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 07:46:50 Dec 11, 2020, and is part of the
UNESCO collection. The information on this web page may be out of date. See
All versions of this archived page.
Limited distribution SC-91/CONF.002/2
Paris, 10 July 1991
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Fifteenth session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 17-21 June 1991
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
*[1]
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The fifteenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee was held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 17 to
21 June 1991. The following Bureau members attended: Dr.
Christina Cameron (Canada), Chairperson; Mrs. Licia Vlad
Borrelli (Italy), Rapporteur; and representatives of Bulgaria,
Mexico, Thailand, Tunisia and Senegal, Vice-Chairpersons.
2. Representatives of the following States Parties to the
Convention attended the meeting of the Bureau as observers:
Australia, Bolivia, Finland, France, Greece, Guinea, Hungary,
Korea (Democratic People's Republic of), Portugal, Syrian Arab
Republic, Turkey and the United States of America.
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) also attended the meeting
in an advisory capacity. The full list of participants appears
in Annex I.
II. OPENING OF THE SESSION
4. The representative of the Director-General, Mr. A. Badran,
Assistant Director-General for Science, welcomed the members
of the Bureau. He emphasized that the implementation of the
Convention is a model for intersectoral co-operation and is
therefore given the highest priority by UNESCO. He drew the
attention of the members to the fact that both the Science and
Culture Sectors of UNESCO have assigned a major role to the
work of the Convention in their programme priorities for the
next biennium (1992-93) which were submitted to the Executive
Board of UNESCO during May-June 1991. He acknowledged that the
work of the Bureau was becoming technically complex and noted
that the current session would last for five instead of four
days as had bean the case in the past. Mr. Badran then
underlined the importance of the outcome of the meeting to the
work of the Committee, scheduled to meet for its fifteenth
session in Carthage, Tunisia, in December 1991, by
highlighting the major issues that needed to be discussed
under a selected number of items of the Provisional Agenda. He
stressed the importance of the contributions that would be
made by ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN to the success of the meeting
of the Bureau and reiterated UNESCO's appreciation of the role
these organizations played in the implementation of the
Convention. Mr. Badran concluded his address by wishing the
Bureau a successful session.
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
5. The Secretariat informed the Bureau of the wish of the
Secretary General of ICOMOS that the examination of
nominations of cultural properties to the World Heritage List
and to the List of World Heritage in Danger be postponed to a
*[2]
later time during the meeting. The Bureau decided to examine
the nominations of natural properties to the World Heritage
List and List of World Heritage in Danger before examining
nominations of cultural properties. With this amendment, the
Bureau adopted the Agenda.
IV. REPORT OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE FOURTEENTH
SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE
6. The Secretary for the fifteenth session of the Bureau, Mr.
Bernd von Droste, reported on the activities undertaken by the
Secretariat since the last session of the Committee, held in
Banff, Canada, from 7-12 December 1991. He drew the attention
of the Committee to the fact that detailed information on such
activities was provided in working documents made available to
the members of the Bureau. In his presentation he provided the
Bureau with information of a general nature and reviewed the
work of the Secretariat over the last six months, highlighting
the main achievements and problems encountered.
7. Mr. von Droste informed the Bureau that since the last
session of the Committee, Bahrain and Kenya had ratified or
accepted the Convention, bringing the total number of States
Parties to the Convention to 117. He drew the attention of the
Bureau to a special event in Japan and promotional activities
undertaken by the Secretariat in order to encourage more
countries to become States Parties to the Convention. He
reported that the Government of Solomon Islands, though not a
Member State of UNESCO, had expressed its wish to be invited
by the General Conference of UNESCO to become a party to the
Convention and another Pacific island nation, namely Tonga,
had also contacted the Secretariat to obtain information on
the Convention and on procedures for acceptance.
8. The Secretary reported that with the inscription of 17 new
sites at the last session of the Committee, the World Heritage
List now included 337 properties, of which 245 were cultural,
78 natural and 14 mixed. Mr. von Droste emphasized the fact
that as the number of sites inscribed on the List increased
the monitoring of the state of conservation of World Heritage
sites became an increasingly complex and time-consuming task.
He stressed that the monitoring of the state of conservation
of cultural and natural properties will be an important
component of the overall evaluation of the Convention and the
formulation of a future policy for the implementation of the
Convention. He underlined the fact that such an evaluation
will be the most important part of the activities that would
be undertaken to commemorate the Twentieth anniversary of the
adoption of the Convention. Mr. von Droste also informed the
Bureau that a special one-day workshop on the implementation
of the Convention would be organized in conjunction with the
Fourth World Parks Congress, scheduled to be held during
February 1992, in Caracas, Venezuela, with the intention of
utilizing the outcome of the workshop in the evaluation of the
Convention.
*[3]
9. Mr. von Droste recalled that the Committee had, during
several of its past sessions, requested that the application
of criteria to sites illustrating certain themes, such as
geological and fossil deposits, and rural landscapes, be
reviewed. He informed the Bureau that the Secretariat was
proposing a new criteria for incorporating cultural landscapes
and revisions to natural heritage criteria, based on the
recommendations of a Task Force Meeting of Geologists held at
UNESCO Headquarters from 11-13 February 1991. He requested the
Bureau to review and approve a Draft Report of the World
Heritage Committee to the 26th General Conference of UNESCO
scheduled for October-November 1991.
10. The Chairperson thanked the Secretary for the report and
noted that his emphasis on monitoring the state of
conservation of World Heritage Properties and the evaluation
of the implementation of the Convention were pertinent.
V. MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL WORLD
HERITAGE PROPERTIES, AND RELATED TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
11. The Bureau took cognizance of documents SC-91/CONF.001/2
and SC-91/CONF.001/2 Add, submitted respectively by the
Secretariat and the Co-ordinator of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional
Project on Cultural Heritage and Development in Latin America
and the Caribbean, and took note of the specific measures
initiated by the Secretariat following the decisions taken by
the World Heritage Committee at its 14th session. The Bureau
expressed itself satisfied with the co-operation established
between the Secretariat and the Co-ordinator of the network
set up by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for
the protection of Mediterranean sites under the Barcelona
Convention. It was noted that 45 World Heritage sites were
included in this network. Furthermore, the Bureau requested
the Secretariat to continue preparing data-sheets by country
and by site, considering that such a resource had become
indispensable to the Secretariat and would greatly facilitate
the work of the Committee, notably where the monitoring of the
state of preservation of cultural properties was concerned.
12. Adopting the principle that the objective aimed at was
the protection of the listed properties and sites, the
discussions followed two main lines: the method of monitoring,
and how it was to be implemented.
13. The viability of the system of questionnaires entitled
Updating of Information on Cultural Properties inscribed on
the World Heritage List was the subject of a lengthy
discussion. One member of the Bureau, recalling his scepticism
concerning the questionnaires which he had expressed at the
outset, pointed out the workload for both the Secretariat and
the States Parties represented by this operation, and he also
seriously doubted whether there was any possibility of
improving the system. While recognising that in its present
form this approach did not enable the Secretariat to perform
its task satisfactorily, notably by reason of the marked
*[4]
qualitative differences of the replies (in some cases even
within a given country), two members of the Bureau
nevertheless thought that the continuance of the operation
could be considered. However, the Bureau decided to propose to
the Committee that the operation be suspended with effect from
its next session. The Bureau held the view that while the
site-by-site diagnosis as at present being made around the
periphery of the Mediterranean was a major element in the
monitoring process, it would be desirable for States Parties,
when submitting their nominations for inscription to provide
ICOMOS and the Secretariat with more detailed information on
the condition of the sites in question and on available local
and national means for monitoring their condition. Such a
requirement, bringing site evaluation and management into
parallel, should heighten States Parties' awareness of the
problem of the conservation of listed sites.
14. The Bureau also considered it desirable to suggest to the
Committee that countries submitting applications for
international assistance should accompany their request by a
diagnosis of the property or site concerned, except in the
case of initial or urgent applications.
15. To this end, it was suggested that the Secretariat
submit to the Committee, at its next session, an amendment to
the section of the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention dealing with
international assistance.
16. The rôle which ICOMOS and ICCROM should play was referred
to at length. The members of the Bureau unanimously considered
that these two organizations should play a more prominent
role. The resources made available by their networks should
help to establish diagnoses of cultural properties and sites
and to make the authorities responsible for them more aware of
their obligations in regard to the application of the
Convention. The Guide to Site Management, prepared by ICCROM,
should be finalized as soon as possible, with the help of
ICOMOS; the UNESCO Secretariat had suggested the preparation
of this manual so that it might be made available to national
authorities and facilitate the monitoring of the management of
listed sites.
17. The Bureau stressed the importance of what ICCROM and
ICOMOS could do where training was concerned, this being an
essential component of efficient site management. The Bureau
wished the Secretariat to examine, with the officials of those
organizations, what forms of joint action could be proposed to
the Committee at its 15th session.
18. In the course of the discussion, a member of the Bureau
wondered whether it would be opportune to ask States Parties
to provide the UNESCO General Conference with the periodical
reports referred to in Article 29 of the World Heritage
Convention. The Secretariat stated that there were generally
few responses to requests for reports from States Parties;
these reports placed a heavy workload on the Secretariat, and
*[5]
would duplicate information requested by the Committee in
connection with the monitoring of site preservation.
19. The Secretariat gave the Bureau basic information on
certain sites whose state of preservation had bean referred to
at the previous session of the Committee.
20. The plan to build a hotel on the Tipasa site had been
abandoned by the Algerian authorities and a project to protect
the town was being finalized with the help of a UNESCO
consultant. With regard to the Plateau of the Pyramids, which
had been a subject of concern on the part of the Committee,
the Egyptian authorities were currently remaking the roads,
replacing the asphalt surfaces with local sand and stones.
Along the same lines, the existing lighting arrangements were
being replaced by installations which did not clash with the
aesthetic aspect of the site. Furthermore, the Egyptian
authorities had undertaken studies with a view to preparing a
plan for the reorganization of the Plateau. A request for
technical co-operation for this purpose was awaited. The
Bureau decided to send a message to the Egyptian authorities
concerning measures contemplated to halt the extension of
buildings in the nearby village. With regard to Mystras, the
Greek authorities had approved a project for the restoration
of the Byzantine Palace, which was in grave danger of
collapsing, the site being located in a zone liable to
seismic tremors. The project provided, in particular, for a
complete restoration of those parts of the palace containing
the throne room and the private apartments of the
Palaeologues. This work would include the rebuilding of the
missing upper sections of the walls and the laying of roofs.
According to the analysis of the specialists who prepared the
project, roofing is necessary because it not only provides
protection from the weather, but also plays an important part
in increasing the stability of the bearing structures in case
of seismic tremor. For the other parts of the palace, only the
consolidation of the ruins is planned. The work is based on
thorough studies and was decided upon to save the throne room
in particular, the only surviving Byzantine construction of
its kind in Greece. Following the misgivings expressed by the
Committee at its 14th session concerning the building of a
cultural centre between the Tower of Belem and the Monastery
of the Hieronymites in Lisbon, the Portugese authorities had
sent a complete file to the Secretariat, which it had passed
on to ICOMOS in order that the latter might inform the
Committee of its opinion. The Secretariat confirmed the
existence of a small concrete construction on the site of
Xanthos-Letoon, and the Committee will receive further
information on the condition of this site at its next session.
21. In reply to questions concerning the extension of one of
the buildings bordering the Place Stanislas in Nancy and the
plan to open a leisure park in the vicinity of the Château de
Chambord, the French observer informed the Bureau that the
French Ministry of Culture kept a very vigilant eye on
measures taken by local authorities which might alter sites on
the World Heritage List. Assurances had bean given that the
*[6]
cultural activity centre planned at Chambord would be located
at a sufficient distance from the Château and its grounds.
22. A member of the Bureau expressed misgivings regarding the
effects of the construction of the Gorée-Almadies memorial and
the Secretariat made it clear that the memorial would be
erected- on the Pointe des Almadies and not on the Island of
Gorée, where there would be only a small replica of it. This
was confirmed by the representative of Senegal.
VI. MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF NATURAL
WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES, AND RELATED TECHNICAL
PROBLEMS
23. The Bureau examined document SC-91/CONF.001/3 and noted
specific actions taken by the Secretariat and progress
achieved in respect of eleven natural or mixed sites examined
by the Committee at its last session. The Bureau was satisfied
to note that some States Parties (e.g. Turkey, in the case of
Hierapolis-Pamukkale) had taken steps to consolidate the state
of conservation of natural/mixed heritage sites. In other
cases, the Bureau reconsidered the state of conservation of
properties in the light of further information provided by the
Secretariat as well as the representatives of IUCN and States
Parties.
24. The IUCN representative stressed that the procedure for
monitoring the state of conservation, adopted by IUCN in co-
operation with the Secretariat had, in many cases, lessened
threats to the integrity of the natural or mixed heritage
sites. He drew the attention of the Bureau to the example of
the intervention of the Committee regarding an irrigation
project that would have had negative impacts on the grassland
and riverine ecology of the Royal Chitwan National Park
(Nepal) which is being presently subjected to a comprehensive
environmental impact assessment.
25. The representatives of IUCN circulated an information
document on the state of conservation of 21 natural or mixed
sites of which ten were in Africa, three each in Australia,
Eastern Europe and Latin America, respectively, and two in
Canada. The information document included six sites on which
the Secretariat had also submitted brief progress reports as
part of document SC-91/CONF.001/3. The Bureau discussed
problems facing the conservation of the following sites, and
requested the Secretariat to take a series of follow-up
actions in the case of several sites.
Kakadu National Park (Australia)
26. The Bureau was pleased to note that the Australian
Cabinet has decided not to allow mining at Coronation Hill,
located in an area that is being considered for nomination as
an extension to this World Heritage site as part of Stage III
of the expansion. The Australian observer informed the Bureau
that the proposed Stage III of the extension of Kakadu
National Park would add approximately another 6,000 sq. km. to
this site and wished to know whether or not the nomination of
*[7]
this extension needed to follow the procedure to submit a new
nomination. The Bureau recalled that each of the stages I and
II of the nomination of this site also covered equally large
areas. The Bureau informed the Australian observer that since
the proposed extension would increase the size of the World
Heritage site by a third and that the original nomination of
1981 is now substantially modified, it would be considered as a
new nomination.
Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)
27. The Bureau recalled that the Committee, when it inscribed
this site on the World Heritage List in 1988, requested IUCN
to submit a progress report in 1991 on the implementation of
an effective management regime. The Bureau noted that
although a management agency has bean set up, the Director and
staff were only recently appointed and that the management
planning process has been delayed and no additional funds for
field management activities have been provided. The Bureau
was also concerned about the pace of tourism development and a
proposal for a hydropower development project which could
impact the site. The Bureau requested that the Australian
authorities provide further elaboration on these problems to
IUCN so as to enable IUCN to report to the Committee at its
forthcoming session in December 1991.
Iguazu National Park (Argentina) Iguaçu National Park (Brazil)
28. The Bureau recalled that these two sites cover the same
waterfall area which extends across the two countries. The
Bureau was concerned that, for tourist purposes, eight
helicopters now simultaneously overfly the falls causing
serious acoustic disturbance in an otherwise natural setting,
and that more than 7,000 visitors have registered complaints.
The Bureau also noted that local non-governmental
organizations are opposing the use of helicopters as an
inappropriate activity that contravenes legal air traffic
regulations for flights over protected areas. The Bureau
requested the Secretariat to convoy these concerns to the
authorities of Argentina and Brazil and suggest that they co-
operate in devising management strategies to control
helicopter tourism of the area.
Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)
29. The Bureau noted with satisfaction that a major expansion
of this site, to include a large area of the Rhodope
Mountains, is now under consideration by the Bulgarian
authorities. The Bureau wished to encourage the Bulgarian
authorities to proceed with the extension of Pirin and to
consider submitting a revised nomination of the expanded site.
The Bureau also noted the comment of the IUCN representative
to the effect that there was great potential for establishing
a transborder site with Greece by including areas ajacent to
Pirin in Greece. If established this transborder park could be
one of the most outstanding natural areas of Europe.
*[8]
Dinosaur Provincial Park (Canada)
30. The Bureau noted that in order to accommodate the
exploitation of some of the gas deposits under this site which
are privately owned, the boundaries of this site have been
modified to excise 1,415 acres and add 1,478 acres of higher
geological value. Although the Bureau was satisfied with the
fact that this swap met the approval of the Provincial Parks
Branch of Alberta and the slanted drilling technology to be
employed will not have adverse impacts on the integrity of the
site, the Bureau observed that drilling of any wells inside
the Park would cause greater concern. The Delegate of Canada
assured the Bureau that impacts of drilling on the integrity
of the Park will be closely monitored by representatives of
governmental and non-governmental organizations and the Bureau
and Committee would be alerted if any threat arose. A revised
map of the new boundaries of the site is now awaited.
Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada)
31. The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last
session, expressed serious concerns regarding the infection of
the remaining 3,200 bison in this Park by brucellosis and
tuberculosis, as well as with logging operations. The Bureau
was informed of a longer term threat to the integrity of the
site caused by activities upstream along the Peace/Athabasca
Rivers, which include the expansion of pulp mills, logging
operations and dam construction resulting in water pollution
and loss of water quality, changes in the flooding regime and
the gradual drying-up of the Athabasca delta. The Bureau
noted that a large surface area is no longer an adequate basis
to ensure the long-term integrity of the Wood Buffalo National
Park, and similar World Heritage sites such as Yellowstone
(USA), Serengeti (Tanzania) and Banc d'Arguin (Mauritania),
and that an ecosystem management approach taking into account
activities outside of the Park would be required.
32. The Delegate of Canada informed the Bureau that the
Canadian Government, in consultation with interested parties,
has reviewed options for a management programme, which will be
announced shortly, for diseased bison of the Wood Buffalo
National Park. This programme has already ruled out large-
scale slaughter of bison as a management option and is likely
to rely on a combination of techniques, including quarantine
and treatment and, in some cases, removal of bison from the
Park. The launching of the Bison Management Programme will
probably include a statement acknowledging the principle of
preserving the ecological/environmental integrity of the Park.
The Delegate of Canada also informed the Bureau that the
Canadian Government is now strictly enforcing forestry
regulations and is negotiating with logging companies which
have permits to seasonally log in the Park, in order to
terminate logging operations well before the year 2002 - date
at which all logging permits expire. The cessation of logging
operations may remove resources now being used by pulp mills
in the area.
*[9]
33. The Delegate of Canada acknowledged the need to monitor
activities outside the Park which may negatively impact the
Park. The Delegate also informed the Bureau that a number of
technological approaches have been developed and implemented
to monitor water quality in the Peace and Athabasca Rivers and
minimize the threat of the drying-out of the Athabasca Delta.
A three to five year study, costing about 10 million dollars
is underway to examine the Peace-Athabasca basin and the
activities in that basin which affect water quality. The study
is a part of Canada 's Green Plan for the Environment.
34. The Bureau noted that a number of Canadian non-
governmental organizations had suggested that the Wood Buffalo
National Park merited consideration for inclusion in the List
of World Heritage in Danger. However, the Bureau acknowledged
that the Canadian Government was taking appropriate measures
to preserve the integrity of this Park. The Bureau requested
the Canadian authorities to make special efforts both within
the Park and throughout its entire drainage basin in order to
retain and restore the integrity of this Park and provide
information on the types and nature of technologies which are
currently used for mitigating negative impacts on the Peace
and Athabasca Rivers due to development activities. The
Bureau agreed with the IUCN report that the Wood Buffalo
National Park will, in many ways, be a test case for
conservation of large, remote reserves and could provide
lessons applicable elsewhere.
Manavo-Gounda Saint Floris National Park (Central African
Republic)
35. The Bureau noted with concern that despite a large-scale
EEC project, this Park still had no management plan; it
continued to be poached intensively, though there had been an
appreciable reduction of poaching, particularly of elephants.
The loss of six wardens, killed by poachers early in the year,
was a regrettable occurrence; the Bureau wished to offer its
condolences to the victims' families. The Bureau also
recommended that a management plan be elaborated and that this
aspect of the EEC project be implemented as soon as possible.
Activities connected with tourism should be integrated into
this management plan.
La Amistad National Park (Costa Rica and Panama)
36. The Bureau was pleased to note that as requested by the
Committee at its last session, the Panamanian authorities have
agreed to the inscription of this transborder national park as
a single site on the World Heritage List. The Bureau urged
the Costa Rican authorities to clarify their position to the
Secretariat on this matter. The Bureau recalled that during
its last session in Banff, the Committee also requested the
Costa Rican authorities to revise the boundaries of the La
Amistad National Park within their country in accordance with
the recommendations made by IUCN. The Bureau noted with
satisfaction that the Costa Rican authorities have submitted
preliminary proposals for new boundaries and that IUCN had
reviewed them and suggested modifications to excise three of
*[10]
the Indian reserves and add one wildlife refuge. The Bureau
requested the Secretariat and IUCN to continue communications
with the Costa Rican authorities in order to finalize the new
boundaries of the La Amistad National Park of Costa Rica and
submit them to the consideration of the Committee at its
forthcoming session.
Comoé National Park (Côte d'Ivoire)
37. The Bureau noted with satisfaction that a plan to develop
the infrastructures of this Park, funded by the World Bank in
the amount of 500 million CFA Francs, was under way. In
particular, it should make it possible to improve surveillance
and combat local poaching. The Bureau also noted that the Côte
d'Ivoire wished to set up a research station for the purpose
of studying the ecosystems of the Park and helping to monitor
the management of the site; the Bureau recommended that the
Secretariat seek bilateral and multilateral funding to this
end and that this effort to promote research should primarily
benefit national scientists.
Tai National Park (Côte d'Ivoire)
38. The Bureau noted with satisfaction that this Park
benefitted from strong support of German and WWF co-operation
for research and conservation of the site, and in the future,
incorporation of its peripheral zones in an integrated
development plan. But the site was under threat from poachers
and from the arrival in the area of refugees from Liberia.
Consequently the Bureau wished to encourage the Côte
d'Ivoire's partners to back up the existing project by making
use of the work already done by the Tai research station in
the context of UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere project (MAB).
Simien National Park (Ethiopia)
39. The Bureau recalled that this site was one of the first
natural areas to be inscribed on the World Heritage List. It
was abandoned by the staff of the Wildlife Conservation
Organization in 1985 due to civil unrest in the area. Since
then there are no reliable reports of its condition. A new
government is now being formed and hence the Bureau requested
that the Secretariat contact the Permanent Delegation for
Ethiopia in UNESCO in order to develop mechanisms to obtain an
assessment of the present status of this site.
Mont Saint Michel and its Bay (France)
40. The Secretariat had indicated that it had received, and
passed on to the French authorities, another letter from a
French association for the protection of the environment
drawing attention to potential dangers to this site arising
from two projects: the construction of an industrial pig farm
and the opening of a leisure park. In reply, the French
observer assured the Bureau that neither of these two projects
*[11]
had been authorized, and that the extension and protection of
the Mont Saint Michel site was under way at the national
level. The Bureau took note of these assurances with
satisfaction.
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire)
41. The Bureau took cognizance of the IUCN report on the plan
to exploit an iron ore deposit which, though situated outside
the Nature Reserve proper, nevertheless lay within the site
inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981. The Bureau also
noted the remark of a Guinean observer who recalled the
commitments contained in the new management plan of the Mont
Nimba Biosphere Reserve which the Guinean authorities had
recently sent to the Secretariat, and the efforts made by
those authorities to reconcile development problems with the
conservation requirements of the area. The Bureau recalled
that it had been consulted in writing by the Secretariat
regarding the timeliness of redefining the boundaries of the
site inscribed on the World Heritage List; to this end, the
Bureau confirmed that the Guinean authorities should submit an
official request to the Secretariat accompanied by a map
clearly showing the confines of the Strict Nature Reserve and
requesting the revision of the boundaries of the site
inscribed on the World Heritage List. This request should be
submitted to IUCN, which would examine the question of whether
it was a simple modification of boundaries or whether a new
evaluation of the property should be made in order to justify
its retention - or not, as the case may be - on the World
Heritage List. The Bureau therefore instructed the Secretariat
to urge the Guinean authorities to submit as soon as possible
a new file stating the boundaries of the property receiving
adequate protection, and the long term guarantees for that
protection.
Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
42. The Bureau recalled that the Honduran authorities had
requested the Committee, at its last session, to include this
site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee
had suggested at that time that the Honduran authorities
submit a request for international assistance from the World
Heritage Fund. The Bureau noted that such a request had not
yet been received and urged the Secretariat and IUCN to work
through national MAB and IUCN networks in order to bring
forward a request for the consideration of the Committee at
its forthcoming session.
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
43. The Bureau noted with concern that the integrity of this
site continues to be threatened by the invasion of a
resistance movement which has burnt buildings, destroyed
bridges, killed a number of park guards, looted most Park
facilities, poached numerous rhinos, elephants, tigers and
other wildlife, removed valuable trees and depleted fish
stocks in the Manas River. The Bureau recalled that the
Indian authorities were requested by the Committee, in 1989
*[12]
and in 1990, to nominate this site to the List of World
Heritage in Danger. Although the Bureau acknowledged that the
survey of the villages around this Park that is being
undertaken by WWF could lead to a more co-operative approach
to management of the Sanctuary in the future, the Bureau was
of the view that in the meantime the site has been seriously
degraded. Hence, the Bureau recommended that the Director-
General of UNESCO write to the Indian authorities requesting
them to nominate this site for inclusion in the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
Djoudj National Park (Senegal)
44. Since this site was removed from the List of World
Heritage in Danger in 1988, IUCN, in co-operation with the
Direction des Parcs Nationaux du Senegal (DPN) and the
Netherlands Research Institute of Nature Management, has
prepared an up-date of actions on the management plan with
special emphasis on the interactions between the Park and the
surrounding communities. IUCN's Regional Office in Dakar,
Senegal, organized a Wetland Management Training Course, from
4-15 March 1991, for twelve students from Guinea, Guinea-
Bissau, Mali and Senegal, as part of IUCN's Wetland Programme
activities, and with financial support from the Government of
Netherlands. As a result of the training course a wetland
training manual will be published. The Bureau recommended that
the Committee take note of these positive actions in
furthering the recovery of the Djoudj National Park.
Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)
45. The Bureau noted that its recommended study of the
ecological and socio-economic impacts of the traces of the two
roads -across or around the Park - had been successfully
carried out by an independent team which had reached the
following conclusions: though both roads would adversely
affect the integrity of the Park, the road across it would be
less damaging in the long term, provided that a number of
accompanying measures (specified in detail) were taken before,
during and after the work. The Bureau expressed its concern
regarding the potential consequences on the integrity of the
site of the construction of a road across the Park;
consequently it recommended the adoption of a system of
particularly vigilant monitoring of the state of conservation
of this property. It also noted that experience of road
management within a site on the World Heritage List
acquired in other countries, such as Canada, could be usefully
made available to the Senegalese authorities. With regard to
the accompanying measures recommended by the study, the Bureau
nevertheless noted with satisfaction the commitment of the
Senegalese authorities to earmark 2.5 million CFA Francs for
this purpose; a commitment which had bean indicated in
principle by the President of Senegal in a letter addressed to
the Director-General of UNESCO on 22 May 1991. Consequently,
the Bureau took note of this commitment in principle, and
requested the Senegalese authorities to send the Secretariat
details of schedules and technical modalities for the
implementation of these measures, as recommended by the study.
*[13]
Selous Game Reserve (Tanzania)
46. The Bureau recalled that the integrity of this site was
threatened by intensive poaching of its elephant and rhino
populations during the 1980s. The Bureau was concerned by a
proposed plan of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock
Development to open a route through this reserve to drive
cattle from the north to the south of Tanzania. Livestock from
northern Tanzania carry several bacterial and viral diseases
which are easily transmitted to wildlife. The Bureau noted
that IUCN's specialist veterinary group have outlined a number
of conservation risks of opening the proposed route, and that
the Director-General of IUCN has offered the Tanzanian
authorities support to undertake an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA). The Bureau recommended that the Chairperson
send a letter to the Tanzanian authorities requesting
clarification of proposed plans for the cattle route and that
caution be exercised before launching the project,
particularly without carrying out an EIA.
Durmitor National Park (Yugoslavia)
47. The Bureau was informed that this site was threatened by
a proposed hydropower project which would affect water quality
in the Tara River and flood a portion of the Tara Canyon,
which is one of this site's World Heritage values. The Bureau
was also concerned that the Government of Montenegro, who have
authority over the Park, is constructing a large asphalt plant
upstream beside the Tara River which is already causing some
water pollution. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to
contact the Yugoslav authorities in order to clarify the
current status of plans for the development of the hydropower
project and the asphalt plant. At its next session, if the
Committee finds, on the basis of information provided by
Yugoslav authorities that the integrity of this site is
seriously threatened, then it may request the Yugoslav
authorities to nominate this site for inclusion in the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
Plitvice Lake National Park (Yugoslavia)
48. The Bureau was concerned that this Park has been
abandoned by the staff due to the civil unrest in the region
and that destruction of forests and park facilities, hunting
of bears and dynamite fishing were occurring due to lack of
any supervision of the Park. The Bureau requested the
Secretariat to convoy its concern to the Yugoslav authorities
and urge them to seek a speedy solution to the problem. The
Bureau also suggested that if the situation in the region
improved in the immediate future, then the Yugoslavian
authorities be requested to invite a joint IUCN/UNESCO mission
to assess the state of conservation of this Park. The findings
of the joint consultancy mission, if it is undertaken before
the forthcoming session of the Committee should be reported to
the Committee.
*[14]
Garamba National Park (Zaire)
49. The Bureau was pleased to note that two more rhino calves
were born in this site and the rhino population has now risen
to 28, almost double that of 1985 when the site was inscribed
on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau was
satisfied that the budget for this site has increased by 400%
and that as suggested by the Committee at its last session,
the Zairois authorities have requested that this site be
removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau
recommended that the Committee recognize that the small rhino
population is still vulnerable and therefore continue to co-
operate with other donors in supporting requests for
rehabilitation. The Bureau also suggested that the Committee
remove this site from the List of the World Heritage in
Danger.
Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Zaire)
50. Since the last session of the Committee, IUCN has
conducted an impact study and recommended that the proposed
new road not go through the park but be re-routed around the
northern boundaries of the park. The Bureau noted that the
study is now being reviewed by the donor financing the road-
construction project (KFW and the GTZ of Germany)-and that the
project also has several implications for the ecology of the
region. The Bureau requested IUCN and the Secretariat to
follow the progress and submit a report at the next session of
the Committee.
Antarctica
51. The Bureau noted that the question of the application of
the World Heritage Convention to all or part of this continent
had bean raised on several occasions, and that IUCN had
published a strategy for the conservation of Antarctica which
made explicit reference to the value of certain Antarctic
sites as part of the World Heritage. While recognizing that
the World Heritage Convention was not applicable, as it stood,
to a continent outside national sovereignty, the Bureau
considered that the World Heritage concept could indeed apply
to the conservation of Antarctica. Consequently the Bureau
requested the Secretariat to inform the Consultative Parties
to the Treaty of Antarctica of the World Heritage concept
within the context of their deliberations on the protection of
the environment of that continent. In addition, the Bureau
requested that the question of the application of the World
Heritage Convention to Antarctica, and the amendments which
this would require to be made to the Convention, be examined
in the context of the evaluation of the Convention scheduled
for 1992.
52. At the conclusion of the discussion on the monitoring of
the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List, the Bureau was informed of the work carried out
by the consultant responsible for making, in conjunction with
the Secretariat, an overall evaluation of the Convention in
*[15]
1992. The Bureau noted that this work had primarily concerned
the question of monitoring, and for this purpose the
consultant had analysed the contents of the files, examining
in particular those cases where the inscription of a property
was accompanied by the Committee's recommendations. He had
then held consultations with various prominent individuals who
had been involved, at one stage or another, in the preparation
or the implementation of the Convention. He was now ready to
consult members of ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM. The Bureau had
instructed the Secretariat to remind States Parties that they
were required to contribute to the operation by submitting a
report of the results of the application of the Convention at
the national level. These reports would be consolidated by the
consultant, in liaison with the Secretariat. The Bureau noted
that a fuller report on this question would be submitted to
the Committee at its next session.
VII. GLOBAL STUDY
53. The Secretariat reported on progress since the
Committee's last session. A preliminary partial framework for
the study had bean devised by two experts made available by
the Greek Government, and offers had bean received from the
German and Turkish participants in the last session of the
Committee to contribute a study of Gothic architecture and of
Hittite sites. Another member of the Committee had offered to
work on the Romanesque period and the Scandinavian countries,
on a Finnish initiative, had offered to work on a study of
monuments and sites in that area. The Secretariat also
carried out a preliminary study on rock art and an assessment
of the framework and methodology used by the Canadian Parks
system in establishing a framework of existing and potential
historic sites in Canada.
54. A number of Members of the Bureau and Observers expressed
appreciation of the work done by the Greek experts which had
made a great advance in the project and some raised particular
points about the framework and the Secretariat welcomed these
comments. It was understood that the substantial work involved
so far was preliminary and that the framework would have to be
adjusted and completed. One Bureau Member felt that one
methodology, either chronological, or geographical or art-
historical should be used for the sake of consistency, but the
Secretariat pointed out that the Committee had decided on a
mixed temporal, cultural and thematic approach. An observer
stated that Scandinavian countries would prefer a
social/cultural to an art/historical approach and suggested
using information already collected through the joint study on
Art Nouveau architecture which was being pursued by a number
of National Commissions and through the Baroque route project
launched under the Decade for Cultural Development. The
Secretariat pointed out that other UNESCO studies made or
proposed, e.g. the history projects, Iron Road (Africa) and
Silk Roads projects, as well as those mentioned by the
observer, had none of them yielded documentation directly
useful for the global study project. The documentation
available through these studies had been checked by the Greek
*[16]
experts. The Secretariat intended to seek the help of the Art
Nouveau experts at their next meeting in drawing up an
inventory.
55. In reply to a request from a Member of the Bureau it was
explained that the incumbent of one new post, currently under
recruitment, where there was likely to be an appointment
shortly, would work primarily on the global study, thus giving
the Secretariat for the first time some additional resources
for this purpose. The representative of ICOMOS expressed
interest in participating in the global study, in particular
in completing the framework and it was agreed that ICOMOS
would submit a costed proposal for this work to the next
session of the Committee. It would be important to decide
which areas of work should then be given priority. Several
Members mentioned the desirability of States parties offering
their assistance and it was agreed that a circular letter
would be prepared soliciting their assistance. The
representative of ICCROM announced that the Centre would also
be happy to contribute to the global study in collaboration
with ICOMOS. Several Bureau Members and Observers emphasized
the importance and urgency of the study and one Bureau Member
pointed out that the completion of the study would necessarily
take time as it required reflection and synthesis.
VIII. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
56. After having taken cognizance of document
SC91/CONF.001/5, the Bureau approved a request for
international assistance in the amount of US$30,000 submitted
by Cuba for the purchase of 183 cubic metres of timber for the
restoration of the structural frames and panelling of a group
of XVIIIth and XIXth century houses situated in the historic
centre of Trinidad. The Bureau wished the architects of the
Regional Office for Culture for Latin America and the
Caribbean, located in Havana and already involved in the
international campaign for the preservation of the Plaza Vieja
in that city, to be associated with the restoration work which
was to be carried out in Trinidad.
La Amistad National Park (Costa Rica): The Bureau recalled
that the Committee, at its last session, approved US$50,000
for this site under two conditions, and instructed the Bureau
to determine whether these conditions had bean met before
deciding whether to award an appropriate amount to Costa Rica.
The Bureau concluded that neither of the two conditions, i.e.
completion of the implementation of projects for which funds
had already bean provided and the revision of the Park's
boundaries in accordance with IUCN recommendations, had bean
completely met. Hence, the Bureau deferred the decision on
awarding any part of the US$50, 000 until the next session of
the Committee in December 1991
*[17]
IX. SITUATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND
57. The Bureau took note of document SC-91/CONF.001/6
containing statements of mandatory and voluntary contributions
to the World Heritage Fund, together with the status of
implementation of projects approved in 1990 and 1991. The
Secretariat informed the Bureau that since 1 June 1991, the
date up to which the accounts were drawn up, the mandatory
contribution of Jamaica had bean received, and that Austria
(not a State Party to the Convention) had paid the sum of
299,444.88 Schillings into the Fund (the equivalent of
US$21,645.74). The Bureau expressed concern regarding the non-
payment up, to the present, of a considerable number of
mandatory contributions for 1990 and 1991, and wished that the
Secretariat draw the attention of States Parties to the
importance of meeting their obligations to the World Heritage
Fund before the Eighth Annual General Assembly to be held
during the twenty-sixth session of the UNESCO General
Conference. The Bureau also recalled that under the terms of
paragraph 5 of Article 16 of the Convention: "Any State Party
to the Convention which is in arrears with the payment of its
compulsory or voluntary contribution for the current year and
the calendar year immediately preceding it shall not be
eligible as a Member of the World Heritage Committee".
Furthermore, the Bureau recalled the decision of the World
Heritage Committee at its 13th session in December 1989 that
the principle referred to above should apply to States Parties
requesting international assistance from the World Heritage
Fund, except in the case of requests concerning training.
Consequently States Parties in arrears will not be able to
obtain international assistance, except in urgent cases.
58. A member of the Bureau wished the Secretariat to examine
the possibility of improving the presentation of the
statements of contributions to the Fund, in order to make it
easier to identify the arrears accumulated by certain States
Parties.
59. The Bureau also took note of the status of implementation
of various international assistance projects financed by the
World Heritage Fund, and of the situation of the budget for
1991 approved by the Committee.
X. NOMINATIONS OF PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND TO
THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
60. The Bureau examined 38 nominations of cultural
properties, 11 nominations of natural properties, and one
nomination of a mixed property to the World Heritage List. It
recommended the inscription of ten properties (see Section A
below), did not recommend the inscription of three properties
(Section B), referred sixteen nominations back to the States
Parties concerned and/or to ICOMOS (Section C), and deferred
the examination of twenty-one nominations (Section D).
*[18]
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on
the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identif- State Party having Criteria
ication submitted the
Nº nomination of the
property in accord-
ance with the
Convention
Old Rauma 582 Finland C(iv)(v)
Paris, 600 France C(i)(ii)
Banks of the (iv)(vi)
Seine
The Bureau emphasized the merit of this nomination of a
historic area of Paris.
Cathedral of Notre-
Dame, Saint-Remi Abbey 601 France C(i)(ii)
and Palais de Tau of (iv)
Reims
Komodo National
Park 609 Indonesia N(iii)
(iv)
The Bureau recommended that this site be inscribed on the List
and that the Indonesian authorities complete the gazetting
process for this site and report on the progress before the
fifteenth session of the Committee in December 1991. The
Bureau also encouraged the Indonesian authorities to conduct
research on marine areas in order to incorporate marine
concerns in the management of this site.
Ujung Kulon
National Park 608 Indonesia N(iii)(iv)
The Bureau recommended that this site be inscribed on the List
and that the Indonesian authorities a) complete the gazetting
process and report on progress made before the forthcoming
session of the Committee in December 1991, and b) strengthen
the consideration of marine values in the management of the
site.
Historic Centre 585 Mexico C(iii)(iv)
of Morelia (vi)
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this site, and
requested the Mexican authorities to send it confirmation of
the state of preservation of this historic town centre before
its special session in December 1991.
Ilha de Moçambique 599 Mozambique C(iv)(vi)
*[19]
Air-Ténéré
Reserve 573 Niger N(ii)(iii)
(iv)
The Bureau recommended that this site be inscribed on the
World Heritage List and that the Committee commend and
encourage the Government of Niger, particularly the Direction
de la Faune, Pêche et Pisciculture, in their efforts to
continue to protect and restore the area. The Bureau also
requested ICOMOS to report to the Committee on the cultural
values of this site.
Poblet Monastery 518 Rev Spain C(i)(iv)
Thungyai-Huai Kha
Khaeng Wildlife
Sanctuary 591 Thailand N(ii)(iii)
(iv)
The Bureau recommended that this site be inscribed on the List
and that the Committee encourage the authorities of Thailand
to accelerate efforts to implement management plans for the
two Sanctuaries and projects in their buffer zones. The Bureau
also suggested that the Committee compliment Thailand for
rejecting the proposed construction of the Nam Choan dam and
express its concern over any proposal that might affect the
integrity of adjacent forests in Myanmar. The Bureau noted
that the Government of Myanmar may nominate these adjacent
forests for inscription on the World Heritage List when it
becomes a State Party to the Convention.
B. Properties which the Bureau did not recommend for
inscription on the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identification Nº State Party having
submitted the
nomination of the
property in
accordance with
the Convention
Amphitheatre of Durrës 571 Albania
While recognizing the importance of this property as part of
the cultural heritage of Albania, the Bureau considered that
it did not meet the criteria for inscription on the World
Heritage List as defined for the purposes of the application
of the Convention.
Tarutao National Park 589 Thailand
The Bureau urged the authorities of Thailand to strengthen he
management of this area possibly by using the marine biosphere
reserve approach of UNESCO-MAB which would be most appropriate
for addressing marine resources conservation.
*[20]
Riga 605 USSR
While recognizing the importance of this property as part of
the national cultural heritage, the Bureau considered that it
did not meet the criteria for inscription on the World
Heritage List as defined for the purposes of the application
of the Convention.
C. Properties for which nominations were referred back to
nominating States for further information/documentation
Name of Property Identification Nº State Party having
submitted the
nomination of the
property in
accordance with
the Convention
Butrinti 570 Albania
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this archaeological
site, subject to receipt of further information concerning its
existing protection, the protection of the surrounding
landscape, and problems of water seepage. The information
requested from the Albanian authorities should reach the
Bureau in time for examination at its special session in
December 1991.
Algiers Kasbah 565 Algeria
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this site, provided
that the Algerian authorities provide details as to the
government's resolve to protect the historic centre of
Algiers. Furthermore, the Bureau requested ICOMOS to make a
comparative study of the medinas of this cultural area. In the
light of this study and of the information received from the
Algerian authorities, the nomination could be re-examined by
the Bureau at its special session in December 1991.
Shark Bay,
Western Australia 578 Australia
The Bureau agreed that this site met all four natural heritage
criteria but referred the nomination back to the Australian
authorities requesting them to respond to the six specific
suggestions put forward by IUCN regarding the changes in the
boundaries of this site, in order to improve the management of
the area for conservation purposes. The Bureau requested that
the Australian authorities also provide information, before
the next session of the Committee, on a) plans for the speedy
implementation of the management agreement between the State
of Western Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia: b)
long-term plans for the development of the fishing industry in
the area and c) plans for increasing the staff employed in the
conservation of the site.
*[21]
Suomenlinna 583 Finland
Fortress
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this site, provided
that before its special session in December 1991 the Finnish
authorities furnish assurances concerning the existence of a
buffer zone to ensure full protection of the site.
Petäjävesi Old Church 584 Finland
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property, but
asked ICOMOS to submit a comparative evaluation of old wooden
churches in Northern Europe. In the light of this additional
information, the nomination of Petäjävesi would be re-examined
by the Bureau at its special session in December 1991.
The Benedictine 515 Rev. Germany
Abbey and Altermünster
of Lorsch
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property, but
asked the German authorities to submit a plan clearly showing
the existing relationship between the Abbey and the
Altenmüster. The nomination could then be examined at the
special meeting of the Bureau in December 1991.
Borobudur and 592 Indonesia
Prambanan
The Bureau recommended the inscription of these two properties
on condition that each of them be nominated separately.
Consequently the Indonesian authorities, if they accept the
Bureau's recommendation, will have to submit to the
Secretariat a complete nomination for the inscription of the
Temple of Prambanan, the details supplied regarding Borobudur
being satisfactory as they stand.
Historic Centre 500b Peru
of Lima
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property, but
requested the Peruvian authorities to submit details of the
legal protection and management plan required to safeguard the
proposed perimeter which, in actual fact, did not correspond
to the concept of a "historic centre". In the light of the
information received, which should include an appropriate
nomenclature, the Bureau could re-examine the nomination at
its special session in December 1991.
*[22]
National Park of 548 Peru
Rio Abiseo
(already inscribed
in 1990 on
the basis of
natural criteria)
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this site on the
basis of natural criteria, but requested the Peruvian
authorities to furnish details of the results of recent
archaeological excavations. In the light of this additional
information, the nomination could be re-examined at the
special session of the Bureau in 1991.
The Old Town 564 Poland
of Zamosc
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property, and
requested the Polish authorities to define a buffer zone
around the fortifications and to furnish details of the legal
protection afforded to this zone. The Bureau noted the spirit
of tolerance which had been a feature of the history of
Zamosc, and wondered whether direct and material testimony to
the co-existence of different communities still existed. If
such were the case, the Polish authorities could supply the
requisite additional information so that ICOMOS might consider
the possibility of also applying cultural criterion (vi).
Danube Delta 588 Romania
Biosphere Reserve
The Bureau agreed in principle that this site met natural
heritage criteria (iii) and (iv). The Bureau, however,
requested the Romanian authorities to provide information
before the next session of the Committee, on progress made in
relation to a) the legal declaration of the site; b)
development of a management plan and c) negotiations with the
Ukranian SSR regarding international co-operation. The Bureau
also recommended that the Committee encourage transboundary
agreements among the seven countries sharing the drainage
basin of the Danube and congratulate the Romanian authorities
for changing their policy on the delta to give priority to its
conservation values.
Golden Temple 561 Sri Lanka
of Dambulla
The Bureau requested ICOMOS to evaluate this property more
thoroughly; the evaluation should comprise a comparative study
of Dambulla in relation to other sites of the same type in the
geo-cultural area concerned, and should also consider the
possible application of criterion (ii) instead of criterion
(i). Furthermore, the Bureau asked ICOMOS and ICCROM to
examine the philosophy of the preservation of the mural
paintings of this site and to submit their conclusions. The
Bureau also requested a more comprehensive photographic
*[23]
documentation. The nomination of Dambulla would then be
reconsidered at its special session in December 1991.
Drottningholm 559 Sweden
Palace
The Bureau recommended the inscription of the entire Royal
Estate of Drottningholm, subject to receipt of confirmation
from the Swedish authorities before the special session in
December 1991.
Sukhothai and 574 Thailand
associated cities
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property,
subject to receipt of details of the perimeter of the area
nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List. In the
light of this additional information, the Bureau would be able
to re-examine the nomination at its special session in
December 1991.
Historic Centre 602 USSR
of Bukhara
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property, but
asked ICOMOS to submit, as soon as possible, a new and more
thorough evaluation. In this connection the Bureau encouraged
ICOMOS to send a field mission to update the information
contained in the nomination. on the basis of this additional
material, the Bureau could re-examine the nomination at its
special session in December 1991.
Novgorod 604 USSR
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property, but
requested the Soviet authorities to submit a plan clearly
showing the boundaries of the property nominated for
inscription on the World Heritage List, and also to consider
the possibility of naming it "Historic Monuments of Novgorod".
In the light of the information received, the nomination could
be re-examined by the Bureau at its special session in
December 1991.
D. Deferred nominations
Berat and 568 & 569 Albania
Gjirokastra
The Bureau deferred the examination of these nominations, but
approved the proposal of ICOMOS to organize a mission to the
two sites in order to help the Albanian authorities to
redefine the perimeters of protection of Berat and Gjirokastra
and to identify the limits and the legal protection of buffer
zones, essential for the safeguarding of the two sites.
*[24]
Heard Island and 577 Australia
McDonald Islands
The Bureau welcomed the initiative of Australia in nominating,
for the first time, islands in the Subantarctic. However, the
Bureau recommended that this nomination be deferred since in
its current formulation, its uniqueness in comparison to other
islands in the Subantarctic was not clearly established. The
Bureau, as a consequence, expressed reservations as to whether
or not this site meets the World Heritage criteria. The
Bureau also requested the Australian authorities to a) review
the legal status for the protection of the islands and
indicate whether they are to be given protected area status;
b) explain the rationale behind the proposed boundaries of the
site; c) describe the conservation values of the seas
surrounding the islands and d) report on the progress in the
preparation of a management plan for the islands.
Sucre 566 Bolivia
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination,
considering that it should be reformulated by the Bolivian
authorities so as to clarify the legal provisions adopted to
ensure the management and protection of this site. The Bureau
also considered that the buffer zone of the historic centre of
the town should be extended in order to provide better
protection of the site and its immediate environment.
Tihuanaco 567 Bolivia
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination,
considering that a redefinition of the boundaries of the site
was necessary. The Bureau wished ICOMOS to organize a mission
to Tihuanaco to help the Bolivian authorities to reformulate
the nomination.
Sera da Capivara 606 Brazil
National Park
(C + N)
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination pending
receipt from the Brazilian authorities of fuller information
on the dating of the rock paintings of Sera da Capivara in
relation to the different successive cultures revealed by
recent archaeological excavations. The Bureau wished the
natural values of this site to be taken into consideration
when the nomination was re-examined.
Silent Valley 587 India
National Park
The Bureau acknowledged the importance of this site which has
symbolic value for conservation in India. However, the Bureau
was of the view that this site is only one part of a larger
ecological unit and by itself is not of sufficient size to
warrant World Heritage status. The Bureau strongly encouraged
the Indian authorities to re-formulate the boundaries of this
*[25]
site to take in a larger area, particularly the adjacent
Karimpuzha Valley National Park and the Nilgiri Thar Wildlife
Sanctuary and complete the legal processes to establish the
proposed Karimpuzha Valley National Park and upgrade the
status of the Nilgiri Thar Wildlife Sanctuary.
Lore Lindu 610 Indonesia
National Park
The Bureau recommended that this nomination be deferred until
such times as the Indonesian authorities take relevant action
in relation to the following problems:
- the low legal status assigned to the site by the central
government;
- the lack of adequate information to assess the site's
comparative significance vis-à-vis other large reserves
in the island;
- inadequate consideration of the archaeological resources in
the vicinity of the site and their protection, and
- concerns regarding the integrity of the site due to the
presence of two large enclaves of people.
The Bureau encouraged the Indonesian authorities to implement
programmes which are consistent with Lore Lindu National
Park's current status as a biosphere reserve.
Area of 560 Mexico
archaeological
monuments of
Paquime
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination pending
the results of a comparative study of property of this type
located in Mexico and the United States.
Rohtas Fort 586 Pakistan
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination pending
receipt from the Pakistani authorities of a precise
description of all the structures which have bean preserved
inside the fort and in the village it encloses, together with
the results of a comparative examination of properties of this
type in the geo-cultural area concerned.
Monastery of 563 Poland
Jasna Gora
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination pending
receipt from the Polish authorities of a nomination containing
arguments enabling the artistic merits of this monastery to
be better evaluated.
*[26]
Biertan 596 Romania
Monastery of Horezu 597 Romania
Churches of Moldavia 598 Romania
The Bureau deferred the examination of these nominations,
considering it necessary for these monuments and sites to be
afforded satisfactory legal protection, particularly with
regard to the proposed protective perimeters. The Bureau also
considered it desirable for a mission of experts to these
three sites to be organized so that the Romanian authorities
could be helped to prepare the necessary protective measures.
Engelsberg Ironworks 556 Sweden
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination pending
the completion of a study by ICOMOS of the industrial heritage
which had been requested by the Committee.
Skögskyrogärden 558 Sweden
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination pending
the results of a comparative study of this type of property.
Ban Chiang 575 Thailand
Archaeolgical site
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination pending
a more thorough study of Ban Chiang and a comparative study of
sites of the same type.
Historic City 576 Thailand
of Ayutthay
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination pending
receipt from the Thai authorities of details of the boundaries
of the area nominated for inscription on the World Heritage
List.
Khao Yai National 590 Thailand
Park
The Bureau recommended that this nomination be deferred and
requested the authorities of Thailand to reformulate the
nomination to (a) provide a better assessment of the Park's
international significance, (b) elaborate the site's potential
links with adjacent parks with a view to increasing the size
of the area nominated and (c) clarify their intention with
regard to the construction of dams within the Park boundaries.
Taliesin and 594 United States of America
Taliesin West
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination pending
the results of a topic-by-topic study of contemporary
architecture.
*[27]
Samarkand 603 USSR
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination pending
submission by the Soviet authorities of a new nomination
concerning only the Moslem monuments of Samarkand. The Bureau
suggested that ICOMOS send a field mission for this purpose.
XII. REVISION OF OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
Revisions to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation
of the World Heritage Convention
61. Several Bureau members welcomed the Secretariat paper on
cultural landscapes noting with satisfaction that the Bureau
had before it a criterion in a form which could be inserted
into the Guidelines. One member noted the importance of
"integrity" in relation to such sites and another inquired
whether on the basis of the present wording of the criterion a
man-made lake of relatively recent time would be included in
the World Heritage List; the Secretariat indicated that the
words "over a long period of time" included in the draft text
would exclude such a case. Another Bureau member noted that
some landscapes in Italy still show the same forms of land use
as had been made by Greek immigrants in the years B.C. which
now have to be protected against industrialized architecture -
the draft criterion as presented would do this.
62. The Secretariat noted that a generally positive response
to the paper had been received from English Heritage, that
ICOMOS (U.K.) had made some interesting criticisms but had not
developed an alternative and had set up a working group on
landscapes. The representative of ICOMOS expressed
appreciation of the work done and expressed the wish of his
organization to participate in the next stage of development.
There was general agreement that the wording could be improved
and specific suggestions from several members were recorded by
the Secretariat.
63. The representative of IUCN felt that the addition of such
a criterion to those for cultural sites had a number of
implications for natural sites and he felt that the wisdom of
adding such a criterion was not accepted by all States. Since
these quarters of all sites inscribed were already cultural
sites, the balance would be even more uneven. It would widen
the disparity in distribution, since the need to accept such
sites was not being advanced by any non-European State.
Paragraph 33 (A), would mean that almost no sites would be
inscribed since the words "traditional life-style" would
exclude cars and other features of modern life so that very
few places would meet the criterion. Finally he felt that any
working group should be international in character, since
there was a risk that any national group would design a
criterion with its own national sites in mind.
64. A member of the Bureau remarked that there was a natural
variation in the number of potential world heritage sites in
*[28]
different areas of the world and that it would be artificial
to imply targets in this respect. It was noted that some
States such as Canada would undoubtedly want to consider
aboriginal landscapes in the light of such a criterion and
that the views of other parts of the world were important on
the draft. It was agreed that the Secretariat, in consultation
with ICOMOS, should bring an improved version of the document
before the next meeting of the Bureau which could then be
presented to the Committee for comment.
65. The Bureau examined document SC-91/CONF.001/9 and
acknowledged the need to review natural heritage criteria.
The Bureau noted that individual criteria may refer
specifically to geological, biological, ecological and
aesthetic phenomena. The Bureau recommended that the
Committee request a revision of natural heritage criteria as
one of the outcomes of the evaluation of the commemoration of
the twentieth anniversary of the Convention. The Bureau
requested the Secretariat and IUCN to co-operate in this
regard using information from all available sources, e.g.
recommendations of the Task Force of Geologists, IUCN's
oceanic Islands Study and specialist networks which co-operate
with IUCN and UNESCO. The Bureau recommended that the
Secretariat and IUCN work together to provide another draft of
the revised natural heritage criteria which includes one
geological criterion that incorporates all the major features
of the three geological criteria proposed by the Task Force of
Geologists who met at UNESCO Headquarters in February 1991.
66. The other amendments to the Guidelines as indicated in
document SC-91/CONF.001/11, were accepted with slight changes
of wordings in the English version in paragraph III(E) and
paragraph VI(F). It was noted that the conditions for the
granting of technical assistance are now parallel to the
conditions for eligibility for the World Heritage Committee as
established by Article 16 of the Convention. In reply to an
inquiry concerning problems of States which did not have the
same fiscal year as the World Heritage Fund, it was explained
that the words "following calendar year" in fact allowed a
leeway of two years within which payment into the Fund would
be seen as sufficient to meet the requirements of the
Guidelines.
67. It was noted that the Secretariat had still to develop a
Guideline in respect of objects in site museums as requested
by the last Bureau meeting.
XII. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
68. The Bureau took note of the Report on Promotional
Activities contained in document SC-91/CONF.001/12. It
expressed satisfaction at the development of these activities,
which were noteworthy not only in respect of the increase in
the initiatives taken by the States themselves, but also in
respect of the production of informative material in more
languages than before, and the diversification of media
carrying such material. The Bureau was particularly pleased by
*[29]
the production of a booklet on the Convention in Chinese and
Russian, the preparation of a German version of the World
Heritage Diary, and current negotiations for the production of
an illustrated list of World Heritage sites which, thanks to a
mail order sales network, would make the objectives of the
Convention and the sites inscribed on the World Heritage List
very widely known in France and abroad. The Bureau deeply
regretted, however, that the proposed co-publication with
UNESCO and the Hachette and INCAFO publishing houses had not
been brought to a conclusion, and pointed out the need for the
Committee to have its own policy where publications on the
Convention were concerned.
69. With regard to the relationships between tourism and the
World Heritage, the Bureau discussed two proposals which had
been submitted to it; namely a request from a travel
organization for permission to use the Heritage logo in its
promotional booklet, and the plan submitted by the INCAFO
publishing company to produce a tourist guide to the World
Heritage. The Bureau recommended that the travel organization
be authorized to use the logo on the express condition that
the introductory text to the Convention, referring to the
dangers of tourism where certain sites were concerned, be
prepared by the Secretariat and that the list of sites
contained in the booklet be submitted in advance to the
Secretariat. Regarding the proposed guide, the Bureau
considered that it would be advisable to wait until the links
between tourism and the World Heritage had been studied in
greater depth in the context of the evaluation undertaken
before making a decision on this matter. In this connection,
the Bureau noted that contacts had bean established with WTO,
which had already worked with IUCN on the preparation of
guidelines for tourism and national parks. The Bureau also
noted that the joint work of Greece and Italy on cultural
tourism could make a contribution to the study.
XIII. PREPARATION OF THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ADOPTION
OF THE CONVENTION
70. The Bureau noted the stage of advancement of preparations
for the commemoration in 1992 of the anniversary of the
adoption of the Convention. With regard to the evaluation of
the implementation of the Convention, already referred to in
the discussion of the monitoring of the conservation of
properties, the Bureau noted that two meetings would be held,
in late August and early September, with ICOMOS and ICCROM,
and with IUCN, respectively. Furthermore, advantage could be
taken of the 4th World Park Congress, organized by IUCN in
Venezuela in February, in conjunction with which a workshop
on the World Heritage Convention was to be held, which could
also contribute to the evaluation. Concerning the preparation
of promotional events, the Bureau noted that a circular had
bean sent to the States Parties asking them to participate in
the exhibition and the "national days. to be held at UNESCO
Headquarters. Replies were beginning to arrive at the
Secretariat, which would submit a report on the stage of
*[30]
progress of these preparations at the next session of the
Committee.
XIV. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE TWENTY-SIXTH SESSION OF
THE UNESCO GENERAL CONFERENCE
71. The Bureau examined document SC-91/CONF.004/14 and
congratulated the Secretariat for having condensed the
information of nearly two years of activities undertaken to
implement the Convention in a short and concise document. The
Bureau requested that the Secretariat incorporate the
editorial changes and additions suggested by the Delegate for
Thailand and the representative of IUCN and submit the revised
version of the document to the twenty-sixth session of
UNESCO's General Conference scheduled to meet in Paris in
October-November 1991.
XV. DATE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE FIFTEENTH SESSION OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
72. After consulting with the Delegate of Tunisia, the Bureau
confirmed that, as decided by the Committee at its last
session, the fifteenth session of the Committee would be held
in Carthage, Tunisia, from 9-13 December 1991.
XVI. OTHER BUSINESS
73. The Bureau examined the Provisional Agenda (Document SC-
91/CONF.001/15) and decided that the Committee would examine
nominations of natural properties before nominations of
cultural properties.
74. The Delegate of Tunisia informed the Bureau of the
preparations the Tunisian authorities were making to host the
fifteenth session of the Committee during 9-13 December 1991.
The observer from Greece drew the Bureau's attention to the
handling of a proposal for inscription made by his country.
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that, following the
Committee's instructions in the Guidelines to apply the
Guidelines strictly, this nomination, with a number of others,
had not bean passed to ICOMOS as the file was not complete at
the date of lodgement. Supplementary information had since
bean received and the Secretariat assured the Bureau that the
complete file would be forwarded to ICOMOS which would be able
to make the technical evaluation for 1992.
75. The Chairperson informed the Bureau of the forthcoming
international conference on World Heritage Cities scheduled to
be held in Quebec, Canada, from 30 June to 4 July 1991, in
which more than 70 international experts were expected to
participate. The Bureau requested the Chairperson to convoy
the interest and wishes of the Committee for the success of
this Conference.
*[31]
XVII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
76. The Chairperson thanked the members of the Bureau and all
those who had contributed to the success of the session and
declared the session closed.
1
Distribution limited SC-91/CONF.001/2
Distribution limitée Paris, 17 June 1991
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC
AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION/ORGANISATION DES NATIONS
UNIS POUR L'EDUCATION, LA SCIENCE ET LA CULTURE
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD
CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE/ CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA
PROTECTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL CULTUREL ET NATUREL
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
Bureau du Comité du patrimoine mondial
Fifteenth session/Quinzième session
Unesco Headquarters - 17-21 June 1991
Siège de l'UNESCO - 17-21 juin 1991
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
LISTE DE PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU / ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Mrs. Magdalina Stantscheva
Professor
University of Sofia
Compl. Vladost 1 Bloc 5, III Appt.55
SOFIA 1787
CANADA
Dr. Christina Cameron
Director-General
National Historic Parks and Sites
Canadian Parks Services
Environment Canada
10 Wellington Strest
HULL K1A OH3
*[ANNEX 1/2]
Ms Aimée Lefebvre-Anglin
Deputy Assistant Minister
Canadian Parks Service
Environment Canada
10 Wellington Street
HULL K1A OH3
ITALY/ITALIE
Mrs. Licia Vlad Borrelli
Central Inspector for Archeaology
Ministry of Culture
51 Via XXIV Maggio
00187 ROME
MEXICO/MEXIQUE
Dr. Salvador Diaz-Berrio
Deputy Director for Technical Assistance
National Institute for Anthropology & History
CORDOBA 45
Mexico 06700 D.F.
SENEGAL
Mr. Seydina Issa Sylla
Director
National Parks of Senegal
B.P. 5135
DAKAR-FANN
Mr. Amadou Deme
Minister
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Senegal to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
THAILAND/THAILAND
Mr. Adul Wichiencharcen
Chairman, National Committee of Cultural
and Natural Heritage
1056/3 Nakoruchaisri Road
BANGKOR
*[ANNEX 1/3]
Ms Pinida Lewchalermwong
Bureau of the Budget
Rama 6, Ari-Sampan
BANGKOK
Mr. Nikom Musigakama
The Fine Arts Department
Ministry of Education
35/1 Tiuanon Road
NONTABURI
Mrs. Srinoi Povatong
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Deelgation of Thailand to UNESCO
l rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
Mr. Prapat Saengsakul
Director, Wildlife Division
Forest Department
6 Royal Forest Dep.
Phaholyothin Road
BANGKOK
Ms Manit Sirwan
Secretary
National World Heritage Committee
Office of the National Environment Board
BANGKOK
TUNISIA/TUNISIE
Mr. Azedine Beschaouch
Preaident
Carthage National Foundation
Avenue de la République
2016 CARTHAGE
Ms Mounira Baccar
Advisor
Permanent Delegation of Tunisia to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, PARIS 75015
*[ANNEX 1/4]
II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY /
ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
Mr. Roland Silva
President
75 rue du Temple
PARIS 75003
Mr. Herb Stovel
Secretary General
75 rue du Temple
PARIS 75003
Ms Regina Durighello
Research Co-ordinator
75 rue de Temple
75003 PARIs
Mrs. Ann Webster Smith
75 rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN) /
ALLIANCE MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE (UICN)
Mr. James W. Thorsell
Senior Advisor - Natural Heritage
Avenue du Mont-Blanc
1196 GLAND, Switzerland
Mr. Gerard Sournia
IUCN Delegation - Dakar
BP 3215
DAKAR, Senegal
INTERNATIONAL CENIRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE
RESTORATIQN OF CULTURAL PROPERTY (ICCROM)/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL
D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS
CULTURELS (ICCROM)
Mr. Jukka Jokilehto
Assistant to the Director
Co-ordinator of Training in Architectural Conservation
V. di S. Michele 13
00153, ROME, ItalY
*[ANNEX 1/5]
III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS
A. STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION/
ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOIYE MONDIAL
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
Mr. Warren Nicholls
Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment,
Tourism and Territories
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
BOLIVIA/BOLIVIE
Mr. Salvador Romero
Ambassador
Permanent Delegation of Bolivia to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
FINLAND/FINALNDE
Ms Margaretta Ehrstrom
Finnish National Commission for UNESCO
P.O. Box 293
00171 HELSINKI
FRANCE
Mrs. Françoise Bercé
Conservateur général du patrimoine
Ministère de la culture et de la communication
12 rue du Parc-Royal
PARIS 75003
Mr. Jean-Pierre Boyer
Conseiller Technique
Commission française pour l'UNESCO
92 Avenue Raymond Poincaré
PARIS 75016
Ms Stephanie Mory
Second Secretary
Permanent Delegation of France to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
*[ANNEX 1/6]
GREECE/GRECE
Mr. Yannis Tzedakis
Ministry of Culture
14 Asistidou Street
ATHENS
Mrs. Marilena Cassimatis
Advisor
Permanent Delegation of Greece to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
GUINEA/GUINEE
Mr. Fode Cissé
Advisor
Permanent Delegation of Guinea to UNESCO
51 rue dela Faisanderie
PARIS 75016
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Ms Béla Kovácsi
Advisor
P.O. Box 351
H-1394 BUDAPEST
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA/REPUBLIQUE POPULAIRE
DEMOCRATIQUE DE COREE
Mr. Tchang Gouk Kim
Deputy Permanent Delogate
Permament Delegation of DPR Korea to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
PORTUGAL
Mr. Joáo Santos Ubach Chaves
Attaché
Permanent Delegation of Portugal to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
*[ANNEX 1/7]
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE ARAB SYRIENNE
Mr. Abd Elkarim Saoud
Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Syria to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Mr. Engin Turker
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Turkey to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mr. Knute Knudson
Deputy Chief-of-Staff
US Department of the Interior
1849 C Street
WASHINGTON D.C. 20240
Mr. Richard Cook
Chief, Intergovernmental Affairs
US National Park Service
Office of National Affairs
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON D.C. 20240
B. UNITED NATIONS AGENCY/ORGANISATION DU SYSTEME DES NATIONS
UNIS
UNITED NATIONAL DEVELOPMENMT PROGRAMME/PROGRAMME DES NATIONS UNIES
POUR LE
DEVELOPPEMENT
Mr. Sylvio Mutal
Chief Technical Adviser and Regional
Co-ordinator
UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project on Cultural
Heritage and Development
Casilla 4480
LIMA, Peru
Mr. Herman van Hooff
Consultant
Project RLA/80/002
LIMA, Peru
*[ANNEX 1/8]
V. SECRETARIAT
Mr. Bernd von Droste
Director
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mrs. Anne Raidl
Director
Division of Physical Heritage
Mrs. Lyndel V. Prott
Chief, International Standards Section
Division of Physical Heritage
Mr. M. Hadley
Division of Ecological Sciences
Ms Jane Robertson
Division of Ecological Sciences
Ms. Mireille Jardin
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mr. N. Ishwaran
Division of Ecological Sciences
Ms. Chantal Lyard
Division of Physical Heritage
Ms. Chantal Ralaimihoatra
Division of Physical Heritage
Ms. Denise Armand
Division of Physical Heritage
Ms. Paule-Claude Benedict
Division of Physical Heritaqe
Ms. Jane Degeorges
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mr. Daniel Drocourt
Co-ordinator, Co-operation for the
Barcelona Convention
Ms. Isabelle Jeanneret
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mr. D. Martel
Division of Ecological Sciences
*[EOF]