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 20:00:39 Jul 19, 2018, 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 The information on this web page may be out of date.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.
Loading media information
hide
Distribution limited SC-85/CONF.008/9
Paris, December 1985
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION
OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
World Heritage Committee
Ninth Ordinary Session
Unesco Headquarters, Paris, 2-6 December 1985
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The ninth session of the World Heritage Committee was held at Unesco
Headquarters in Paris from 2 to 6 December 1985. It was attended by the following
States Members of the World Heritage Committee: Algeria, Australia, Brazil,
Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Germany (Federal Republic of), Greece, Guinea, India,
Jordan, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mexico, Norway, Sri Lanka, Turkey,
United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen Arab Republic and Zaire.
2. Representatives of the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS),
of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN) and of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the
Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) attended the meeting in an advisory
capacity.
3. The following 24 States Parties to the Convention, not members of the
Committee, were represented by observers: Argentina, Cameroon, Chile, Denmark,
Ecuador, Egypt, France, Haiti, Holy See, Hungary, Iraq, Italy, Niger, Nigeria,
Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia and
the United Kingdom. A representative of ALECSO, of the Council of Europe, of the
League of Arab States, the President of the International Federation of Landscape
Architects (IFLA), the Chairman of the International Fund for the Promotion of
Culture (IFPC) and a representative of the International Union of Architects
(IUA) also attended the meeting. The full list of participants is to be found in
Annex I to this report.
*[2]
II. OPENING OF THE SESSION
4. On behalf of the Director-General of Unesco, Mr. M. Makagiansar, Assistant
Director-General for Culture, welcomed the participants, especially the new
members of the Committee elected at the recent General Assembly of States
Parties. After referring to the success of the Convention, with 88 States Parties
to date, the Assistant Director-General draw attention to the main items on the
Committee's agenda at its ninth session: the growing number of nominations to the
World Heritage List, the problems of protection and management of properties on
the List and the balance of the List; the need for tentative lists; the
elaboration of criteria for mixed properties and rural landscapes; and finally,
the financial situation of the Fund, which had a direct impact on the
implementation of international assistance - a situation that was less healthy
than in certain previous years. In his conclusion, he referred to the
Secretariat's efforts to produce promotional material regarding the Convention.
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
5. At the request of the IUCN representative, an item was added to the agenda
concerning the status of conservation of natural properties included in the World
Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger. The agenda, thus amended,
was adopted by the Committee.
IV. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRMEN AND RAPPORTEUR
6. Mr. Amini Aza MTURI (United Republic of Tanzania) was elected Chairman of the
Committee by acclamation. Mr. Alex T. Davidson (Canada) was elected Rapporteur,
and the representatives of the following States Parties were elected
Vice-Chairmen, also by acclamation: Algeria, Bulgaria, India, Mexico and Norway.
7. The outgoing Chairman, Mr. J. Gazaneo (Argentina), congratulated the new
Chairman and members of the Bureau on their election. He wished to convoy some
recent information to the Committee and make a few suggestions for the future.
Mr. Gazaneo informed the Committee that an international conference, held at Solo
(Indonesia), on "Tourism and Heritage in the Pacific", in which he had taken part
as Chairman of the Committee. He drew the Committee's attention to the large
number of endangered properties in the region and the need for the various
organizations concerned to make concerted efforts to safeguard them. He
considered, moreover, that the time had come to apply photogrammetry and remote
sensing techniques to show the state of sites at the time of their inscription
and thus be able to assess their subsequent development.
V. REPORT OF THE SECRETARIAT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE EIGHTH
SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
8. The Secretary, Mr. B. von Droste, Director, Division of Ecological Sciences,
reported on activities undertaken since the Committee's eighth session held in
Buenos Aires from 29 October to 2 November 1984. He began by reviewing the
general status of implementation of the Convention, announcing that six new
States, viz. in chronological order, Qatar, New Zealand, Sweden, Dominican
Republic, Hungary and Philippines had adhered to the Convention, bringing the
number of States Parties to 88. The Convention thus continued to arouse *[3] the
interest of an increasing number of States. It was to be noted, however, that the
geographical representation of States was still very uneven, with few States
Parties from the Asian and Eastern European regions. Furthermore, while the
number of nominations for inclusion in the World Heritage List was growing
steadily, too few States (only 23) had as yet provided tentative lists, which
were needed for evaluations of nominations to the List. It was also necessary to
make sure that a balance was maintained between cultural and natural properties
so as to abide by the spirit of the Convention; the present ratio being
two-thirds/one-third. The state of the World Heritage Fund continued to be a
major concern, despite the payment of a number of mandatory contributions. The
level of the Fund's resources was in fact lower than in previous years
(1980-1983), whereas the number of States Parties and entries on the World
Heritage List had grown substantially.
9. He then reviewed activities since the Committee's eighth session in terms of
preparatory assistance, technical co-operation, training and emergency
assistance. On the subject of promotional activities, the Secretary said that an
exhibit had been produced with the support of the Spanish Ministry of Cultural
Properties and shown successively in Madrid, Canada and in the metro in Paris.
He called on States to avail themselves of the Secretariat's copy of the exhibit
- or to have it reproduced - for circulation in their own countries.
10. The Secretary stressed the excellent co-operation with ICOMOS and IUCN, but
emphasized the fact that the Secretariat's workload had increased considerably
while the number of staff working for the implementation of the Convention had
remained the same since the Convention had become operational. He thanked the
Canadian authorities for having provided the Secretariat with the services of an
expert for two years.
11. He concluded his statement by underscoring the challenges to be faced at the
beginning of the second decade of the Convention - its universality, commitment
and mobilization of States Parties, in particular by establishing national
structures for the implementation of the Convention, and making the public aware
of the need to safeguard the world heritage.
12. In response to the Secretary's report, the Committee expressed the view that
the Director-General's attention should be drawn to the situation of the
Secretariat and the need to strengthen it. The Chairman of the International Fund
for the Promotion of Culture and the representative of ALECS0 reiterated their
offer to co-operate with the World Heritage Committee.
VI. REPORT ON THE NINTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
(Paris, 3-6 June 1985)
13. The Secretariat presented the report of the ninth session of the Bureau and
an amendment to that report proposed by the representative of Algeria. The
Committee took note of the report as amended.
VII. ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN NOMINATIONS
14. Introducing agenda item 6, the Secretariat recalled the Bureau 's proposals
as contained in the report of the ninth session. It was pointed out that, in
addition to the question of the growing number of nominations, the real *[4]
problem raised by development of the Convention was that of monitoring the status
of conservation of properties included on the List.
15. In regard to the Bureau's proposed measures to reduce the number of
nominations to be processed each year, the Committee was of the view that it was
preferable not to lay down strict rules but rather to appeal to States that
already had a large number of properties on the List to restrict their
nominations voluntarily. At the same time, the Committee recalled that ICOMOS
could evaluate nominations only from States Parties which had submitted tentative
lists.
16. On the subject of monitoring the status of conservation of properties on the
List, the Committee requested IUCN to report on its system of monitoring the
status, not only of natural World Heritage properties, but also of endangered
species and natural habitats. The IUCN system is based at the Conservation
Monitoring Centre at Cambridge (United Kingdom) and has close links with the
Global Environmental Monitoring System of the United Nations Environment
Programme. IUCN is assisted by 4000 voluntary correspondents located in 126
countries who report regularly to the Conservation Monitoring Centre. Thus, IUCN
is in a position to obtain reliable and up-to-date information on almost all
natural World Heritage properties. This year IUCN would be reporting on 12 of the
56 natural World Heritage sites, a task which was assuming larger proportions
than that of evaluating new proposals. In general, between 8 and 13 new
nominations were examined each year, a number which IUCN considered reasonable.
The representative of IUCN underlined the importance of regularly monitoring the
quality of World Heritage properties and suggested that the Committee might
follow-up the proposals for monitoring made to the Committee at its seventh
session in Florence (Italy) in 1983.
17. The Committee acknowledged that a solution should be found to enable the
Committee to be kept regularly informed of the status of conservation of cultural
as well as natural properties. Such information should be collated at regular
intervals, yet to be determined, and could be collected by expert missions,
through questionnaires sent out to States, or with the help of ICOMOS national
committees. This could only be done, however, if ICOMOS were provided with the
necessary funds. In addition, the Secretariat informed the Committee of the
forthcoming Unesco publication of a "Manual for the Management of World Cultural
Heritage Sites" aimed at the persons responsible for the preservation of these
sites.
18. The Committee considered that it was premature to adopt a monitoring system
for cultural properties and that possible solutions and their financial
implications should first be studied in depth. It recommended that ICOMOS and
ICCROM should take the procedures adopted by IUCN for monitoring the status of
natural properties as a guide, and make proposals to the Bureau at its tenth
session.
VIII. TENTATIVE LISTS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES
19. The Secretariat recalled that at its seventh session the World Heritage
Committee had invited States Parties that had not already done so to submit
tentative lists of cultural and natural properties on their territories which
they were considering nominating for inclusion in the World Heritage List during
the next five to ten years. Such tentative lists, drawn up in conformity with
Article 11.1 of the Convention concerning the submission of inventories, *[5]
were invaluable for purposes of comparison and appreciation of the value of
nominated properties in the widest possible context. They were particularly
necessary where cultural properties were concerned. As had been announced at the
seventh session of the World Heritage Committee, since the beginning of 1985
ICOMOS was no longer examining any nominations from States Parties that had not
submitted tentative lists.
20. Since the World Heritage Committee's eighth session, the Secretariat had
received new or revised tentative lists from the following countries: Algeria,
Cyprus, Germany (Federal Republic of), Guyana, Morocco, Norway, Peru, Portugal,
Spain and Tunisia. The Beninese authorities informed the Committee that they
intended to nominate only one property within the next few years, and Canada that
it wished to include the Waterton National Park on its tentative list.
21. The Secretariat indicated that of the new tentative lists received, the lists
of cultural properties submitted by Cyprus, Germany (Fed. Rep. of), Peru,
Portugal and Spain had already been discussed by ICOMOS with the States Parties
concerned and could therefore be regarded as final. The Secretariat stressed how
important it was for ICOMOS and IUCN to give their opinion on the tentative
lists, one reason being to give the States concerned an idea of which of their
proposed nominations were unlikely to be accepted.
22. The Secretariat recalled that 23 States Parties had so far submitted
tentative lists, some of which were in the process of being revised. The
following countries had submitted tentative lists of cultural properties and
natural properties: Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, France, Ghana, India,
Italy, Morocco, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Turkey and the United States of America.
Tentative lists of cultural properties only had been received from following
countries: Algeria, Benin, Germany (Federal Republic of), Jordan, Lebanon, Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya, Pakistan, Spain and Tunisia.
23. The Secretariat noted that the tentative lists for Greece and the United
Kingdom had just been received. The representative of Denmark informed the
Committee that her country was in the process of drawing up a tentative list.
24. In conclusion, the Chairman emphasized how urgent it was for States Parties
that had not already done so, to submit tentative lists, and reminded Committee
members that, if need be, preparatory assistance under the World Heritage Fund
might be made available to States for that purpose.
IX. ELABORATION OF GUIDELINES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION AND NOMINATION OF MIXED
CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES OR RURAL LANDSCAPES
25. The representative of IUCN recalled that this question had been first raised
at the eighth session of the Committee at Buenos Aires (Argentina) in 1984 and
that the Committee had requested IUCN to consult with ICOMOS and the
International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA) to organise a task force
on this subject. The meeting of this task force had taken place at the
headquarters of ICOMOS (Paris) on 11 October 1985.
26. The representative of IUCN presented document SC-85/CONF.008/3, which
summarized the main points of discussion of the task force and its conclusions,
*[6] including proposed modifications and additions co the "Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention".
27. The Committee recognized the complexity of the subject and congratulated the
members of the task force for their valuable proposals. However, the Committee
felt that more time was required to fully examine the implications of these
proposals. The Committee, therefore, decided that the Bureau should review this
document at its next session and make a recommendation thereon to the Committee.
However, in order not to stall the nomination and eventual inscription of rural
landscapes or mixed cultural/natural properties, the Committee decided that the
Bureau should, if the opportunity so arose, test out the proposals of the task
force when examining new nominations which seemed to come into these categories.
28. Finally, the Committee noted with appreciation IFLA's proposal to collaborate
with IUCN and ICOMOS in the evaluation of rural landscapes and thanked IFLA for
its useful contribution to the work of the task force.
X. NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
29. The Committee examined 37 nominations to the World Heritage List, taking
account of the Bureau's recommendations, and of the evaluations of ICOMOS and
IUCN for each property. The Committee decided to include 30 cultural and natural
properties on the World Heritage List. These are presented under section A below.
The Committee decided to defer its decision on the two nominations presented
under section B, and not to include the four properties presented under section
C. Section D covers one property whose nomination has been withdrawn.
A. Properties included in the World Heritage List
Contracting State Ident. Name of property Criteria
having submitted No.
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
Bangladesh 321 The historic mosque city C (iv)
of Bagerhat
The Committee recommended to the Bangladesh authorities that they pursue a
preservation and management plan in accordance with the conclusions of the Unesco
mission sent to the site in 1983.
Bangladesh 322 Ruins of the Buddhist Vihara C (i) (ii) (vi)
at Paharpur
*[7]
Benin 323 Royal palaces of Abomey C (iii)(iv)
The Committee stressed the importance of careful restoration in order to preserve
the authenticity of the property.
Brazil 309 Historic centre of Salvador C (iv)(vi)
de Bahia
Brazil 334 Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do C (i)(iv)
Congonhas
The Committee expressed the wish that the integrity of this site be preserved,
in particular by ensuring that it is surrounded by a large protection zone, and
noted with satisfaction a statement by the Mayor of Congonhas giving assurances
that the relevant authorities would take strict care to preserve its
surroundings.
Bulgaria 359 Thracian tomb of Svetchari C (i)(iii)
Canada 300 Quebec (Historic area) C (iv)(vi)
The Mayor of Quebec thanked the Committee for this inscription on the World
Heritage List, pointing out that such an event would provide considerable support
to the various Canadian authorities concerned, who will pursue their efforts to
preserve the site.
Cyprus 351 Painted churches in the Troodos C (ii)(iii)
region (iv)
*[8]
France 344 Pont du Gard (Roman aqueduct) C (i)(iii)(iv)
The Committee drew the attention of the French authorities to the importance of
strictly protecting the site's surroundings.
Germany (Federal 187 St. Mary's Cathedral and C (i)(ii)(iii)
Republic of) rev. St. Michael' s Church at
Hildesheim
India 337 Kaziranga National Park N (ii)(iv)
The Committee encouraged the Indian authorities to provide a legal basis to
protect the buffer zone south of the Park (Mikir Hills and the Karbi Plateau).
The Committee expressed concern over the proposed construction of a railway along
the southern boundary of the park and asked that environmental impact studies be
carried out.
India 338 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary N (ii)(iii)(iv)
The Committee expressed its satisfaction that the Indian and Bhutanese
governments had cancelled plans for the construction of a hydro-electric dam on
the Manas River which would have had severe impacts on the integrity of this
property. The Committee furthermore encouraged the Government of Bhutan to adhere
to the World Heritage Convention and to nominate the contiguous Manas Wildlife
Sanctuary in Bhutan which could then form a transfrontier World Heritage
property.
*[9]
India 340 Keoladeo National Park N (iv)
Iraq 277 Hatra C (ii)(iii)
rev. (iv)(vi)
Jordan 326 Petra C (i)(iii)(iv)
The Committee noted that the boundaries of the site corresponded to those of the
Petra National Park.
Jordan 327 Qusair Amra C (i)(iii)(iv)
Libyan Arab 287 Rock-art sites of Tadrart C (iii)
Jamahiriya Acacus
The Committee noted the statement of the representative of the Libyan Arab
Jamabiriya by which he expressed his agreement with the amendment to the report
of the 9th session of the Bureau presented by the representative of Algeria and
indicating notably that scientific and technical co-ordination between their two
countries for the protection of Tadrart Acacus and Tassili N'Ajjer would be
possible.
Morocco 331 The Medina of Marrakesh C (i)(ii)
(iv)(v)
The Committee recommended that the Moroccan authorities ensure that Marrakesh
conserve its exceptional character as a fully preserved historic town. In this
connection it would be advisable to avoid any breaching of the ramparts, to
protect carefully the medina and especially the facades *[10] of its buildings
and its gardens, and also to ensure the protection of the surroundings of
Marrakesh, in particular the palm grove, the Menara and the gardens of Bab
Djedid, by strictly enforcing the management plan adopted in 1981.
Norway 352 Rock drawings of Alta C (iii)
Peru 330 Chavin (Archaeological site) C (iii)
Peru 333 Huascaran National Park N (ii)(iii)
The Committee wished to point out to the Peruvian authorities that the
inscription concerned only the Huascaran National Park. The Committee,
furthermore, encouraged the Peruvian authorities to intensify their efforts in
the management of the Park, and particularly to update the management plan.
Spain 310 Altamira Cave C (i)(iii)
Spain 311 Old town of Segovia and C (i)(iii)(iv)
rev. its aqueduct
Spain 312 Churches of the Kingdom of C (i)(ii)(iv)
the Asturias
Spain 347 Santiago de Compostela (Old C (i)(ii)(vi)
town)
Spain 348 Old town of Avila with its C (iii)(iv)
rev. extra-muros churches
*[11]
Tunisia 332 Punic town of Kerkouane C (iii)
Turkey 356 Historic areas of Istanbul C (i)(ii)
(iii)(iv)
Turkey 357 Göreme National Park and C (i)(iii)(v)
the rock sites of Cappadocia N (iii)
The Committee encouraged the Turkish authorities to proceed with the legal
formalities for the setting up of a Göreme National Park.
Turkey 358 Great Mosque and Hospital C (i)(iv)
of Divrigi
B. Nominations to be deferred
Brazil 355 Iguaçu National Park
The Committee noted that the Bureau had recommended the inscription of this
property and had suggested that it could be considered as a single transfrontier
property along with the contiguous Iguazu National Park in Argentina, inscribed
on the World Heritage List in 1984. The Secretariat informed the Committee that
the Brazilian authorities had requested the Committee to postpone the examination
of this nomination. The representative of Brazil explained that the authorities
wished to study the points raised by the Bureau in its report. He further
indicated that this nomination could be re-examined by the Bureau at its next
session. The Committee accordingly expressed the wish that the property would be
inscribed on the World Heritage List at its 10th session in 1986.
*[See Addendum]
*[12]
Jordan 324 Jerash
The Committee decided to defer inscription of the property pending receipt of
information on the exact boundaries of the proposed site, a management plan and
assurances regarding the restoration policy, which should be compatible with
universally accepted standards. The Committee was of the view that an ICOMOS
mission should visit Jerash to discuss these matters with the Jordanian
authorities and that a nomination duly completed should be submitted at the
Bureau's next session.
C. Properties not to be considered for inclusion in the List
Costa Rica 329 Coco Island National Park
The Committee recognized the interest of this property for its flora, and its
importance in the Costa Rican context, but felt that it did not fulfill criteria
established by the World Heritage Committee for inclusion in the World Heritage
List.
France 346 Abbey of St. Nicolas de Tolentin de Brou
While recognizing the great importance of this site, the Committee was of the
opinion that there were more representative examples of late Gothic architecture.
*[13]
Jordan 325 Kerak Castle
While recognising the great importance of this site, the Committee was of the
opinion that there were more representative examples of crusader castles. It also
asked that ICOMOS conduct a comparative study on this type of property.
Jordan 328 Tabaqat Fahl (Pella)
While recognizing the great importance of this site, the Committee considered
that there were more representative examples of the various categories of
property with which Pella is associated (neolithic vestiges, Greco-Roman cities,
monuments of the Omayyad and Mameluke periods).
D. Nominations withdrawn
The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahirtya informed the Committee of the
withdrawal of the nomination of the archaeological site of the city of Ptolemais.
XI. NOMINATION TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
30. Taking account in particular of the considerable damage caused by the 1984
tornado and the urgency of the work needed to preserve the site, the Committee
decided to include the Royal palaces of Abomoy (Benin) on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
XII. SITUATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND BUDGET FOR 1986
31. The Secretary introduced document SC-85/CONF.008/5 which included statements
on mandatory and voluntary contributions to the World Heritage Fund. With regard
to the mandatory contributions, he noted that many States Parties had responded
to the appeals to pay their arrears before the General Assembly of States Parties
held during the 23rd Unesco General Conference *[14] on 4 November 1985. With
regard to voluntary contributions, he quoted the report of the Committee to the
Unesco General Conference (23 C/86) recalling Article 16 paragraph 4 of the
Convention which stipulates that these contributions "... shall be paid on a
regular basis, at least every two years, and should not be less than the
contributions which they should have paid if they had been bound by the
provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article" (i.e. mandatory contributions at
present amounting to 1% of the annual contributions of States Parties to Unesco).
This report had also indicated that certain States Parties had however paid
voluntary contributions which were considerably less than the equivalent of 1%.
In this connection therefore, it was gratifying to note that certain States
Parties, which provide large voluntary contributions, had paid to the World
Heritage Fund the full sum equivalent to their 1% contribution for 1984-85. The
United States of America had on several occasions, such as at the 8th session of
the Committee in 1984 and at the 5th General Assembly of States Parties on 4th
November 1985, indicated that they would resume their voluntary payments. In this
respect, the Secretariat noted that a bank draft for $238,903 had recently been
received by Unesco from the U.S. Treasury and indicated that clarification had
been requested to ascertain whether this sum was indeed a contribution to the
World Heritage Fund.
32. The Committee took note of the financial statements contained in document
SC-85/CONF.008/5. The Committee noted that as at 28 November 1985, a sum of
$1,645,639 was available in the World Heritage Fund, to which the sum of $238,903
would be added if the above-mentioned contribution proved to be for the World
Heritage Fund.
33. The Committee considered that it would be prudent to set aside part of this
total amount during 1986 since a new financial biennium was beginning and
experience had shown that States Parties tended to pay their contributions late
in the financial period. Accordingly, the Committee decided to adopt a budget of
1.1 million dollars for 1986, which could be increased to 1.3 million in the
event that the important voluntary contribution referred to above were to be
received soon. The budget adopted by the Committee is set out below:
*[15]
Amounts to be added to 1986
budget lines upon receipt
Activity Budget approved for 1986 of supplementary $200,000
$ $
Preparatory assistance
and regional studies 90.000 10.000
Technical cooperation 250.000 50.000
Training 300.000 60.000
Emergency assistance 100.000 -
Promotional activities
and information 120.000 10.000
Advisory services IUCN: 45.000 IUCN: 18.500
ICOMOS: 75.000 ICOMOS: 31.500
Temporary assistance to
the Secretariat 120.000 20.000
_____________ ______________
SUB-TOTAL 1.100.000 200.000
3 % Contingency funds 33.000 6.000
TOTAL 1.133.000 206.000
34. In addition, the World Heritage Committee felt that more active measures
should be taken to ensure that contributions to the World Heritage Fund would be
made by States Parties on a more regular basis than in the past in order to allow
it to plan its activities more effectively. Accordingly, the Committee decided
to ask the Director-General to write letters to all States Parties to the World
Heritage Convention:
*[16]
- noting the resolution of the 23rd Session of the General Conference of
Unesco, which calls upon Member States of Unesco to take the necessary
steps to ensure that their contributions are paid in full at as early a
date as possible during Unesco's financial period 1986-87; and
- accordingly inviting States Parties to the Convention to pay their
contributions to the World Heritage Fund at as early a date as possible in
each calendar year;
35. The Committee also decided to ask its Chairman to write letters as follows:
a) To the United States of America:
- expressing gratification ar the announcement of its representative
at the 5th General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage
Convention meeting in Sofia, Bulgaria on 4 November 1985, that his
Government intended to make a contribution to the World Heritage
Fund in 1986;
- noting his statement that his country would be a candidate for
election to the Committee at the next General Assembly;
- noting that in these circumstances the United States would make
voluntary contributions in accordance with the terms of Article 16
of the Convention; and
- inviting the United States, in order that the Committee might be
able to plan its operations effectively, to indicate on what dates
and in what amounts the contributions would be received.
b) To other States Parties which, at the time of depositing their
instruments of ratification, acceptance or accession, made declarations
that they would not be bound by the provisions of Article 16.1, inviting
them, unless they intend to contribute more than the equivalent of 1% of
their contribution to the Regular Budget of the Organization, to study the
possibility of withdrawing the said declarations as permitted by Article
16.3.
The representative of Brazil informed the Committee that Brazil
dissociated itself from this decision and requested that, in addition to
being noted in the report, Brazil's position be clearly stated in the
letter from the Chairman which would be sent.
36. Finally, the Committee urged the Secretariat to do its utmost to encourage
all Member States which are not States Parties to the Convention to adhere
thereto as soon as possible.
XIII. CONSERVATION STATUS OF NATURAL PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE
LIST AND LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
37. In accordance with paragraph 34 of the "Operational Guidelines", IUCN is
requested to report on the state of conservation of natural World Heritage
properties. IUCN reported to the Committee on the following sites:
*[17]
A. Natural properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Djoudj National Park, Senegal: The immediate situation of this Park, which is
threatened by a large hydro-agricultural project, has been alleviated by the
construction of a temporary canal. The longer term solutions were investigated
by IUCN, Unesco, the Senegalese and Mauritanian authorities at a special workshop
held in Senegal in July 1985. The main conclusions of this meeting included the
agreement to establish the contiguous area to Djoudj in Mauritania known as
Diawling as a national park and to eventually nominate this site with Djoudj as
a transfrontier World Heritage property. Also, the completion of the Diama dam
in 1986 would improve the water supply for Djoudj, although the effects of
another dam, at Manatali, to be completed in 1989 were as yet unknown. IUCN
indicated that, in the light of this favorable progress, Djoudj National Park
could perhaps be removed the List of World Heritage in Danger by 1987.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania: The Tanzanian authorities had organised
a commission of enquiry into the management of this property but as yet the
conclusion had not yet been made known. However, with the financial support of
NORAD (Norway), a major technical workshop was being held in December 1985 to
study improving the management of this property. IUCN considered that this
progress was positive and indicated that Ngorongoro could perhaps be removed from
the List of World Heritage in Danger by 1987.
Garamba National Park, Zaire: The representative of Zaire, the President Delegate
General of the Zaire Institute for the Conservation of Nature (IZCN), presented
the Committee with an up-to-date report on the progress of work undertaken by
IZCN and the consortium formed by Unesco-World Heritage, IUCN/WWF and the
Frankfurt Zoological Society. The main objective of the project is to safeguard
the population of endangered northern white rhinoceros in the park. The project
was progressing well and the equipment provided with support of the World
Heritage Fund had helped to strengthen the protection of this park. Indeed, there
had been no deaths of rhinoceros reported since 1984 and two baby rhinoceroses
had been born in May and June in 1985, bringing the population to 15 specimens.
The representative of Zaire stressed his Government's commitment to this project,
which, in particular, would enable the rhinoceros population to build up its
numbers in its natural habitat. The Committee congratulated the Zairois
authorities on their laudable efforts to ensure the success of this project and
hoped that sufficient progress could eventually be made to remove Garamba
National Park from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
B. Natural properties identified for possible inclusion in the List of World
Heritage in Danger
Tai National Park, Ivory Coast: IUCN reported that the situation had not improved
since its reports of 1982 and 1984. The Secretariat had written to the Ivory
Coast authorities indicating the possibility of nomination to the List of World
Heritage in Danger but to date no response had been received. The Committee
requested the Secretariat to continue its contacts and inform the Bureau of
progress in this respect.
Ichkeul National Park, Tunisia: The critical situation of this park, as reported
to the Bureau at its 9th session had not altered and IUCN noted that if
compensatory measures to re-establish the water regime of this Park *[18] were
not taken very soon, the property would lose its international importance for
migratory wildfowl. IUCN therefore strongly recommended the inclusion of this
Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Tunisian authorities had not
responded to the Secretariat's request for further information, however, the
representative of Tunisia informed the Committee that he would take up this
matter at the highest level and he would inform the Secretariat and IUCN of the
results of this enquiry.
C. Other natural properties
Los Glaciares, Argentina: Part of this Park was being considered for re-
appropriation for a settlement scheme by the Province of Santa Cruz and the
second phase of this project could result in the excision of a further 20,000 ha
which included an important habitat for the humeal deer. The Argentine
representative confirmed this report and indicated that this problem was in fact
of concern to the central government authorities, who wished to take this matter
up with the Provincial Government. The Committee requested the Secretariat to
contact the Argentine authorities to obtain more information on this matter.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia: In reply to the Bureau's request for
further information on the impacts of the construction of a road on the fringing
reef adjacent to Cape Tribulation National Park, the Australian authorities had
provided a comprehensive report which outlined a 3 year scientific research
programme costing approximately 1 million $ to determine any short or possible
long-term damage these reefs. The Committee expressed its satisfaction with this
programme although it noted the comment by the IUCN representative that 3 years
would be necessary before any conclusions could be reached. The representative
of Australia indicated that it would inform the Committee at regular intervals
on the progress and the results of this research programme.
Pirin National Park, Bulgaria: The construction of a hotel and a ski-resort at
the head of the Vihren Valley within this Park was being undertaken, against
strong opposition by local conservation groups. The representative of IUCN
requested whether an environmental impact assessment had been made for these
developments. The representative of Bulgaria confirmed these developments and
informed the Committee that she would request the Pirin National Park authorities
to provide a full report which she would transmit to the Bureau at its next
session.
Hood Buffalo National Park, Canada: It was recalled that, when inscribing this
property on the World Heritage List in 1983, the Committee had drawn the
attention to the harmful consequences of the possible construction of a dam on
the Slave River to the natural characteristics of this property. The Committee
was informed that the plans for such a dam had been definitively cancelled and
expressed its satisfaction to both the Provincial and National Canadian
authorities.
Galapagos National Park, Ecuador: A man-caused fire on Isabela Island in March
1985 had resulted in an international appeal to aid the efforts of the Ecuadorian
Government and Park authorities to extinguish the blaze, which had burnt over
30,000 ha. A contribution of US$10,500 from the World Heritage *[19] Fund under
emergency assistance had been provided, in addition to contributions from
WWF-Germany and the United Kingdom and contributions in kind from the Province
of Québec (Canada) and the United States. There had been no serious losses of
animal species and it was reported that the fire could even have had some
positive effects on habitat.
Simen National Park, Ethiopia: The management plan for this park, which resulted
from a workshop supported by the World Heritage Fund, had been finalised.
However, the situation described by IUCN at the 8th session of the Committee in
1984 had not developed further and no further information had been obtained.
Durmitor National Park, Yugoalavia: This property had been threatened by the
construction of a dam on the Tara River, however, due to public pressure from
within and without Yugoslavia, this proposal had been cancelled. The Committee
noted its satisfaction that this threat had now been removed and congratulated
the Yugoslav authorities on making the best use of the Convention to support
efforts to protect this property.
38. The Committee thanked IUCN for these comprehensive reports and for regularly
providing information on the status of natural properties. It furthermore
welcomed the proposal of ICOMOS to submit similar reports, as far as its means
would allow, in the near future.
39. Finally, the Committee welcomed document SC-85/CONF.008/INF.2 reporting on
the measures taken by Yugoslavia to implement the World Heritage Convention and
encouraged other States Parties to prepare such national reports for submission
to the Committee.
XIV. REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL COOPERATION
40. The Secretariat presented document SC-85/CONF.008/6 with new requests for
technical cooperation. The Secretariat recalled the procedure for submission of
requests for technical cooperation set out in paragraphs 69 to 82 of the
Operational Guidelines and in particular that requests amounting to more than
$20,000 should be received by the Secretariat before 1st March and reviewed by
the competent non-governmental organisation and the Bureau before being submitted
to the Committee. It was also recalled that the Chairman was authorised to
approve "small" requests for technical cooperation not exceeding $20,000 at any
time during the year.
41. The Committee approved two requests concerning properties inscribed on the
List of World Heritage in Danger:
Benin Royal palaces of Abomey $20,000
Zaire Garamba National Park $20,000
The Committee authorized the Bureau co approve an additional amount of $20,000
under technical cooperation for this property subject to the receipt of an
appropriate request.
42. The Committee approved the following requests for technical cooperation:
*[20]
Costa Rica Talamanca-La Amistad Reserve $40,000
The Committee noted that $20,000 of this amount concerned training activities.
Panama Darien National Park $27,000
The Committee decided not to support the construction of park guard stations
within the Park as it was considered that this activity should be covered under
the national counterpart contribution.
Sri Lanka Anuradhapura $28,000
The Secretariat informed the Committee that the Sri Lankan authorities had
previously submitted a request for a total of $42,000, of which $28,000 had been
identified for priority activities.
Zaire Salonga National Park $28,000
XV. REVIEW OF PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES AND WAYS OF STRENGTHENING THESE
ACTIVITIES AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
43. The Secretary introduced document SC/CONF.008/07 on promotional activities
and drew the Committee's attention to several points, including the exhibit of
photographs of World Heritage sites, the information material produced during the
current year and the contribution of States Parties in promoting the Convention.
On the whole, the contribution of States to public information for their own
nationals was still somewhat limited. However, the presence of the Mayors of
Quebec, Congonhas, Segovia and Santiago de Compostela at the current session was
evidence of the growing interest aroused by the Convention at the local level.
The Secretary gave several examples of ways in which States Parties might
contribute to promotional activities on a larger scale than the Secretariat could
mount on its own. They might, for instance, assist in circulating the exhibit
referred to above, with the possible addition of material on World Heritage sites
in their own countries, and, above all, set up the specific national bodies
provided for in the Convention.
44. The Secretary also drew the Committee's attention to two points requiring
decision. Firstly, the Bureau had requested the Committee to consider launching
a full-scale promotion policy. The Secretariat, which had consulted communication
specialists on the subject, reported that if the Committee was agreeable in
principle to calling upon professionals to improve its promotion policy it could
request the Secretariat to undertake a more detailed study. In the light of
concrete proposals resulting from this study, the Bureau might decide whether to
launch a preliminary campaign in one or more *[21] countries. Secondly, the
Secretary drew the Committee's attention to draft guidelines for the production
of plaques to commemorate the inclusion of properties in the World Heritage List.
These guidelines had bean recommended by the Bureau.
45. The representative of IUCN informed the Committee of the efforts made by his
organization to promote the World Heritage Convention by means of publications,
press releases, etc. and to arouse interest among States not yet parties to the
Convention, particularly at meetings in the South East Asian, South Pacific and
Arctic regions.
46. The Committee commended the Secretariat on its promotional activities over
the past year and, in particular, the production of extremely useful public
information material. The Committee encouraged the Secretariat to continue its
efforts to ensure wider dissemination, in other languages, of the material
produced.
47. Several delegations reported on activities carried out in their countries and
on specific projects such as films on the World Heritage.
48. One delegate thought that it would be useful to produce an official diploma
awarded on the inclusion of a property in the World Heritage List, and proposed
to forward a model designed by an artist from her country for submission to the
Bureau.
49. The Committee recognized the fundamental part to be played by States in
promoting the Convention, as was the case in informing the public about Unesco's
international campaigns. In this connection, the attention of the Committee was
drawn to document 23 C/INF.25 presented to the 23rd General Conference containing
an in-depth study of the international campaigns for the preservation and
safeguarding of the cultural heritage of mankind. The Committee, in consequence,
recommended that States Parties create and run the national structures foreseen
under Article 17 of the Convention.
50. The Committee approved the report and the two proposals concerning,
respectively, the implementation of a promotion policy and plaques to commemorate
World Heritage sites.
XVI. DATE AND PLACE OF THE TENTH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE
51. The Committee decided to hold its tenth session in November 1986, leaving it
to the Bureau to decide on the exact dates. It noted with gratitude the
invitation by Brazil to host the tenth session, but felt that in view of the
Organization's current situation, it would be preferable to hold the meeting in
Paris at Unesco Headquarters and consider this offer again for another session
at a later date.
XVII. OTHER BUSINESS
52. One delegate requested the Committee to look at ways of ensuring a better
turnover in the membership of States Parties on the Committee, for example by
recommending that States confine their membership of the Committee to one or two
successive terms of office. The Committee decided to submit this matter to the
Bureau for consideration.
*[22]
53. The representative of the United Kingdom said that his Government had
announced on the 5th of December that the United Kingdom would not withdraw its
notice to leave Unesco. The United Kingdom would therefore withdraw from Unesco
on 31 December 1985. The United Kingdom would remain a State Party to the World
Heritage Convention and continue to play an active part in furthering its
objectives.
VIII. CLOSING OF THE SESSION
54. Mr. M. Makagiansar gave a short closing speech in which he assured the
Committee that the Secretariat would do its utmost to implement the Committee's
decisions. He thanked all participants for their valuable contributions to this
session and he particularly expressed his appreciation to the Chairman Mr. Mturi
for his able leadership in guiding the Committee's work. The Chairman, after
thanking Mr. Makagiansar for these remarks and all those who had contributed to
this session, closed the meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*[Addendum]
Distribution limited SC-85/CONF.008/9
Paris, April 1986
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION
OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
World Heritage Committee
Ninth Ordinary Session
Unesco Headquarters, Paris, 2-6 December 1985
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
Addendum to paragraph 29 B. Nominations to be deferred (page 11)
Please note that the text for Nomination No. 355 FOR Iguaçu National Park
(Brazil) should read as follows:
"The Committee noted that the Bureau had recommended the inscription of
this property and had suggested that it could be considered as a single
transfrontier property along with the contiguous Iguazu National Park in
Argentina, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1984. The Secretariat
informed the Committee that the Brazilian authorities had requested the
Committee to postpone the examination of this nomination. The
representative of Brazil explained that the authorities wished to study
the points raised by the Bureau in its report. It was further indicated
that this nomination could be re-examined by the Bureau at its next
session. The Committee accordingly expressed the wish that the property
would be inscribed on the World Heritage List at its 10th session in
1986."
*[Annex I/1]
SC/85/CONF.008/9
Annex I
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION DU
PATRIMOINE MONDIAL, CULTUREL ET NATUREL
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE/COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
Ninth Ordinary Session/Neuvième session ordinaire
Paris, 2 - 6 December 1985
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE
ALGERIA/ALGERIE
M. Sid Ahmed BAGHLI
Directeur du Patrimoine culturel
du Ministère de la Culture et du Tourisme
Mme. Taous DJELLOULI
Première Secretaire
Délégation Permanente auprès de l'Unesco
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
H.E. the Honourable E. Gough WHITLAM
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. Max BOURKE
First Assistant Secretary
Arts, Film and Heritage Division
Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment
Mr. David MACINTYRE
Deputy Permanent Delagate to Unesco
*[Annex I/2]
BRAZIL/ BRESIL
M. Augusto C. da SILVA TELLES
Directeur du Service du Classement et de
la Conservation des Monuments
Historiques du Ministère de la Culture
M. Luiz Felipe de SEIXAS CORREA
Délégué Permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unsco
M. Gualter MONTEIRO
Maire de Congonhas Minas Gerais
Mme.Isis de ANDRADE
Secretary
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
Mme.Myriam RIBEIRO DE OLIVEIRA
Service du Patrimoine du Brésil
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Mme Magdalina STANTSCHEVA
Professeur à l'Université de Sofia et
à l'Académie des Beaux Arts à Sofia
CANADA
Mr. Alex T. DAVIDSON
Assistant Deputy Minister
Parks Canada
H.E. Mr. Ian C. CLARK
Ambassador
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
M. Bernard OUIMET
Sous-Ministre adjoint
Ministère des Affaires Culturelles
Gouvernement du Québec
Mr. Jacques DALIBARD
Director General "Heritage Canada"
CYPRUS/CEYPRE
H.E. Mr. Constantinos LEVENTIS
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. Christos CASSIMATIS
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesca
*[Annex I/3]
GERMANY (Fed.Rep. of)/ALLEMAGNE (Rep. féd. d')
Dr. Hans CASPARY
Oberkonservator
Landesamt fur Denkmalpflage Rheinland-Pfalz (Mainz)
Mr. Nils GRUEBER
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
GREECE/GRECE
Mr. Yannis TZEDAKIS
Director of Antiquities
Ministry of Culture and Sciences
Mr. Yannis COUTSOCHERAS
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Ms. Katerina STENOU
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
GUINEA/GUINEE
M. Mamadou Bappa DIOP
First Counsellor
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
INDIA/INDE
Mr. Madanjeet SINGH
Adviser
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
JORDAN/JORDANIE
Mr. Salem BADER
Cultural Counsellor
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
LEBANON/LIBAN
M. Wagih GHOSSOUB
Chargé des affaires culturelles
Délégation Permanente auprès de l'Unesco
LIBYAN ARAB JAMARIRIYA/JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE
Mr. Abdullah SHAIBOUB
Director General
Department of Antiquities
MEXICO/MEXIQUE
S.E. M. Luis VILLORO
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
Mme. Guadalupe UGARTE de BERNARD
Deuxième Secrétaire
Délégation permanente augrès de l'Unesco
M. Jorge Alberto MANRIQUE
Président, ICOMOS Mexico
*[Annex I/4]
M. Jaime ORTIZ LAJOUS
ICOMOS Mexico
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Mr. Stephan TSCHUDI-MADSEN
Director of Historic Monuments
Ms. Anne BAUER
Secretary of Royal Norwegian Embassy
SRI LANKA
H.E. Mr. Ananda W. P. GURUGE
Ambassador,
Permanent Delagate to Unesco
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Dr. Ali Engin OBA
Chargé d'affaires a.i.
Permanent Delagation to Unesco
Ms. Nimet BERKOK
Head, Excavations, Museums and
External Relations Department
Ministry of Culture and Tourism
Ms. Yasemin ERGIN
Architect, Department of Planning
Ministry of Culture and Tourism
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA/REP. UNIE DE TANZANIE
Mr. Amini Aza MTURI
Principal Conservator of Antiquities
Mr. Joseph A. T. MUWOWO
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. Mohamed JUMA
Second Secretary
Embassy of Tanzania
YEMEN (Arab Republic of)/YEMEN (Rép. arabe du)
Mr. Abdul Razzak AL-SHANGBI
Director of Antiquities
Mr. Ahmed SAYYAD
Deputy Permanent Delogate
*[Annex I/5]
ZAIRE
M. Ma Mbaelele MANKOTO
Président, Délégué général
Institut Zairois pour la Conservation de la Nature (IZCN)
II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/
ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)/
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONU;MENTS ET DES SITES
M. Michel PARENT
Président
M. Léon PRESSOUYRE
Professeur à l'Université de Paris I
Mme Florence PORTELETTE
Documentaliste
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
(IUCN)/UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE ET DE
SES RESSOURCES (UICN)
Dr. James W. THORSELL
Executive Officer, CNPPA
Mr. Daniel NAVID
Head, International Relations
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR TRE 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)
Sir Bernard FEILDEN
Director Emeritus
III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS
A. OTHER STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION/
AUTRES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
ARGENTINA
Mr. Jorge GAZANEO
Director, Center for Conservation of Urban and Rural Heritage
University of Buenos Aires
CAMEROON/CAMEROUN
M. Didier ETABA OTOA
Conservateur du Musée national
Ministère de l'Information et de la Culture
*[Annex I/6]
CHILE/CHILI
Mr. Jorge MORA-BRUGERE
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
DENMARR/DANEMARK
Ms. Lisbeth SAABY
National Agency for the Protection of Nature, Monuments and Sites
Ministry of Environment
ECUADOR/EQUATEUR
Mr. Miguel CARBO
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
EGYPT/EGYPTE
Mr. Ahmed Kadry HELMY
President, Egyptian Antiquities Organization
Mr. Mobamed Gamal MOKHTAR
Former President, Egyptian Antiquities Organization
FRANCE
M. François ENAUD
Inspecteur général des monuments historiques
Ministère de la Culture
M. Vincent DERKENNE
Ministère de l'environnement
Service de la recherche
HAITI
Mme. Marie Paule KERANFLECH
Attaché, Permanent Delegation to Unesco
HOLY SEE/SAINT SIEGE
Msgr. Loreuzo FRANA
Observateur permanent du Saint Siège auprès de l'Unesco
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
H.E. Mr. Peter NAGY
Ambassador
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
IRAQ/IRAK
Mr. Yasien Taha HAFITH
*[Annex I/7]
ITALY/ITALIE
Mme. R. BENNATI
Direction Culturelle
Ministère des Affalres étrangères
NIGER
Mr. Seyni SIDDO
Cultural Counsellor
Embassy of Niger
NIGERIA
Mr. Salihu ALKALI
Counsellor
Permanent Delagation to Unesco
PERU/PEROU
Mr. Julio-Ramón RIBEYRO
Ministro Consejero
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
POLAND/POLOGNE
Mr. Andrzej GRUSZECKI
General Conservator of Historical Monuments
PORTUGAL
Mr. J. G. PASSOS LEITE
Architect, Chief of Division
Instituto Portugues do Patrimonto Cultural
QATAR
Mr. Hassan RAFEI
Head, Studies and Research Section
Department of Culture and Arts
Mr. Ahmed OSMAN
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
SENEGAL
M. Amadou Lamine SY
Directeur du patrimoine culturel
Ministère de la Culture
*[Annex I/8]
SPAIN / ESPAGNE
Don Luis FERNANDEZ-GALIANO RUIZ
Subdirector General
Departamento de Bienes Muebles
Ministère de la Culture
D. José Miguel MERINO DE CACERES
Architect,
D. G. de Bellas Artes
Ministère de la Culture
M. Delfin COLOME
Conseiller
Délagation Permanente auprès de l'Unesco
M. Xerardo D.F. ESTEVEZ FERNANDEZ
Maire de Saint Jacques de Compostelle
M. Miguel Angel TRAPERO GARCIA
Maire de Segovia
M. Rafael BALTAR
Architecte
M. Federico GOULLAUT-VALERA T.
Architecte Municipal
SWEDEN/SUEDE
Mr. Andreas ADAHL
Minister plenipotentiary
Permanent Delagation to Unesco
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Mme. Anne BAUTY
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
TUNISIA/TUNISIE
M. Majid HAMLAOUI
Premier Secrétaire
Délégation Permanente auprès de l'Unesco
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNI
Mr. John FOSTER
Former Director, Countryside Commission for Scotland
Mr. John W. ROGERS
Department of the Environment
*[Annex I/9]
B. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ORGANISATIONS INTERGOUVERNEMENTALES
COUNCIL OF EUROPE/CONSEIL D'EUROPE
Mlle Graziella BRIANZONI
Chef, Bureau de Paris
ARAB LEAGUE FOR EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND EDUCATION ORGANIZATION
(ALECSO)/ORGANISATION ARABE POUR L'EDUCATION, LA CULTURE ET LA SCIENCE
(ALECSO)
Mr. Ahmed DERRADJI
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
LEAGUE OF ARAB STATES/LIGUE DES ETATS AJRABES
M. Ahmed MENSIA
Mission de Paris
Délégation à l'Unesco
C. INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS / ORGANISATIONS
INTERNATIONALES NON GOUVERNEMENTALES
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCEITECTS/FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES
ARCHITECTES PAYSAGISTES
Dr. Zvi MILLER
President
INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR THE PROMOTION OF CULTURE
Mr. Bashir BAKRI
Chairman
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ARCEITECTS (IUA)/UNION INTERNATIONALE DES ARCEITECTES
(UIA)
M. Gérard BENOIT
D. PRESS/PRESSE
RADIO CANADA
Mlle Ginette LAMARCHE
Journaliste
IV. UNESCO SECRETARIAT/SECRETARIAT DE L'UNESCO
Mr. Makaminan Makagiansar
Assistant Director-General for Culture
Mr. Abdul Razzak Kaddoura
Assistant Director-General for Science
*[Annex I/10]
Mr. Bernd von Droste
Director
Division of Ecological Sciences
Ms. Anne Raidl
Director a.i.
Division of Cultural Heritage
Ms. Margaret Van Vliet
Division of Cultural Heritage
Ms. Jane Robertson Vernhes
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mr. François Bernard Huyghe
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mr. Michel Batisse
Senior Environmental Advisor
Science Sector
Ms Mireille Jardin
Consultant
Division of Ecological Sciences