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 04:27:18 Mar 31, 2019, 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 The information on this web page may be out of date.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
Limited distribution WHC-95/CONF.201/12
31 July 1995
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Nineteenth session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room X (Fontenoy)
3-8 July 1995
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Opening session 1-2
Adoption of the Agenda 2
Report of the Secretariat on the activities undertaken 2-4
since the eighteenth session of the Committee
Draft Report of the World Heritage Committee to be 5
presented to UNESCO's General Conference at its twenty-
eighth session
Examination of UNESCO's Biennial Plan (1996-1997) and 6-8
World Heritage Conservation
State of conservation of properties inscribed on the 8-37
World Heritage List
Information on Tentative Lists and the examination 37-50
of nominations of cultural and natural properties to
the World Heritage List and List of World Heritage
in Danger
Examination of the World Heritage Fund: Statement of 50-51
accounts for 1994 and budgetary information for 1995
Requests for International assistance 51-52
Proposals for improving the working methods of the 52-55
World Heritage Secretariat
Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the 55-60
implementation of the World Heritage Convention
Draft agenda for the extraordinary session of the 60
Bureau (1-2 December 1995)
Preparation of the nineteenth session of the World 60-62
Heritage Committee, including the draft agenda (4-9
December 1995)
Other business 62
Adoption of the Report of the Bureau and closure of the 62
session
(i)
ANNEXES
Annex I List of participants
Annex II Nomination of properties for inclusion on
the World Heritage List
Annex II Periodic World Heritage State of
Conservation Report
(ii)
I. OPENING SESSION
I.1 The nineteenth session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee was held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from
3 to 8 July 1995. The following members of the Bureau attended:
Dr Adul Wichiencharoen (Thailand), Chairperson, representatives
of Colombia, Germany, Italy, Oman and Senegal as Vice-Presidents
and Mr Zhang Chongli (China) as Rapporteur.
I.2 Representatives of the following States Parties to the
Convention attended the meeting as observers: Argentina,
Australia, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Canada, Cap Vert, Chile,
Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Honduras,
Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Japan, Korea (Republic
of), Lebanon, Lithuania, Malta, Morocco, Myanmar, Malawi,
Nicaragua, Niger, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Philippines,
Portugal, Syrian Arab Republic, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, United States of America, Uganda,
Uruguay and Zimbabwe. Representatives of the following non-State
Parties also attended the meeting as observers: Belgium,
Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
I.3 Representatives of the Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the
International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the
World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended the meeting in an
advisory capacity. The Organization of World Heritage Cities
(OWHC) was represented as well. The full list of participants is
given in Annex I.
I.4 The Director of the World Heritage Centre, Mr Bernd von
Droste, speaking on behalf of the Director-General, welcomed the
members of the Bureau, the representatives of the advisory bodies
and the observers. Having thanked the Chairman, Dr Wichiencharoen
for his excellent work in the first six months of his mandate,
he informed briefly the Bureau of the conclusions of the 146th
session of UNESCO's Executive Board, held in May 1995, insofar
as they concern the World Heritage Centre.
I.5 The two documents presented to the Executive Board,
notably UNESCO's Draft Medium-Term Strategy 1996-2001 and its
Draft Programme and Budget for 1996-1997, as proposed by the
Director-General, underline the importance of encouraging the
States Parties to the Convention "to set up systematic monitoring
and, to the extent possible, prevention mechanisms for sites on
the World Heritage List". Furthermore, they state the Director-
General's wish to provide a financial allocation to the World
Heritage Centre in order to strengthen its operational capacity
and potential impact, while ensuring that it is suitably flexible
and versatile, and to mobilize it to a greater extent and more
directly in the service of the Organization's work. The Director
of the Centre, speaking on behalf of the Director-General of
UNESCO, underlined that such a financial allocation does not mean
detachment from the Organization, but quite the contrary.
I.6 Consequently to the debate, the Executive Board adopted
Decision 146 EX/Decision 4.2, which states:
*[2]
(The Executive Board),
para. 54: "Considers that the proposal to give 'functional
autonomy' to the World Heritage Centre requires a clarification
of the reasons behind this proposal, of its political, legal,
administrative and financial feasibility, of its content, methods
of implementation and limits, together with the ways in which the
necessary monitoring would be carried out within UNESCO and by
the World Heritage Committee;
para. 55: "Considers therefore that it cannot formulate a
recommendation to the General Conference on this issue before an
in-depth discussion of the report on this matter, that the
Director-General will submit to it at its 147th session;
para. 56: "Considers that the proposals concerning the new
monitoring activities related to the World Heritage sites should
be the object of a consultation process among States Parties to
the World Heritage Convention and submitted for approval to the
General Assembly of the States Parties which will be held in
1995; in the meanwhile, the activities should be held in
abeyance."
I.7 Referring to working document WHC-95/CONF.201/6a
(interim financial statement), Mr von Droste reminded the Bureau
of the Committee's request, expressed at its eighteenth session,
that the Secretariat provide a clear, detailed financial
statement on the World Heritage Fund and to prepare a more
transparent budget. The Director-General therefore addressed in
May 1995 a letter to the States Parties members of the World
Heritage Committee stating his readiness to submit such a
document for the previous calendar year, reiterating his
commitment to financial transparency, and inviting the Bureau to
provide more detailed guidance on this matter.
I.8 In conclusion, Mr von Droste informed the Bureau of the
preparations of an expert meeting on World Heritage Information
Management, as mandated by the Committee at its eighteenth
session, to be held in September 1995. Its purpose is to explore
the possibility of creating jointly with the advisory bodies an
integrated World Heritage Information Network which could use
effectively new communication developments such as INTERNET and
others.
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II.1 The Bureau adopted the agenda as proposed in Document WHC-
95/CONF.201/1 without any modifications.
III. REPORT OF THE SECRETARIAT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN
SINCE THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE
III.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre, Mr Bernd von
Droste, reported on the activities undertaken by the Secretariat
since the last session of the Committee, held in Phuket,
Thailand, in December 1994. His presentation outlined key points,
*[3]
as detailed information was provided in working documents
prepared for the session.
III.2 Two new States Parties have signed the Convention
during the last six months, Dominica and Latvia, thus bringing
the total number of States Parties to the World Heritage
Convention to 142.
III.3 As part of the efforts to develop the Global Strategy
for a more representative World Heritage List, the following
meetings took place or are in the process of being organized in
1995: a meeting on Asian Rice Culture and its Terraced
Landscapes, a meeting on Identifying and Assessing World Heritage
Cultural Landscapes (associative landscapes), a meeting on
African Cultural Heritage (first regional meeting for central and
southern Africa, Zimbabwe) and a meeting on Geological and Fossil
Sites.
III.4 The Committee, at its eighteenth session in Phuket,
approved principles for systematic monitoring and reporting of
the state of conservation of World Heritage sites. This was done
after the successful completion of a pilot project for Latin
America and the Caribbean and many other efforts in the same
direction. A clear distinction is now made in the Operational
Guidelines between monitoring, being the assessment of the state
of conservation of the World Heritage sites by the States Parties
themselves, and reporting, which is to bring forward the results
of this assessment to the World Heritage Committee. It should be
emphasized that the Committee in its decisions explicitly
underlined the sovereignty of the States Parties and that
external advice would only be made available by the UNESCO World
Heritage Centre with the agreement of the States Parties.
III.5 Reminding the Bureau that the Committee established a
special Emergency Reserve of one million dollars at its
seventeenth session (Cartagena, 1993), the Director of the Centre
stated that fifteen requests for emergency assistance have so far
been approved, i.e., about 60 % of the reserve has been used. He
recommended that an appeal be addressed to States Parties to make
voluntary contributions for replenishing the Emergency Reserve.
III.6 Having given some examples of the implementation of the
World Heritage Convention in different regions of the world, the
Director stressed the successful outcome of UNESCO's first World
Heritage Youth Forum, which took place in Bergen, Norway, from
25 to 28 June 1995. This included the opening of a new exhibit
on 103 cities which have World Heritage properties, and the
launching of a CD-ROM presenting these cities. Both were prepared
by the World Heritage Centre in cooperation with external
partners.
III.7 Furthermore, the Government of Norway signed with
UNESCO, after consultations with other Nordic countries, an
agreement to establish, on a pilot basis, a World Heritage Office
with funding from Norway and staffing from the Nordic countries.
Apart from encouraging the implementation of the Convention in
*[4]
the Nordic countries, the office will also provide international
assistance to States Parties outside the region.
III.8 Giving a rapid overview of some of the major
accomplishments in the Centre's promotional and educational
activities, which are stated in more detail in the information
documents INF.3 and INF.5, Mr von Droste underlined the progress
made in linking the Centre's work to INTERNET and the World Wide
Web, the reorganization and upgrading of its documentation unit,
current work on developing a specialized data-base and linking
it with the data-bases of other international organizations, etc.
More effective networks and promotion of the Convention were
mentioned also as the results of the meeting of Directors of
Cultural Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean, which was
held in Cartagena, Colombia, in May.
III.9 Mr von Droste expressed UNESCO's gratefulness to the
Governments of Japan, the Netherlands and Sweden for providing
Associate Experts to the Centre. The secondment of a specialist
for natural heritage has been foreseen by Austria, and should
become effective before the end of the year. He appealed to other
States Parties to do likewise, as this strengthened considerably
the Centre's work capacities.
III.10 In the debate that followed, the Delegate of Germany
expressed satisfaction with the Centre's work, and underlined
that the Director-General made a wise decision when he
established the Centre. The Observer of India commented on
whether reports on the state of conservation of World Heritage
sites are to be voluntary or mandatory for the States Parties.
The Chairman informed the Observer that he has received a letter
from India on this matter. The Observer of Benin asked if the
regional meeting in Zimbabwe will be followed up, and was
informed that next year, depending on the result of the meeting
in Zimbabwe, there will be a meeting for Sub-Sahara and West
Africa.
III.11 The Representative of ICOMOS asked for clarification
concerning the emergency request for Mostar and Sarajevo, as they
are not on the World Heritage List. The Director of the Centre
pointed out that the Operational Guidelines (paragraph 93) allows
the provision of emergency assistance to properties, not yet
inscribed, but likely to qualify for the World Heritage List. The
Representative of ICOMOS furthermore informed the Bureau of
their meetings on a subregional level in Africa. The
Representative of IUCN complemented the Director of the World
Heritage Centre by commenting on monitoring. In his view the
roles of the Centre, the Committee and the Bureau were clearly
defined, but the role of the advisory bodies, in ad hoc
monitoring of the state of conservation of World Heritage sites,
should not be forgotten. He also wished to point out the grass
root bodies' key role in the area of monitoring.
*[5]
IV. DRAFT REPORT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE TO BE
PRESENTED TO UNESCO'S GENERAL CONFERENCE AT ITS
TWENTY-EIGHTH SESSION
IV.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre introduced
Item 4 of the Agenda, and recalled that in accordance with
Article 29.3 of the Convention, the Committee shall submit a
report on its activities at each of the ordinary sessions of the
UNESCO General Conference. Therefore, the draft of Document 28
C/98, "Report of the World Heritage Committee to the General
Conference (28th session)", covering the period 1994-1995, was
submitted to the Bureau members for approval. He furthermore
recalled that, in accordance with Strategic Orientation 15
adopted at Santa Fé, this report will also be submitted by the
Chairperson of the Committee to the tenth session of the General
Assembly of States Parties, which will be held during the General
Conference.
He then outlined the structure of the document which provides
information on the following items:
i) composition and functions of the World Heritage
Committee;
ii) the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists;
iii) global strategy;
iv) state of conservation of properties inscribed on the
World Heritage List and the general policy on
monitoring;
v) the World Heritage Fund; its voluntary and obligatory
contributions;
vi) expenditures obligated under the World Heritage Fund
from 1/1/94 to 1/5/95; since the detailed account of
incurred expenses will be submitted to the General
Assembly of States Parties in the fall of 1995 during
the UNESCO General Conference.
IV.2 The Delegate of Colombia requested an amendment in
paragraph 23 "Development Plan of a Wider Archaeological Area for
the site of Joya de Ceren (El Salvador)" instead of Cuba. She
also requested that the decision taken by the World Heritage
Committee at its eighteenth session in Phuket, Thailand in
December 1994, to finance a meeting in Cartagena, Colombia, in
1995, be reflected in the document.
IV.3 The Delegate of Italy requested that the last sentence
of paragraph 5 be amended. It should now read : "The Secretariat
of the World Heritage Committee is appointed by the Director-
General of UNESCO.
*[6]
V. EXAMINATION OF UNESCO'S BIENNIAL PLAN (1996-1997) AND
WORLD HERITAGE CONSERVATION
V.1 In introducing this agenda item on UNESCO's Biennial
Plan (1996-1997) and World Heritage Conservation, Mr von Droste
drew the attention of the Bureau to Document WHC-95/CONF.201/3,
which reproduced the text of Document 28 C/5 "Draft Programme and
Budget for 1996-97" which the UNESCO General Conference will
examine at its twenty-eighth session.
V.2 Mr von Droste explained that the World Heritage Centre,
while serving as the Secretariat to the World Heritage Committee,
is an entity of the UNESCO Secretariat and thereby would receive
a budgetary allocation from UNESCO, as approved by the General
Conference, mainly to meet the staff salary costs and other
administrative costs as well as for some basic activities.
V.3 Informing the Bureau of Recommendations 54 and 55 of
the UNESCO Executive Board at its 146th session in May 1995,
which called for clarifications on "functional autonomy", Mr von
Droste said that, the World Heritage Centre is presently
preparing a comprehensive document which will be submitted to the
Director-General to assist in the formulation of his report to
the 147th session of the Executive Board.
V.4 A first draft of this document will be presented to the
Bureau during this session when the Bureau will examine budgetary
matters. He pointed out that the proposal of the Director-
General will have no political or legal implications and
therefore these issues should not arise.
V.5 The Centre would continue to operate as an integral
part of the Secretariat under the authority of the Director-
General of UNESCO and within the framework of the Programme and
Budget approved by the General Conference.
V.6 It is not proposed to empower the Centre with any form
of legal or institutional personality distinct from UNESCO or to
separate it from the Organization in any manner whatsoever.
V.7 The proposal is aimed at providing the Centre with a
financial allocation which will be used and accounted for under
UNESCO regulations, thus granting the Centre a larger degree of
financial autonomy. Therefore, the main point to be examined by
the 147th session of the Executive Board is the question of a
financial allocation to the World Heritage Centre. In this
respect it is important to keep in mind that the financial
resources managed by the World Heritage Centre come from two main
sources, the World Heritage Fund and the UNESCO Regular Programme
(in addition there are some limited extrabudgetary sources).
V.8 As far as administrative aspects are concerned, what
is involved is a delegation of authority by the Director-General
to the Director of the Centre with regard to a number of
administrative decisions. Such delegation of authority is within
*[7]
the authority of the Director-General. It is common usage within
UNESCO and is considered to be sound administrative practice.
V.9 The expenditures under the World Heritage Fund are
incurred under the provision of the Convention on the basis of
the budget adopted by the World Heritage Committee, in accordance
with the Financial Regulations of the Fund, and which are
accounted for under UNESCO's accounting procedures. The Regular
Programme resources earmarked for the operation of the Centre,
will continue to be accounted for under UNESCO's procedures as
a distinct element of the World Heritage Fund. The Director-
General of UNESCO as chief executive of UNESCO, which serves as
the Secretariat of the Convention, remains fully accountable for
all funds related to the implementation of the Convention.
V.10 With regard to the reference in the Document 28 C/5 of
the Centre's activities in assisting the Member States of UNESCO
in the monitoring of World Heritage sites, Mr von Droste informed
the Bureau of Recommendation 56 to the General Conference of the
146th session of the Executive Board, which calls for this issue
to be discussed at the General Assembly of States Parties to the
Convention, scheduled to take place during the next General
Conference.
V.11 He explained that, in conformity with the text of the
World Heritage Convention, the General Assembly of States Parties
is asked to decide primarily the level of compulsory
contributions to the World Heritage Fund and to elect the members
of the World Heritage Committee. To date, the General Assembly
of States Parties, which will be convened this year on 2 and 3
November, has only dealt with these matters and not raised other
substantive issues.
V.12 As recommended by the Executive Board, the item "New
proposals for inviting monitoring reports from States Parties to
the World Heritage Committee" may be included on the provisional
agenda of the General Assembly of States Parties.
V.13 He indicated that the World Heritage Centre will make
a document on this matter available to the General Assembly and
will be grateful for the Bureau's advice on this important
matter.
V.14 The Director of the Centre recalled that the
Committee's decision followed a long process of consultations
with the States Parties and discussions at the Committee since
1987. Of the important decisions taken by the Committee, and
reported to the States Parties and the General Conference of
UNESCO, he mentioned two:
In 1987, and based upon the recommendations of a working
group of States Parties, the Committee adopted certain
principles of monitoring and reporting which were very
similar to the ones included in the Operational Guidelines
in December 1994.
*[8]
In 1992, the Committee adopted the Strategic
Recommendations and Goals for the implementation of the
Convention which included explicitly, monitoring and
reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage
properties as one of the main functions of the Committee.
He stressed that the Committee very explicitly confirmed
the sovereignty of the States Parties in attributing to
them the sole responsibility for the monitoring of the
conditions of the sites and for the preparation of the
periodic state of conservation reports. The goals of
monitoring and reporting are stated in the Operational
Guidelines as being: improved site management, advanced
planning and preventive action, and improved World Heritage
cooperation and decision-making. In this sense it should
be looked at as a means to strengthen and enhance the World
Heritage cooperation and to contribute to the preservation
of the World Heritage properties.
V.15 The Chairman of the Committee, Mr Adul Wichiencharoen,
suggested that a private session be held during this Bureau
session to discuss both the points, on "functional autonomy" and
"systematic monitoring and reporting".
V.16 In the discussions that followed, the Observer of India
sought clarification on the nature of the Committee's
"invitation" for States Parties to submit the periodic state of
conservation report, as India is under the impression that this
has been presented more as a "mandatory" act than a "voluntary"
one. The Delegate of Oman said that since the Centre has
proposed to prepare a comprehensive paper on the issue of
monitoring and reporting, he suggested that discussions on this
point be deferred.
V.17 The Delegate of Italy stated that since the issue of
"functional autonomy" will be debated by the Executive Board and
the General Conference, he felt that disucssions on this point
by the Bureau should be suspended. The Delegate of Germany
stated that he supported the suggestion of a private session to
discuss these two points, if only to ensure a complete
understanding of the issues.
V.18 The Chairman called for a private session to be
organized for the following day.
VI. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD
HERITAGE LIST
VI.1. The Bureau examined the following documents that were
prepared for this Bureau session:
- Working Document WHC-95/CONF.201/4 which consisted of a
background and progress report and the following four
sections:
*[9]
A. Revised nomination form
B. Format for periodic World Heritage state of
conservation reports
C. Work plan for the implementation of regional
monitoring programmes and the examination of regional
synthesis reports by the World Heritage Committee
D. Reports on the state of conservation of specific World
Heritage properties;
- Working Document WHC-95/CONF.201/4Rev. which was prepared
during the session and which concerned the 'background and
progress report' section of the original working document;
- a document prepared by IUCN on the state of conservation of
Huascaran National Park in Peru;
- the preliminary report on the ICOMOS World Heritage site
Monitoring Mission to Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and
Sigiriya (Sri Lanka).
THE PRINCIPLES OF MONITORING AND REPORTING AS ADOPTED BY THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AT ITS EIGHTEENTH SESSION
VI.2 The Bureau examined in a private session the
recommendation made by the Executive Board of UNESCO to the
UNESCO General Conference and the concerns expressed by one State
Party to the Convention regarding the principles of monitoring
and reporting that were adopted by the World Heritage Committee
at its eighteenth session.
VI.3 The Bureau recalled that the Committee defined the
observation of the state of conservation of the World Heritage
properties as one of its main functions already at its sixteenth
session in 1992 and that this was reflected in the UNESCO Work
Plans for 1994-1995. It also recalled that the Committee adopted
the principles of monitoring and reporting only after a long
process of discussions, consultations and careful consideration
of several practical experiences and with reference to specific
articles of the World Heritage Convention:
1. Bearing in mind the provision of Article 4 of the
Convention, under which "each State Party recognizes that
the duty of ensuring the conservation of properties
inscribed on the World Heritage List and situated on its
territory belongs primarily to that State", the Committee
was of the view that the establishment of systematic
monitoring, the day-to-day observation of the sites by the
States Parties, in close collaboration with the site
managers or the agency with management authority,
constituted a meaningful, active and effective operational
method capable of countering the dangers that may threaten
the cultural and natural World Heritage.
2. Bearing in mind also the provisions of Article 6, which
provides that "whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of
*[10]
the states on whose territory the cultural and natural
heritage mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 is situated, and
without prejudice to property rights provided by national
legislation, the States Parties to this Convention
recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage
for whose protection it is the duty of the international
community as a whole to cooperate" and Article 7, which
provides that "for the purpose of this Convention,
international protection of the world cultural and natural
heritage shall be understood to mean the establishment of
a system of international cooperation and assistance
designed to support States Parties to the Convention in
their efforts to conserve....that heritage", also in
consideration of Articles 8, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 26 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 29, and in
pursuance of the intent of the Convention as reflected in
the preambular clause 8 in "establishing an effective
system of collective protection of the cultural and natural
heritage of outstanding universal value, organized on a
permanent basis and in accordance with scientific methods",
the World Heritage Committee invited the States Parties to
present every five years a scientific report on the state
of conservation of the World Heritage sites on their
territories, and decided that, to this end, the States
Parties may request expert advice from the Secretariat or
the advisory bodies and that the Secretariat may also
commission expert advice with the agreement of the States
Parties.
VI.4 The Bureau furthermore considered various articles in
the Convention that call for international cooperation and the
undertaking by the Committee of studies and research needed for
the drawing up of the World Heritage List and the List of World
Heritage in Danger. Monitoring and reporting should be considered
as a scientific and technical method to undertake the studies and
research mentioned in Article 11.7.
VI.5 The Bureau emphasized that the principles of monitoring
and reporting as defined in paragraphs 69-76 of the Operational
Guidelines fully respect the sovereignty of the States Parties
and that these should be implemented by the States Parties
themselves on a voluntary basis.
VI.6 The Bureau unanimously decided that the Chairperson and
the Secretariat, in consultation with the Bureau members, should
jointly prepare a document along the lines of the above
considerations as a means to clarify the principles on monitoring
and reporting adopted by the Committee and as a basis for future
discussions at the Convention's and/or UNESCO's statutory bodies.
VI.7 The Bureau also considered whether it would be
desirable to create a consultative body as mentioned in Article
10.3 of the Convention for the examination of technical matters
such as state of conservation reports, the establishment of which
would allow more States Parties to participate directly in the
*[11]
implementation of the Convention. As no consensus could be
reached, the Bureau requested the Secretariat to look into this
matter in more detail so that the Bureau can discuss it again at
its next session.
PROGRESS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMITTEE'S
DECISIONS
VI.8 The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its
eighteenth session in December 1994 invited the Secretariat to
undertake a set of concrete actions to implement the monitoring
and reporting. The Secretariat reported on the progress made on
the following matters:
- A revised nomination format had been prepared in close
collaboration with the advisory bodies for examination by
the Bureau (see paragraph V1.9 to V1.13 and Annex II of
this report).
- A format for periodic World Heritage state of conservation
reports had equally been prepared for examination by the
Bureau (see paragraph V1.9 to V.13 and Annex III of this
report).
- A preliminary meeting was held with the advisory bodies and
other interested partners in February 1995 to prepare a
meeting of experts on World Heritage information
management. This meeting will be held on 26-28 September of
this year. A draft working document was made available to
the Bureau as Information Document 5.
- The Secretariat informed all States Parties of the
principles adopted by the Committee, inviting them to put
monitoring structures in place and to report on the state
of conservation of the properties on their territories to
the Committee on a 5-year basis.
- A draft workplan for the implementation of regional
monitoring programmes and the examination of regional
synthesis reports by the Committee had been prepared for
the Bureau session. The Secretariat informed the Bureau
that on the basis of the work plan that would be
established by the Committee, the Secretariat would enter
into consultations with the States Parties and the World
Heritage partners to establish work plans for each of the
regions of the world (see paragraphs V1.14 to V1.17 of this
report).
- The Secretariat informed that it was in consultations with
the advisory bodies and other professional organizations to
identify the potential means to promote and assist the
States Parties and the site managers in the implementation
of monitoring and reporting procedures including scientific
documentation and recording practices.
*[12]
REVISED NOMINATION FORM AND FORMAT FOR PERIODOC WORLD HERITAGE
STATE OF CONSERVATION REPORTS
VI.9 The Bureau recalled that sound baseline information on
each of the World Heritage sites is indispensable for any
credible monitoring and reporting system, for the maintenance of
a credible World Heritage List, as well as for sound site
management and coordinated and meaningful World Heritage
cooperation. The Bureau recalled also that the World Heritage
Committee, at its eighteenth session, decided that the nomination
form should be revised in such a way that this baseline
information be established at the time of the nomination and the
inscription of properties on the World Heritage List and that a
format should be developed for the periodic World Heritage state
of conservation reports.
VI.10 The Secretariat introduced the draft formats (see
Annexes II and III) for both the nomination and the state of
conservation reports that had been prepared in very close
collaboration with the advisory bodies. The Secretariat
emphasized that both formats follow the same structure so as to
facilitate future references and comparison of data provided.
VI.11 The Chairperson requested the members of the Bureau,
other interested States Parties and the advisory bodies to
transmit their comments to the Secretariat so that the
Secretariat can prepare a final draft of both formats for
consideration by the Committee at its nineteenth session.
VI.12 As to the possible date of introduction of the formats,
the Bureau felt that this should be as early as possible but that
the Committee should consider this matter at its next session.
VI.13 The Bureau invited the Secretariat to prepare, for
consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its nineteenth
session, a draft revised text for paragraph 65 of the Operational
Guidelines ('Format and Content of Nominations') so as to reflect
the new requirements for nomination dossiers.
WORKPLAN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REGIONAL MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAMMES AND THE EXAMINATION OF REGIONAL SYNTHESIS
REPORTS BY THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
VI.14 The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its
eighteenth session decided that the site specific periodic state
of conservation reports should be synthesized by the Secretariat
and be examined by the Committee on a regional basis.
VI.15 The Bureau examined the workplan prepared by the
Secretariat for the examination of the regional state of
conservation reports by the Committee as presented in Section C
of the working document. The Bureau expressed some concern on the
tight schedule and the great number of state of conservation
reports that will have to be examined on a yearly basis. It was
stressed however that, in accordance with the principles adopted
by the World Heritage Committee at its eighteenth session, it
*[13]
will be the States Parties who are responsible for the
preparation of the reports and that the task of the Secretariat,
in collaboration with other partners, will be to synthesize these
reports and to draw broad conclusions for future decision-making
by the Committee.
V1.16 As to the strategies for the implementation of the
regional programmes, the Secretariat explained priorities for
monitoring for natural heritage for Africa, Asia and Latin
America as well as the baseline information on natural and mixed
sites provided by the WCMC database. It was furthermore stressed
that monitoring activities will be coordinated for sites which
are Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage sites.
VI.17 For cultural heritage the Secretariat recalled that
whereas the first monitoring cycle in Latin America was
undertaken through the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project, the second
cycle will be implemented through the States Parties themselves.
The Secretariat informed that for Asia a close collaboration had
been established with the UNESCO Cultural Heritage Division to
make the most efficient use of activities already underway in
that region.
V1.18 The Delegate of Colombia pointed out that in the first
cycle, the reports for the cultural and for the natural
properties are not scheduled for examination in the same year and
that provisions should be made for a concerted reporting on the
mixed properties.
VI.19 The Bureau requested the Secretariat to review the
proposed workplan in consultation with the advisory bodies and
taking into account the comments made by the Bureau members and
to prepare a revised workplan for consideration by the Committee
at its nineteenth session.
REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
VI.20 The Bureau examined reports on the state of
conservation of eight natural and eight cultural properties
inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and on 15
natural and 14 cultural properties on the World Heritage List.
NATURAL HERITAGE
Natural Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed on the World
Heritage List in 1983 and placed on the List of World Heritage
in Danger in 1992. A report was presented by the State Party on
their restoration efforts at the last session of the Bureau. Two
small-scale international assistance projects from the World
Heritage Fund are presently under way at the site, as well as
*[14]
international assistance from other sources. On 29 June 1995 the
World Heritage Centre received a report prepared by the Ministry
of Environment of the Republic of Bulgaria recalling the history
of the site and the deterioration of the state of conservation,
which led to the listing of the site both on the List of World
Heritage in Danger and the Montreux List of the Ramsar Convention
in 1993. The main results of the measures taken to restore the
ecological integrity of the site were research studies and the
construction of a channel and a monitoring programme to oversee
the status of the Reserve since 1994. The hydraulic connection
between the lake and the Danube River was reestablished and the
water level is now raised by 1m. Furthermore, it is indicated
that the Dalmatian Pelican is continuing to nest in the site.
The Representative of IUCN underlined that they are awaiting a
detailed monitoring report from the Ramsar Convention Secretariat
and recalled that the previous Bureau felt that the site may no
longer retain the values for which it was inscribed.
The Bureau took note of both the report received from the State
Party and the comments made by IUCN and recommended that no
decision can be taken until the monitoring report by the Ramsar
Convention Secretariat is received. This report should be
presented to the session of the outgoing Bureau in December 1995.
Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger in 1992. Missions to the site were
carried out in 1992 and 1993. The situation remains critical due
to armed conflict and the political situation in the region which
remains unchanged. The Committee at its eighteenth session
decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in
Danger and another fact-finding mission to this area,
particularly to the Korkaova Uvala Virgin Forest is to be
scheduled for 1995-96. Given the continued armed conflict in the
region, the Bureau recommended to the Committee to retain the
site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed in 1983 and
placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 due to
threats from poachers, boundary encroachment and unplanned road
construction. A technical assistance project from the World
Heritage Fund is underway. The equipment component of this
project was carried out in 1994. Furthermore, the World Heritage
Centre received in March 1995 a preliminary report by INEFAN
(Instituto Ecuatoriano Forestal y de Areas Naturales y Vida
Silvestre) on the environmental impact of the construction of the
Guamote-Macas road in the Park and a final report of the
Commission (Ministry of Public Work/INEFAN) was received in May
1995. The Commission had studied the following issues: (1) the
environmental impact of the first 7kms of the road, which have
*[15]
been constructed; (2) the measures to be taken to mitigate the
environmental impact of the last 23 kms which still have to be
constructed and (3) guidelines for the management of the Park to
mitigate the negative impact of the new road.
From the report it is clear that the road has caused irreversible
damage to the natural environment, as the construction has caused
a number of landslides. The Commission recommended that the
following measures should be taken: the road should be made
narrower (6 meters); manual labour should be used and not heavy
machinery, to take care of the disposal of excavated material;
the establishment of supervision by environmental experts; the
setting-up of additional control posts at the entrance of the
Park to halt spontaneous settlements; intensification of patrols
in the Park to allow only government controlled eco-tourism; the
creation of a small visitor centre for tourists; an inventory of
the legal land owners in the Park should be made, and the new
part of the road should be considered as an "environmental pilot
stretch".
The Representative of IUCN underlined that the impact on the site
was worse than expected and that the local IUCN office will
provide an update on conditions in the site in September 1995.
The Bureau asked the Centre to write to the Government of Ecuador
to commend the authorities for the impact report and to transmit
the concerns of the Bureau as well as to ask for clarification
on the present situation of the threats to the site.
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire)
The Bureau recalled that the site was included on the List of
World Heritage in Danger in 1992 because of a proposed iron-ore
mining project and threats due to the arrival of a large number
of refugees from neighbouring countries. An expert mission was
undertaken in 1993 and proposals to revise the boundaries of the
site were endorsed by the seventeenth session of the Committee
in 1993. An international assistance project under the World
Heritage Fund was recently carried out in 1994, and a report was
presented to the eighteenth session of the World Heritage
Committee. The French Ministry of the Environment and the
Ministry for Cooperation, in cooperation with IUCN-France, has
carried out a study and review of the site for the Government of
Guinea with regard to priority needs and potential future
investment.
Two experts from the French IUCN Committee presented a report on
a mission to the site which took place end-1994. The mission
stated the international donor community has not given support
and there are also problems with regard to the absence of
commitment by the Government of Guinea, including the fact that
the site is legally not sufficiently protected or classified as
a protected area on the national level, with responsibilities
shared by four ministries. The expert also spoke of negative
*[16]
impacts of the potential mining project adjacent to the site. The
mission, furthermore, reported on scientific issues, including
the lack of topographic thematic mapping and monitoring of water
quality. The mission recommended enhanced conservation management
including resource inventories with international cooperation and
bilateral development agencies. Road projects should be reviewed
and rural development projects outside the site extended. The
enhancement of educational and development projects with the
local population are considered as a cornerstone for the future
protection of the site.
The Bureau recalled that the boundaries were revised and adopted
by the seventeenth session of the World Heritage Committee and
requested the Centre, jointly with IUCN, to follow-up on the
results of the mission, including a letter to the Guinean
authorities to ask for clarifications on the legal protection and
classification of the site. It recommended to the World Heritage
Committee to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The Bureau recalled that at its eighteenth session, the World
Heritage Committee took note of the information provided by the
Indian Government through the Permanent Delegate that "if the
representatives of the World Heritage Centre and of the World
Heritage Committee desire to visit New Delhi, Assam and Manas for
discussion, or see the site" then they "would be welcomed by the
concerned authorities of the Government of India". In the same
letter the Indian authorities also indicated that the Indian
Government will involve local level NGOs in monitoring the state
of conservation of the site. Cooperation between the management
authorities of the Manas Wildlife Sanctuary of India and Manas
National Park in Bhutan should be encouraged. To enhance
cooperation between India and Bhutan in the conservation of the
Manas ecosystem, the Government of Bhutan should be invited to
ratify the Convention as soon as possible.
The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation
with the Government of India, to elaborate the terms of reference
for a mission to New Delhi, Assam and Manas in India.
Aïr-et-Ténéré Reserve (Niger)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger in 1992 as it was affected by civil
disturbances and its staff held hostage. The World Heritage
Committee at its eighteenth session took note that a peace accord
was signed on 9 October 1994 and encouraged the authorities to
implement it and to undertake all efforts to safeguard the site.
The Centre in cooperation with the authorities of Niger sent a
mission to Niger to review the protected area system of Niger and
to prepare a nomination of a natural site. As one of the outcomes
of this mission, a preliminary report on Aïr et Ténéré was
prepared. It indicates that under the influence of a number of
*[17]
different factors, including, historical, socio-economic and
political, an armed conflict developed during the last years
(minority of Tuareg against the States). A major degradation of
the site was noted including poaching. In 1995, however, a
dialogue was established between the two parties, which makes the
return to a normal situation possible and may allow evaluation
of the state of conservation in detail and to elaborate how the
World Heritage Fund could contribute to the action programme for
the recovery of the site.
The Representative of IUCN informed the Bureau that a 125,000
Swiss Franc project is under way with IUCN to assist in
reestablishing the management regime. The Ambassador of Niger
underlined that his Government is now taking every step to
enhance the management of the site and wishes as soon as all
conditions are met, that a mission should be sent to the site
with the help of the World Heritage Centre. The Bureau
recommended that the site be retained on the List of World
Heritage in Danger, however, indicating on the basis of IUCN's
report, that the site could be removed from the Danger List in
due course.
Everglades National Park (United States of America)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger in 1993 due to an increasing number of
threats since the date of its inscription on the List in 1979.
Federal State and local governments as well as private
foundations have joined forces in providing significant financial
support for the management of the site and for its long-term
restoration. The Committee took note of a detailed report
prepared by the American authorities which was presented at its
eighteenth session.
The World Heritage Centre received a monitoring report from the
National Park Service in May 1995 indicating that the Federal
Government is engaged in restoration planning for the Everglades
National Park under the aegis of a Federal Restoration Working
Group. The Group provided a comprehensive statement listing
priorities, recent accomplishments and critical next steps in the
Federal programme for the Everglades restoration. The Governor
and Cabinet of the State of Florida approved the acquisition of
portions of the Frog Pond, a historically transitional wetland
on the eastern boundary of the Park, crucial to the restoration
of ground water levels and surface flow. Recent negotiations have
led to agreement with property owners.
The Bureau concluded that the site remains seriously threatened
and recommended that the site be retained on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
Virunga National Park (Zaire)
Virunga National Park, inscribed under criteria (ii), (iii) and
(iv) in 1979, was included in the List of World Heritage in
Danger at the last session of the World Heritage Committee in
*[18]
December 1994, due to the tragic events in Rwanda and the
subsequent massive arrival of refugees from that country. Virunga
National Park, situated at the border between Rwanda and Uganda,
has been destabilized by the uncontrolled arrival of refugees,
causing deforestation and poaching at the sites. The Bureau
recalled that the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee
approved a total of US$ 50,000 emergency assistance for both
Kahuzi-Biega National Park and Virunga National Park. The project
is carried out in cooperation with IUCN, WWF and the
International Gorilla Conservation Programme. A report on the
project was received at the time of the Bureau session indicating
the World Heritage Fund project was effective and crucial to help
in maintaining the Park's management activities and to support
the staff. However, the ecological situation at the Park is not
improving, the bamboo forests have been cut and the number of
elephants and hippos are much reduced within the site. The
buffalo population is also threatened. The report indicates that
the Park is a primary source of fuelwood and construction wood
for the refugees and that 30 to 40,000 people are entering the
Park daily.
The report recommends: (1) a long-term political solution,
including the evacuation of refugee camps within the site and (2)
that IZCN should pay the salaries of their staff at the Park.
The Bureau discussed the situation at length and recommended: (1)
to prepare a press release jointly with IUCN to raise awareness
of the need for repatriation and re-location of the refugee
camps; (2) to write a letter to the Government of Zaire for
greater operational support including the payment of salaries of
the staff of the site; (3) that the Centre arranges a meeting
between the Director-General of UNESCO with the Ambassador of
Zaire to discuss these issues, and (4) that, at the request of
the Delegate of Senegal, all possibilities should be explored
within the UN system, in particular with UNHCR and UNDP, to find
a solution. The Bureau furthermore, requested the Centre to write
a letter commending UNDP/GEF, the European Union and the GTZ for
their support for the protection of the site and encourages
continuous cooperation between the newly-appointed environmental
coordinator and the World Heritage Centre.
Natural properties on the World Heritage List
Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia)
The Bureau recalled that this mixed site was inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1982 and that the Bureau at its eighteenth
session in July 1994, discussed reports received on logging
operations in areas adjacent to the World Heritage area. IUCN
gave an update on the situation and recalled two concerns which
were raised: that there is forested land outside the site which
may have World Heritage values, and furthermore that adverse
impact on the existing World Heritage site could result from
logging and roading activities adjacent to the site. IUCN noted
that both the 1990 and 1994 General Assemblies of IUCN had urged
*[19]
Australia to evaluate the World Heritage values of these areas
and that recent concerns about the impacts of forestry operations
had been expressed by the Australian and New Zealand Committees
for IUCN and the Wilderness Society (Tasmania).
The Director-General of IUCN wrote to the Australian Government
in March 1995 seeking advice on this issue. A detailed reply was
received from Senator Faulkner, Australian Minister for the
Environment, dated 28 June 1995, stating the commitment of the
Australian and Tasmanian Governments to protecting World Heritage
values and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of Tasmanian
forests.
The Bureau noted concerns which have been expressed about logging
and roading activities in forest areas which may impinge on World
Heritage values in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area,
and resolved to thank the State Party for the encouraging
response of the Australian Minister for the Environment. In
particular the Bureau noted: (1) the commitment of both the
Australian and Tasmanian Governments to negotiate a Regional
Forest Agreement which would involve a comprehensive assessment
of a wide range of values, including World Heritage values, for
forested areas in Tasmania; (2) that, in the meantime, the two
governments have agreed to avoid activities that may
significantly affect those areas of the old-growth forest or
wilderness that are likely to have high conservation value; (3)
that pending completion of a Regional Forest Assessment, the two
governments have agreed to jointly undertake an assessment of
those forest areas where commercial logging will be deferred, to
allow among other things, an assessment of World Heritage values.
The Bureau asked to be kept informed of developments which should
maintain the integrity of the existing site and may lead to the
identification by the State Party of further World Heritage
values, including possible additions to the boundaries of the
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage site.
ICOMOS stressed that as this was a mixed site all additional
information concerning this site should be referred to ICOMOS as
well as to IUCN.
Manovo-Gounda St.Floris World Heritage Site (Central African
Republic)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed on the World
Heritage List in 1988 and was the subject of a monitoring report
at the sixteenth session of the Committee held in Santa Fe. At
that time the management regime had collapsed and the site was
under numerous threats. It was recommended that the World
Heritage Centre should carry out a mission to the site. Unstable
conditions continued to prevail throughout 1993 and into 1994.
In 1994 a new government took office and the French company,
"Compagnie Generale d'Aéronautique-CGA" decided to move forward
with a significant tourism venture for which they had obtained
a 20-year concession in 1985. The "Company La Gounda-Manova S.A."
has been working with the new government negotiating funding,
*[20]
staffing and management direction for the site. From the 9 to 14
of May 1995 a monitoring mission was carried out on behalf of the
World Heritage Centre by staff member of the Division of
Ecological Sciences of UNESCO. This mission produced a positive
report on the current situation in the Park. The Bureau took note
of the report, acknowledged that finally a report was made on
this World Heritage site and asked the Centre and IUCN to jointly
follow-up the project.
Galapagos National Park (Ecuador)
The Bureau recalled, at the request of the Delegate of Germany,
discussions at previous sessions concerning both the state of
conservation of the site as well as further action concerning the
Galapagos Marine Reserve. By letter of 27 January 95, the Centre
requested the Ecuadorian authorities to provide information in
time for the Bureau meeting, but no reply was received. The
Representative of IUCN informed the Bureau that the situation at
the site had not improved, but that time has not allowed the
presentation of a report to this Bureau. A report will be
prepared for the nineteenth session of the World Heritage
Committee.
Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed on the World
Heritage List in 1978 and took note of the results of a report
on the workshop on the "Simen Mountains National Park Management"
held in Gondar from 15 to 17 February 1995, as well as a report
on the Simen Mountains Baseline Study by the University of Berne
(Switzerland).
Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
The Centre informed the Bureau that a report was received from
the Fundación Rio Platano concerning the site, inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1982. The report concerns the agricultural
intrusion at the western border of the site. Additional
information was obtained on 12 April 1995 on the land reform
programme and its implementation in north-eastern Honduras. The
settlement programme threatens several protected areas. The
Centre contacted the authorities concerned to obtain further
information. The Centre has received additional reports about
inadequate commitment to the conservation by the national
government. Planned and unplanned colonization is taking place,
unauthorized forest operations, poaching of birds and game is
extremely serious. Indigenous cultures are threatened by
colonization of outside settlers. The World Heritage Centre
advised the Permanent Delegate of Honduras the concerns in April
1995, however, no response has been received so far.
The Bureau asked IUCN to verify the situation and to report back
to the World Heritage Committee in December. Furthermore, it
*[21]
requested the Centre to prepare a letter for the signature of the
Chairman of the World Heritage Committee to the President of
Honduras, transmitting the concerns of the Bureau.
Shirakami-Sanchi (Japan)
The Centre informed the Bureau that it has received several
letters concerning the logging of beech forests outside the World
Heritage site and has transmitted them for review to IUCN. The
Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed in 1993, and that the
Committee at the time recommended to review the site after three
years. The Bureau invited the Centre to organize a mission to
review the progress made in the implementation of the management
plan with regard to the requirements of the World Heritage
Convention.
Lake Malawi National Park (Malawi)
The Bureau was informed that the UNESCO Equipment Division, in
cooperation with the Centre, sent a mission to this World
Heritage site in April 1995 to review the current international
assistance projects at the site and to carry out an evaluation
and assessment of future needs. The mission carried out a
detailed review of technical assistance projects under the World
Heritage Fund (including the purchase of boats) and helped in
designing appropriate projects. This includes a project for an
ecological inventory of the coastal regions of the islands in
Lake Malawi National Park, which would allow authorities to
better monitor changes of the state of conservation of the site.
During the mission an environmental education project was
discussed at the site which would involve the local villages
within the World Heritage area. Such a programme would be
crucial, as the population within the Park is growing and is
heavily dependent on fish and wood as principal resources. The
Bureau took note of this report.
Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico)
The Bureau took note of the oral report presented by IUCN on the
site indicating that Mitsubishi Corporation in partnership with
the Mexican Government has a project to convert a part of the
lagoon to salt ponds for industrial salt production. A one-mile
long pier is proposed, which would disturb the grey whales within
the lagoon. The Bureau recommended that a letter be written to
the authorities indicating the concerns raised at the nineteenth
session of the Bureau and to request an official response on the
situation at the site.
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
The Bureau recalled that at the eighteenth session of World
Heritage Committee IUCN was requested to present to the Bureau
an evaluation of the revised boundaries of this site, based on
the report of the consultant working on the plan for the area.
*[22]
However, the Omani authorities, who have hired a consultant, have
requested a re-scheduling of the report for 30 July 1995. Upon
receipt of the report, an evaluation will be prepared for
presentation to the nineteenth session of the Committee.
IUCN raised concern that the report was still not available,
although the World Heritage Committee had specifically requested
this information and indicated that this concerns not only the
boundary question, but also the management regime, the legal
status of the different parts as well as a new map of the site.
The Delegate from Oman indicated that the consultant could not
start his work earlier due to factors beyond his control and
indicated that the results will be presented in due course.
Huascaran National Park (Peru)
The Representative of IUCN informed the Bureau that the first
mission had been undertaken to this World Heritage site reviewing
the condition of the site, parks staff and resources, tourism and
other issues such as possible threats to the site by mining, dam
and road projects. The Bureau requested the Centre: (1) to write
a letter of support to the Park management; (2) to write a letter
from the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee to the Peruvian
Authorities to reiterate the nature of the World Heritage area
and the importance of the protection of World Heritage values and
its integrity.
Bwindi National Park (Uganda)
The Bureau recalled that Bwindi National Park was inscribed on
the World Heritage List in 1994. Reports from different sources,
including WWF, have indicated that four mountain gorillas were
killed at the site in March 1995. IUCN informed the Bureau that
an investigation in Uganda on the incident is currently underway.
The Bureau requested the Centre to inform the Ugandan authorities
of its concerns about the depletion of the population of mountain
gorillas and to obtain information about the steps undertaken in
this respect to ensure no further reductions in the future.
Redwood National Park (United States of America)
The World Heritage Centre received on 15 September 1994
information on a proposed road project within the site, which
involves 2 miles of highway relocation which has been subject to
an Environmental Impact Study. The United States National Park
Service and IUCN were requested by the eighteenth session of the
World Heritage Committee to follow up this matter. The Centre
informed the Bureau that in May 1995 a preliminary monitoring
report from the National Park Service was received, indicating
that the California Department of Transportation (CDT) has
proposed to realignment of 3,2 Km (2 miles) of Highway 101 near
Cushing Creek in Del Norte County to correct safety and
*[23]
operational problems. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was
prepared by the National Park Service and the California
Department of Parks and Recreation and 76 comments were received,
mostly opposing the alternative, which would have required the
removal of at least 200 old growth redwood trees for highway
widening. In response to the public and agency opposition, a
Value Engineering Team considered other solutions and developed
strategies to alleviate safety and traffic problems, which were
presented at a public meeting in March 1995.
The Observer of the United States indicated that the proposed
plans for the realignment have been abandoned. A detailed report
will be presented to the next session of the Bureau.
Yellowstone National Park (United States of America)
The Centre informed the Bureau that detailed documentation
concerning Yellowstone National Park was received from a group
of fourteen North American conservation organizations. The
documents raise serious questions about potential damage to
Yellowstone National Park in particular from a proposed mining
operation. A draft environmental impact statement is underway.
The Centre contacted the American authorities to advise them of
the concerns of the World Heritage Centre. Letters by the
National Park Service and by the Assistant Secretary of Fish and
Wildlife addressed to the Centre are requesting a joint mission,
by the Centre and IUCN, to make an interim assessment of the
mining proposal and that the Committee give consideration to
placing Yellowstone National Park on the List of World Heritage
in Danger.
The Delegate of Germany raised concern about the serious threats
to the world's first National Park to be established. The Bureau
recalled Article 6.3 of the World Heritage Convention. The
Canadian Observer underlined that the proposed mining operation
was to be carried out by a privately-owned American company.
IUCN recalled a range of other threats outlined in a recent IUCN
publication, such as deforestation by a religious group, tourism
impact and wildlife policies. The Observer from the United States
invited the Centre and IUCN to visit the site and to review the
situation before the end of August. The Bureau decided that: (1)
a letter from the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee be
written to the States Party, underlining the serious concerns of
the Bureau; (2) that a joint mission should take place to the
site, subject to extrabudgetary funding, and (3) that a report
on the impact of the proposed mine as well as an outline of other
threats facing Yellowstone, should be made available for the
nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee.
Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Zaire)
The Bureau recalled that with the relocation of a refugee camp
in 1994, the Kahuzi-Biega World Heritage site seemed to be less
threatened in comparison with the situation at Virunga National
*[24]
Park, but still remains critical. The Centre informed the Bureau
that a new visitor centre was built with funding from the German
authorities and the GTZ. Furthermore, Kahuzi-Biega obtained funds
from the European Cooperation. A progress report on the emergency
assistance from the World Heritage Fund was also received. The
site will celebrate its 25th anniversary in 1995.
The Bureau requested the Centre to commend the German and
European authorities for their support to the site.
Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
The Bureau recalled that the impact of tourism and the proposed
dam at the site was discussed at several meetings of the
Committee and the Bureau. IUCN informed the Bureau that CND $
350,000 from the Canadian Development Agency (CIDA) were received
by the IUCN office in Zimbabwe to carry out management planning
and environmental impact studies for proper protection of the
site. The Bureau asked the Centre to write a letter to CIDA
commending them for their efforts to protect this World Heritage
site.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Cultural properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger
VI.21 The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the
Committee's observations had been transmitted to the States
Parties concerned and provided updated information on the
following properties.
Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin)
At its eighteenth session, the Committee requested the World
Heritage Centre to send a "monitoring" mission to the World
Heritage site (44 ha) to evaluate its state of conservation.
A mission comprising two experts, Professor Spini (architect) and
Ms Antongini (anthropologist) left Paris at the beginning of July
for Abomey. These two experts, who have worked at the site, were
designated by the Directorate of Heritage of Benin, which
requested them to:
i) review the nomination dossier for the site and
complete it in accordance with the new nomination
format which will be presented at the nineteenth
session of the World Heritage Committee in December
1995:
ii) establish a conservation plan which,
* provides the history of conservation works
carried out on each of the palaces,
*[25]
* defines a preventive conservation policy based on
priorities to be established in function of the
fragility of the structures and the dangers
threatening the site, and
iii) propose the creation of an organism which will be
responsible for the protection and the management of
the site, placed under the authority of the
Directorate of Heritage, and with which associations
and other governmental partners concerned with
preservation and enhancement of the site may
participate.
The Bureau congratulated the Benin authorities and encouraged
them to continue their efforts for the protection of the site.
The Secretariat will present to the World Heritage Committee, at
its nineteenth session, a report on the results of this mission
undertaken in July 1995.
Angkor (Cambodia)
The Secretariat reported that within the framework of assistance
provided by the UNESCO Secretariat to the Cambodian authorities
for the implementation of obligations following the inscription
of Angkor on the List of World Heritage in Danger, in 1992, a
legal expert was sent by UNESCO in March 1995, to finalize for
adoption and application, the legislation with regard to the
protection of cultural heritage.
As far as the establishment of a national organism for protection
and the management of the site is concerned, the Cambodian
authorities issued, on 19 February 1995, a decree announcing the
creation of the Authority for the Protection of the Site and the
Management of the Region of Angkor (APSARA).
Furthermore, the International Coordination Committee (ICC),
under the co-Chairmanship of France and Japan, created in October
1993 by the Intergovernental Tokyo Conference for the
Safeguarding and Development of the Historic Site of Angkor and
for which UNESCO provides the permanent Secretariat, held in
Phnom Penh, a session of its Technical Committee on 31 March
1995. This enabled the ICC to ensure, in cooperation with the
Cambodian authorities, the coordination and monitoring of
international actions undertaken to conserve the site, restore
its monuments and protect its environment.
The Bureau recalled the Declaration adopted by the World Heritage
Committee at its eighteenth session and commended the Cambodian
authorities on the progress made in the implementation of the
requests formulated by the Committee at the time of inscription
of Angkor on the World Heritage List. The Bureau recommended that
the Secretariat provide a detailed report to the World Heritage
Committee at its forthcoming session.
*[26]
Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia)
The Bureau took note of the information provided by the
Secretariat about the progress made in the setting up of a
documentation centre and coordination unit for the restoration
works in the Old City and the Secretariat's cooperation with the
national and local authorities in training the necessary
personnel and purchasing equipment for this unit. It requested
the Secretariat to monitor the implementation of the assistance
and to present a progress report to the World Heritage Committee
at its nineteenth session. The Bureau recommended the Committee
to retain this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Timbuktu (Mali)
The Mali authorities have committed themselves to the launching
of a pilot project to which the management committees and the
masons responsible for the three mosques of Djingareiber, Sankoré
and Sidi Yahia which are inscribed on the List of World Heritage
in Danger, will be associated. Last June the authorities signed
a contract with the World Heritage Centre for the first phase of
the project, that is the gathering of information and
preparations for the pilot work to be undertaken in 1996.
During the implementation of the second phase of the project, the
Mali authorities will require assitance in the form of
international expertise. To this end, a technical cooperation
request will be submitted to the Committee.
The Bureau congratulated the Mali authorities on the rate of
implementation of the project which was endorsed by the Committee
at its eighteenth session at Phuket, and encouraged them to
pursue their efforts for the preservation of this heritage.
Bahla Fort (Oman)
After having taken note of the Secretariat's report on the two
expert missions organized with the cooperation of the national
authorities, (December 1994 and May-June 1995), the Bureau
thanked the Omani authorities for their active collaboration with
UNESCO for the preservation of Bahla Fort. It particularly
appreciated their willingness to follow the advice of the
specialists in earth constructions, sent to the site. The Bureau
was of the opinion that this was the only way by which the
authenticity of the site would be respected and that great
importance should continue to be given to this. It thanked the
national authorities for the financial support granted for the
safeguarding of this heritage and hoped that the outer mosque and
the ancient Governor's residence would also be the subject of
restoration work in conformity with international recommendations
for conservation materials and authenticity.
The Delegate of Oman expressed his satisfaction with the results
of the expert missions and warmly thanked the Centre for its
*[27]
efficiency and excellent collaboration with the Delegation and
the national authorities.
Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)
The Bureau took note of the information provided by the
Secretariat that the course on adobe conservation that was
originally scheduled to take place at this site in 1995 had been
postponed to 1996. It decided, therefore, to await the results
of the assessment of the conservation policies and practices at
the Chan Chan Archaeological Zone, that will be undertaken in the
context of this course. The Bureau recommended the Committee to
retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Wieliczka Salt Mines (Poland)
The Bureau took note of the information provided by the
Secretariat on the actions taken to implement the technical
cooperation project that was approved by the World Heritage
Committee at its eighteenth session. The Bureau requested the
Secretariat to monitor the implementation of the technical
assistance and the impact of the equipment on the conditions of
this site and to keep the Committee informed of the results. The
Bureau recommended the Committee to retain the site on the List
of World Heritage in Danger until the results and a report of the
impact of technical assistance on the project are known.
Cultural properties on the World Heritage List
VI.22 The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the
Committee's observations had been transmitted to the States
Parties concerned and provided updated information on the
following properties.
Historic Mosque City of Bagerhat and Ruins of the Buddhist Vihara
at Paharpur (Bangladesh)
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that UNESCO's Division for
Physical Heritage organized a project monitoring mission in
December 1994 to these two cultural sites in Bangladesh inscribed
on the World Heritage List in 1985. The mission reported on the
progress of the two projects financed under the UNESCO/Japan
Funds-in-Trust for Cultural Heritage within the International
Safeguarding Campaign for Paharpur and Bagerhat. The mission,
while noting with satisfaction, the progress made in the
archaeological and architectural documentation, recommended inter
alia that: (i) national norms and standards be developed with
regard to archaeological investigations, recording and
documentation, and conservation and construction work to be
carried out within the World Heritage protected zones; (ii) a
national mechanism for planning, execution, monitoring and
evaluation of conservation work and research be established by
*[28]
the Department of Archaeology; (iii) reports on the recently
conducted archaeological research and conservation work be
completed and published; (iv) the conservation laboratory at the
Department of Archaeology, in terms of building facilities,
equipment and staff be improved; (v) sign posts and boards
indicating the World Heritage protected area be improved; and
(vi) training strategy and programme, perhaps within the SAARC
regional framework, be developed.
The Bureau noted the joint statement signed by UNESCO and the
Department of Archaeology at the conclusion of the review mission
of the International Campaign for Bagerhat and Paharpur, calling
for the organization of a World Heritage monitoring mission for
a thorough review and recommendations on measures to improve the
legal protection, enforcement mechanism and administration of the
Department of Archaeology, as well as to develop appropriate
training and international assistance programmes. The Bureau
recommended that the World Heritage Centre conduct a joint
mission with the Bangladeshi authorities concerned as soon as
possible and to report to the Committee at its nineteenth
session.
Memphis and its Necropolis- the Pyramid fields from Giza to
Dahshur (Egypt)
After having noted the content of the mission report of the
UNESCO experts invited by the Government of Egypt, from 1 to 6
April 1995, to assist in identifying measures to ensure the
conservation of the World Heritage site of the Pyramid Fields
from Giza to Dahshur, the Bureau congratulated and warmly thanked
the Egyptian authorities for the decisions taken to date and the
actions already undertaken:
1) the choice of a new route passing north of the World
Heritage site for the highway link to the ring-road,
which will follow, once the necessary detailed studies
are achieved, either the Mariouteyya Canal, the
Mansoureyya Canal or both of them;
2) work already undertaken to improve one of the rubbish
dumps and work foreseen to abolish the second;
3) the undertaking to halt all further housing
construction at Kafr-el-Gabal and to eliminate, in the
coming years, the unauthorized buildings and roads
encroaching on the buffer zone of the World Heritage
site.
It requested them to examine carefully, with the authorities
concerned, the relocation of the different military camps and
army factories which encroach upon the site and its buffer zone.
It thanked the Egyptian authorities represented at the Joint
Committee meeting for their excellent cooperation with the
mission, their display of comprehension and high level of
expertise which contributed towards a successful outcome.
*[29]
It extended thanks to the President, Hosni Moubarak, the
Director-General of UNESCO, and the Minister of the Culture of
Egypt, Mr. Farouk Hosni, for their instrumental role in seeking
and reaching a satisfactory solution to the problems caused by
the branch of the motorway, as well as to Dr. Abdel-Halim Nour-
Eldin, Secretary-General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities,
for his personal commitment in favour of the site, the manner in
which he organized the work of the mission and chaired the
meetings. It requested the Egyptian authorities to keep the
World Heritage Committee informed, through its Secretariat, of
the progress made in the implementation of the safeguarding
measures already undertaken or foreseen, and in particular the
question concerning the encroachment of military camps on the
World Heritage site and its buffer zone.
The Observer of Senegal who was delighted with this great
success, congratulated the Egyptian authorities and UNESCO for
their determination and efficiency in the safeguarding of this
site.
ICOMOS wished to join Senegal in congratulating the parties
concerned for the rapidity and efficiency of this intervention.
However, he was concerned that other problems of this type might
occur in Egypt and thought that particular attention should be
paid to the state of conservation of properties in this country.
Medieval City of Rhodes (Greece)
The Secretriat informed the Bureau that, as requested by the
World Heritage Committee at its eighteenth session, the Greek
authorities had presented information on the legal protection and
the management arrangements for the City. The Bureau requested
the Secretariat jointly with ICOMOS to examine the information
provided and to report on it to its next session in December
1995.
Borobudur Temple Compounds (Indonesia)
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Third International
Experts Meeting on Borobudur was held on site in January 1995 and
that the Expert Group expressed satisfaction on the state of
conservation of Borobudur, which has been the object of a UNESCO
International Safeguarding Campaign launched in 1972, although
the site was only inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1991.
The Centre reported that the meeting made, inter alia, the
following recommendations:
(i) avoid any future actions or activities that would
unnecessarily disturb the traditional appearance of
the site, e.g. construction of park features that have
little relationship with the local landscape,
indigenous plant species; functions which would
devalue the dignity of the site;
(ii) develop regulations to protect Zones III,IV and V
*[30]
outside the Borobudur Park boundaries against
inappropriate new construction, etc;
(iii) develop mid-term (5 year) and long-term (10 year)
strategic planning policies and programmes in
consultation with appropriate national, regional and
local authorities to identify and prioritize
conservation measures; institution-building; quality
and quantity of staffing level and their training
needs;
(iv) review of information management system;
(v) develop tourism management policy to ensure protection
of site and distribution of tourism revenue for
conservation activities;
(vi) develop information material including multi-media
material; and
(vii) further research and publication on stone conservation
and biological growth concerns.
The Bureau, having noted the outcome of the International
Campaign Review Meeting, commended the Government of Indonesia,
UNESCO and their partners for their conservation work over the
past two decades and requested the World Heritage Centre to
arrange with the Indonesian authorities, the most suitable
modalities for the preparation of the periodic state of
conservation report to be submitted to the World Heritage
Committee in accordance with the agreed procedures.
Meidan Emam of Isfahan (Iran)
The Centre reported that the UNESCO Physical Heritage Division
undertook a mission to Iran in December 1994 which included a
preliminary survey on the state of conservation of the World
Heritage cultural property of Meidan Emam in Isfahan.
Observations focused on the following:
(i) concern over the heavy traffic in the old town, particularly
on the Meidan Emam place, which along with the surrounding
monuments are in the protected zone. The proposed construction
of an underground passage to alleviate the traffic congestion had
been shelved due to the high water table preventing its
construction and the city magistrate, instead, transformed the
main part of the Meidan Emam into a pedestrian zone. The UNESCO
mission reported that a project to create a new traffic axe,
immediately south of the Meidan Emam, by widening an existing
street is currently under study. As the creation of this axe
entails cutting the old town and destroying a large number of
traditional houses and ancient mud-brick city ramparts, UNESCO
has requested the authorities to reconsider the feasibility of
this project in view of the conservation concerns.
The UNESCO mission also recommended the involvement of the
Cultural Heritage Organization of the Government of Iran in
another on-going feasibility study on the construction of a
Isfahan Regional Metro, to ensure that cultural heritage
conservation concerns, particularly regarding disturbances to
archaeological features, are properly reflected.
*[31]
The Bureau, having noted the concerns raised over the impact of
the various transportation infrastructure proposals, suggested
that the Iranian authorities consider the establishment of
meaningful buffer zones to protect the World Heritage site and
to report to the Committee at its nineteenth session.
Tchogha Zanbil (Iran)
The Centre informed the Bureau that a joint Japan/UNESCO project
identification mission to this World Heritage Site inscribed in
1979, took place in February 1995. It was observed that in spite
of the application of a good traditional method of conservation,
consisting of covering the exposed structures each year with
"kargel" (mud and straw mixture), the site has continued to
deteriorate in the absence of a viable method for sustainable
conservation of the mud-brick structures which are annually
exposed to heavy rainfall.
The mission also noted some movement of the supporting brick
walls of the Ziggurat, pointing to the probability of structural
problems.
It was reported that the Physical Heritage Division of UNESCO is
currently urging the deployment of a second technical team
including a structural engineer to define better the scope of the
conservation measures required and to finalize the project
document for submission to funding sources.
The Centre informed the Bureau that the Iranian cultural
authorities have invited international experts to participate in
the preparation of their monitoring reports on the occasion of
the forthcoming regional conference for West and Central Asian
experts being organized jointly by ICCROM and the Iranian Central
Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Heritage.
The Bureau noted the invitation by the Iranian authorities for
international experts to participate in the preparation of their
systematic monitoring report and suggested that the Iranian
authorities inform the Committee at its nineteenth session on the
state of conservation of this property.
Hatra (Iraq)
The Bureau, having been informed of looting of archaeological
sites in Iraq, particularly at Hatra, recommended the States
Parties to the World Heritage Convention to do their utmost to
prevent the illicit traffic of archaeological objects and
sculptures from this site.
Petra (Jordan)
After having taken note of the Secretariat's report, and
additional information from ICOMOS, the Bureau thanked the
Jordanian authorities for having undertaken the measures outlined
*[32]
by the Committee without delay and congratulated them on their
desire to ensure long-term conservation of the site. In order
to have available all the necessary elements for the evaluation
of the proposed extension of the site, it requested the
authorities to confirm by 1 October that no new hotel
construction projects will be authorized at Wadi Musa and along
the Taybeh road, that the Petra National Park Management Plan
will be fully implemented and that a specific management
authority will be created at the site.
It also recommended that a proposal for the extension of the
World Heritage site which would provide its long-term protection
be also submitted as soon as possible by the Jordanian
authorities.
Megalithic Temples (Malta)
After having taken note of the Secretariat's report, the Bureau
expressed its regrets that the Maltese authorities had not
responded to the requests of the Committee, and stressed the
importance that the requested information be submitted to the
Centre by 1 October 1995, so that the World Heritage Committee
may evaluate the situation at its nineteenth session and take the
measures it deems necessary.
Hal Saflieni Hypogeum (Malta)
After having taken note of the Secretariat's report, the Bureau
expressed its regrets that the Maltese authorities had not
responded to the requests of the Committee, and stressed the
importance that the requested information be submitted to the
Centre by 1 October 1995, so that the World Heritage Committee
may evaluate the situation at its nineteenth session and take the
measures it deems necessary.
Following the presentation of the reports concerning these two
sites, the Observer of Malta wished to thank the Centre for the
work accomplished in close collaboration with the national
authorities and for the excellent report resulting from a mission
to the site by a member of the Secretariat at the invitation of
the authorities responsible for conservation. She explained to
the Bureau that the delay was not due to disinterest, but to a
serious lack of personnel and, in the case of Hal Saflieni, the
necessity that the measures concerning the drainage system should
be undertaken by another ministerial department.
Puebla (Mexico)
The Bureau recalled that World Heritage technical assistance
was approved in 1994 in order to advise the national and local
authorities on the conservation and rehabilitation policies for
this city, particularly for the Rio San Francisco area. The
Secretariat informed the Bureau that a high-level expert had
*[33]
undertaken a series of missions and that the final report will
be available by the end of July. The Bureau requested the
Secretariat to report on the results of this assistance to the
its next session.
Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
The Centre recalled that the World Heritage Committee at its
eighteenth session expressed its appreciation for the monitoring
report prepared by the Department of Archaeology on the progress
made in implementing the recommendations of the Committee at its
seventeenth session. The Committee approved in December 1994, a
technical cooperation request under the World Heritage Fund to
finance a six-month mission of an international technical adviser
to Kathmandu to assist the authorities in the preparation of a
package of projects for international funding and to establish
a development control unit within the Department of Archaeology
to prevent further encroachment of the protected monument zones
of this World Heritage site, and to implement the other
recommendations made by the UNESCO/ICOMOS mission of November
1993. The international expert has been identified and deployment
is scheduled for August 1995.
The Bureau was informed that on 23 February 1995, the Centre
officially transmitted its concern to the Government of Nepal on
reports concerning the demolition of Joshi Agamchen in Kathmandu
Darbar Square Monument Zone. By letter of 14 March 1995, the
Director-General of the Department of Archaeology informed the
Centre of its intervention with the private trust which is the
owner of this historic building to ensure that the conservation
works in progress meet the international standards of
conservation practice.
The Centre indicated that it had been informed of other cases of
demolition of historic buildings located on the fringe of the
existing boundaries of Patan Darbur Square Monument Zone. This
area is part of the suggested expansion zone to be included in
the revised boundary which was accepted by the Government
following the UNESCO/ICOMOS mission recommendation. The new
gazette of the revised boundary has not yet been issued.
Noting with concern, reports on the continued demolition of and
alterations to historic buildings within the World Heritage
protected zones and in areas pending official inclusion, the
Bureau suggested that the Chairman of the Committee write to the
Government authorities urging the urgent publication of the
Government gazette indicating the new boundaries of the protected
areas and the early establishment of the Inter-ministerial Task
Force to implement the actions agreed upon by the Government to
strengthen the protection of the World Heritage site of Kathmandu
Valley. The Bureau recommended that the Inter-ministerial Task
Force and the international technical adviser, report on the
latest developments through the official Government channels, to
the nineteenth session of the Committee.
*[34]
Archaeologic Ruins at Moenjodaro (Pakistan)
The World Heritage Centre informed the Bureau that it undertook
a mission in March 1995 to assist the national authorities in
preparing the state of conservation reports on the World Heritage
cultural properties in Pakistan.
The mission benefitted from the 15th meeting of the International
Consultative Committee (ICC) for the Safeguarding Campaign for
Moenjodaro, launched in 1974, to gather information for a
monitoring report on this site currently under preparation in
collaboration with and at the request of the national
authorities. Amongst the observations made were: (i) the need to
ensure the sustainability of activities presently funded by UNDP
and the UNESCO/Japan Funds-in-Trust by integrating the national
experts trained under these projects as staff of the Department
of Archaeology and Museums; (ii) clarification of the division
of responsibilities between the various government entities
dealing with the protection and conservation of Moenjodaro; (iii)
cost-benefit appraisal of the electricity-generated water pumping
work to lower the water table intended to protect the sub-surface
archaeological remains; (iv) need for an international technical
adviser based in Moenjodaro or in Karachi to provide more regular
advice to the on-site conservation team.
The Centre reported that the ICC expressed concern over the
damage caused to the original walls by heavy rainfall in 1994,
but noted that the recent protection measures applied were
successful in limiting the damage.
The Bureau, having noted the concerns raised at the 15th meeting
of the Moenjodaro ICC, recommended that UNESCO strengthen its
support to the Pakistani authorities over the next two years to
enable the termination of the International Campaign as requested
by the 25th Session of the General Conference of UNESCO. The
Bureau suggested that UNESCO and the national authorities
concerned, review the eventual need for the nomination of an
international expert based in Karachi or in Moenjodaro for the
duration of the remaining period of the Campaign and if
affirmative, seek funding to finance the consultant post.
Taxila (Pakistan)
With regard to Taxila, the Centre reported that during its joint
mission with the Sub-regional Office of the Department of
Archaeology and Museum in March 1995, it was observed that the
nomination file, on the basis of which the property was inscribed
on the World Heritage List, did not clearly indicate the number
of sites it contained. The site of Taxila, under the national
registry of historic monuments is composed of some 55 sites
spread over an area of about 18 kms x 8 kms of the Taxila Valley.
The Centre reported that the state of conservation of the sites
visited varied but, on the whole, were in very good condition
given the enormous maintenance work the property entails by its
size and dispersed components. A scientific study on the
*[35]
application of non-toxic herbicide was deemed to be urgently
needed in view of the vegetation overgrowth which cannot be
cleared mechanically. The mission noted concern over the gradual
expansion of the industrial estates located within the Taxila
Valley which, despite their location outside the very limited
buffer zone surrounding the registered archaeological sites,
nonetheless risk impacting upon the overall integrity of the
Taxila World Heritage site in its ensemble. The limestone
blasting and quarrying activities in the Taxila Valley also need
to be monitored in view of the alleged impact on the structural
stability of the Jaulian site, Dharmajika Temple and the Bhir
Stupa.
International and national funding to establish a site
conservation laboratory in Taxila, both for the conservation of
movable objects of the impressive Taxila Museum collection and
for in-situ sculptures must be sought. The Centre reported that
specific recommendations on stucco preservation, roofing,
drainage and other conservation measures will be contained in a
monitoring report currently under preparation with the Sub-
regional Office in Taxila of the Department of Archaeology and
Museums.
The Centre reported on the extremely positive attitude on the
part of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and notably,
its Department of Archaeology and Museums, on the establishment
of a national monitoring mechanism as a management tool for the
conservation of World Heritage sites in Pakistan.
Having noted the interim report on the state of conservation of
Taxila, the Bureau recommended that the Department of Archaeology
and Museums, in cooperation with the World Heritage Centre, (i)
carry out the required scientific studies on vegetation control
to minimize the damage to the masonry and structure of the
monuments, and (ii) to appraise the impact of the heavy
industries and the stone quarrying in the Taxila Valley areas.
Pueblo de Taos (United States of America)
The Bureau recalled that the potential impact of the extension
of the Taos Airport on the World Heritage site of Taos Pueblo was
discussed at various Bureau and Committee meetings and that the
Committee's concerns were transmitted to the United States
authorities. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that it had
received priliminary monitoring reports from the Taos Pueblo War
Chief and the US National Park Service. Both reports indicated
that the major issue was the size of the area determined to be
affected by the proposed airport extension. It was reported that
this area was defined by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) without consultations with the Taos Pueblo or the United
States National Park Service (USNPS) and did include the Taos
Pueblo Land Tracts immediately surrounding the proposed flight
routes, whereas the Blue Lake Wilderness, a federally protected
area for tribal religious activity, was excluded. Most of the
Tribe's complaints about expected impacts related to this
sensitive area.
*[36]
The Bureau recommended to the authorities of the United States
that an impartial professional review of the area defined by the
Federal Aviation Administration for the impact study be carried
out with the cooperation of ICOMOS, the Taos Pueblo, the United
States National Park Service and the Federal Aviation
Administration, and that a report be submitted to the nineteenth
session of the World Heritage Committee. The Bureau also
requested the Secretariat to consult with the State Party
regarding the possible extension of the World Heritage site to
include the culturally valuable areas related to the Taos Pueblo
under the cultural landscape criteria.
VI.23 ICOMOS reported on its cooperation with the Sri Lankan
authorities and international experts in the monitoring of three
World Heritage cultural sites - Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and
Sigiriya. The ICOMOS Representative indicated that, as the
preliminary report made available to the Bureau emphasized, this
experience in Sri Lanka should serve as an example for the
methodology applied in the monitoring exercise, especially in its
interdisciplinary and systematic data collection methods. He
also reported on ICOMOS' involvement in the monitoring of World
Heritage sites in the United Kingdom. Reports on these
activities will be presented to the Committee at its nineteenth
session.
VI.24 The Centre informed the Bureau of a recent meeting
between the Ambassador of Afghanistan to the United Nations and
the Director-General of UNESCO during which the critical
situation of the cultural properties of Afghanistan caused by
years of neglect and war damage, as well as the illicit
excavation and traffic of movable property were discussed. It was
recalled that four of the sites on the tentative list of
Afghanistan, namely, Herat, Bamiyan, Ai Khanoum and the Minaret
of Jam - were officially nominated by the State Party for
inscription and that on the basis of ICOMOS' evaluation, the
World Heritage value of these sites was recognized by the Bureau
in 1982. However, in view of the absence of management plans and
up-dated report on the state of conservation, the Bureau at that
time, recommended the Committee to defer its decision.
The Bureau was informed of the request from Afghanistan for
preparatory assistance to up-date the nomination files and to
identify emergency preservation measures, but the inability to
consider this request due to the exhaustion of the preparatory
assistance allocation for 1995. The Centre, on behalf of
Afghanistan, requested for voluntary contributions to enable this
urgently required evaluation mission to prevent the loss of these
cultural properties of potential universal value.
The Chairman indicated that this matter will be considered under
Agenda item 8, on budgetary questions.
VI.25 During the examination of the state of conservation
reports, some delegates raised the question whether the Bureau
is authorized to make specific requests or recommendations to
States Parties regarding the preservation of their World Heritage
*[37]
properties. The Chairperson clarified that the Bureau had done
so in the past and with the consent of the Committee and that,
in many cases, this was indispensable for a timely intervention
under the World Heritage Convention. It was decided that this
matter would be taken up under the agenda item 'Proposals for
improving the working methods of the World Heritage Committee'.
VII. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND THE EXAMINATION OF
NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD
HERITAGE LIST AND LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
VII.1 At its seventeenth session the World Heritage Committee
expressed its preoccupation concerning the small number of
Tentative Lists for cultural properties that met the requirements
of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Guidelines, emphasized the
importance of these lists and confirmed their obligatory
character. Therefore, it was decided that the Secretariat would
regularly provide the Bureau and the Committee with the list of
Tentative Lists for cultural properties. This list was provided
as an annex to Working Document WHC-95/CONF.201/5a.
VII.2 The Bureau examined ten natural nominations, including
one extension and one previously deferred site. The Bureau
recommended to the Committee to inscribe four properties, to
refer back to the States Parties four properties and not to
inscribe two properties.
Natural Heritage
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on
the World Heritage List
Name of Property Ident. State Party Criteria
number having submitted
the nomination (in
accordance with
Article 11 of the
Convention)
Messel Pit Fossil 720 Germany N (i)
site
The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee inscribe
the nominated property on the basis of criterion (i), considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value as the single
best site which contributes to the understanding of the middle
Eocene, when mammals became firmly established in all principal
land ecosystems. The Bureau noted that a geological theme study
is underway as part of the framework of a global strategy for
natural heritage, which is to be completed in 1996. The Bureau,
however, is of the opinion that the significance of Messel is
clear and need not wait for the results of this study.
Furthermore, the Bureau commended the German Government for their
support of the high standards of paleontological research
undertaken.
*[38]
Caves of the 725 Hungary/ N(i)
Aggtelek Slovak Slovak Republic
Karst
The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee inscribe
the nominated property on the basis of criterion (i), considering
that the site is an outstanding example of on-going geological
processes and a significant geomorphic feature. The karst
formations and caves contain the geologic history of the last
several millions of years with an unusual combination of climatic
effects and paleokarst features.
The Bureau noted: (1) that cultural values of prehistoric
cultures in the caves have not been assessed, and (2) that strict
control of the area is needed from surface activities such as
agricultural pollution, deforestation and soil erosion. The
Observer of the Slovak Republic stated that the nomination is
considered as a natural one, not indicating cultural values, and
that the management plan is in place. The Observer of Hungary
underlined that the Hungarian part of the nomination is legally
well protected as a national park and has a long history of
scientific research at the site.
The Virgin Komi 719 Russian N (ii)(iii)
Forests Federation
The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee inscribe
the nominated property on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii),
considering the site among the most important natural sites in
the boreal forest region. The site has pristine boreal forests
and is an important site for scientific research including
climate change.
The Bureau however noted, that the Committee should only inscribe
3 million ha of the site which are fully protected as a National
Park, Zapovednik and buffer zone. It recommended that the
national authorities be strongly encouraged to upgrade the legal
status of the remaining 1 million ha and that this area be
incorporated in a future nomination. The Bureau raised concerns
over the possibility of releasing parts of the area to industrial
forestry. It commended the national authorities for their
conservation efforts as well as Greenpeace, WWF and the Swiss
Government for their assistance in strengthening the management
of this area.
Carlsbad Caverns 721 United States N(i)(iii)
National of America
Park
The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee inscribe
the nominated property on the basis of criteria (i) and (iii),
considering that the site is of outstanding universal value with
exceptional geological features with unique reef and rock
*[39]
formations, and containing the world's largest cave deposits,
such as accumulations of gypsum chandelier speleothems, aragonite
'christmas trees' and hydromagnesite balloons.
The Bureau noted however, that oil and gas exploration near the
borders of the site may be a potential threat. It therefore
requested the Centre to write to the national authorities and to
encourage the State Party in its proposal for the creation of a
cave protection zone to the north of the Park.
B. Properties which the Bureau did not recommend for
inscription in the World Heritage List
Odzala National 692 Congo
Park (and annexes)
The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee not
inscribe the nominated property, as the site is of national
importance and does not possess distinguishing features of
outstanding universal value.
The Bureau recommends that the World Heritage Committee encourage
the State Party to consider nomination of a larger area to the
north of the Park, the Ndoki National Park, which forms a part
of a proposed tri-national park.
Wildlife Reserve 693 Congo
of Conkouati
The Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee not
inscribe the nominated property, as the site is of national
importance and does not possess distinguishing features of
universal value. It noted furthermore, that the site has been
degraded over the past ten years.
C. Properties for which nominations were referred back to the
national authorities for further information
Juan Fernandez 716 Chile
Archipelago
National Park
The Bureau recognized that the site fulfils natural criterion
(iv) for its high biodiversity and significant natural habitats
for threatened species, including the high degree of endemic
flora. The Bureau, however, raised concern about the integrity
of the site, as the site is under threat from introduced animals,
and alien flora. The Bureau, therefore, decided to refer the
nomination back to the State Party: (1) to allow the Chilean
authorities to outline their action to fulfil the requirements
of integrity, and (2) that the State Party indicates how
resources will be mobilized to prepare an up-dated management
plan of the site, as the present version was formulated 25 years
ago. The Bureau requested the Centre to write a letter indicating
*[40]
the above to the national authorities and to request their reply
by 1 October 1995 in order to provide the information to the
outgoing Bureau in December 1995.
Gough Island 740 United Kingdom
The Bureau recommended that World Heritage Committee inscribe the
nominated property on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv),
considering that the site is of outstanding universal value as
one of the least disturbed major cool-temperate island ecosystems
in the South Atlantic Ocean, with one of the most important
seabird colonies of the world, high scenic qualities and
spectacular sea-cliffs and coastline.
The Bureau requested the Centre to contact the national
authorities: (1) to ask them for confirmation whether the marine
area is included as part of the nomination and, if so (2) that
the name of the site should then read "Gough Island Wildlife
Reserve". It was further noted that if this was the case, the
Government should ensure that any fishery is managed on a
sustainable basis. The information should be made available by
1 October 1995 to be presented to the outgoing Bureau in December
1995.
Okapi Wildlife 718 Zaïre
Reserve
The Bureau recognized that the site fulfils natural criteria (iv)
for its high biodiversity and significant natural habitats
including the Okapi. The site has the highest diversity of
primates with 13 species of all African forests and is an
exceptional site for threatened birds.
The Bureau noted however, that the cultural values of the site
and the living culture of the Pygmies population living in
harmony with the forest within the site has not been assessed.
The Bureau furthermore noted that the management plan has not
been formally approved and raised concern about the integrity of
the site. The Bureau therefore, requested the Centre to contact
the Ambassador of Zaire and to ask him for the following
information for 1 October 1995, to be provided for the outgoing
Bureau: (1) when the management plan will be approved; (2) to
inform the Bureau about activities underway to halt human
intrusion into the site, and (3) to give assurance for
operational and financial support of the staff at the site
(salaries).
D. Extension to a World Heritage site
Galapagos National 1bis Ecuador
Park Marine
Extension
The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its eighteenth session
recognized that the Galapagos Marine Reserve met natural
*[41]
criteria. It deferred, however the inclusion of the Galapagos
Marine Reserve as an extension of Galapagos Islands to be
included on the World Heritage List due to recognition of serious
threats to the site and in accordance with the IUCN
recommendation and the wish of the Observer of Ecuador. The
Committee, requested the Centre and IUCN to report back to the
nineteenth session of the Bureau. The Centre provided the
Ecuadorian Authorities by letter of 1 February 1995 with details
of the Committee's decision. No reply was received so far.
The Bureau therefore, requested the Centre and IUCN to report
back to the outgoing Bureau in December 1995. The Observer from
Ecuador stated that his Government will provide information in
time before the nineteenth session of the World Heritage
Committee.
E. Deferred or referred natural nomination for which
additional information has been received
Glacier and Waterton 354Rev Canada/United States
Waterton Lakes of America
International Peace
Park
The Bureau recalled that at its eighteenth session it had decided
to defer the examination of this nomination and to request that
IUCN undertake a thorough evaluation of the nomination and
provide to the Bureau at its nineteenth session a more
comprehensive evaluation on which the Committee could base its
decision.
The Bureau at its eighteenth session further endorsed a
suggestion that the States Parties, in cooperation with IUCN,
organize a working group to examine the possibility of an
"association of management units" or a series nomination.
The Centre and IUCN informed the Bureau that the working group
met in Calgary, Alberta on 28 March 1995 and that copies of the
full report of the meeting had been provided to Bureau members.
The report supplements the "criteria" of the amended 1994
nomination and further responds to the conditions of integrity.
IUCN informed the Bureau that the IUCN panel held on 10 May 1995,
suggested three options but favoured the options of referral or
deferral with consideration being given to a "cultural landscape
approach". The Bureau however, did not feel comfortable with this
option and had considerable discussion on this matter.
Additionally, the Observer of Canada indicated that Canada had
no intention of proceeding with a cultural landscape nomination.
After consultation between the Chair and the delegates, the
Bureau agreed that IUCN be requested to complete its evaluation
of the nomination, based on the background material at hand, and
the report of the meeting of States Parties held in Calgary. The
Bureau also stated that the Operational Guidelines should be
adhered to and the question of whether the nomination must be of
*[42]
"outstanding universal value" or the "most outstanding" should
be addressed. Finally, it was agreed that the nomination would
not be referred back to the States Parties for further
information.
The conclusion of the Bureau was that a full evaluation was
required before a decision is made. IUCN was therefore requested
to prepare the evaluation for the next meeting of the outgoing
Bureau in December.
Cultural properties
VII.3 The Bureau examined twenty-eight cultural properties
and one mixed property nomination of which seventeen were
recommended for inscription, four were referred and six were
deferred. The Bureau could not reach a consensus on one of the
nominations.
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on
the World Heritage List
Rapa Nui National 715 Chile C(i)(iii)
Park (v)
ICOMOS informed the Bureau that, since preparing the written
evaluation of this nomination, it had received the exact
delineation of and the regulations for the nominated area, and
that it now recommended the inscription of the Rapa Nui National
Park based on a joint evaluation by ICOMOS and IUCN.
The Delegate of Germany pointed out that this should also be
considered as a relict cultural landscape and that preservation
and management should explicitly address these values. ICOMOS
agreed with this observation and stressed that an excellent
management plan is in place for the whole of the nominated area
which is designated as a national park.
The Bureau concluded that Rapa Nui National Park contains one of
the most remarkable cultural phenomena in the world. An artistic
and architectural tradition of great power and imagination was
developed by a society that was completely isolated from external
cultural influences of any kind for over a millennium. The
substantial remains of this culture blend with their natural
surroundings to create an unparalleled cultural landscape.
The Bureau decided to recommend the Committee to inscribe the
Rapa Nui National Park on the World Heritage List on the basis
of criteria (i), (iii) and (v).
The Historic Centre 742 Colombia C(iv)(v)
of Santa Cruz de Mompox
ICOMOS informed the Bureau that, since preparing the written
evaluation of this nomination, it had received a new plan with
*[43]
revised boundaries of the nominated area in accordance with the
ICOMOS recommendation, and that it now recommended the
inscription of the Historic Centre of Santa Cruz de Mompox.
The Bureau concluded that the Historic Centre of Santa Cruz de
Mompox is an outstanding example of a Spanish colonial settlement
established on the banks of a major river and serving an
important strategic and commercial role which has survived to a
remarkable level of intactness to the present day.
The Bureau decided to recommend the Committee to inscribe the
Historic Centre of Santa Cruz de Mompox on the World Heritage
List on the basis of criteria (iv) and (v).
The Bureau requested the Secretariat to make the ICOMOS
evaluation available to the Colombian national and local
authorities for consideration of the detailed set of technical
recommendations made for the city's preservation. The Delegate
of Colombia informed that the ICOMOS recommendations had been
considered already by the national and local authorities and that
several of them were already being implemented. The Bureau
congratulated the Colombian authorities for this positive
response.
National Archaeological 743 Colombia C(iii)
Park of Tierradentro
ICOMOS informed the Bureau that, since preparing the written
evaluation of this nomination, it had received additional
information including a map with the exact boundaries and that
it now recommended the inscription of the National Archaeological
Park of Tierradentro. As to the preservation measures, the
Delegate of Colombia informed the Bureau that, under the World
Heritage emergency assistance approved in 1994, a workshop was
held on the site in May 1995 to define a conservation strategy
and to define the most urgent measures to be undertaken. She
informed that the same will be done for the San Agustin
Archaeological Park in the future.
The Bureau concluded that the hypogea of the National
Archaeological Park of Tierradentro are unique testimony to the
everyday life, ritual, and burial customs of a developed and
stable prehispanic society in the northern Andean region of South
America.
The Bureau decided to recommend the Committee to inscribe the
National Archaeological Park of Tierradentro on the World
Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iii).
San Agustin 744 Colombia C(iii)
Archaeological Park
ICOMOS informed the Bureau that, since preparing the written
evaluation of this nomination, it had received additional
*[44]
information including a map with the exact boundaries and that
it now recommended the inscription of the San Agustin
Archaeological Park.
The Bureau concluded that the wealth of megalithic statuary from
the archaeological sites in San Agustin Archaeological Park bears
vivid witness to the artistic creativity and imagination of a
prehispanic culture that flowered in the hostile tropical
environment of the Northern Andes.
The Bureau decided to recommend the Committee to inscribe the San
Agustin Archaeological Park on the World Heritage List on the
basis of criterion (iii).
Kutná Hora: The 732 Czech C(ii)(iv)
Historical Town Centre Republic
with the Church of St
Barbara and the Cathedral
of Our Lady at Sedlec
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site under
criteria (ii) and (iv) as an outstanding example of the mediaeval
town whose wealth and prosperity was based on its silver mines.
The Church of Saint Barbara and other buildings were underlined
as having particular architectural and artistic quality and as
having had a profound influence on subsequent developments in the
architecture of Central Europe.
Ferrara: City of the 733 Italy C(ii)(iv)(vi)
Renaissance
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value, being a
Renaissance city, remarkably planned, which has retained its
urban fabric virtually intact. The developments in town planning
expressed in Ferrara were to have a profound influence on the
development of urban design throughout the succeeding centuries.
The brilliant court of the Este family attracted a constellation
of outstanding artists, poets, and philosophers, particularly the
new humanists of Renaissance Italy, during the two seminal
centuries of the Renaissance.
The Historic Centre 726 Italy C(ii)(iv)
of Naples
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv), considering that
the site is of outstanding universal value being one of the most
ancient cities in Europe, whose contemporary urban fabric
preserves the elements of its long and eventful history. Its
street pattern, its wealth of historic buildings from many
periods, and its setting on the Bay of Naples give it an
*[45]
outstanding universal value without parallel, and one that has
had a profound influence in many parts of Europe and beyond.
The Historic Centre 717 Italy C(i)(ii)(iv)
of Siena
The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the nominated
property on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv), considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value as a medieaval
city having preserved its character and quality to a remarkable
degree. Its influence on art, architecture, and town planning in
the Middle Ages, both in Italy and elsewhere in Europe, was
great. The city is a work of dedication and imagination, in which
the buildings have been designed to fit into the overall planned
urban fabric, and also to form a whole with the surrounding
cultural landscape.
Historic Villages of 734 Japan C(iv)(v)
Shirakawa-go and
Gokayama
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site under
criteria (iv) and (v) as the villages are outstanding examples
of a traditional human settlement that is perfectly adapted to
its environment. The Bureau noted the successful adaptation to
economic changes and that survival can only be assured through
constant vigilence on both sides, the Government authorities and
the inhabitants.
Sokkuram Buddhist 736 Korea C(i)(iv)
Grotto (Republic of)
The Bureau recommended that this nomination, extended to include
the Pulguksa Temple, be inscribed on the World Heritage List on
the basis of criteria (i) and (iv) as a masterpiece of Far
Eastern Buddhist art, and the complex that it forms with Pulguksa
Temple as an outstanding example of the religious architecture
of the region and of the material expression of Buddhist belief.
Haeinsa Temple 737 Korea C(iv)(vi)
Changgyong P'ango, (Republic of)
the Depositories for
the Tripitaka Koreana
Woodblocks
The Bureau recommended that this property be inscribed on the
World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iv) and (vi), in
recognition that the Korean version of the Buddhist scriptures
(Tripitaka Koreana) at the Haeinsa Temple is one of the most
important and most complete corpus of Buddhist doctrinal texts
in the world, and is also outstanding for the high aesthetic
quality of its workmanship. The buildings in which the scriptures
*[46]
are housed are unique both in terms of their antiquity so far as
this specialized type of structure is concerned, and also for the
remarkably effective solutions developed in the 15th century to
the problems posed by the need to preserve woodblocks against
deterioration.
Chongmyo Shrine 738 Korea C(iv)
(Republic of)
The Bureau recommended that this site be inscribed on the World
Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv), as an outstanding
example of the Confucian royal ancestral shrine, which has
survived relatively intact since the 16th century, the importance
of which is enhanced by the persistence there of an important
element of the intangible cultural heritage in the form of
traditional ritual practices and forms.
The Rice Terraces of 722 Philippines C(iii)(iv)
the Philippine Cordilleras (v)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site on
the basis of criteria (iii), (iv) and (v), based on a joint
evaluation by ICOMOS and IUCN. The rice terraces of the
Phillipine Cordilleras are outstanding examples of living
cultural landscapes, illustrating traditional techniques and a
remarkable harmony between humankind and the natural environment.
The Serra and Town 723 Portugal C(ii)(iv)(v)
of Sintra
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the nominated
property on the List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (v)
considering that the site is of outstanding universal value as
it represents a pioneering approach to Romantic landscaping which
had an outstanding influence on develoments elswhere in Europe.
It is an unique example of the cultural occupation of a specific
location that has maintained its essential integrity as the
representation of diverse successive cultures. Its structures
harmonize indigenous flora with a refined and cultivated
landscape created by man as a result of literary and artistic
influences. The Bureau however recommended that the State Party
be invited to change the name of the site to "The Cultural
Landscape of Sintra".
Visby 731 Sweden C(iv)(v)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the nominated
property on the List on the basis of criteria (iv) and (v),
considering that the site is of outstanding universal value as
an unique example of a north European mediaeval walled trading
town which preserves with remarkable completeness a townscape and
assemblage of high-quality ancient buildings that illustrate
*[47]
graphically the form and function of this type of significant
human settlement.
Edinburgh 728 United Kingdom C(ii)(iv)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the nominated
property on the List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv)
considering the site is of outstanding universal value as it
represents a remarkable blend of the urban phenomena of organic
medieaval growth and 18th and 19th century town planning. The
successive planned expansions of the New Town and the high
quality of the architecture set standards for Scotland and
beyond.
The Historic Quarter 747 Uruguay C(iv)
of the City of Colonia
del Sacramento
ICOMOS informed the Bureau that, since preparing the written
evaluation of this nomination, it had received additional
information responding to all of the issues mentioned in the
original ICOMOS evaluation. After having examined this
information, ICOMOS recommended the inscription under criterion
(iv).
The Bureau concluded that the historic quarter of the City of
Colonia del Sacramento bears remarkable testimony in its layout
and its buildings to the nature and objectives of European
colonial settlement, in particular during the seminal period at
the end of the 17th century.
The Bureau decided to recommend the Committee to inscribe the
Historic Quarter of the City of Colonia del Sacramento on the
World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv).
B. Properties for which nominations were referred back to the
national authorities for further information
Avignon: Monumental 228Rev. France
ensemble formed by
the Place du Palais,
Palais des Papes,
Cathedral of Notre
Dames des Doms,
Petit Palais, Tour des
Chiens, Ramparts and
Saint-Bénézet Bridge
The Bureau decided to refer the nomination back to the State
Party to allow it to give precise boundaries for the area
proposed for inscription. On the condition that this information
is provided by 1 October 1995, in time for the next session of
*[48]
the Bureau, the Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe the
nominated property on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv).
Jerash 324 Jordan
The Bureau decided to refer this nomination to the State Party
until such times as assurances can be given on the following
points:
a) the establishment of a buffer zone of at least 50m, but
preferably 100m to the north, west and south of the site
within which no construction of any kind would be
permitted;
b) effective cooperation should be established between the
Department of Antiquities and the Ministry of Tourism, with
the participation of the Municipality of Jerash and the
Jerash Festival Committee for the future management of the
site;
c) that all permanent structures associated with the Festival
should be removed from the archaeological site and
restricted periods agreed for their subsequent erection and
dismantling during the Festival.
If the State Party can provide the necessary assurances on these
different points by 1 October 1995, the Bureau would recommend
that the site be inscribed under cultural criteria (i), (ii) and
(iii) on the World Heritage List.
Schokland and its 739 Netherlands
surroundings
The Bureau decided to refer the nomination back to the State
Party in order to allow the State Party to resolve the situation
regarding the potential recreation area. In the event of a
satisfactory solution being proposed by 1 October 1995, the
Bureau recommended that this property be inscribed on the World
Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (v).
Savannah City Plan 746 United States of America
The Bureau adopted the recommendation made by ICOMOS to refer
this nomination back to the State Party, indicating that it is
only likely to be inscribed on the World Heritage List if it is
extended to the entire urban fabric of the historic plan area and
not confined to the streets and open spaces.
*[49]
C. Properties for which nominations were deferred
The Historic Centre 727 France
of Rouen
The Bureau decided to defer the examination of the nomination in
order to allow the responsible authorities to redefine the
boundaries of both the nominated area and the buffer zone.
Regarding ICOMOS' request for a more comprehensive management
plan, the Bureau accepted the information provided by the State
Party, i.e. that the National protection and safeguard laws of
1913 and 1962 provide for ample management. The Bureau did not
endorse ICOMOS' recommendation that a comparative study should
be undertaken for this type of property.
The Bauhaus and its 729 Germany
sites in Weimar and
Dessau
The Bureau decided to defer the examination of this nomination
to allow the State Party to provide more detailed conservation
and management plans for the group of properties proposed, and
to reconsider the buffer zones.
Old City of Salt 689 Jordan
The Bureau decided to defer this proposed nomination until such
times as the State Party is in a position to confirm that
appropritate protective measures, based on the Plan of Action of
1990, have been adopted and are being effectively implemented.
Crespi d'Adda 730 Italy
The Bureau decided to defer the examination of this nomination
to await the soonest possible outcome of a comparative study of
"company towns" in Europe and North America, prepared by TICCIH
on behalf of ICOMOS.
Town of Luang Prabang 479Rev. Laos
The Bureau decided to defer the nomination to await a further
expert evaluation to assess the impact of the Heritage
protection Zone and the consequent conservation programmes.
The Ruins of León 613Rev. Nicaragua
Viejo (Nicaragua)
The German Delegate questioned whether this nomination met the
principal criteria of outstanding universal value, and asked that
this matter be clarified before discussing the issue of
protection and management. The Representative of ICOMOS
indicated that they considerd that the site met the criteria.
*[50]
The Bureau therefore adopted the recommendation made by ICOMOS
to defer the examination of the nomination of the Ruins of León
Viejo to enable the State Party to provide clearer information
about the delineation of the proposed site and its buffer zone,
the management plan and its implementation, and measures for
protection against flood threats to the integrity of the
archaeological remains.
VII.3 The Bureau examined the nomination of Lunenburg Old
Town, Canada (741) and considered the following recommendation
made by ICOMOS: "ICOMOS recommends that consideration of this
nomination be deferred for two years to await the outcome of a
comparative study of European colonial planned settlements. In
the event of the British component of this study not being
completed by that time, ICOMOS recommends that consideration be
given to inscription of Lunenburg on the List without further
delay, on the basis of criteria (iv) and (v)." During the Bureau
session, the Representative of ICOMOS indicated that ICOMOS was
prepared to recommend the inscription of Lunenburg Old Town
without the preparation of comparative study.
As no consensus could be reached on the necessity of a
comparative study as recommended by ICOMOS, the Bureau decided
to adjourn the debate to the outgoing session of the Bureau in
December 1995.
VII.4 The debate on this nomination led to an extensive
discussion on the general principle and scope of comparative
studies. In response to the Italian Delegate's indication of
doubt on the whole notion of comparative studies, the
Representative of Germany recalled that the Committee had long
considered such studies, whether of a universal or a regional
framework, to be essential in determining the outstanding
universal value of properties to be inscribed on the World
Heritage List. ICOMOS maintained that comparative studies are
necessary for certain types of property to avoid the over-
representation of the same type of property. The Director of the
Centre cited Article 11.2 of the Convention which refers to
universal value and to paragraph 12 of the Operational Guidelines
which specifically refers to the need for comparative
evaluations. The Chairman stated that the Committee and Bureau,
on numerous occasions had requested such studies as modus
operandi.
VIII. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND: STATEMENT OF
ACCOUNTS FOR 1994 AND BUDGETARY INFORMATION FOR 1995
VIII.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre presented the
three documents: WHC-95/CONF.201.6a; WHC-95/CONF.201.6b and the
Corrigendum to 6b.
VIII.2 While thanking China, Korea and Thailand for their
voluntary contributions in addition to their obligatory
contributions to the World Heritage Fund, the Director of the
Centre stressed the importance of receiving additional voluntary
*[51]
contributions in order to respond to the growing needs of
international assistance for the protection of World Heritage
sites.
VIII.3 Several members of the Bureau took part in the debate,
notably the Delegate of China who expressed his thanks to the
Secretariat for the well presented budget document.
VIII.4 The Delegate of Italy asked the reason why the funding
of the project "Preparation of a Study on Promotion and Fund-
raising" appeared under the promotional activities budget line.
The Director recalled that at the eighteenth session of the World
Heritage Committee held in Phuket, it was stated that only the
expenses incurred for the preparation of the logo had been
covered by the Director-General, as this activity was not
requested nor approved by the Committee nor the Bureau. The
Delegate of Italy requested clarification on the procedures
governing the expenses incurred for promotional activities. The
Director of the Centre explained that a financial allocation was
granted in block for promotional activities by the Committee
after examination of the Workplan. He also indicated that
requests from States Parties for promotional activities were
indeed approved in accordance with paragraph 109 of the
Operational Guidelines.
VIII.5 The Bureau recommended that all the backlog and
outstanding payments of World Heritage contributions should be
paid in time to the World Heritage Fund.
VIII.6 In response to a proposal by the Secretariat, the
Bureau decided not to discuss at present the draft text of the
proposed new Financial Regulations of the World Heritage Fund,
which would include the UNESCO financial allocation to the
Centre, as the matter will be discussed in the coming 147th
session of the UNESCO Executive Board.
VIII.7 Finally, the Bureau took note of the World Heritage
Fund and budget documents presented and suggested to up-date the
documents in order to present them to the nineteenth session of
the Committee which will be held in Berlin next December.
IX. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
IX.1 The Bureau examined documents WHC-95/CONF.201/7 and
WHC-95/CONF.201/7Add and noted that, in accordance with the
decisions at the eighteenth session of the World Heritage
Committee, one third of the funds should be for natural heritage.
Therefore, only requests for technical cooperation for natural
heritage were brought forward to the Bureau. The Bureau, taking
note of the amount of the remaining funds for international
assistance, took the following decisions:
*[52]
Requests approved:
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire)
Technical assistance for this site inscribed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger for refurbishing, maintenance of the
Headquarters buildings and for the reinforcement of the
administrative structure for an amount of US$ 18,000 was
approved.
Rwenzori Mountains National Park (Uganda)
The technical assistance request for radio equipment, ranger
field equipment and rescue gear for Rwenzori Mountains National
Park for an amount of US$ 20,000 was approved.
Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Zaire)
The technical cooperation request for a 4-WD Toyota Land Cruiser
Station Wagon for better surveillance and control of the National
Park was approved (an amount of US$ 30,000), subject to the
payment of outstanding dues to the World Heritage Fund.
X. PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE WORKING METHODS OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
X.1 Introducing this item on the basis of the Working
Document WHC-95/CONF.201/8, the Representative of the Secretariat
clarified that the World Heritage Committee, at its eighteenth
session in Phuket had not in fact proposed this item. It was
felt, however, both by the Secretariat and the advisory bodies,
that it was necessary to explore a more rational and efficient
way of work which could be proposed to the Committee. The working
document in question was therefore only a first attempt, the
purpose of which was to initiate a discussion on this subject.
X.2 In the ensuing debate it was agreed, as suggested by
the Chair, that paragraph 1 of the Working Document was to be
deleted as there had been no such "request" from the Committee.
Specific comments made by the members of the Bureau, the advisory
bodies and some of the observers, can be summarized as follows:
X.3 The Delegate of Colombia expressed her concern
regarding point 2(a) of the working document stating that this
would prolong the process of nomination of new sites for a whole
year.
X.4 The Delegate of Germany shared this concern but
underlined, on the other hand, the need to introduce some changes
in order to avoid the increasingly lengthy debates on new
nominations. He therefore considered the working document as a
useful tool to initiate possible improvements, provided that it
is put forward to the Committee with the modifications which the
Secretariat could receive in the meantime.
*[53]
X.5 The Delegate of Italy was against the proposal, stating
that it had no business being proposed in the first place as this
had not been requested by the Committee. He commented that the
proposed revision of the Operational Guidelines hence did not
merit consideration. Regarding point 2(a), he recalled that the
Bureau's role was to prepare the ground for the Committee, and
that the proposal in question was in fact reversing the roles of
the Committee and the Bureau. Regarding point 2(b), he said that
such a new approach would deprive the Committee of its right to
discuss the reports on the state of conservation of the
properties which is, he emphasized, one of its primary tasks. To
discuss the reports of each region every five years would be
insufficient. Further on, speaking for the second time, the
Delegate of Italy pointed out that the proposed working document
presents serious problems both in terms of substance and method.
In terms of substance, it raises the question of the relationship
between the Bureau and the Committee. He therefore reiterated
that point 2(a) is totally unacceptable. Consequently, he
considered that the time schedule proposed which excludes the
role of the Bureau in the initial examination of proposed
nominations for inscription, was also unacceptable. As regards
point 2(b), he reminded the Bureau that the question of
monitoring reports, especially those concerning the properties
on the List of World Heritage in Danger, are extremely delicate
and therefore cannot be the sole responsibility of the Bureau.
His final comment was that, should the proposal be presented to
the Committee, it must be accompanied by a detailed account of
the comments and reservations made by the members of the Bureau
and some observers.
X.6 The Observer of France likewise expressed her
astonishment at the error made in paragraph 1. of the Working
Document, and regretted the time she lost in looking for it in
the report of the eighteenth session. While she agreed with the
concerns expressed by the Delegate of Italy concerning point
2(a), notably the reversal of the roles of the Bureau and the
Committee, and the need for the Bureau to discuss the new
nominations (as is presently the case), she nonetheless admitted
that the working methods regarding the nomination discussions
could be improved. Regarding point 2(b), she shared the comments
made by the Delegate of Italy.
X.7 The Delegate of Senegal accepted the Secretariat's
explanation regarding the error in paragrapg 1 and endorsed the
Chairman's proposal that the paragraph be simply deleted from any
future written proposal. As for the proposal itself, he felt that
it was necessary to submit it to the Committee together with a
statement of all of the reservations expressed by the Bureau. The
working methods do need to be improved, and he would welcome it
if the Secretariat could propose how best to manage the time
which is at the Bureau's and the Committee's disposal. This
statement was endorsed by the Delegate of Germany during his
second intervention.
X.8 The Delegate of China first stated his awareness of the
fact that, as regards point 2(a), the position of the States
*[54]
Parties is necessarily different from that of the advisory
bodies. He, however, associated himself with the position of the
advisory bodies, i.e. that they need more time in order to
accomplish accurate evaluations of new nominations and good
monitoring reports. The initiative undertaken by the Secretariat
seemed to him therefore justified.
X.9 The Delegate of Oman expressed his concern regarding
the new proposal relating to working methods of the World
Heritage Committee. He found it difficult for the Bureau to
express an opinion or take a decision at such short notice. He
felt that such proposals should first be discussed by the General
Assembly of States Parties. However, at a later juncture, he
proposed that the whole issue be withdrawn if a consensus was not
reached.
X.10 The Observer of Australia agreed with the concerns
expressed by Colombia regarding the extension of time of the
nominations process. Should the new proposal be adopted this will
prolong the process from nine to eighteen months.
X.11 The Observer of Malta endorsed the statements made by
the Delegates of Italy, France, Colombia and Australia,
particularly those regarding monitoring, i.e. points 2(b) and
(c). She found it difficult to accept that each region would be
discussed only every five years.
X.12 The Observer of Lebanon regretted that the Permanent
Delegations had not been invited to the consultation which the
Secretariat had had with the advisory bodies on 6 February 1995
concerning this matter. Furthermore, he indicated that the new
proposal would take away from the Committee the possibility to
discuss such important matters as, for instance, the budget.
Taking the floor again later in the discussion, the Observer of
Lebanon drew the Bureau's attention to the fact that the
Committee had adopted at its session in Phuket a new timetable
and that coming up with yet another new timetable would certainly
create a great confusion among the States Parties.
X.13 The Representative of the World Conservation Union
(IUCN) stated that something clearly had to be done: either have
the Committee meetings running into a second week or trim down
the agenda. In any case, it was necessary to be proactive, hence
the proposal of the February meeting. He furthermore said that
for their Organization it was becoming increasingly difficult to
present at each Bureau and each Committee both the evaluations
of the new nominations and the monitoring reports. Finally, he
drew the Bureau's attention to the fact that the evaluations of
the nominations coming in October from the Arctic or similar
regions need to be done, by the present method, in the midst of
winter. The Bureau, he hoped, could appreciate what it means
doing such evaluations in dark and at -40 degrees Celsius. He
therefore proposed that the time be extended from the present 15
months to 18 months, i.e. that the 1 July deadline be maintained
or possibly changed to 1 August.
*[55]
X.14 The Representative of ICOMOS likewise stated that the
present methods need to be improved, and it is for the Bureau to
propose. On their part, he wished to state that more time (one-
two months) is needed for evaluation missions and for obtaining
mission information.
X.15 Having heard all the comments, the Chair proposed that
the matter be submitted to the Committee at its nineteenth
session together with a detailed account of the comments and
reservations expressed by the Bureau and some observers. The
Bureau agreed with this proposal.
XI. REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
XI.1 It was recalled that the World Heritage Committee at
its eighteenth session decided that the following items should
be included on the agenda of this Bureau session.
A. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
XI.2 The Bureau examined Working Document WHC-95/CONF.201/9
and Information Document WHC-95/CONF.201/INF.4 and noted that
following the decisions of the World Heritage Committee in 1992
and 1993 to include cultural landscapes in the World Heritage
List and in the context of the global strategy for a
representative World Heritage List, two thematic study meetings
were held in 1994:
- 'Heritage Canals' (Canada, 15-19 September 1994),
- 'Routes as a Part of our Cultural Heritage' (Spain,
24-25 November 1994).
In 1995, two regional thematic study meetings were held
in the Asia-Pacific region:
- 'Regional Thematic Study Meeting on Asian Rice Culture
and its Terraced Landscapes' (Philippines, 28 March
to 4 April 1995)
- 'Identifying and Assessing World Heritage Cultural
Landscapes (Associative Landscapes)' (Australia, 26 to
28 April 1995).
XI.3 The Bureau commended the States Parties for their
efforts and recommended to the Committee to consider the results
as future reference in the evaluation and examination of
nominations of properties falling in the categories of canals,
heritage routes, rice culture and its terraced landscapes and
associative landscapes.
XI.4 The Delegate of Germany stressed that the cultural
landscape category reflects the interaction between nature and
*[56]
culture and that, therefore, the Committee should consider to add
this category to the two existing ones, i.e. cultural and natural
heritage, and that a special set of criteria for the Operational
Guidelines should be considered. He also proposed that in the
World Heritage List a clear indication be given of the properties
falling in this category.
XI.5 The Bureau considered the following recommendations
made by the expert meetings for the revision of the Operational
Guidelines:
A.1. The role of the local people in the nomination process
The Bureau recognized the important role of the local people in
the nomination process and the management of the properties. It
recommended, therefore, the Committee to revise paragraph 14 of
the Operational Guidelines as follows:
14. Participation of local people in the nomination
process is essential to make them feel a shared
responsibility with the State Party in the maintenance
of the site.
A.2. Criteria for the inclusion of cultural properties in the
World Heritage List
The Bureau endorsed the recommendations made by the Expert
Meeting on Canals and recommended that the Committee revise
paragraph 24.(a) as follows:
24. (a) (i) (unchanged)
(ii) add "or technology" after "landscape design", the
paragraph to read as follows:
exhibit an important interchange of human values, over
a span of time or within a cultural area of the world,
on developments in architecture, monumental arts or
town-planning, landscape design or technology; or
(iii) (unchanged)
(iv) add "or technological ..." i.e.
"architectural or technological ensemble", the
paragraph to read as follows:
be an outstanding example of a type of building or
architectural or technological ensemble or landscape
which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human
history; or
(v) (unchanged)
(vi) (unchanged).
*[57]
The Bureau recalled that during the eighteenth session of the
Committee the Delegate of Lebanon mentioned several problems of
syntax in the formulation of criterion b(ii) of paragraph 24 of
the Guidelines. Thus, the Bureau recommended that the Committee
revise the text as follows:
24. (b) (ii) have adequate legal and/or traditional protection
and management mechanisms to ensure the conservation
of the nominated cultural properties or cultural
landscapes. The existence of protective legislation
at the national, provincial or municipal level and/or
a well-established traditional protection as well as
of adequate management mechanisms is therefore
essential and, as is clearly indicated in the
following paragraph, must be stated clearly on the
nomination form. Assurances of the effective
implementation of these laws and/or of this
traditional protection as well as of these management
mechanisms are also expected. Furthermore, in order
to preserve the integrity of cultural sites,
particularly those open to large numbers of visitors,
the State Party concerned should be able to provide
evidence of suitable administrative arrangements to
cover the management of the property, its conservation
and its accessibility to the public.
A.3. Explanatory notes on cultural landscapes
Both thematic expert meetings on canals and heritage routes
proposed to include definitions of these types of cultural
properties in the Operational Guidelines. After some discussion
the Bureau recommended that the Committee adds 'for example
canals and heritage routes' and revises paragraph 40 as follows:
40. The extent of a cultural landscape for inclusion on
the World Heritage List is relative to its
functionality and intelligibility. In any case, the
samples elected must be substantial enough to
adequately represent the totality of the cultural
landscape that it illustrates. The possibility of
designating long linear areas which represent
culturally significant transport and communication
networks should not be excluded, for example canals
and heritage routes.
As to the definition of these types of cultural properties, the
Bureau recommended that the Committee requests the Secretariat,
in collaboration with the advisory bodies, to prepare a glossary
of terms as an annex to the Operational Guidelines. The following
definitions proposed by the expert meetings could then be
included in this glossary of terms:
A canal is a human-engineered waterway. It may be of
outstanding universal value from the point of view of
*[58]
history or technology, either intrinsically or as an
exceptional example representative of this category of
cultural property. The canal may be a monumental work, the
defining feature of a linear cultural landscape, or an
integral component of a complex cultural landscape.
A heritage route is composed of tangible elements of which
the cultural significance comes from exchanges and a multi-
dimensional dialogue across countries or regions, and that
illustrate the interaction of movement, along the route, in
space and time.
A.4. ROLE OF THE ADVISORY BODIES IN THE EVALUATION OF
NOMINATIONS
In order to better describe the advisory bodies' evaluation
process of cultural and natural properties, the Bureau
recommended that the Committee deletes paragraphs 45 and 46 of
the Operational Guidelines, which only describe the process for
natural properties, and to introduce a new paragraph before par.
59 as follows:
F. Guidelines for the evaluation and examination of
nominations
xx. The evaluation of whether or not individual sites
nominated by States Parties satisfy the criteria and the
conditions of authenticity/integrity will be carried out by
the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)
for cultural properties and by the World Conservation Union
(IUCN) for natural properties. In the case of nominations
of cultural properties in the category of 'cultural
landscapes', as appropriate, the evaluation will be carried
out in consultation with the World Conservation Union
(IUCN). The evaluation will normally include:
Data assembly and internal review:
ICOMOS/IUCN reviews the nomination dossier, identifies
which additional information is required and assembles data
on the nominated and comparable properties. This may take
the form of a standardized data sheet.
External review:
Expert advice is sought on the 'outstanding universal
value' of the nominated property, with special reference to
the criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List
(para. 24 (a) and para. 44 (a) respectively).
Field inspection:
Expert missions are sent to evaluate the site and
particularly to study the criteria relating to
authenticity/integrity, protection, conservation and
management (para 24. (b) and para. 44 (b) respectively).
*[59]
Panel review:
Draft evaluations are prepared on the basis of the reports
of the expert groups and subjected to a formal review by
panels of experts.
Reporting:
ICOMOS/IUCN presents an evaluation report, which is an
outcome of the four steps mentioned above, to the Bureau of
the World Heritage Committee.
ICOMOS/IUCN, taking into account the decisions of the
Bureau and additional information that might have been
received from the nominating State Party, presents a final
evaluation report to the World Heritage Committee.
The report of the World Heritage Committee's session will
include its decision, the criteria under which the
nominated site has been inscribed, the justification of
their application as well as any recommendation the
Committee may wish to make on that occasion.
B. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
B.1. DEADLINES FOR PRESENTATION OF REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BUREAU AND THE
COMMITTEE
The Bureau recalled that over the years, it had become practice
that a great number of requests which were to be examined by the
Bureau and the Committee, were submitted shortly before their
sessions.
To facilitate the work of the Secretariat and the advisory bodies
and to enable them to prepare the necessary documents well in
advance of the sessions of the Bureau and the Committee, the
Bureau recommended that the Committee introduces strict deadlines
for the submission of all requests for technical assistance, with
the exception of requests for emergency assistance, at 1 May and
1 October respectively for examination at the following session
of the Bureau. The Bureau recommended to delete paragraph 104,
which only sets a deadline for large-scale technical cooperation
requests, and to introduce the above deadlines in a new paragraph
after paragraph 109, as follows:
xx All requests for international assistance which are to
be examined by the Bureau, with the exception of requests
for emergency assistance, should be submitted before 1 May
and 1 October respectively for consideration by the
following session of the Bureau. Large-scale requests (that
is those exceeding US$ 30,000) will be forwarded, with the
Bureau's recommendation, to the following session of the
World Heritage Committee for decision-making.
*[60]
B.2. AUTHORITY OF THE CHAIRPERSON AND THE BUREAU TO APPROVE
REQUESTS
The Bureau considered the need to amend the amounts that can be
approved by the Chairperson and the Bureau for preparatory
assistance, technical cooperation and training.
The Delegates of Germany and Italy expressed the view that a
revision of the amounts that can be approved by the Chairperson
and the Bureau should be seen in relation to an overall World
Heritage strategy particularly for technical cooperation. In
particular, they stressed that World Heritage technical
cooperation should focus on large-scale projects instead of a
great number of smaller ones. The afore-mentioned Delegates, as
well as the observers from France, Lebanon and Benin, recalled
that the total amount available under the World Heritage Fund is
not likely to increase and that, therefore, any change in the
amounts should be excluded for the moment. The Observer of
France recalled that at the eighteenth session of the World
Heritage Committee it was suggested that a budgetary ceiling for
promotional activities be established.
The Delegate of Colombia regretted that for 1995 practically all
funds had been committed already by the Bureau and the Committee
in December 1994 and that, as a consequence, no small-scale
requests could be considered in the course of the year. This
reflects the need to develop a strategy for the use of the World
Heritage Fund.
As to the question whether this issue should be included on the
agenda for the next Committee's session, the Bureau decided not
to do so and that this matter could be discussed under the
deliberations on the 'Examination of the World Heritage Fund and
approval of the budget for 1996, and presentation of a
provisional budget for 1997'. The Bureau requested the
Secretariat to prepare a background paper on this matter that
should include an analysis of the type and number of requests
over the last years as well as the amounts of these requests.
XII. DRAFT AGENDA FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE
BUREAU (1-2 DECEMBER, 1995)
XII.1 The Bureau adopted the Draft Agenda for the
extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee, to be held in Berlin, Germany on 1 and 2 December
1995. The Bureau also agreed to the Chairman's recommendation
that the Secretariat be authorized to add other items to the
Agenda should the need arise.
XIII. PREPARATION OF THE NINETEENTH SESSION OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE, INCLUDING THE DRAFT AGENDA (4-9
DECEMBER 1995)
XIII.1 The Provisional Agenda for the nineteenth session of
the Committee as outlined in Document WHC-95/CONF.201/11 was
*[61]
adopted by the Bureau with the following observations and
additional agenda items:
- Balanced representation of natural and cultural heritage on
on the World Heritage List
- Progress report on the implementation of the Global
Strategy
XIII.2 The Delegate of Germany recalled that the Committee at
its eighteenth session noted the imbalance of the cultural and
natural heritage in the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention and made the following observations: he recalled that
a meeting is planned on the notion of integrity to be organized
jointly by the Centre and France. He noted that the imbalance
between natural and cultural properties is growing and that there
is a serious need to take action. More specifically he drew the
attention of the Bureau to the following facts: there are three
times as many cultural as natural sites on the World Heritage
List; that there were 26 new cultural nominations and nine new
natural nominations presented; that a global strategy is still
lacking for natural heritage; that there is a striking imbalance
in the staffing of the World Heritage Centre; that there is a
continuing concern about the balance of specialists representing
States Parties at the statutory meetings; that the notion of
"outstanding universal value" is being applied differently by the
two advisory bodies; that there is a need to rationalize the
technical evaluation process to ensure that both advisory bodies
apply similar judgement values with respect to their
recommendations. He underlined that action needs to be taken
immediately to ensure that this divergence should be corrected.
It was agreed that a background paper be prepared by the Centre
in cooperation with the German Delegation, the advisory bodies
and other interested parties. The Bureau adopted an agenda item
on 'Balanced representation of natural and cultural heritage on
the World Heritage List'.
XIII.3 It was furthermore recommended that the issue of
comparative studies be brought up under item 11 (Examination of
the World Heritage Fund) of the Provisional Agenda.
XIII.4 The Observer of Australia noted that an agenda item
"Progress report on the implementation of the Global Strategy"
be included.
XIII.5 The Delegate of Italy urged that major topics be
considered in the plenary session of the Committee and not in
working groups. These should be constituted by the Committee and
could discuss minor items of a technical nature to save time and
to provide an opportunity for reflection on major issues during
the plenary session. The Observer of France expressed her
concern about entrusting certain subjects which should be
discussed only in plenary to working groups. The Observer of
Lebanon noted in addition that no simultaneous meetings should
take place and that working groups should have full
interpretation facilities. Furthermore, it was suggested that
*[62]
the Committee, rather than the Secretariat, should decide about
the establishment of working groups.
XIV. OTHER BUSINESS
No discussions were held under this item.
XV. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE BUREAU AND CLOSURE OF
THE SESSION
XV.1 Having examined the draft report presented by the
Rapporteur, the Bureau adopted the Report with a number of
amendments requested by the the delegates, observers and
representatives of the advisory bodies. These have been
incorporated when preparing the present final version of the
Report.
XV.2 Among the amendments that were adopted, the Bureau
decided, upon the request of the Delegate of Italy, and endorsed
by some other delegates and observers, that the reference
concerning the Natural and Culturo-historical Region of Kotor
(Yugoslavia), mentioned on page 27 of the draft report (English
language) presenting the state of conservation reports of the
sites inscribed on the World Heritage in Danger List, be deleted
from the report on the grounds that "it had not been discussed
by the Bureau".
XV.3 The Delegate of Germany, speaking on behalf of the
members of the Bureau, thanked the Chairman, Dr Adul
Wichiencharoen, for his efficient chairing of a difficult
meeting. He also expressed his pleasure that the next meeting of
the Bureau and the Committee would take place in Germany, in
December 1995.
XV.4 The Delegate of Italy and the Observer of France
congratulated the Secretariat for producing the draft report in
time.
*[EOF]