10,000
3) Talamanca - La Amistad (Costa Rica)
Equipment and a financial contribution for strengthening
conservation of the Pacific sector of the site
$ 30,000
4) Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
Purchase of 2 boats for strengthening the protection of the
site $ 54,000
5) Temple of Apollo Epicurios at Bassse (Greece)
Purchase of a portable micro-earthquake monitoring system
(also for use at other Greek World Heritage properties)
$ 30,000
6) Bahla Fort (Oman)
Financial contribution to works and training for safeguarding
the property $ 50,000
7) Anuradhapura, Polonnaruva and Sigiriya (Sri Lanka)
Equipment for conservation and restoration of monuments (see
also training below) $ 25,500
*[13]
8) Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania)
2 vehicles (one tipper truck and one 4 x 4 pick-up) for
constructions aimed at to strengthening anti-poaching measures
$ 50,000
9) Durmitor National Park (Yugoslavia)
Purchase of equipment to investigate causes of the decline in
the population sizes of some bird species and tree death.
(N.B. the Yugoslav authorities are encouraged to undertake
this work as appropriate in cooperation with WMO concerning
research on air pollutants. Following the work in Durmitor,
all efforts should be made by the Yugoslav authorities to make
the specialized equipment purchased under the Fund available
for other World Heritage properties in the region. Finally,
the Yugoslav authorities are requested to provide a report to
the Secretariat on the use of all the research equipment
provided under the Fund for this project) $ 38,000
10) Garamba National Park (Zaire)
2 vehicles to continue the activities of the WWF/Frankfurt
Zoological Society/World Heritage consortium to combat
poaching $ 50,000
11) Virunga National Park (Zaire)
Equipment to improve protective measures in the Park
$ 40,000
TOTAL $ 430,500
B. Training Activities
Sri Lanka
Training component of the technical cooperation request for
the cultural triangle (No.7 above) $ 33,500
International Course on the Technology of Stone Conservation
(ICCROM)
Financial contribution to cover costs of the participation of
fellows from developing countries which are States Parties to
the Convention $37,500
TOTAL $ 71,000
*[14]
60. The representative of Lebanon read a communication sent to him
by the Secretary General of the International Association for the
Safeguard of Tyre with a view to obtaining technical co-operation
under the World Heritage Fund for the rehabilitation and
enhancement of Tyr. The Secretariat had taken due note of the
matter and had indicated the Committee's procedure that his
authorities would need to follow in order to submit a report to
this end.
XIV. NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND TO THE LIST OF
WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
61. Taking account of the recommendations of ICOMOS and IUCN, the
Committee decided to inscribe 27 properties on the World Heritage
List, of which 19 were cultural properties, 5 natural and 3 mixed.
The Committee furthermore decided not to inscribe 2 properties on
the World Heritage List. Another 9 nominations were deferred by the
Committee and/or its Bureau. The Committee also decided to remove
the Djoudj National Park (Senegal) from the List of World Heritage
in Danger, and added the Bahla Fort (Oman).
62. There are now 315 properties inscribed on the World Heritage
List and 7 properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
XIV/I. Nominations of natural properties
63. The Secretariat introduced document SC-88/CONF.001/9 and
informed the Committee of the following points:
- by letter dated 29 November 1988, the Hungarian Permanent
Delegation to Unesco had withdrawn the nomination of Hortobagy
National Park;
- in accordance with the suggestion of the Bureau at its twelfth
session, Unesco will convene a working group particularly to study
petrified forests involving the Intergovernmental Geological
Correlation Programme (IGCP) of Unesco, the International Union of
Geological Sciences (IUGS) and IUCN. Once the results of this study
were available, the Bureau could then examine the nomination of the
Petrified Forest of Lesbos submitted by Greece.
A Natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identification Contracting State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
Wet Tropics 486 Australia N(i)(ii)
of Queensland (iii)(iv)
In accordance with the wishes of the Bureau at its last meeting in
June 1988, the Committee noted that the Bureau had re-examined this
nomination taking into account the revised evaluation of IUCN and
additional information provided by Australia, as requested by the
Bureau. Following this re-examination, the Committee decided to
inscribe this property on the World Heritage List. It recommended
that an appropriate management regime be established. The Committee
furthermore recommended that IUCN continue to monitor the status of
conservation of this property and report back to the Committee in
the next 2 to 3 years.
*[15]
Parc National du 475 Central African N(ii)(i)
Manovo-Gounda St. Floris Republic
The Committee welcomed the telex dated 24 November 1988 from the
Minister of Water and Forestry of the Central African Republic
which save assurances as to the States Party's full commitment to
improve the conditions of integrity of this property, notably
concerning poaching and illegal grazing. The Committee decided to
inscribe this property on the World Heritage List and wished to
encourage the Central African Republic in these protective efforts.
The Committee expressed the wish that the recently launched 10-year
project financed by EEC/FED at a cost of US$27 million would show
positive results very soon. The Committee requested IUCN to work
with the Central African authorities to monitor very closely the
state of conservation of this property, particularly as to how it
still met natural criteria (ii) and (iv), and to report back to the
Bureau and the Committee as soon as possible.
The representatives of Canada and the United States clearly
recognized the potential of this site and applauded the commitment
of the Central African Republic but noted the severe damage to the
Park's integrity due to poaching and illegal grazing. In
consequence, these two Member States expressed a reservation about
the timing of the inscription of this site on the World Heritage
List.
Nanda Devi 473 India N(iii)
National Park *[in error; should have been 335] (iv)
The Committee recommended that the Indian authorities proceed with
the preparation of a management plan for this property and with a
census of the status of wildlife populations, particularly the
large mammals such as the blue sheep. The Committee indicated its
willingness to provide assistance under the World Heritage Fund for
these activities.
Sinharaja Forest 405 Sri Lanka N(ii)(iv)
Reserve
The Committee noted with satisfaction that on 21 October 1988, the
Sinharaja Forest Reserve had been declared a National Heritage
Wilderness Area under the National Heritage Wilderness Act No. 3 of
1988, thereby conferring the required legal protection for this
property. The Committee requested the Sri Lankan authorities to
provide the Secretariat with further information on the natural
characteristics of the areas which come under this legislation
which were additions to the definition of the property as nominated
in 1982.
Henderson Island 487 United Kingdom N(iii)(iv)
The Committee requested the British authorities to report back on
the Bureau's recommendations concerning the involvement of Pitcairn
islanders to ensure on-site protection and the review of the legal
status of this island, including consideration to upgrade its
status of a nature reserve and the preparation of a management
plan. The Committee recommended that the British authorities
consider extending the property to include the marine areas
particularly used as feeding areas for marine birds within the 3-
mile limit of the island. Finally, the Committee wished to commend
the British authorities for having strengthened the protection of
this property by signing the Convention for the Protection of the
Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region on 16
June 1988.
*[16]
B. Deferred nominations
The Committee noted that the nomination of the Bemaraha Strict
Nature Reserve and adjacent forests, submitted by Madagascar, had
been deferred by the Bureau and that this nomination would be
re-worked on the occasion of a training workshop to be held in
Madagascar in early 1989 with the financial support from the World
Heritage Fund.
C. Natural property removed from the List of World Heritage in
Danger
Djoudj National Park (Senegal)
The Committee recalled that under the agenda item on monitoring the
state of conservation of World Heritage properties the Committee
had decided to comply with the request of the Senegalese
authorities to remove this property from the List of World Heritage
in Danger.
XIV/II. Nominations of cultural properties
A. Cultural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
Strasbourg - Grande Ile 495 France C(i)(ii)
(iv)
Mt. Athos 454 Greece C(i)(ii)(iv)
(v)(vi)
N(iii)
The Committee accepted the ICOMOS proposal to add natural criterion
(iii) - outstanding universal value from the point of view of
natural beauty - to cultural criteria, since this site involves a
humanized landscape the characteristics of which are due to
persistence of farming practices and traditional arts and crafts
linked to the stringent observance of monastic rules.
Meteora 455 Greece C(i)(ii)
(iv)(v)
N(iii)
The Committee accepted the ICOMOS proposal to add natural criterion
(iii) to cultural criteria.
Early Christian and 456 Greece C(i)(ii)(iv)
Byzantine monuments of
Thessalonika
Archaeological site 491 Greece C(i)(ii)
of Epidaurus (iii)(iv)(vi)
It should be stated that criterion (ii) is also justified in view
of the influence of Tholos of Epidaurus on the development of
architecture and ornamentation of Corynthian style in Greek and
Roman art.
*[17]
Medieval City of 493 Greece C(ii)(iv)
Rhodes (v)
It should be stated that the influence of Rhodes fortifications
mentioned under criterion (ii) particularly applies to Bodrum, the
former Halicarnassus.
Old Towns of Djenne 116 rev. Mali C(iii)(iv)
The Committee recommends that the Mali authorities ensure the
long-term protection of Djenne with particular attention to
preserving the balance between the built and unbuilt areas of the
town, whilst safeguarding the toguere archaeological assets.
Timbuktu 119 rev. Mali C(ii)(iv)(v)
The Committee decided to inscribe the three large mosques and
sixteen cemeteries and mausoleums of Timbuktu. In view of the
threat of sand encroachment at Timbuktu, the Committee suggests
that the Mali authorities consider inscription of this property on
the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Historic Centre of 482 Mexico C(i)(ii)
Guanajuato and (iv)(vi)
adjacent mines
Pre-Hispanic City 483 " C(i)(ii)
of Chichen-Itza (iii)
Archaeological sites 434 Oman C(iii)(iv)
of Bat, Al-Khutm and
Al-Ayn
Convent Ensemble of 500 Peru C(ii)(iv)
San Francisco de Lima
Old City of Salamanca 381 rev. Spain C(i)(ii)(iv)
Sacred City of Kandy 450 Sri Lanka C(iv)(vi)
Old Town of Galle and 451 " C(iv)
its fortifications
Medina of Sousse 498 Tunisia C(iii)(iv)
(v)
Kairouan 499 " C(i)(ii)(iii)
(v)(vi)
*[18]
Xanthos-Letoon 484 Turkey C(ii)(iii)
The Committee was pleased to note the assurances of the Turkish
authorities to protect the site within a larger perimeter.
Hierapolis-Pamukkale 485 Turkey C(iii)(iv)
N(iii)
The Committee was pleased to note that the Turkish Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Affairs has decided to start work
on setting up a national park during 1989. Furthermore, the
Committee accepted the ICOMOS proposal to add natural criterion
(iii) to cultural criteria.
The Tower of London 488 United Kingdom C(ii)(iv)
The Committee has expressed its regrets regarding the building of
the Tower Hotel, which would have best been avoided, and took note
of the assurances of the United Kingdom authorities as to
protection henceforth to be granted to the environment of the Tower
of London. The Committee further suggested that inscription on the
World Heritage List be extended to the Tower Bridge which
constitutes a coherent whole with the Tower of London.
Canterbury Cathedral, 496 United Kingdom C(i)(ii)(vi)
St. Augustine's Abbey
and St. Martin's Church
Trinidad and the 460 Cuba C(iv)(v)
Valley de los Ingenios
The Committee congratulated the Cuban authorities on conservation
of the Trinidad historical site. However, it strongly recommended
to protect the environment of the town sugar mills and valley which
should not suffer from tourism development.
B. Cultural Nominations deferred by the Committee
a) The Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Bureau and
decided to defer the examination of the following nominations:
Male Hukuru Miskiy 461 Maldives
Utheemu Gaduvaru 462 "
Eid Miskiy 463 "
Fenfushi Hukuru Miskiy 464 "
Vadhoo Hukuru Miskiy 465 "
New Lanark 429 United Kingdom
*[19]
Pueblo of Taos 492 United States of America
b) Furthermore, the Committee decided to defer the inscription of
the following nomination:
Spanish Town 459 rev. Jamaica
The Committee decided to defer inscription of this property on the
World Heritage List to enable the competent authorities to refine
the protection plan and define the principles of an overall
conservation policy for the historic centre.
C. Cultural properties which the Committee decided not to
inscribe on the World Heritage List
Port Royal 457 rev. Jamaica
The Committee recognized the importance of this property for the
national heritage of Jamaica but felt that the nomination did not
meet the criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List.
Seville 458 rev. Jamaica
The Committee recognized the importance of this property for the
national heritage of Jamaica but felt that the nomination did not
meet the criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List.
D. List of World Heritage in Danger
Bahla Fort 433 Oman
In accordance with the wishes of the Omani authorities the
Committee decided to inscribe Bahla Fort on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
Wieliczka Salt Mine 32 Poland
In the absence of information on the state of conservation of this
property and the most urgent needs in terms of protection thereof,
the Committee requested that a mission be organized to seek such
information before the next session of the Bureau. Therefore, a
decision on this matter was deferred.
64. A member drew the attention of the Committee on the particular
case of Rome. Inscription on the World Heritage List of the
Historical Centre in 1980 and of Vatican City in 1984 apparently
did not cover several monuments which are the property of the Holy
See, which has extra-territorial rights over them. After
clarifications had been provided by the Secretariat, the
representative of ICOMOS, the representative of Italy and the
observer from the Holy See, the Committee requested the Holy See
and Italy to study the modalities of a proposal with respect to
major monuments such as the Basilicas of Saint John of Lateran,
Santa Maria Maggiore, Santa Maria de Trastevere and San Paolo fuori
le Mura, etc. At the request of the observer of the Holy See, the
Committee agreed that his declaration on the subject would be
annexed to the present report (Annex III).
*[20]
XV. REVIEW OF PROCEDURES FOR ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
65. The Committee discussed the question of procedures for the
election of members (document SC-88/CONF.001/11), the Secretariat
having stressed that its suggestions were of a very preliminary
nature.
66. As regards rotation of States Parties within the Committee, the
Committee felt that the Secretariat's proposal was acceptable.
However, some flexibility might be required, especially to take
into account the preferences of States Parties within the same
region. One member stressed that the principle of rotation was not
a mechanical exercise and that it should be applied taking into
account the varied technical qualifications that representatives of
States Parties from all regions could bring to the Committee, which
was an essentially technical body. He added that State Parties
seeking a seat on the Committee should approach this matter with a
sense of this responsibility. Several members also reiterated the
suggestion made earlier that the Committee seek ways of financing
the participation of competent representatives of the least
developed countries, but stressed that strict criteria should be
developed for this purpose.
67. With respect to equitable representation of the various regions
and cultures within the Committee, it was felt that a first
priority should be an increase in the number of States Members of
the Committee. This might be the basis for a mechanism resulting in
more equitable representation. Several suggestions as to this
number were discussed and it was decided that the number of members
could be increased to 36, following the example of the
Intergovernmental Committee for the World Decade for Cultural
Development, the membership of which reflects the present
principles of representation for Committees of this kind within
Unesco.
The observer from a State Party not currently a member of the
Committee expressed his disagreement with the idea of a fixed
number of seats for each region. He stressed that a certain number
of States Parties could bring to bear on the tasks facing the
Committee, apart from their rich cultural and natural heritage, a
wealth of experience in the conservation of cultural and natural
property.
68. The representative of the Director General reminded the
Committee that increasing the number of members would imply a
revision of the Convention pursuant to its Article 37. The
Committee noted the protracted procedure for this purpose defined
by the Rules of Procedure of the General Conference. However, it
felt it highly desirable that the Secretariat examine means to
reduce the length of this procedure. It was therefore decided to
request the Secretariat to further study the matter of equitable
representation of the various regions and cultures within the
Committee, along the lines referred to above. In consultation with
Unesco's Legal Adviser new proposals should be drafted and
distributed to members of the Bureau for comment prior to
discussion of this matter at the June 1989 session of the Bureau.
Noting that the expansion of the Committee was likely to be a long
process one member suggested that in accordance with Article 10 of
the Convention, the Committee might also explore the idea of
establishing a body in which a number of States Parties not members
of the Committee might contribute more directly to the work of the
Committee.
XVI. OTHER BUSINESS
69. The representative of Canada informed the World Heritage
Committee that, in honour of Unesco's World Decade for Cultural
Development preliminary consultations were underway to explore the
possibility of holding an international colloquium on historic
districts in the World Heritage Site of le Vieux-Quebec in Canada,
possibly for 1990 or 1991. *[21] This colloquium would address the
critical issues of conservation and management of historic
districts, especially for those districts inscribed on the World
Heritage List. Canada would clarify the possibility of sponsoring
this colloquium at the thirteenth session of the Bureau of the
World Heritage Committee in June 1989. The Chairman underlined the
pertinence of the proposed colloquium and expressed his deep
satisfaction that this project was being planned.
70. The Rapporteur informed the Committee on behalf of the
Government of Greece that an international conference organized
jointly with ICCROM and with Unesco support in November 1989 would
deal with structural conservation of stone masonry. Members of the
Committee and specialists from their countries would be welcome at
this important technical meeting.
71. The representative of IUCN informed the Committee of his
organization's intention to act upon the suggestion of Mr. Michel
Batisse, to organize a World Heritage Conference in 1992 to mark
the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention within
the framework of the Fourth World Parks Congress.
72. The representative of the United States of America informed the
Committee of a theme study on the historic Spanish missions in her
country a copy of which had been sent to the Secretariat. She hoped
this study would be a catalyst for possible joint nominations among
States Parties who shared the Hispanic-American heritage and placed
this hope in the context of the 1992 Columbus Quincentennial. The
Committee should find ways of promoting the 1992 celebrations of
the rich cultural interchange between the Old and New Worlds.
73. The Secretary-General of ICOMOS read out a telex message from
Professor Roberto di Stefano, President of ICOMOS, expressing the
grave concern of his Organization about "the situation of
architectural heritage, both urban and rural, in Romania". After
describing the measures taken by ICOMOS, the message stated that
this organization was ready to help the Committee in any way
possible. The Committee noted that Romania was not a State Party to
the Convention and that when the matter had been raised in the
recent 130th session of Unesco's Executive Board, the
Director-General had informed that body of the measures he was
taking to obtain clarifications form the Romanian authorities on
the effects on the architectural heritage of its "rural
systematisation" policies. The Committee endorsed the concern
expressed by ICOMOS and expressed the wish that this concern be
communicated to the Romanian authorities. An observer from a States
Party suggested that in the "global study" it would be carrying out
ICOMOS could give priority attention to Romanian properties of
World Heritage significance.
XVII. DATE AND PLACE OF THE THIRTEENTH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE
74. The Committee decided to hold its thirteenth session in Unesco
Headquarters in Paris from 4 to 8 December 1989.
XII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
75. Mr. J.D. Collinson, (Canada), the previous Chairman expressed
on behalf of the Committee, his sincere thanks to the Brazilian
authorities and particularly the local team for all their support
and kindnesses which had contributed to the success of the meeting.
The representative of the Director-General made a brief statement
underlining the Secretariat's gratitude to the Brazilian
authorities and its commitment to serving the Committee even more
effectively at this significant stage in the development of the
mechanisms of the World Heritage Convention. Mr. da Silva Telles,
in the name of the Brazilian Government and its Ministry of
Culture, thanked ICOMOS, IUCN, ICCROM and ICOM, as well as the
Secretariat for their valuable assistance. He then declared the
session closed.
------------------------------------------------------------
*[Annex I/1]
SC-88/CONF.001/13
Annex I
23 December 1988
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION
OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION DU
PATRIMOINE MONDIAL, CULTUREL ET NATUREL
World Heritage Committee/Comit� du patrimoine mondial
Twelfth Session/Douzi�me session
Brasilia, 5-9 December 1988
Brasilia, 5-9 d�cembre 1988
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE
ALGERIA/ALGERIE
Mr Mourad Belmokhtar
Premier Secr�taire
Amhassade d'Alg�rie au Br�sil
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
Senator Graham Richardson
Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment
Tourism and Territories
Mr Edward Gough Whitlam
Member of Unesco's Executive Board
Mr Simon Balderstone
Parliament House
Dr Peter Bridgewater
First Assistant Secretary
Natural Heritage and Environment Protection
Department of the Arts, Sport, the Envirooment
Tourism and Territories
Dr Warren Nicholls
Rainforest Unit
Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environnent
Tourism and Territories
Mrs Janet Willis
Parliament House
*[Annex I/2]
Mr John Lander
Minister
Alternate Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr Kenneth Bruce Berry
Australian Embassy in Brazil
Dr Aila Keto
President
Rainforest Conservation Society
BRAZIL/BRESIL
S. Exc. M. Jos� de Souza Montello
D�lagu� permanent aupr�s de l'Unesco
Professeur Augusto Carlos da Silva Telles
Secr�taire du patrimoine historique et artistique national
Dr D'Alembert Jorge Jaccoud
Secr�tariat de la culture du District fad�ral de Brasilia
M. Francisco Soares Alvim Neto
Conseiller
Chef de la Division de la coop�ration internationale
Minist�re des relations ext�rieuren
M. Italo Campofiorito
Coordinateur des �tudes
Fondation nationale Pro-Memoria
Dr. Sonia Maria Pereira Wiedmann
Institut br�silien du d�veloppement des for�ts
Dr. Osvaldo Peralva
Directeur g�n�ral de l'Institut de promotion culturelle
M. Joaquim Arnaldo de Paiva Oliveira
Sous-Directeur de la Division de coop�ration intellectuelle
Ministere des relations ext�rieures
Dr. Silvio Cavalcante
Directeur, D�partement du patrimoine historique
Secr�tariat de la culture
M. Julio Glinternick Bitteli
Assistant du Chef du d�partement des organismes internationaux
Minist�re des relations ext�rieures
*[Annex I/3]
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
M. Nikolay Kaloudov
Premier Secr�taire
Ambassade de Bulgarie au Br�sil
CANADA
Mr James D. Collinson
Assistant Deputy Minister,
Environment Canada Parks
Ms Christina S. Cameron
Director-General
National Historic Parks and Sites
CUBA
Mme Marta Arjona
Directeur du patrimoine culturel
FRANCE
M. F. Enaud
Inspecteur g�n�ral des monuments historiques
Minist�re de la culture et de la communication
Mme M. de Raissac
Charg�e de mission, Direction du patrimoine
Minist�re de la culture et de la communication
M. Alain Megret
Charg� de mission des affaires g�n�rales et internationales
Directeur de la protection de la nature
Minist�re de l'environnement
M. Jean-Pierre Boyer
Commission fran�aise pour l'Unesco
Charg� de mission aupr�s du secr�tariat g�n�ral
M. Staphane Dupont
Ambassade de France au Br�sil
GREECE/GRECE
Mme Androniki Miltiadou
Conseiller, D�l�cation permanente aupr�s de l'Unesco
*[Annex I/4]
INDIA/INDE
Mr Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
Department of Culture
Ministry of Human Resource
ITALY/ITALIE
Mme Licia Vlad-Borelli
Minist�re des biens culturels
M. Massimo Lepri
Minist�re de l'environnement
M. Mario Lolli-Ghetti
Minist�re des biens culturels
Mme Piera Sabetta
Commission nationale italienne aupr�s de l'Unesco
LEBANON/LIBAN
S. Exc. M. Samir Hobeica
Ambassadeur du Liban au Br�sil
MEXICO/MEXIQUE
M. Salvador Diaz-Berrio Fernandez
Directeur, projets techniques
Institut national d'anthropologie et d'histoire
M. Juan Manuel Gonzalez Bustos
Premier Secr�taire
Ambassade du Mexique au Br�sil
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Mrs T. Rodrigues Eusebio
Norvegian Embassy in Brazil
PAKISTAN
Mr Sohail Ittehad Hussain
Pakistan Embassy in Brazil
*[Annex I/5]
SRI LANKA
H. Exc. Dr. A.W.P. Gurug�
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mrs Sujata Gurug�
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
TUNISIA/TUNISIE
Mme Riahi Mounira
Directeur g�n�ral de l'Institut national
d'arch�ologie et d'art
TURKEY/TURQUIE
H. Exc. Mr Metin Kustaloglu
Ambassador of Turkey in Brazil
Mr Ilhan Gokbudak
Counsellor
Turkish Embassy in Brasilia
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mrs Susan Recce
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
Department of the Interior
Mr Charles O. Cecil
Department of State
Mr Richard J. Cook
International Affairs Officer
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
YEMEN ARAB REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE ARABE DU YEMEN
Dr. Ahmed Saleh Sayyad
D�l�qu� Permanent aupr�s de l'Unesco
II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/
ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)/CONSEIL
INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
Mr Helmut Stelzer
Secretary General
M. L�on Pressouyre
Professeur � l'Universit� de Paris I
*[Annex I/6]
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL
RESOURCES (IUCN)/UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE
LA NATURE ET DE SES RESSOURCES (UICN)
Mr James Thorsell
Executive Officer
Commission on National Parks and other Protected Areas (CNPPA)
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE
RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY (ICCROM)/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL
D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS
CULTURELS (ICCROM)
Dr Jukka Jokilehto
Coordinator of Traininq in Architectural Conservation
III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS
A. OTHER STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION/
AUTRES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
ARGENTINA/ARGENTINE
M. Hernan Santivanez Vieyra
Ambassade d'Argentine au Br�sil
CHILE / CHILI
Mr William Patrickson
ECUADOR/EQUATEUR
Dr. Deborah Salgado
Second Secretary
Embassy of Ecuador in Brazil
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY/REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Dr Hans Caspary
Conservateur des Monuments historiques
HOLY SEE/SAINT SIEGE
S. Exc. Mgr Ernesto Gallina
Archev�que, Nonce Apostolique
Secr�tairerie d'Etat, Cit� du Vatican
S. Exc. Mgr Francesco Marchisano Ev�que, Secr�taire de la
Commission pontificale pour la conservation du patrimoine
artistique et historiaue de l'Eqlise, Cit� du Vatican
*[Annex I/7]
Mgr. Astolfo Astolfi
Nonciature Apostolique � Brasilia
PERU/PEROU
M. Augusto Morelli
Secr�taire � l'Ambassade du P�rou au Br�sil
PHILIPPINES
H. Exc. Mr Lauro L, Basa, Jr
Ambassador of the Philippines in Brazil
Mrs Sylvia Montallana Reyes
Philippines Embassy in Brazil
SENEGAL
M. Mamadou Man�
Directeur du Patrimoine historique
Minist�re de la Culture
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
M. Juan Serrat
Ministre Conseiller
Ambassade d'Espagne au Br�sil
M. J.S. Gomez-Llera
Premier Secr�taire
Ambassade d'Espagne au Br�sil
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
M. B. Loeliger
Premier Secr�taire
Ambassade de la Suisse au Br�sil
B. UNITED NATIONS BODIES/ORGANISMES DES NATIONS UNIES
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSARY FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR)/HAUT
COMMISSARIAT DES NATIONS UNIES POUR LES REFUGIES (HCR)
Mr Juan Claudio Buchet
Argentine Office
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPEMENT PROGRAMME (UNESCO)/PROGRAMME DES
NATIONS UNIES POUR LE DEVELOPEMEENT (UNESCO)
Mr Sylvio Mutal
Coordinator
Chief Technical Adviser
*[Annex I/8]
UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S FUND (UNICEF)/
FONDS DES NATIONS UNIES POUR L'ENFANCE (FISE)
Mr John J. Donohue
Brazilian Office
C. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ORGANISATIONS
INTERGOUVERNEMENTALES
INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK/BANQUE INTER-AMERICAINE DE
DEVELOPPEMENT
Mr Hernan D. Acero
D. INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION/ORGANISATION
INTERNATIONALE NON GOUVERNEMENTALE
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MUSEUMS (ICOM)/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL
DES MUSEES
Mrs Lourdes Martins do Rego Novaes
Chairman
Icom's National Committee in Brazil
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ARCHITECTS (IUA)/UNION INTERNATIONALE
DES ARCHITECTES (UIA]
Mrs Yara Landre Marques
Exeautive Secretary - Region III
Mr Paulo Pontes Correia Neves
Architect
IV. UNESCO SECRETARIAT/SECRETARIAT DE L'UNESCO
Mr. Y.R. Isar Director, International Fund for
the Promotion of Culture and
Chief, International Standards Division of Cultural Heritage
Ms J. Robertson Vernhes
Division of Ecological Sciences
Ms M. Jardin
Division of Ecological Sciences
Ms C. Lyard
Division of Cultural Heritage
Ms M. Tactakoff
Division of Cultural Heritage
*[Annex I/9]
Ms J. Degeorges
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mr D. Martel
Division of Ecological Sciences
----------------------------------------------------------------
*[Annex II/1]
Annex II
The 50 cultural properties of which the state of
conservation has to be examined by the Committee in 1989
PROPERTIES INSCRIBED IN 1980
Name of the Property State Party having
submitted the
nomination
Lower Valley of the Omo Ethiopia
Ashante Traditional Buildings Ghana
Maya Site of Copan Honduras
Historic Centre of Rome Italy
The Church and Dominican Convent of "
Santa Maria delle Grazie with
"The Last Supper" by Leonardo da Vinci
Hal Saflieni Hypogeum Malta
City of Valetta "
Ggantija Temples "
Roros Norway
Archaeological ruins at Moenjodaro Pakistan
Taxila "
Buddhist ruins of Takht-i-Bahi and "
neighbouring city remains at Sahr-i-Bahlo,
The fortifications on the Caribbean side Panama
of Portobelo-San Lorenzo
Cracow's Historic Centre Poland
Ancient City of Bosra Syrian Arab Rep.
Site of Palmyra "
*[Annex II/2]
PROPERTIES INSCRIBED IN 1981
Name of the Property State Party having
submitted the
nomination
Kakadu National Park Australia
Willandra Lakes Region "
Anthony Island Canada
Head-Smashed-In Bison Jump Complex "
Speyer Cathadral Fed.Rep. of Germany
W�rtzburg Residence with the Court Gardens "
and Residence Square
Palace and Park of Fontainebleau France
Ch�teau and estate of Chambord "
Amiens Cathedral "
The Roman Theatre and its surroundings "
and the "Triumphal Arch" of Orange
Roman and Romanesque Monuments of Arles "
Cistercian Abbey of Fontenay "
Archaeological Park and Ruins of Quirigua Guatemala
Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls Jordan
Medina of Fez Morocco
Historical Monuments of Thatta Pakistan
Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore "
Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and United Rep. of
Ruins of Songo Mnara Tanzania
*[Annex II/3]
PROPERTIES INSCRIBED IN 1982
Name of the Property State Party having
submitted the
nomination
Tassili n'Ajjer Algeria
M'Zab Valley "
Djemila "
Tipasa "
Timgad "
Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks Australia
Historic Centre of the town of Olinda Brazil
Old Havana and its Fortifications Cuba
Royal Saltworks of Arc-en-Senans France
National History Park - Citadel, Haiti
Sans Souci, Ramiers
Historic Centre of Florence Italy
Archaeological Site of Leptis Magna Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya
Archaeological Site of Sabratha "
Archaeological Site of Cyrene "
Sacred City of Anuradhapura Sri Lanka
Ancient City of Polonnaruva "
------------------------------------------------------------
*[Annex III/1]
Annex III
Statement of the Observer of the Holy See
during the 12th Session of the World Heritage Committee
(Brasilia, 5-9 December 1988)
On 31 October 1984, the World Heritage Committee, at its
eighth session held in Buenos Aires, unanimously decided to
inscribe the entire Vatican City on the World Heritage List.
The Holy See now wishes that the other properties that are
situated on Italian territory but enjoy extraterritorial status
whereby the Holy See has specific rights of sovereignty over them,
internationally recognized, be inscribed on the List.
These are all the extraterritorial properties situated in the
Historic Centre of Rome which has already been inscribed in its
totality, at the request of the Italian Government. The Holy See,
by this request, wishes that the properties which come under its
responsibility be added so that they are explicitly and
definitively inscribed on the World Heritage List.
There are furthermore two extraterritorial properties which
are also part of the territory of the Italian State but which are
situated outside the Historic Centre of Rome: the complex of San
Paolo Fuori le Mura and the complex of the Pontifical Villas of
Castelgandolfo.
The nomination of these two properties is made with the
agreement of the Italian Government for matters within its
competence.
The Holy See will present all necessary or useful
documentation to this end.
jr7a:holy