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 07:44:38 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 The information on this web page may be out of date.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.
Distribution limited WHC-96/CONF.201/21
10 March 1997
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twentieth session
Merida, Mexico
2-7 December 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I. OPENING SESSION 1
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 3
III. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND
VICE-CHAIRPERSONS 4
IV. REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE
SECRETARIAT SINCE THE NINETEENTH SESSION 5
V. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE SESSIONS OF THE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE HELD IN
1996 9
VI. CONSTITUTION OF WORKING GROUPS TO EXAMINE
SPECIFIC ITEMS ON THE COMMITTEE’S AGENDA 10
VII. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED
ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST 11
VIII. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION
OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES
TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND LIST OF WORLD
HERITAGE IN DANGER 57
IX. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE GLOBAL STRATEGY AND THE
THEMATIC AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES 73
X. COOPERATION BETWEEN THE ADVISORY BODIES AND THE
WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE 78
XI. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE TRAINING STRATEGY 81
XII. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE 82
XIII. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND
APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 1997, AND
PRESENTATION OF A PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR 1998 86
XIV. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION IN THE LIGHT
OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS’ PRACTICE 96
XV. PROMOTIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES 97
XVI. USE OF THE WORLD HERITAGE EMBLEM 101
XVII. REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 102
XVIII. AMENDMENT OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 106
XIX. DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-
FIRST SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE 107
XX. DATE AND PLACE OF THE TWENTY-FIRST SESSION OF
THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 107
XXI. OTHER BUSINESS 107
XXII. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 108
XXIII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION 108
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX I List of Participants
ANNEX II Speeches
II.1 Speech by the Governor of Yukatan
II.2 Speech by the Minister of Education
II.3 Speech by the Minister for the Environment
II.4 Speech by the Director-General of UNESCO
II.5 Speech by the Chairperson of the nineteenth
session of the Committee
II.6 Opening speech of the Chairperson of the
twentieth session of the World Heritage Committee
II.7 Closing speech of the Chairperson of the
twentieth session of the World Heritage Committee
ANNEX III Report and draft resolutions for submission to
the 11th General Assembly of State Parties and the
29th General Conference of UNESCO
ANNEX IV Revised nomination form
ANNEX V Statements by China and the United States of
America during the inscription of the Peace
Memorial of Hiroshima (Genbaku Dome)
ANNEX VI Guiding principles for training
ANNEX VII Decisions by the Bureau concerning international
assistance requests
ANNEX VIII Provisonal agenda for the twenty-first session of
the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
ANNEX IX Statements on the legal significance of the
Operational Guidelines
IX.1 Statement by the Delegate of Germany
IX.2 Statement by the Delegate of the United States
IX.3 Statement by the Delegate of Italy
IX.4 Statement by the Chairperson
*[1]
I. OPENING SESSION
I.1 The twentieth ordinary session of the World Heritage
Committee was held in Merida, Mexico, from 2 to 7 December
1996. It was attended by the following twenty members of the
Committee: Australia, Benin, Brazil, Canada, China, Cuba,
Cyprus, Ecuador, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Lebanon,
Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Niger, Philippines, Spain and the
United States of America.
I.2 The following States Parties to the Convention which are
not members of the Committee were represented as observers:
Argentina, Austria, Belize, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Holy
See, Hungary, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia,
Mauritania, The Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland,
Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden,
Switzerland, Thailand, Uruguay and Vietnam.
I.3 Representatives of the International Centre for the Study
of the Preservation and the Restoration of the Cultural
Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and
Sites (ICOMOS) and The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
attended the meeting in an advisory capacity. The meeting was
also attended by representatives of the International
Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA) and the Organization
of World Heritage Cities (OWHC). The complete list of
participants is given in Annex I.
I.4 The outgoing Chairman of the Committee, Dr Horst
Winkelmann (Germany), opened the twentieth session by thanking
the Government of Mexico for its generous invitation to host
this meeting. He then invited the Constitutional Governor of
the State of Yucatan, Mr Victor Cervera Pacheco, to address
the participants.
I.5 In his welcoming speech (Annex II.1), the Governor of the
State of Yucatan underlined how proud the Yucatan people are
of their past, which manifests itself through the many
archaeological and other monuments inherited from their
ancestors, and their love for the natural treasures of the
region. The Yucatan people are aware that this heritage
belongs to all of humanity and that they share responsibility
for preserving it, together with other peoples of the world.
They are convinced that the best way to preserve these
treasures of the past and the natural resources is by
strengthening the living culture, its people's identity and
the relation they have with nature and other peoples.
I.6 Speaking on behalf of the Government of Mexico, the
Minister of Education, Mr Limon Rojas, who is also President
of the *[2] Mexican National Commission for UNESCO, thanked the
Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Federico Mayor, for attending
the opening ceremony and the World Heritage Committee for
having accepted to hold its meeting in Yucatan, the birthplace
of one of the most outstanding Mesoamerican civilizations.
Having recalled Mexico's long tradition in cultural heritage
conservation and preservation, and its people's pride for
their rich cultural creativity, he regretted however the lack
of sufficient resources that are needed for the preservation
of the tens of thousands of sites and monuments of Mexico.
This requires a firm commitment of the society and its
government, and the conjugation of imagination and the will to
preserve and defend Mexico's cultural heritage, its cultural
identity and uniqueness.
I.7 Having underlined also the uniqueness of Mexico's natural
environment, Mr Limon Rojas stated that it is most likely that
there is a direct link between the richness and variety of the
ancient cultures that flourished in this region of the world
and the extraordinary biodiversity which characterizes it. His
Government, he said, was guided in its environmental programme
by the concept of sustainable development in order to preserve
biodiversity while promoting regional development. Recalling
that Mexico adhered to the World Heritage Convention thirteen
years ago, and that fourteen sites had so far been inscribed
on the World Heritage List, he stated that the Government of
President Zedillo is making intense efforts to safeguard the
cultural and natural heritage, particularly through the
education system which includes more than 27 million students
and hundreds of thousands of teachers (speech annexed as
Annex II.2).
I.8 The Secretary of Environment, Natural Resources and
Fisheries, Ms Julia Carabias Lillo, focused in her address on
the policies, strategies and programmes that her Government
has adopted for the preservation of the natural heritage. She
emphasized that Mexico fully accepts its responsibilities in
this respect and that 11 million hectares - which constitutes
5% of the national territory - are now preserved under a
National Protected Areas System for which the Federal
Government has allocated major funding. The Government
collaborates with universities and non-governmental
organizations and has initiated a process of decentralization
in order to establish a co-responsibility with the different
levels of government and with the local population. Ms
Carabias Lillo referred furthermore to the measures taken for
the protection and management of the areas inscribed on the
World Heritage List and expressed the wish of the Government
of Mexico to contribute additional protected areas to the
World Heritage List (Annex II.3).
*[3]
I.9 The Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Federico Mayor, began
his statement by thanking the Government of Mexico for hosting
the Committee, and expressing his gratitude to Dr Horst
Winkelmann for his highly competent and dedicated work during
the past year as Chairman of the Committee. Mexico, he then
underlined, is an excellent example of the dilemma faced in
many countries between, on the one hand, the need to preserve
the past and, on the other, the development needs of a
society. Having reiterated UNESCO's principal mission which is
the preservation of peace through international cooperation in
the areas of education, science and culture, its role as a
catalyst in favour of intellectual and ethical solidarity
among nations, Mr Mayor emphasized that our primary concern
beyond the protection of cultural and natural heritage should
always be the protection of the human being and human life.
Furthermore, the preservation of our common heritage is deeply
linked to the recognition and preservation of cultural
diversity, which in turn is essential for the culture of peace
to become a reality.
I.10 Elaborating further UNESCO's commitment to preservation
efforts, Mr Mayor stated that it is essential for decision-
makers to have the capacity to foresee and to prevent
destruction of the heritage which has to be transmitted to
future generations. The World Heritage Convention as well as
UNESCO's Constitution provide an excellent basis for this. He
is therefore particularly determined to reinforce UNESCO's
role in this regard through strengthening the capacities of
the World Heritage Centre, notably by including eight
additional posts of the Secretariat of the Centre in UNESCO’s
budget and by giving it additional financial resources.
Finally, Mr Mayor underlined the importance of better
spreading the knowledge about the world's cultural and natural
heritage through schools so that young people in all parts of
the world can be actively involved in preservation efforts.
Just as important, he said, are the endeavours to train site
managers and the work with the media, which can play an
important role in raising the people's awareness in this area.
He underlined the importance of the following agenda items:
(i) promotional and educational activities; (ii) progress made
concerning the training strategy. The speech of the Director-
General is attached in Annex II.4.
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND TIMETABLE
II.1 The Chairperson opened the session and presented the
documents relating to the adoption of the agenda (Working
Documents WHC-96/CONF.201/2 and WHC-96/CONF.201/3). During
discussions several States Parties expressed the wish to hold
all debates in plenary sessions.
*[4]
II.2 Following the proposal of the Chairperson and in
order to respond to the requirements of the agenda and those
of the States Parties, the Committee approved the agenda with
the following modifications:
- Monday, 2 December and Wednesday, 4 December, from 17.00
to 18.00: Examination of the World Heritage Fund and
Budget (Item 13 of the Agenda)
- Tuesday, 3 December and Thursday 5 December, from 17.00
to 18.00: Implementation of the Convention in the light
of 25 years’ practice (Item 14 of the Agenda)
- Monday, 2 December at 18.00: Meeting of the new Bureau to
examine requests for international assistance.
III. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-
CHAIRPERSONS
III.1 As proposed by the Delegate of Australia, and
endorsed by the Delegates of Germany, Benin, Canada, China,
Cuba, France, Japan, Lebanon and Niger, Ms Maria-Teresa Franco
(Mexico) was elected by acclamation as Chairperson of the
Committee. The following members of the Committee were
elected as Vice-Chairpersons by acclamation: Australia,
Germany, Italy, Japan and Morocco, and Mr Lambert Messan
(Niger) as Rapporteur.
III.2 The outgoing Chairperson, Dr Horst Winkelmann
(Germany) took the floor to thank the members of the Committee
for their support during his term, as well as the Secretariat
for its support. He also expressed his vision of World
Heritage and its future and the role of this heritage for
humankind. Dr Winkelmann’s speech is given in Annex II.5.
III.3 The newly-elected Chairperson, Ms M.T. Franco, took
her place and thanked the Committee for her election. She
expressed her wish to work along the lines defined by the
Director-General of UNESCO, as well as her predecessor, Dr H.
Winkelmann. In her statement she placed emphasis on the
pluricultural vocation of the Convention and respect for
spirituality and nature. She also insisted upon the need to
reinforce conservation and international cooperation policies
and to develop training programmes and the promotion of
natural and cultural heritage. Ms Franco continued by
underlining the need for an improved application of the
Convention, taking account of the different levels of socio-
economic development of communities, trustees of the world’s
cultural and natural values, *[5] and including a revival of the
dialogue between the Committee and these communities. The
Chairperson finished by voicing her wish for the development
of planning at a regional and local level for training
projects and to reinforce the role of the States Parties in
the application of the Convention.
IV. REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT
SINCE THE NINETEENTH SESSION
IV.1 Mr Bernd von Droste, Director of the World Heritage
Centre, reported in his capacity as Secretary of the Committee
on the activities undertaken by the Secretariat since the
nineteenth session of the Committee. He referred to
Information Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.5 and made an
audiovisual presentation. In this presentation he highlighted
the salient activities of the Secretariat.
IV.2 The Director began his presentation by recalling
that the Convention is one of the most universal ones
worldwide with 147 States Parties, and that the number of
sites inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List had already
reached four hundred and sixty-nine sites (350 cultural sites,
102 natural sites and 17 mixed sites). He also recalled that
in spite of the efforts of the Centre, the majority of the new
proposals for inscription on the World Heritage List originate
from the northern hemisphere. He also informed the Committee
of the situation concerning the tentative lists (72 are in
conformity with the specified format) and the submission of
state of conservation reports on sites (54 have been submitted
to the Committee: 31 on cultural sites, 22 on natural ones and
1 mixed site).
IV.3 With regard to the activities undertaken by the
Centre, the Director informed the Committee on the following:
progress made within the Global Strategy, the situation with
regard to international assistance, threatened World Heritage
sites and World Heritage sites in Danger, certain regional
activities, cooperation with the Advisory Bodies and other
partners, training activities, including the glossary, the
development of the documentation unit, information and
education. Finally, he informed the Committee of the
evolution of the situation of the World Heritage Centre and
its proposals for the celebration of the 25th anniversary of
the Convention.
IV.4 With regard to activities undertaken in the Arab
States, Mr von Droste drew the Committee’s attention to the
results of the Centre’s, the Division of Cultural Heritage and
national institutions’ interventions concerning the Medina of
Fez (Morocco) where, thanks to the cooperation of the Moroccan
*[6]
authorities, the projects to construct a road through the
Medina have been abandoned. Again, in Lebanon, thanks to a
UNESCO mission carried out in November 1995, the Lebanese
Government renounced the project to develop the area of the
Old Port of Tyr. Furthermore, at the twentieth session of the
World Heritage Bureau (24-29 June 1996), the Director-General
of Antiquities of Lebanon recalled the urgent need to
officially launch an International Campaign for the
Safeguarding of Tyr.
IV.5 In Africa, during a meeting on the Rwenzori
Mountains National Park (Kampala, Uganda, April 1996) the
creation of a Rwenzori Mountains Resource Centre at the
University of Makarere (Kampala) was proposed. Moreover, a
round table of donors was organized by the Guinean authorities
for the protection and conservation of Mount Nimba. The
creation of a «Mount Nimba Foundation» is under study.
Finally, the site managers of Abomey, Djenné, Bandiagara and
Timbuktu have received basic information on their sites which
was not available in the country. A similar exercise is being
prepared for 1997 for the managers of six Ethiopian sites.
IV.6 In the Asia-Pacific region, the Secretariat’s
activities continued to focus on the problems related to the
safeguarding of World Heritage properties located in cities.
Among other projects, the Director specifically mentioned the
project of technical cooperation between the City of Chinon in
France and the World Heritage town of Luang Prabang in Laos,
initiated by the Centre, which had made significant progress;
common activities and financing from other sources are
underway. Similar technical cooperation between the local
authorities in other European and Asian countries is being
developed in collaboration with the European Union.
Cooperation involving universities and municipalities in
Europe and in Asia in the preparation of urban preservation
plans are also underway. Preparations are currently ongoing
for a Conference for the Mayors of Historic Cities in Asia and
Europe. Finally, an information meeting on the safeguarding
and development needs of the World Heritage site of Kathmandu
Valley (Nepal) was organized by the Archaeological Department
of Nepal and the World Heritage Centre and was held on 9
October 1996, in Kathmandu. Other activities concerning
promotion and training were also carried out.
IV.7 In Central and Eastern Europe the Centre has
continued to be involved in the rehabilitation programme of
Vilnius Old Town in Lithuania. An international Donors and
Investors Conference is scheduled for 24-25 February 1997 and
the World Heritage Centre will assist the Lithuanian
authorities in this undertaking with technical assistance
provided by Denmark and *[7] Norway. In St Petersburg, the World
Heritage Centre collaborated with the World Bank in order to
initiate a far-reaching rehabilitation programme. A joint
World Bank/World Heritage Centre mission took place in June
1996. The degradation of the St Petersburg Historic City is
severe and the World Heritage Centre continues to monitor the
rehabilitation programme. Collaboration between the World
Heritage Centre and the Ford Foundation has begun. An annual
Ford Foundation Conservation Award for Europe was presented to
four excellent projects in the field of environmental
preservation and cultural heritage conservation. In June
1996, the second prize was awarded to the Valtice-Lednice
(Czech Republic) conservation and restoration project, which
is among the nominations proposed for inscription in the World
Heritage List for 1996. Finally, contact has been established
with the World Heritage Centre and Europa Nostra/International
Insitute of Historical Chateaux (IBI) in the field of
information exchange.
IV.8 As far as Latin America and the Caribbean are
concerned, considerable attention was given to improved
communication and information exchange with the States Parties
and the UNESCO field offices in the region. Following the
first Meeting of Directors of Cultural Heritage in Latin
America and the Caribbean (Cartagena, Colombia, 9-11 May
1995), a workshop was held for the Caribbean to examine the
state of the implementation of the Convention and to identify
fields for future actions and cooperation (13 and 14 March
1996), at St Kitts and Nevis, in collaboration with the
Secretariat of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and UNESCO.
Finally, a great interest was expressed in the thematic
meeting on fortifications in the Caribbean organized by
Colombia, and in the Global Strategy meeting for the Caribbean
that is scheduled for early 1998 at Fort de France,
Martinique.
IV.9 Finally, to strengthen collaboration between the
World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU) have been jointly prepared with all three
Advisory Bodies. The MOU between UNESCO and IUCN - The World
Conservation Union - was signed by the Director of the World
Heritage Centre and the Director General of IUCN at the World
Conservation Congress in Montreal, Canada, on 17 October 1996.
IV.10 Mr von Droste then presented the role of the Centre
as the focal point for the dissemination of information and
materials about World Heritage. The World Heritage web site
on the Internet is being accessed by people all around the
world and the Centre’s electronic information capacities have
been further upgraded with the purchase of computer equipment,
thanks to a grant received from the Republic of Korea. The
Centre is *[8] currently making arrangements to transfer
information about World Heritage sites and the Convention to
the UNESCO Archives and the UNESCO Library, where researchers,
students and the general public will be able to consult them.
The database on World Heritage States Parties is regularly
updated and has proved to be a useful tool in day-to-day work
with States Parties and other partners.
IV.11 Finally, the World Heritage Folder and Information
Kit containing eight sheets on different World Heritage
subjects, has been completed and printed in English and
French. Another new product recently published is a World
Heritage brochure in full colour with general information on
World Heritage, also in English and French. Eleven editions
of the World Heritage Newsletter have been published since
1992. This Newsletter has been modified as a new 4-page
periodical, beginning with the October 1996 issue and which is
also available on Internet. The World Heritage Review is a
new quarterly magazine in English, French and Spanish,
published jointly by UNESCO and INCAFO and was launched in
April 1996 in Paris. Three special information brochures
financed by extrabudgetary funds were produced in 1996:
“China’s World Heritage”; “Cities of Asia - Heritage for the
Future” and “World Heritage : Ours Forever? - Treasures of
Asia and the Pacific”. The exhibition “Africa Revisited” was
produced from information drawn from the first Global Strategy
meeting in Harare in 1995 and the preparation of the meeting
of Addis Ababa. The exhibition “Cities with World Heritage
Sites” was shown in Hamburg, Germany; Dubrovnik, Croatia; and
Halstatt and Linz in Austria. The photo exhibition “Threats
to World Heritage” is currently being shown by the FNAC in
Paris, France.
IV.12 As a follow-up to last year’s first World Heritage
Youth Forum in Bergen, Norway, the Centre and the Associated
Schools project (ASP) launched the project Young People’s
Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion in
Europe and in English-speaking Africa. Two regional World
Heritage Youth Fora were organized: Dubrovnik, Croatia, from
25 to 30 May 1996,and Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, from 8 to 24
September 1996.
IV.13 The Director concluded his presentation on the World
Heritage Centre. At the request of the Committee, transmitted
by the Chairperson, Dr H. Winkelmann, the Director-General has
decided to absorb, as of January 1997, in the framework of the
Regular Programme of the Organization the funding of the eight
posts, which were funded in 1996 from the World Heritage Fund.
He recalled that, thanks to the generosity of States Parties
to the Convention, the Centre benefitted from specialized
staff who greatly contributed to its work. Thus, Denmark,
Sweden and Japan *[9] each provided an associate expert, whilst
Austria, Finland and the United States of America seconded
respectively, a specialist in natural heritage (until August
1996), an architect (until July 1996) and a special advisor to
the Director of the Centre for policy and planning.
IV.14 Finally, the Director recalled that the World
Heritage Centre had begun its preparatory work for the 25th
anniversary of the Convention. A circular letter was sent
and, as of 24 November 1996, 41 replies had been received by
the Centre. These replies include in addition to analysis an
array of suggestions for events and activities to mark the
25th anniversary.
IV.15 The Director concluded his presentation on the 25th
anniversary, a historic occasion to strengthen international
cooperation for the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention: it is a time to critically review achievements and
failures and to chart the course of actions for the future.
V. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE SESSIONS OF THE BUREAU OF
THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE HELD IN 1996
V.1 The Rapporteur of the Committee, Mr Lambert Messan
(Niger) presented his reports on the sessions of the Bureau of
the World Heritage Committee held in 1996. He presented the
report of the twentieth session of the Bureau, held in Paris
from 24 to 29 June 1996, already distributed to members of the
Committee (WHC-96/CONF.201/4); as well as the report of the
twentieth extraordinary session of the Bureau of the Committee
which was held in Merida, Mexico, on 29 and 30 November 1996
(WHC-96/CONF.201/5.
V.2 With regard to the extraordinary session, Mr Messan
informed the Committee that the Bureau had examined the
reports on the state of conservation of properties inscribed
on the World Heritage List and recalled that several of these
reports referred to cases for which the States Parties had not
responded to earlier recommendations or requests made by the
Bureau or the Committee. In order to prepare the examination
of the state of conservation reports by the Committee, the
Bureau decided that it would (a) recommend the Committee to
inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
(b) it would transmit the state of conservation report to the
Committee for action; (c) it would transmit the state of
conservation report and its observations/recommendations to
the Committee for noting. In this context, Ecuador asked that
in the section on the Galapagos National Park, the request
from her Government "not to inscribe *[10] the property on the List
of World Heritage in Danger" be mentioned.
V.3 The Rapporteur then informed the Committee that the
Bureau had examined thirteen proposals for inscription of
properties on the World Heritage List, seven cultural and six
natural properties, and two changes of names of properties
already inscribed on the List. The Bureau recommended the
inscription of three natural properties and to defer the
inscription of three others. It also recommended the
inscription of seven cultural properties.
V.4 With regard to requests for international
assistance, the Rapporteur recalled that the Bureau had taken
note that funds were still available for natural heritage
under the 1996 budget. The Bureau therefore examined and
approved five requests for technical cooperation and training
for natural heritage and recommended the Committee to approve
four others. As far as cultural heritage is concerned, the
Bureau recommended the Committee to approve eight requests for
technical cooperation and training from the 1997 budget.
V.5 In conclusion, the Rapporteur recalled that the
Bureau noted several requests for international assistance
related to state of conservation reports on the same
properties. Consequently, he suggested that the Committee
consider studying them together. He also suggested that their
presentation be harmonized for the next sessions so that the
state of conservation reports and the international assistance
requests may be examined at the same time. Finally, he
requested the Centre to prepare for the next sessions a
presentation of all the pending assistance requests.
VI. CONSTITUTION OF WORKING GROUPS TO EXAMINE SPECIFIC
ITEMS ON THE COMMITTEE’S AGENDA
VI.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee that, in
accordance with the wishes expressed by several
States Parties, working groups would not be
constituted during this session.
*[11]
VII. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST
A. REPORT AND DRAFT RESOLUTIONS FOR SUBMISSION TO THE
ELEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES AND THE
29TH GENERAL CONFERENCE OF UNESCO
VII.1 The Secretariat introduced the working document
(WHC-96/CONF.201/6A)on this agenda item, emphasizing that,
following the discussions during the nineteenth session of the
World Heritage Committee, the matter of monitoring and
reporting should be brought to the attention of both the
Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties and the 29th
General Conference of UNESCO.
VII.2 As to the Eleventh General Assembly, it was noted
that the Committee at its nineteenth session had already
prepared a draft resolution and that, as requested by the
Committee, the Bureau prepared a report for examination by the
World Heritage Committee at this session.
VII.3 The Committee adopted this report which is
reproduced in Annex III.1.
VII.4 The Committee also examined a draft resolution for
inclusion in the Committee's report to the 29th General
Conference of UNESCO, which was prepared by the Bureau at its
twentieth session. The Committee adopted the draft resolution
which is reproduced in Annex III.2 of this report, with the
understanding that it could be modified in the light of the
decisions of the General Assembly.
VII.5 The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare
the working documents for the Eleventh General Assembly of
States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, as well as
the report of the World Heritage Committee to the 29th General
Conference of UNESCO accordingly.
B. REVISION OF THE NOMINATION FORM AND FORMAT FOR WORLD
HERITAGE STATE OF CONSERVATION REPORTS
VII.6 The Secretariat informed the Committee that, as
requested by the Committee at its nineteenth session, it had
circulated the proposed revised nomination form and format for
World Heritage state of conservation reports to all States
Parties and that comments had been received from thirteen
States Parties as well as from the Nordic World Heritage
Office.
*[12]
Nomination form
VII.7 The Secretariat summarized the replies received from
the States Parties and from ICOMOS and submitted a revised
version of the proposed nomination form, which incorporated
the observations expressed by them.
VII.8 Several of the Committee members, as well as
representatives of the Advisory Bodies, proposed additional
modifications to the nomination form, particularly:
- the reintroduction under item 2 of the comparative
analysis as an option for the State Party;
- item 3.e to read: 'Policies and programmes related to the
presentation and promotion of the property';
- the addition of mining activities as one of the possible
'factors affecting the site' under item 5;
- the deletion of the word 'inspection' from item 6;
- the revision of the last sentence of item 4.2. of the
explanatory notes as follows: 'For example, it would be
desirable to indicate who is responsible for ensuring
that the nominated site is safeguarded, whether by
traditional and/or statutory agencies, and whether
adequate resources are available for this purpose.';
- the addition of the complete text of the 'Nara Document'
as an annex to the explanatory notes.
VII.9 Considering that the revision of the nomination form
is necessary in order to provide adequate baseline information
at the time of inscription of properties on the World Heritage
List and to enhance the evaluation and inscription process,
and also considering that the nomination form could be revised
independently from the introduction of the reporting on the
state of conservation of World Heritage properties, the
Committee:
a) adopted the revised nomination form (attached as
Annex IV of this report);
b) decided to introduce the revised nomination form for
all nominations which shall be examined from 1 July,
1998;
*[13]
c) requested the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies to
widely distribute and announce the new nomination
form and actively assist States Parties in its
application.
Format for World Heritage state of conservation reports
VII.10 The Secretariat summarized the replies received from
the States Parties and from ICOMOS, which were much more
critical and fundamental than the ones regarding the
nomination form.
VII.11 Therefore, considering that the matter of monitoring
and reporting will be discussed at the Eleventh General
Assembly of States Parties and the 29th General Conference of
UNESCO, and considering the Committee's view that reports on
the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List may be submitted in accordance with Article 29
of the Convention, and therefore would be included in the
reporting on the application of the Convention, and
considering the substantive comments from States Parties on
the draft format for the periodic World Heritage state of
conservation report, the Committee decided to:
a) defer its decision on the format for the periodic
World Heritage state of conservation report awaiting
the decisions of the Eleventh General Assembly and
the 29th General Conference of UNESCO regarding the
reporting procedures;
b) request the Secretariat jointly with the Advisory
Bodies to prepare, for consideration by the
Committee at its twenty-first session in 1997, a
draft format for reporting on the application of the
World Heritage Convention, taking into account the
comments made by States Parties as well as the
principles of monitoring and reporting reflected in
the Committee's report and draft resolutions to the
Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties and the
29th General Conference of UNESCO.
VII.12 In connection with the discussions on the nomination
form and the reference made to the Nara Document in the
explanatory notes, the Delegate of Japan proposed that for the
next session of the Committee, the Secretariat prepares a
document on how the principles of the Nara Document could be
applied in the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. The Representatives of ICCROM and ICOMOS offered
their support in this respect.
*[14]
C. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES
INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
NATURAL HERITAGE
VII.13 Nine natural properties are inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger. Reports on each of them were
examined by the Bureau during its twentieth session in June
1996. Subsequently, the Bureau's recommendations and
observations were transmitted to the States Parties concerned
and updated reports were submitted to the World Heritage
Committee for consideration.
VII.14 Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
The Committee recalled that at its nineteenth session it
examined a monitoring report prepared by the Secretariat of
the Ramsar Convention. This report indicated that the new
water control structure allowed for an inflow of water on a
small scale and that a colony of the Dalmatian Pelican had
been re-established. The report concluded, however, that the
integrity of the site had not yet been adequately restored.
As a result, the Committee decided at its nineteenth session
to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and
requested the Bulgarian authorities to prepare a status report
on their efforts to restore the site, to be presented in three
years’ time.
The Committee decided to retain this property on the List of
World Heritage in Danger pending the threat mitigation status
report which the Committee requested the Bulgarian authorities
to submit in 1998.
VII.15 Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)
The Committee took note of the results of a international
rapid assessment mission organized by the Centre and the
Croatian authorities from 5 to 9 May 1996. The mission made an
interdisciplinary review of the state of conservation of the
site and determined that the World Heritage values had not
been adversely impacted by the armed conflict. To the
contrary, the mission concluded the natural systems of the
area were recovering from pre-war overdevelopment and over-
use. The mission surveyed the war damage to Park commercial
and administrative facilities and the neglected Park
infrastructure and favourably reviewed the *[15] newly strengthened
legislative framework adopted by the State Party. Park
management and administrative capability was evaluated and the
socio-economic situation of the site was assessed with regard
to post-war tourism potential. Summary recommendations were
proposed and remedial actions are now being taken by the State
Party. The Committee also took note of the specific
recommendations made concerning the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
Furthermore, the Centre informed the Committee that a report
dated 26 November 1996 was received from Plitvice National
Park on the situation of the Park. It indicated the use of the
US$ 30,000 emergency assistance for communication equipment,
which was installed in September 1996. The report mentioned
the number of 239,500 visitors from 1 January to 20 November
1996 and the reconstruction of a sightseeing system. Boats,
vehicles and the sanitary facilities have been operating.
Promotional leaflets have been produced and journalists have
been received. The reconstruction of the Plitvice Hotel will
be completed by the end of the year. There are a number of
problems to be solved, including public roads, reconstruction
of homes of displaced persons, sewage system and new drinking
water supply. The report indicated that a new Managing
Director of the Park was appointed and the need for
international assistance to support a system of fire
precaution measures.
The Committee (a) commended the Croatian authorities for their
initial rehabilitation activities;(b) took note of the full
mission report contained in Information Document
WHC/CONF.201/INF.14; (c) decided to maintain the property on
the List of World Heritage in Danger because, although there
was no longer threat or damage to World Heritage values by
armed conflict, there are now post-war potential threats such
as visitor impacts, damaged infrastructure and other
conditions identified in the mission report; (d) favourably
considered possible management planning assistance and
training requests to strengthen the management and staff
capabilities, and (e) requested the State Party to provide a
state of conservation report on the area by 15 September 1997.
VII.16 Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
At its nineteenth session, the World Heritage Committee called
for an Environmental Impact Assessment of road construction
activities in the Park and requested information from INEFAN,
the National Park administration, on road modifications, a
land tenure study and steps for an updated management plan.
INEFAN informed the Centre that with respect to the road
construction a *[16] meeting had been organized with the concerned
political authorities and local communities. It was also noted
that the road was declared of military interest. The Centre
received a copy of the land tenure study which was concluded
in March 1996 and the terms of reference for the elaboration
of a new management plan were prepared during a workshop in
December 1995.
Furthermore, the Secretariat informed the Committee that a
report from INEFAN (Instituto Ecuadoriano Forestal y de Areas
Naturales y Vida Silvestre) was received on 15 November 1996
on the situation in the Park, which indicated problems with
the construction of the Guamote Macas Road, although an
agreement was made with the construction firm. An update of
the Management Plan is under preparation. The report concluded
that the impacts of the road construction should be limited
and that a monitoring mission by INEFAN, NGOs and UNESCO may
be needed.
IUCN recalled the serious problems of the site, which led to
its inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger,
including road construction, poaching and colonization.
The Committee commended INEFAN on its actions and its report
but at the same time reiterated the Committee's serious
concerns about the road construction activities and its
request for an Environmental Impact Assessment. The Committee
requested the State Party to provide a report by 15 April 1997
for consideration by the Bureau at its twenty-first session.
VII.17 Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte
d'Ivoire)
The site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
in 1992 because of negative impacts from a proposed iron-ore
mining project and threats due to the arrival of a large
number of refugees from neighbouring countries.
The Ministry for Energy and Environment, in collaboration with
the "Mission Française de Cooperation et d'Action Culturelle",
organized a Round Table on Mount Nimba which was held in
Conakry, (Guinea), on 17 and 18 April 1996 with participation
from the Secretariat. The Round Table included representatives
of the following donor countries and organizations: France,
Germany, Japan, Canada, the Wallonian Region of Belgium, The
World Bank, UNDP, the European Union, and USAID. The
recommendations included that UNESCO consider the
establishment of a working group to create an "International
Foundation for Mount Nimba". Preliminary discussions of a
reflection group began, including legal aspects of such a
foundation, which are to be considered by the Legal Advisor of
UNESCO.
*[17]
The Committee discussed the threats to the site (mining
proposal, refugees, lack of management) as well as the
question of training of staff.
The Committee commended the States Parties for their efforts.
However, given the uncertainties concerning the adequate
management of the site, and the shortcomings with regard to
the on-site management, the Committee decided to retain the
site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.18 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The Committee recalled that the site was included in the List
of World Heritage in Danger in 1992. At the nineteenth
session of the Committee, the Observer of India indicated that
her Government was ready to welcome a mission by members of
the World Heritage Committee and the Director of the Centre to
New Delhi, Assam and Manas. In her recent letters, the
Ambassador of India to UNESCO reiterated this information and
advised that an updated state of conservation report would be
available in due course; the latter has not been received to
date. The Director of the World Heritage Centre met with the
Ambassador to plan, schedule and prepare arrangements for the
New Delhi, Assam and Manas mission and to provide related
training at the Government of India’s request. Subsequently,
the Centre was advised that the mission would be welcomed at
the end of November 1996. As this conflicted with the
twentieth session of the World Heritage Committee and the
preceding extraordinary session of the Bureau, alternative
scheduling was necessary. Alternate arrangements to receive
and review the Manas state of conservation report, together
with other reports on the state of conservation of natural
World Heritage sites in India and from the region, in the
context of implementing the Natural Heritage Training
Strategy, are being planned by the Government of India for
early in 1997.
The Secretariat informed the Committee that a letter was
received from the Government of India on 2 December 1996
indicating its agreement with scheduling the mission to Manas
for the end of January 1997.
The Committee, having examined the information provided by the
Secretariat: (a) asked the State Party for detailed
information concerning the state of conservation of the site
and (b) encouraged the State Party to further develop its
consideration of hosting a regional World Heritage site
managers training workshop in India in support of implementing
the World Heritage natural heritage training strategy. In lieu
of updated *[18] information on the state of conservation of the
site, the Committee decided to retain the site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
VII.19 Aïr-et-Ténéré Reserve (Niger)
The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the List
of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 at the request of Niger as
it was affected by civil disturbances. The Committee recalled
that a peace agreement was signed on 20 April 1995 and that it
had encouraged the authorities to strengthen their efforts to
safeguard the site. In 1995 the dialogue established between
the Parties, allowed for a detailed evaluation of the state of
conservation of the site as well as the development of an
action programme for the recovery of the site.
The Committee took note of additional information provided by
IUCN, that an IUCN/WWF project, which had already implemented
US$ 6 million over the past ten years, continues at a reduced
level to assist in re-establishing the management regime. This
IUCN/WWF project will resume with funding from DANIDA and the
Swiss Cooperation, when the security situation allows. A
mission to the site by project staff is planned in February
1997.
The Secretariat informed the Committee of a meeting in Niger
in October 1996, during which an encounter was arranged with
the Minister of Environment and the Advisor to the President
on the Air et Ténéré region. At this meeting information was
provided that the itinerary of the Rally Paris-Dakar (January-
February 1997) would cross through the World Heritage site.
Upon return, the organizer of the rally was contacted and an
alternative route was proposed in coordination with the
Permanent Delegation of Niger to UNESCO. A meeting was
organized in the World Heritage Centre on 8 November 1996 and
as a result, a new itinerary was agreed upon which does not
enter the World Heritage site.
The Committee commended Niger and the Secretariat for this
success to avert threats from the Rally to the area. The
Delegate of Niger reiterated the request that a mission be
organized to the Air et Ténéré Region in February 1997 to
evaluate the situation of the site inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger. He also indicated that the situation
in the Air et Ténéré Region has improved since the peace
agreement was signed.
The Committee decided to retain for the time being the site on
the List of World Heritage in Danger.
*[19]
VII.20 Everglades National Park (United States of America)
The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the List
of World Heritage in Danger in 1993 and that at its last
session, it examined the detailed monitoring report presented
by the State Party, which outlined the precedent-setting long-
term experimental restoration work necessary to restore the
balance of the Everglades ecosystem. The State Party presented
an interim monitoring report dated May 1996 outlining the
Federal and State of Florida government’s US$2 billion
partnership efforts with the private sector to protect the
World Heritage values of the site and that Everglades now has
the largest science staff of any unit in the U.S. National
Park System.
The Delegate of the United States of America informed the
Committee that the President signed the Water Resources
Development Act on 12 October 1996, which contains most of the
components of the Everglades Restoration Plan. This includes
the completion of a comprehensive plan to restore, preserve,
and protect the South Florida ecosystem, a re-study of the
water management system, an authority to design and construct
projects that will accelerate the restoration effort,
implementation of critical projects with funding of a total of
US$ 75 million, strengthened partnership with the State of
Florida and cost sharing of projects, establishment of the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, full
consultation of the public in the work of the Task Force,
approval of US$ 12 million for the land acquisition, US$ 8
million for ecosystem research and US$ 2.8 million for the
Shark River Slough restoration.
Despite significant progress made (acquisition of additional
land, improved ecological indicators), the Park remains in
danger.
Due to the long-term nature of the rehabilitation activities,
the Committee (a) commended the State Party and the State of
Florida and private sector partners for their extraordinary
efforts to protect the World Heritage values of this site; (b)
encouraged the State Party to consider sharing the knowledge
and experience gained through this restorative effort in the
rehabilitation of aquatic ecosystems with other State Parties
with internationally significant wetlands, and (c) decided to
retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger until
further rehabilitation progress is demonstrated.
VII.21 Yellowstone National Park (United States of America)
The Committee recalled that at its nineteenth session it
decided that, on the basis of both ascertained dangers and
potential *[20] threats outlined by the State Party, Yellowstone
National Park be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger and that the State Party was invited by the Committee
to provide information on the results of its required
Environmental Impact Statement as related to proposed mining
activity adjacent to the Park boundary and mitigating actions.
In May 1996, the State Party advised the Centre about the
remedial actions taken. These included long-term programmes to
mitigate the impact of the non-native lake trout in
Yellowstone Lake and to safeguard the Park's bison herds;
initiation of public meetings to analyze and improve visitor
management; selectively increase elements of the Park budget
to correct deficiencies; minimize road repair and realignment
impacts; and the continued preparation of the Environmental
Impact Study (EIS) for the proposed Crown Butte/New World
Mine. With respect to the latter, in September 1996, the
President of the United States publicly announced his efforts
to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the mining issue with
a mutually to be agreed upon trade of land valued at US$ 65
million to fully remove this potential threat from
Yellowstone.
The Delegate of the United States of America informed the
Committee that substantial progress had been made since last
year including the Interim Bison Management Plan and the
creation of a State/Federal Interagency Committee, the
"Greater Yellowstone Brucellos Committee", in making
significant progress in research and constitution of
alternative management, as well as research on the lake trout.
The Committee (a) commended the State Party on the President's
recent intervention and resolution initiative of the Crown
Butte mining issue and for actions taken to mitigate other
threats to Yellowstone, and (b) requested the State Party, by
15 September 1997, to outline the steps and schedule for
threat mitigation which could be followed so that the site may
be considered for removal from the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
VII.22 Virunga National Park (Zaire)
The Committee recalled that Virunga National Park was included
on the List of World Heritage in Danger in December 1994, due
to the tragic events in Rwanda and the subsequent massive
influx of refugees from that country. Virunga National Park,
situated on the border between Rwanda and Uganda, has been
destabilized by the uncontrolled arrival of refugees, causing
illegal extraction of wood and poaching at the site.
The Centre wrote to the authorities requesting that the World
Heritage Committee be informed about any action to be undertaken
*[21]
to stop illegal operations within the site and to improve
control in the Park. The Centre and IUCN are in contact with
several NGOs working in the area and a mission was organized
together with WWF to the site in order to evaluate its state
of conservation and to strengthen cooperation between the
different international assistance agencies working to protect
the site. The mission was carried out from 15 to 30 April 1996
and the results were reported to the twentieth session of the
Bureau, including priorities for granting international
assistance.
The Secretariat informed the Committee on the current
situation which has deteriorated due to the influx of refugees
into the Park. Different UN and relief agencies present in the
region were contacted by the Centre and a meeting with GTZ
representatives was organized on 2 December 1996 in UNESCO
Headquarters. Discussions were also held with the Canadian
authorities on including a conservation specialist in the
Canadian-led forces and UNHCR teams.
The Committee had considerable discussion on this human
tragedy and recalled the opening speech by the Director-
General in which he emphasized that while protecting natural
and cultural sites, one should never lose sight of protecting
human life, which is the top priority. The Committee
underlined the special situation in Zaire and called upon the
international community to help resolve this tragic situation.
Taking into account the presence of thousands of refugees, the
Committee expressed its deep concern about the continuing
degradation of the Park and the human tragedy and encouraged
the Centre to work with the authorities for the coordination
of international assistance and to retain the site on the List
of World Heritage in Danger.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
VII.23 Nine cultural properties are inscribed on the List
of World Heritage in Danger. Reports on three of them were
examined by the Bureau during its twentieth session in June
1996. Subsequently, the Bureau's recommendations and
observations were transmitted to the States Parties concerned.
Reports on five cultural properties on the List of World
Heritage in Danger were examined by the Committee.
VII.24 Angkor (Cambodia)
The Committee was informed of the Secretariat´s report to the
Bureau on the progress made by the Government of Cambodia in
*[22]
meeting the obligations made to the Committee at the time of
the inscription of the site on the World Heritage List and the
List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee was informed
that it continues to assist the Government of the Kingdom of
Cambodia to prepare the decrees necessary for the enforcement
of the Law for the Protection of National Cultural Heritage
which was promulgated on 25 January 1996.
The Authority for the Protection of the Site and Management of
the Region of Angkor (APSARA), which was created in fulfilment
of one of the obligations, was provided with human and
financial resources necessary for its functioning. All
economic development projects, including tourism, are now
being examined by this authority.
The Government of Cambodia has, furthermore insisted on the
sacred character of the temples of Angkor which exclude, de
facto, all activity or undertakings which do not respect the
religious traditions of the area.
The Director of the Cultural Heritage Division of UNESCO´s
Culture Sector reported to the Committee that assurances have
been given by the Government that APSARA will vigorously
screen all development projects and ensure that the zoning
regulations are strictly adhered to. He also provided an
update on the projects being carried out by the international
teams, notably the Japanese team from Waseda University and
the French team, from the Ecole Francaise d´Extreme Orient. He
also expressed his hope that the much appreciated training
programme at the Fine Arts University in Phnom Penh which is
funded under the Japan Trust Fund could be continued for the
next academic year to ensure the development of a new
generation of national experts. In the field of promotional
activities he reported on the progress in the preparation of a
major exhibition on Angkor being organized by UNESCO and the
French 'Réunion des Musées Nationals' in Paris in 1998 as well
as in the production of the CD-Rom on the exhibition. He
informed the Committee that this exhibition will also be held
in Washington D.C. He furthermore reported that the second
edition of the successful publication '100 Disappeared
Objects' is being updated with ICOM. The Committee commended
the work of UNESCO in supporting the efforts of the Cambodian
Government.
The Delegate of Japan added that Japan continues its support
for the safeguarding of Angkor and emphasized the importance
of training in this respect.
The Committee took note of the report presented by the
Secretariat and commended the Government of Cambodia for its
*[23]
actions to implement the obligations set forth by the
Committee at the time of inscription of Angkor on the World
Heritage List. The Committee requested the Government of
Cambodia to keep it informed of the progress made in its
efforts to ensure the preservation of Angkor, especially
concerning tourism control and promotion, and with regard to
sustainable development, in harmony with the socio-cultural
character of the region. Recognizing the still-prevailing
exceptional conditions at the site, the Committee decided to
retain Angkor on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.25 Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia)
On September 5, 1996, the area of Dubrovnik was hit by an
earthquake. In response to a request from the Croatian
authorities, a fact-finding mission was sent to Dubrovnik late
November to survey the effects of the earthquake. The expert
mission reported that the earthquake caused minimum damage in
Dubrovnik. Only some cracks dating back to the earthquake of
1979 had deteriorated.
Very serious damage, however, was caused to the historical
town of Ston, which is on the Croatian Tentative List. Inside
the city walls nearly all buildings were damaged and several
of them had collapsed. The Committee expressed its concern
about the state of conservation of the town of Ston.
As to Dubrovnik, the Committee requested the State Party to
submit, by 15 September 1997, an overall state of conservation
report, in order for the Committee to consider at its twenty-
first session whether Dubrovnik could be deleted from the List
of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.26 Bahla Fort (Oman)
The Bureau at its twentieth session was informed that an
expert mission would visit the site. This mission was
undertaken in September 1996 and several recommendations were
made regarding conservation techniques, project management
etc. All of these were accepted by the Omani Government.
After having examined the report of the Secretariat on the
expert mission to Bahla Fort, the Committee thanked the Omani
authorities for their efforts towards safeguarding the site
and the satisfactory use of traditional materials, and to have
adopted the recommendations of the mission concerning, in
particular:
*[24]
- the adoption of a restoration policy supported by precise
scientific documentation and avoiding all reconstruction;
- the establishment of a site commission, the competence of
which should also include the environment;
- the implementation of emergency safeguarding and
consolidation work, especially at the citadel, at Bait el
Hadith and in the two outer mosques, as well as the
establishment of a preventive conservation team;
- the compilation of exhaustive scientific, historical and
architectural documentation, indispensable for the
restoration of the site in accordance with international
standards.
The Committee encouraged the Omani authorities to implement
this programme as rapidly as possible, as they have indicated
their will to do so. The Committee requested them to keep it
informed on a regular basis of the progress achieved in the
implementation of these measures.
VII.27 Archaeological zone of Chan Chan (Peru)
It was recalled that an extensive report on the state of
conservation of Chan Chan was submitted to the Committee at
its seventeenth session in Cartagena in 1993 which concluded
that the issue of encroachment and land occupation needed to
be addressed in order to reclaim and secure the site. In 1996,
the Government of Peru initiated this process. Long-term
protection of the site is now a concern for the site managers
and several alternatives of securing the site are presently
under study.
Furthermore, a Pan-american Course on the Conservation and
Management of Earthen Architectural and Archaeological
Heritage was held in Chan Chan in late 1996. This course was
organized by ICCROM in cooperation with several other partners
and received financial support from the World Heritage Fund.
The Committee was informed that the Peruvian authorities had
submitted a request for technical cooperation to strengthen
the management of the site.
The Committee commended the Government of Peru for its efforts
to secure the site. It also requested the Peruvian authorities
to submit, by 15 September 1997, a full report on the state of
conservation of Chan Chan, including proposals regarding the
*[25]
future conservation and management of the site in order to
enable the Committee, at its twenty-first session, in
consultation with the State Party, to decide if additional
measures are required to conserve the property. Awaiting the
state of conservation report, the Committee decided to retain
the Archaeological Zone of Chan Chan on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
VII.28 Wieliczka Salt Mines (Poland)
At its eighteenth session in 1994, the Committee approved an
amount of US$ 100,000 to purchase the dehumidifying equipment
required for the preservation of the salt sculptures of this
World Heritage site in Danger.
A contract to this effect was negotiated and signed between
the Culture Sector of UNESCO and the Polish Permanent
Delegation. The project is to be completed before the end of
1997.
The Committee commended the Polish authorities and the Marie
Curie Foundation for their efforts in order to preserve the
precious salt sculptures at Wieliczka, and requested to be
kept informed about the outcome and results of the
preservation project.
D. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES
INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
VII.29 The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session
examined reports on the state of conservation of thirteen
natural, two mixed and twenty-six cultural properties. The
Committee examined twenty of them (eight natural, one mixed
and eleven cultural properties) and noted the decisions of the
twentieth extraordinary session of the Bureau on twenty-one
state of conservation reports (five natural, one mixed and
fifteen natural properties).
NATURAL HERITAGE
a) Reports on the state of conservation of natural
properties examined by the Committee
VII.30 Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)
The Committee recalled discussions held at its nineteenth
session on the infrastructural developments in the "Bow
Corridor" and *[26] their impact on the integrity of the site. The
Canadian authorities had set up the Bow Valley Task Force, in
order to prepare a study on these issues. The Canadian
authorities provided a full report in October 1996.
In addition, IUCN provided information about the resolution at
the World Conservation Congress held in Montreal, Canada in
October 1996, endorsing the study´s findings.
The Committee commended the Canadian authorities for providing
a detailed report of the Bow Valley Task Force and for taking
actions on problems being faced in this small but significant
portion of the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage
site. The Task Force Report, if implemented, would
significantly shift the future management of the area in a
more preservation direction. The Committee encouraged wider
distribution of the lessons learnt from the Bow Valley Task
Force Report.
VII.31 Galapagos National Park (Ecuador)
The Committee recalled extensive discussions at its eighteenth
and nineteenth sessions, on the issues and threats facing the
site and that the Bureau at its twentieth session considered
the report of the mission led by the Chairperson of the World
Heritage Committee (1-11 June 1996) to examine the situation
of the Galapagos Islands. The Bureau, while recognizing the
considerable efforts made, concluded that serious problems
existed, such that immediate remedial actions were essential
to safeguard the values of the World Heritage site and the
surrounding marine areas.
As a follow-up to the Bureau's recommendations, letters were
written by the Director-General of UNESCO and by the
Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee to the President
of Ecuador concerning the protection of the Galapagos and more
specifically on the proposed "special legislation" for the
Galapagos. This legislation was not adopted and further action
would be required.
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session took note of
the report submitted by the authorities of Ecuador on 22
November 1996 (contained in Information Documents WHC-
96/CONF.203/INF.2 and WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.23). The report
provided an update on the situation of the Galapagos and steps
to be taken by the Government of Ecuador. The report also
addressed issues such as the restriction of immigration, the
institutional strengthening, issues concerning the marine
reserve, the preparation of a biodiversity management plan, as
well as assistance from the Interamerican Development Bank.
*[27]
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session also
considered the comments made by IUCN concerning the serious
threats to the site which require long-term action and that
placing the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger would
support the efforts made by Ecuador and would mobilize
additional international cooperation.
Several members of the Bureau stated that the requirements for
inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger stipulated
in Paragraph 79 of the Operational Guidelines were met and
concluded that the Bureau should recommend the Committee to
inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. It
was also said that this List should not to be considered as a
"black list", but as a signal to take emergency actions for
safeguarding and protection.
The Observer of Ecuador reiterated at the Bureau session the
commitment of the Government of Ecuador to the preservation of
the Galapagos Islands and recalled the great number of actions
that had been taken by her Government. She informed the Bureau
that the Delegate of Ecuador to the Committee would provide
additional information at the twentieth session of the
Committee. She indicated that her Government did not wish to
see the site be included on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
The Bureau decided to transmit the above information to the
Committee for action and to recommend the Committee to
inscribe Galapagos National Park on the List of World Heritage
in Danger.
The Committee at its twentieth session discussed the issue at
length. The Delegate of Germany reiterated the discussions
held and the number of threats facing the site outlined in the
mission report contained in Working Document WHC-
96/CONF.201/INF.13. Several delegates recalled paragraphs 77
to 81 of the Operational Guidelines and Article 11 of the
Convention and emphasized that the Committee had already
waited for one year for actions to be taken.
The Delegate of Ecuador thanked the Committee members for
their interest and support in the preservation of the
Galapagos Islands and explained the actions that the new
Government was taking in order to implement the
recommendations made by the Committee. He emphasized that the
President had set up a working group to prepare the ‘Special
Galapagos Legislation’ and that his Government had established
a Ministry for the Environment to coordinate and advance the
policies related to the preservation of the islands. He
requested the Committee not to include the Galapagos National
Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
*[28]
After a lengthy debate considering different options,
including inscription of the site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger or giving more time to the Government to
implement actions, the Delegate of Germany proposed the
following text, which was adopted by consensus:
“The Committee decided to include the Galapagos National Park
on the List of World Heritage in Danger effective 15 November
1997, unless a substantive written reply by Ecuador is
received by 1 May 1997 and the Bureau, at its twenty-first
session, determines that effective actions have been taken”.
The Delegate of France asked the Committee to put on record
that this decision was taken on an exceptional basis, as such
a decision would normally be beyond the prerogative of the
Bureau.
VII.32 Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session recalled
discussions held at its twentieth session concerning reports
received by the University of Berne (Switzerland) on the
deterioration of the Walia ibex population and other large
mammals (such as bushbuck, Simen fox and bushpig) which have
become extremely rare. At the twentieth session of the Bureau
additional information on the state of conservation of the
site was provided by IUCN (loss of biodiversity, encroachment
at the borders of the site, impacts of the road construction)
and a report by the University of Berne was made available to
the Bureau members. The Bureau endorsed recommendations made
in this report, including a planning and coordination meeting
at the regional level, a technical mission to the site and the
preparation of a technical assistance request.
As a follow-up to the recommendations by the Bureau, a
technical mission to the site took place from 2 to 9 November
1996 which included review meetings with the Ethiopian
Wildlife authority, the Wildlife Programme Steering Committee,
UNDP, UNCDF, as well as meetings with regional governments’
representatives in Bahr Dar on the possibilities for sus-
tainable coexistence of wildlife and natural resources with
human land users. As a result of the mission an international
assistance request was received and information to the Bureau
accompanied by a summary report including draft recom-
mendations (Information Document WHC-96/CONF.203/INF.2) and
the Committee (Information Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.23).
*[29]
The recommendations included the co-sponsoring of a workshop
with stakeholders scheduled for April 1997 and a co-ordination
of donor involvement, as well as a recommendation to include
the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IUCN provided additional information on the state of
conservation of the site. It was recalled that considerations
have been given to placing this site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger since 1987 and that all requirements for
inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger stipulated
in Paragraph 79 of the Operational Guidelines were met.
The Committee, considering the information provided and the
recommendations of the mission contained in Information
Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.23 decided to inscribe Simen
National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.33 Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
The Committee recalled that at its nineteenth session it took
note of a monitoring report prepared by IUCN. This report
noted the threats to the site, including agricultural
intrusion and the implementation of land reform programmes. A
number of follow-up actions, including the inscription of the
site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, were
recommended. Following the Committee session, the Centre
requested the Honduran authorities to inform the Committee
about the actions taken to protect the site. The Centre
received a state of conservation report dated 30 April 1996
from the Honduran Minister for the Environment which indicated
the actions taken by the Government and various NGOs, as well
as a project submitted for technical assistance, which was
approved by the Bureau at its twentieth session. On the basis
of additional information provided by IUCN's regional office,
the Bureau at its twentieth session recommended the Committee
to inscribe this property on the List of World Heritage in
Danger. The Bureau furthermore recalled that IUCN's report
provided eleven points of corrective actions and that the
Minister of Environment had endorsed this report, including
the recommendation that the site be inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
Having taken note of this information, the Committee decided
to inscribe the Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve on the List of
World Heritage in Danger and encouraged the State Party to
implement the eleven points of corrective actions recommended
in the IUCN conservation status report. The Committee
requested the authorities of Honduras to keep it informed on a
regular basis of actions taken to safeguard this property.
*[30]
VII.34 Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico)
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session recalled
discussions held at its nineteenth session, concerning a
report on a project for industrial salt production at the site
and its potential threats to the whale population. At its
twentieth extraordinary session, the Bureau was informed by
the Delegate of Mexico that the National Institute of Ecology
(INE) created a Committee comprising national and foreign
experts, which held a first meeting in March 1996,
participated in a public conference attended by nearly 300
persons and presented 42 documents to define aspects to be
included in the new environmental impact study. The Minister
of the Environment, Natural Resources and Fish indicated,
through the INE, that the proposal could only be authorized on
the understanding that it respects the legislation and the
ecological standards in force.
IUCN informed the Bureau about a recent report which indicated
that private development was proceeding without fully
following the Mexican Environmental Impact Assessment
standards. The Bureau invited the State Party to inform the
Committee by 15 April 1997 about the industrial salt
production project and the status of the environmental impact
study and to ensure the integrity of the site.
At the twentieth session of the Committee the Delegate of
Mexico and the Director of the Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino
provided additional information that : (a) industrial salt
production has not been authorized, and (b) a Scientific
Committee to review the situation has been established by the
Ministry of Environment. The Committee took note of this
report.
VII.35 Skocjan Caves (Slovenia)
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session recalled
that the World Heritage Committee, at its nineteenth session,
had requested the Centre to contact the Slovenian authorities
to provide a map of the revised boundaries of the site and to
encourage the State Party to finalize new legislation and to
prepare a management plan. In its letter of 8 August 1996, the
Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning informed the
Centre about preparations of the adoption of the "Law on the
Protection of Skocjan Caves Regional Park", which was in the
last phase of parliamentary procedure and was expected to be
adopted in October 1996. In addition, the authorities provided
a map indicating the buffer zone of the site, which was
transmitted to IUCN for review.
*[31]
The Bureau thanked the authorities of Slovenia for their
efforts and encouraged them to continue their efforts for the
adoption of the management plan. It requested however
clarification on the boundaries of the site and values added
to it.
The Observer of Slovenia informed the Committee that the
"Skocjan Caves Regional Park Act" had entered into force and
that the new management of the Park was established on 27
November 1996. She indicated that a new map will be provided
in due course. The Committee took note of this information.
VII.36 Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)
The Committee recalled that the site was included on the World
Heritage List in 1980 and took note of the report presented by
IUCN on threats to the site which was prepared in cooperation
with the Ramsar Convention Secretariat. The report confirmed
that the construction of dams had a devastating impact on the
wetland values of Ichkeul National Park. The significant
adverse environmental impact of the construction of two dams
limiting the freshwater flow to the area was also described in
a recent report by the Tunisian Ministry of the Environment.
It also confirmed that the Park no longer supports the large
migrating bird populations that it used to and the salinity of
the lake and marshes has dramatically increased. In addition,
structural problems remain, as the Park lacks sufficient
infrastructure, budget and management.
The Committee was informed that the Bureau at its twentieth
extraordinary session recalled debates held concerning
inclusion of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger
beginning in 1985 and considered the possibility of an
eventual deletion of this property from the World Heritage
List. The Bureau discussed if a rehabilitation of the site is
at all possible and requested the Secretariat to write
immediately to the Tunisian authorities to (a) inform them
about the Bureau's concerns, (b) to inform them about the
Bureau´s recommendation to include the site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger, and (c) to inform them of the
possible deletion of Lake Ichkeul from the World Heritage List
if the integrity of the site is lost.
The Secretariat informed the Committee that the Tunisian
authorities responded to the Secretariat's letter by fax of 3
December 1996 from the Minister for the Environment. He
indicated that the situation had evolved since 1994 and that
in 1995/96 rainfall has been high and that the salinity of the
Lake was around 30grams/litre. He concluded that the Ichkeul
ecosystem is *[32] not irreversibly lost and that the Committee
should not consider a declassification of the site. The
Committee took note of the information provided by the State
Party.
The Committee decided to: (a) inscribe Ichkeul National Park
on the List of World Heritage in Danger; (b) request the
authorities to provide a programme of anticipated corrective
measures to reverse the degradation of the site, and (c)
inform the authorities of the possibilities of the deletion of
the property from the World Heritage List if rehabilitation of
the site would not be possible.
VII.37 Garamba National Park (Zaire)
The Committee recalled that due to the success of the
safeguarding action of the northern white rhino population by
the World Heritage Committee, IUCN, WWF, the Frankfurt
Zoological Society and the Zaire authorities, the site was
removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992. In
April 1996, the Centre and IUCN received information on the
poaching of two white rhinos.
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session took note of
additional information provided by IUCN on the loss of three
rangers killed at the site and information based on a detailed
report provided by WWF and the IUCN Species Survival
Commission. The Bureau recalled that it discussed at its
twentieth session inscription on the List of World Heritage in
Danger given the gravity of the situation. The Bureau took
note that no commitment of the Zaire authorities for such
listing had been obtained and no plan for corrective measures
in conformity with the Operational Guidelines had been
submitted. The Bureau also considered the serious situation in
Zaire and the situation of the protected areas in Africa in
general, which has to be related to sustainable development
and international collaboration.
The Committee emphasized the difficult situation in Zaire and
requested the Chairperson to write a letter of condolence to
the families of the rangers who were killed.
The Committee decided to inscribe the Garamba National Park on
the List of World Heritage in Danger, and urged the State
Party to collaborate with WWF, IUCN, and the Centre to prepare
a plan for corrective measures in conformity with the
Operational Guidelines and encouraged international partners
to collaborate to safeguard the northern white rhino and other
wildlife populations in the Park.
*[33]
b) Reports on the state of conservation of natural
properties noted by the Committee
VII.38 Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area
(China)
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session took note of
a progress report which was prepared by IUCN´s Commission on
National Parks during a visit to the site in August 1996. The
Bureau recalled that the Committee in 1992 had made
recommendations on human impacts at the site and its possible
extension. It noted substantial progress in dealing with the
growing human impact in the area, and the possibility of
twinning the site with another World Heritage site in Europe.
On the other hand, the Committee's recommendation concerning
an extension of the site to make it contiguous with Huanglong
Scenic and Historic Interest Area had not been acted upon.
The Bureau welcomed the prospects of twinning and commended
the Chinese authorities for addressing some of the human
impact issues. The Bureau however, reiterated the Committee´s
previous recommendation encouraging the possibility of
extending the site.
VII.39 Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
The Bureau recalled that at its nineteenth session it took
note of a progress report, dated March 1996, on the ongoing
planning activities for the site and a schedule of activities.
IUCN had noted several recent developments in the Sanctuary
that are of concern: (1) poaching of thirteen Oryx, and (2)
the construction of a reverse osmosis plant which has resulted
in significant damage to the desert habitat. The Bureau had
requested the Centre to contact the Omani authorities
encouraging them to provide the definition of the final
boundaries of the site and expressing concern over the
poaching and construction activities.
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session recalled
discussions held at the time of the inscription of the site
and raised concern that no reply had been received from the
Omani authorities since its last session. IUCN informed the
Bureau of delays being experienced by the management authority
in completing the management plan and defining boundaries in
the context of other pressures. Proposals for IUCN to
cooperate in an expert workshop to review the plan and
boundaries were, however, encouraging.
*[34]
The Bureau therefore : (a) invited the State Party to keep the
Committee informed about the state of conservation of the site
and progress on the planning and boundary definition project;
(b) reiterated the clarification requested about the
definition of the final boundaries of the site by 15 April
1997; (c) requested clarification of the situation with
respect to reported oryx poaching and the reverse osmosis
plant, and (d) commended the proposal for an international
workshop to be held in Oman in 1997 to review the draft
management plan, including the definition of boundaries of the
site, involving representatives of IUCN and the World Heritage
Centre, in cooperation with the Omani authorities.
VII.40 Huascaran National Park (Peru)
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session recalled
that the Committee, at its nineteenth session recommended to
the Peruvian authorities that a cultural resources inventory
of the site be carried out and asked for clarification on the
road developments which may threaten the integrity of the
site. The Bureau noted that no reply had been received to a
letter addressed to the State Party.
The Bureau reiterated the request by the World Heritage
Committee that : (a) a cultural resources inventory of the
site be carried out; (b) ICOMOS be kept informed about this
inventory, and (c) clarifications be provided on the road
developments which may threaten the integrity of the site. The
Bureau requested that this information be provided by 15 April
1997.
VII.41 Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session recalled
that the Committee, at its nineteenth session, noted the
potential threats to the integrity of this site, due to the
proposed development of a new port, and the proposal to issue
a license for the establishment of a large floating hotel at
the site. Furthermore, the Committee at its nineteenth session
learnt that Japanese aid agencies were considering supporting
the project up to an amount of US$ 100 million and noted that
Japan was still studying the project. The Committee recalled
Article 6.3 of the Convention which commits States Parties to
the Convention "not to undertake any deliberate measures which
might damage directly or indirectly the cultural and natural
heritage ... situated on the territory of other States Parties
to the Convention."
*[35]
The Bureau took note that the Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) is planning to draft an environmental management
programme for Ha Long Bay. In addition, the Delegation of
Japan informed the Bureau that JICA has completed its "project
formulation study", which was conducted in order to clarify
the contents and background of the request by the Vietnamese
Government to gather some other relevant information.
The Bureau requested the Centre to contact both the Japanese
and the Vietnamese authorities to obtain further information
on environmental impacts on the site.
VII.42 Durmitor National Park (Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro))
The Bureau at its extraordinary twentieth session took note of
the World Heritage Centre´s mission to the site, inscribed on
the World Heritage List in 1980. The mission reviewed the
state of conservation of the site and damage at the Park
Headquarters building in Zabljak caused by a fire in 1995,
which destroyed library and reference collections. The
building had since been reconstructed, almost wholly
refurbished and is operational.
The mission noted the rapid unplanned and uncontrolled
expansion of the village of Zabljak and adjacent development
and that international assistance had been received to
mitigate the mine tailing threat to the Tara River Canyon
portion of the World Heritage site by earthen containment
structures within the earthquake prone flood plain. The Bureau
considered the situation at the site and decided the
following:
The Bureau (a) commended the authorities for their efforts to
restore the Park Headquarters facility to operational level
and to contain the Tara River Canyon mine tailings ; however,
(b) expressed its concerns over the rapid town development
within the site and lack of investment in the Park
infrastructure; (c) requested clarification of possible
boundary adjustments under consideration; (d) considered a
possible engineering evaluation of the mine tailing
containment efforts, and (e) invited the State Party to
encourage the Director of the Park to participate in network
and training efforts with other World Heritage site managers
in the region.
VII.43 Australia
IUCN provided additional information on the situation of World
Heritage sites in Australia. The Bureau at its twentieth
*[36]
extraordinary session recalled that Australia is a leading
State Party in the protection and enhancement of World
Heritage. It took note of information provided by IUCN on
potential threats at a number of World Heritage sites in
Australia, including salt mining at Shark Bay, logging in
adjacent areas of the Tasmanian Wilderness, uranium mining at
Kakadu National Park, and the opening of nature reserves at
the Great Barrier Reef to fishing and development. IUCN stated
that - due to lack of sufficient resources - it was not
possible to prepare detailed reports on any of these sites.
However, resolutions on two of the sites passed at the World
Conservation Congress held in Montreal, Canada, in October
1996 were tabled.
The Delegate of Australia regretted that these reports were
not available. Australian authorities report regularly on all
their World Heritage areas. She provided information that the
Federal Agencies had been restructured and that Australian
World Heritage would be strengthened as a result. The Delegate
of Australia informed the Committee that the reports received
by IUCN were in some cases inaccurate or incomplete and that
Australia has taken a number of steps and actions to mitigate
the decribed threats to World Heritage Areas. She underlined
that Australia had no essential problems with resolutions
concerning Australian World Heritage sites passed by the World
Conservation Congress held in Montreal, Canada, in October
1996 since most of the proposed actions were already
undertaken.
VII.44 Japan
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session recalled
that at the time of the inscription of Shirakami-Sanchi and
Yakushima the Committee requested a follow-up mission to
review progress in 1996. IUCN informed the Bureau that it was
invited by the Japanese authorities, but was not able to
conduct a review in 1996 due to budgetary constraints. The
Bureau noted that this mission had been re-scheduled for 1997.
MIXED (NATURAL AND CULTURAL) PROPERTIES
a) Reports on the state of conservation of mixed (natural
and cultural) properties examined by the Committee
VII.45 Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
The Secretariat recalled the suggestion of the Bureau at its
twentieth session that alternative means of access to Machu
*[37]
Picchu should be studied in the context of integral planning
for the whole of the area of the Sanctuary and that an
assessment of the impact of a possible cable car system be
undertaken, and the Bureau's request that the authorities of
Peru inform the Committee on the progress made in the
development of an integral management mechanism as well as on
the plans for the access to the ruins of Machu Picchu. No
response was received by the Secretariat since then, however,
it was informed that tenders had been invited for the cable
car system.
The Committee considered that the implementation of the cable
car system could have a serious impact on the World Heritage
site and that no action should be undertaken until a proper
management plan is in force. Therefore, the Committee urged
the Peruvian authorities to develop integral management
mechanisms for the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu and
suggested that alternative means of access to Machu Picchu be
studied in the context of integral planning for the whole of
the area of the Sanctuary and that an assessment of its impact
be undertaken. The Committee requested the Peruvian
authorities to provide a full report on the state of
conservation and the management mechanisms of Machu Picchu by
15 April 1997 for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-
first session.
b) Reports on the state of conservation of mixed (natural
and cultural) properties noted by the Committee
VII.46 Mount Huangshan (People's Republic of China)
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session recalled
that an international seminar was held at the site in 1991 by
the National Environmental Protection Agency of China and
UNEP, which indicated growing negative impacts of unregulated
tourism development. It also noted that a training workshop
for Chinese protected area managers was organized at Huangshan
in October-November 1993. Recommendations of the workshop
included the construction of a visitor centre, improving the
disposal of the large amount of waste generated by tourists,
and introducing ecological safeguards and criteria in
identification of sites for constructing visitor facilities.
The Bureau was pleased to note that the Chinese authorities
had given serious consideration to these recommendations and
that the management of waste disposal had improved and the
site's natural and aesthetic values were maintained in an
exemplary way. Site management authorities were also
considering plans for establishing a visitor centre and
limiting further construction of visitor facilities within the
site.
*[38]
The Bureau commended the Chinese authorities for the positive
steps they had taken in improving tourism management in the
site and encouraged them to proceed with additional measures,
such as the construction of a visitor centre to manage the
large numbers of visitors annually entering the site.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
a) Reports on the state of conservation of cultural
properties examined by the Committee
VII.47 Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (People's Republic of
China)
A UNESCO mission, undertaken in September 1996, revealed a
number of major problems, including the complete halt of site
excavations, lack of adequate maintenance of the site and the
lack of a new generation of researchers.
The Committee took note of the report provided by the Director
of the UNESCO Division for Cultural Heritage who attended the
first international Technical Committee on the Peking Man Site
from 25 to 27 November 1996. The Technical Committee
recommended enhancement in the protection of the site,
especially the Upper Cave, improvement of the site museum and
research facilities as well as to further scientific research.
VII.48 Potala Palace in Lhasa (People's Republic of China)
The Secretariat reported that pressures of urban development
and growth in tourism-related activities are resulting in many
construction activities in the historic sector of Lhasa with a
negative impact on historic structures and their authenticity.
Furthermore, in Shol, the former administrative area of Potala
Palace, which is part of the World Heritage protected area,
the works undertaken on the historic buildings and the
widening of the streets risk causing irreversible changes to
the historic character of this area.
The mural paintings of Potala are threatened by humidity, the
application of lacquer varnish in the 1960s and 70s,
alteration of the original appearance due to excessive
"retouching", and smoke from yak butter lamps. It was noted
that, under the China-Norway-UNESCO cooperative project for
the preservation of Tibetan cultural properties, a training
course on mural painting *[39] restoration techniques has been
proposed and is now pending approval by the Chinese
authorities.
The Committee was informed that the Delegate of China to the
Committee, attending the twentieth extraordinary session of
the Bureau as observer, indicated that the preservation of
Tibetan cultural heritage has been one of the highest
priorities of China. He expressed his Government's
appreciation for the UNESCO World Heritage Centre's technical
assistance and the mobilization of international cooperation
to support the Government's preservation efforts. He indicated
that the Chinese authorities were in favour of the extension
of the Potala Palace World Heritage Site to include Jokhang
Temple and the surrounding historic area, as recommended by
the Committee. He also informed the Bureau that the proposed
China-Norway-UNESCO cooperative project, in which a mural
painting restoration training course is planned, is being
carefully examined by the Chinese authorities.
The Representative of ICCROM and a number of Bureau members
offered their expertise and interest in participating in mural
painting conservation activities.
The Committee took note of the report of the Secretariat, and:
(a) encouraged the Chinese authorities to strengthen
cooperation with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre's
Programme for the Safeguarding and Development of
Historic Cities of Asia, notably in the re-evaluation of
the Lhasa Urban Master Plan to integrate the preservation
of the historic urban fabric as part of the overall urban
development plan, and to develop technical guidelines on
conservation practice of historic buildings;
(b) encouraged the Chinese authorities to strengthen
international cooperation in mural painting conservation
activities and in other fields in the preservation of
Tibetan cultural heritage within the framework of the
World Heritage Convention;
(c) encouraged the Chinese authorities to consider the
extension of the World Heritage protected area to cover
Jokhang Temple and the historic centre of Barkor, as
recommended by the Committee at its eighteenth session in
December 1994.
VII.49 Rock-Hewn Churches, Lalibela (Ethiopia)
The Secretariat underlined the complementarity of the projects
implemented by the Division of Cultural Heritage and the
Centre. It reported that fields requiring particular attention
are:
*[40]
1. the restoration of the site: particularly the protection
of the roofs and the drainage systems ;
2. the management of the site and the harmonization of
current projects. Presently, the main difficulty
encountered by the national authorities seems to be the
harmonization of the different projects and coordination
between the partners. Several precise recommendations are
made in the state of conservation report regarding
scientific research, the role of the Centre for Research
and Conservation of the Cultural Heritage of Ethiopia as
the coordinator of the restoration projects including
development projects in and around the site of Lalibela.
The Committee felt that it is especially important to ensure
coordination of the work between all the national and
international partners engaged in the activities of
conservation and preservation of this World Heritage site. It
considered that the Centre for Research and Conservation of
the Cultural Heritage (CRCCH) should assume this coordination
and ensure that, in accordance with the principles of the
Global Strategy, the activities on the site are not limited to
interventions on the monuments. It therefore appeared
indispensable to take into consideration the aspects of the
living culture by associating the entire ecclesiastic
hierarchy in the efforts made to preserve and enhance this
site. It requested the Ethiopian authorities to keep the
World Heritage Centre informed of the actions that will be
taken to this effect before 15 September 1997 so that this
information can be examined by the Committee at its twenty-
first session.
VII.50 Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
It was recalled that the Committee during its nineteenth
session invited the German authorities to provide a full state
of conservation report on the site, including statements
concerning legal protection, current planning and development
of Potsdam, as well as information on possible extensions of
the site and/or buffer zones adjacent to the site.
Furthermore, during its twentieth session in June 1996, the
Bureau expressed its serious concern about urban development
plans in Potsdam, particularly the "Potsdam Centre" project,
that could directly or indirectly affect the values of the
World Heritage site.
*[41]
The Secretariat informed the Committee that on 22 November
1996, a substantive report was received from the Minister for
Science, Research and Cultural Affairs of Land Brandenburg, on
the state of conservation of the World Heritage site of the
Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin. The report was made
available to the Committee members as Information Document
WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.23.
The Representative of ICOMOS informed the Committee that an
ICOMOS mission was undertaken from 4 to 8 November 1996 and
expressed its concern about the state of conservation of this
World Heritage site and offered its continuous support.
Having examined the state of conservation report on the World
Heritage Site “The Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin”
the Committee commended the German authorities and the
“Prussian Palaces and Gardens Foundation Berlin-Brandenburg”
for their conservation and reconstruction efforts, notably
with regard to the very specific situation of the World
Heritage site in the years following the reunification of
Germany.
The Committee noted with satisfaction that with the adoption
of the “Statute for Protection of the Operative Area of the
Monument of Berlin-Potsdam Cultural Landscape, in accordance
with its inscription on the World Heritage List on 1 January
1991, Potsdam Area”, steps for a comprehensive legal
protection of the World Heritage Site and its immediate
surroundings had been taken.
Nevertheless, the Committee welcomed the fact that the State
Party had taken up the Committee’s previous proposal for an
extension of the World Heritage site, which is to include the
following:
- Pfingstberg, Alexandrovka Colony, the «Städtchen»
between the Pfingstberg and the New Garden, Lindstedt
Palace and Park, all of which were not part of the
original application to the Committee for political
and/or administrative reasons;
- Wooden areas («Jagen»), mainly in the Sacrow region,
which were not fully included in the initial inscription
due to legal uncertainties;
- Areas historically and geographically linked to the
World Heritage site, which include in particular parts of
the entrance to Sanssouci Park (for example the avenue
leading to Sanssouci and the adjacent buildings), the
extension to the main axis of the Park (i.e. the
Lindenallee with an appropriate strip of land on both
sides), the unused field north of the Orangery in the
Sanssouci Park up to the Teufelsgraben, remnants of the
old village of Bornstedt *[42] royal domain as well as the
Voltaireweg and its extension, the historical link
between Sanssouci and the New Garden.
The Committee encouraged the State Party to make a concrete
application to that end in accordance with the Convention and
the Operational Guidelines in the near future.
The Committee expressed its concern that, although different
planning concepts on various levels exist, an overarching
master plan for the development of the City of Potsdam which
would reflect an overall approach towards the values of the
Potsdam Cultural Landscape was still missing. Furthermore,
coordination between the different planning concepts on the
one hand and between the builders, authorities and experts on
the other should be considerably strengthened in order to
avoid that developments like the construction project on the
«Glienicker Horn» which already led to serious damage to the
Potsdam urban and cultural landscape, will not be repeated in
the future. According to information available to the
Committee, other critical uncoordinated projects pose
potential threats to the Potsdam urban and cultural landscape,
including:
- the new theatre at the Zimmerstrasse;
- "city villas" at the Katharinenholzstrasse;
- the so-called «Lennéstadt»/Bornstedter Feld;
- new buildings at the Heiliger See;
- new buildings at Babelsberg: «Potsdam Fenster»,
Gewoba-building and film studio Alt-Nowawes;
- housing and business buildings at the Ribbeckstrasse,
Bornstedt.
The Committee took note of the information provided by the
State Party on the so-called "Potsdam Centre" and on the
"German Unity Transport Project No.17".
As regards the «Potsdam Centre» the Committee asked the State
Party to ensure that the special competition, which will be
organized for a large part of the planned overall project,
with the participation of independent experts, will lead to a
harmonious integration of the project into the Historic City
of Potsdam and the cultural landscape. The Committee welcomed
that the «Alter Markt» will be included in that competition.
In addition, as regards the parts of the project which will
apparently not be subject to such competitions (The Hotel
Project and the Railway Station), the Committee urged the
German authorities to undertake every effort to ensure that
the planning of those buildings be substantially changed.
*[43]
As regards the "German Unity Transport Project No.17" the
Committee specifically took note of the understanding between
the German authorities and the Foundation that the World
Heritage site must not be adversely affected by that Project.
The Committee was of the opinion that no alteration should be
made to the Glienicker Bridge, that only one shipping lane
should be foreseen from the Glienicker Lake towards the Teltow
Channel and that no dredging work should be carried out within
Babelsberg Park.
The Committee appealed to the German authorities to ensure
that the World Heritage site, which constitutes an integral
part of the City of Potsdam and the Potsdam Cultural
Landscape, will not be affected by these specific projects
mentioned in the state of conservation report.
The Committee concluded that:
- its concerns were not diminished by the state of
conservation report, submitted by the Land
Brandenburg;
- in its opinion, the report demonstrated that the
World Heritage site continues to be seriously
threatened by various urban development projects;
- the Potsdam World Heritage site is in danger.
Therefore, it would have liked to inscribe the
property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
However, the German authorities have urged the
Committee not to do so. The Committee was convinced
by the explanations given by the German Delegation
that high ranking German authorities are and will be
undertaking all efforts to reduce the threats mainly
deriving from the planned "Potsdam Centre" and the
"German Unity Transport Project No. 17".
The Committee asked the State Party to provide a full state of
conservation report by 15 April 1997 in time for the twenty-
first session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.
If, at the time of the twenty-first session of the World
Heritage Committee the threats to the World Heritage site as
mentioned above still persist, the Committee will consider the
inscription of the World Heritage Site of Potsdam on the List
of World Heritage in Danger.
VII.51 The Town of Luang Prabang (Laos)
The Committee was informed of the Secretariat's report to the
Bureau that a surge of overseas public and private investments,
*[44]
and of tourism is being witnessed in this World Heritage town.
Building renovations and new constructions are taking place
throughout the town, including the rehabilitation of many
temples without sufficient consideration for authenticity.
Numerous violations of building regulations are occurring.
To strengthen the national capacity, a Heritage House (Maison
du patrimoine) was established within the provincial
administration under the Luang Prabang-Chinon (France)-UNESCO
World Heritage Centre cooperation project to prepare
recommendations on building design and conservation methods
for all building permit requests in the World Heritage
protected area and the buffer/support zones, as well as to
prepare the Safeguarding and Development Plan of the town.
The Committee was informed that the strengthening of the legal
protection of movable and immovable cultural properties,
including archaeological sites and historic human settlements,
is urgently required. The enactment by the National Assembly
of a cultural properties protection law prepared with the
assistance of the cooperation project, in order to strengthen
the existing ministerial decrees is under consideration.
The Committee was informed that the Representative of ICOMOS
reminded the Bureau that it had recommended deferral of the
inscription of Luang Prabang until there was firm proof of the
effectiveness of the management plan, stating that this case
shows the necessity of deferring inscription decision. The
Committee was also informed, however, that a number of Bureau
members commented on the usefulness of World Heritage
inscription to strengthen protection and expressed
satisfaction for the achievements made within such a short
time.
The Mayor of Chinon, at the invitation of the Chairperson,
clarified to the Committee that the cooperation project was
for national capacity building and that the Heritage House was
a technical service within the provincial administration. He
stated that the City of Chinon foresees long-term cooperation
with Luang Prabang for the transfer and sharing of knowledge.
The Committee thanked the Mayor for his commitment.
The Committee took note of the Secretariat´s report and
congratulated the Government of Laos for the establishment of
the Heritage House within the Department of Culture of the
provincial administration, the Provincial Committee for the
Protection and Development of Luang Prabang and the National
Inter-ministerial Committee for the Protection of Cultural
Properties, all within one year of inscription.
*[45]
The Committee furthermore:
(a) recalled the commitment made by the Government of Laos,
by letter of November 1995 from the Minister of Foreign
Affairs to the Director-General of UNESCO, for the early
enactment of the Cultural Properties Protection Law by
the National Assembly;
(b) requested the Government of Laos to organize an
information meeting to present the Safeguarding and
Development Plan of Luang Prabang for donors, financial
institutions and investors, to ensure that the numerous
construction and infrastructural development projects do
not undermine the World Heritage value of the town.
VII.52 Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
The World Heritage Committee at its seventeenth session in
1993, expressed deep concern over the state of conservation of
the Kathmandu Valley and considered the possibility of placing
this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger following
discussions on the findings of the November 1993 Joint
UNESCO/ICOMOS Review Mission.
Since then, the Government has given priority to responding to
the sixteen points of concern raised by the UNESCO/ICOMOS
mission.
To emphasize the increased importance being placed on the
preservation of the World Heritage site as a whole, rather
than on individual monuments, an information meeting was held
in October 1996 on the safeguarding and development needs of
the site. During this meeting some nineteen project proposals
were presented for national and international funding support.
The Secretariat informed the Committee that the State of
Conservation Report prepared by the Department of Archaeology
of His Majesty's Government of Nepal, with the assistance of
the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, was received and would be
made available to the Committee members.
The Committee took note of the Secretariat's report and
expressed its appreciation for the progress made by His
Majesty´s Government of Nepal towards the fulfilment of the
sixteen-point recommendations of the UNESCO/ICOMOS mission of
November 1993, which was endorsed by the Committee at its
eighteenth session. It expressed hope that efforts will be
continued to strengthen the institutional capacities of the
Department of Archaeology and the *[46] concerned municipal
authorities to protect and develop the Kathmandu Valley World
Heritage site by officially adopting and publicizing
regulations on building control and conservation practice. The
Committee noted the efforts made by the Government in
convening the information meeting held in Kathmandu in October
1996 to solicit donors to finance the projects developed by
the local authorities with the support of the UNESCO Cultural
Heritage Division and the World Heritage Centre.
VII.53 City of Cusco (Peru)
At its twentieth session in June 1996, the Bureau took note of
information provided by the Secretariat regarding projects in
the historical City of Cusco that could have a negative impact
on the World Heritage values of the site. It invited the
authorities to establish appropriate planning mechanisms for
the historical City of Cusco.
The Secretariat informed the Committee that no substantive
reply had been received to the concerns expressed by the
Bureau. However, the Peruvian authorities had submitted a
request for technical cooperation. The Secretariat informed
the Committee that the request provided information on the
deficient management arrangements in Cusco and the lack of a
master plan for the City. The assistance would provide advice
on the creation of a Commission for the Historical City of
Cusco, which would oversee the urban development planning and
construction and restoration projects, as well as advise on
the preparation of a master plan. The Committee urged again
the authorities to establish appropriate planning mechanisms
for the historical City of Cusco. It decided that the request
for technical cooperation submitted by the Government of Peru
will be approved upon receipt, by 15 April 1997, of a state of
conservation report as requested by the Bureau at its
twentieth session.
VII.54 Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)
At its twentieth session, the Bureau commended the Government
of Poland on halting the construction works in the immediate
vicinity of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp. It urged the
authorities to devise a plan for the preservation of the site
and its immediate surroundings, and keep the Committee
informed on this matter.
The Secretariat informed the Committee that since then, and
although additional assurance had been given by the Polish
authorities that construction works had stopped, it had
received *[47] information that a cigarette company had announced
its intention to go ahead with the construction of a cigarette
factory adjacent to the site.
The Secretariat immediately informed the Polish Permanent
Delegation of this event, and asked the Polish authorities "to
take all the necessary action in order to ensure that the
integrity of Auschwitz-Birkenau is respected".
After having taken note of the concern of the Bureau regarding
projects of the Phillip Morris Company, the Committee listened
to an intervention by the Observer of Poland, who indicated
that the project was not a new construction but the transfer
of ownership of a tobacco factory which has been functioning
for eighty years, under State monopoly, and situated 300
metres from the former camp. He furthermore indicated that a
report on this subject would be provided by the Polish
authorities before the next Bureau session.
The Committee expressed its strong concern with regard to this
new threat which, immediately following the building project
of a supermarket, threatens once again the symbolic character
of this property, inscribed under cultural criterion (vi).
VII.55 Ancient City of Damascus (Syrian Arab Republic)
The Secretariat recalled that a mission of five experts
visited the city of Damascus late 1995 and that their reports
emphasized the tremendous investment on the part of the Syrian
authorities for the conservation of the Mosque of the
Omeyyades, but also expressed severe concern and reservations
about the conservation and restoration approach and
techniques.
In January 1996, UNESCO requested the Syrian authorities to
stop the work immediately and to continue it only when in-
depth studies would be carried out, and in accordance with
international standards for the respect of authenticity. The
same request was made by the Bureau during its twentieth
session.
The Permanent Delegation of Syria informed the Secretariat
that the work had indeed been suspended.
After being informed of the conclusions of UNESCO's expert
mission fielded at the request of the Syrian authorities in
November-December 1995 to the Mosque of the Omeyyades of
Damascus, as well as the Report of the President of the
Restoration Committee, the World Heritage Committee thanked
the authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic for interrupting
the work *[48] which it felt did not conform to the international
standards for restoration and conservation.
It strongly advised that one or two international experts,
proposed by the World Heritage Centre, be invited for a
consultation to help evaluate the situation, decide on
measures to be taken, and, should the need arise, determine
the most appropriate manner in which to pursue further work
which might be necessary. It recommended also that training of
national specialists and technicians be considered in
cooperation with ICCROM.
In this case, the Committee would of course be willing to
contribute to financing the participation of these experts.
VII.56 Taos Pueblo (United States of America)
The Bureau, at its twentieth session, was informed that a
preliminary monitoring report from the United States National
Park Service indicated that no agreement had been reached as
yet between the Federal Aviation Administration, the Taos
Pueblo and the National Park Service on the definition of the
geographic area of potential impacts and on the contents of
the Environmental Impact Statement. As to the recommendations
made by the Committee at its nineteenth session regarding the
involvement of ICOMOS and IUCN in the definition of the Impact
Statement area, as well as a possible extension of the site,
the report indicated that these will have to move forward in
full consultation with the Pueblo, which is self-governing.
The Committee noted that no further information had been
received from the Government of the United States regarding
the Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed airport
extension and the possible extension of the World Heritage
site.
The Delegate of the United States informed the Committee that
it regretted the delay in this matter. She visited the site
only recently at the invitation of the Governor of the Pueblo
and the War Chief who detailed the potential and existing
aeroplane flight patterns over the Pueblo lands. The major
concern of the Pueblo is that the future overflights might
infringe upon the privacy and sanctimony of their religious
ceremonies which are an integral part of their culture.
Furthermore, she informed the Committee that she toured the
airport and met with the airport manager who informed her that
a cross runway is essential to air safety. In addition,
because there is no airport tower and therefore no
communication with incoming pilots, the airport cannot advise
incoming flights of routes that do not cross Pueblo *[49] lands.
The Department of the Interior had raised and will continue to
raise the issue with the Federal Aviation Authority. At
present there are no funds available to build the cross
runway.
In a related matter, the Delegate informed that in November
1996 the President of the United States had signed into law a
bill that transfers from federal ownership to the Taos Peublo
a piece of land they consider sacred land. The Committee took
note of this information.
VII.57 Khami (Zimbabwe)
The Secretariat informed the Committee that the National
Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe had reported that a
Strategic Action Plan for the conservation and management of
Khami is being formulated. However, resources for maintenance
work and surveillance are inadequate.
The Committee noted the information provided by the National
Museums and Monuments concerning the threats of the
development project in the vicinity which are leading to
increased negative pressure on the site. It encouraged the
Zimbabwe authorities to pursue their efforts for better
conservation of this site by allocating adequate resources,
and transferring the expertise acquired at the site of Great
Zimbabwe.
b) Reports on the state of conservation of cultural
properties noted by the Committee
VII.58 Butrinti (Albania)
At the twentieth extraordinary session of the Bureau, the
Secretariat reported that major studies were being undertaken
for tourism development of the World Heritage site of Butrinti
and that Albania had made a request for technical cooperation
for monitoring these activities, which, in the meantime, was
approved by the Chairperson of the Committee. The assistance,
however, could not be implemented due to the non-payment of
the contributions to the World Heritage Fund.
The Bureau commended the Albanian authorities for their
efforts at Butrinti, and recommended that the Director of the
World Heritage Centre explore with the Albanian authorities a
way of solving the current difficulties so that a monitoring
mission may be enacted in the near future. The Bureau
requested that the Committee be kept informed about the on-
going activities.
*[50]
VII.59 Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria)
In July 1996, the Permanent Delegation of Algeria transmitted
a progress report for the project entitled "Safeguarding Plan
for the Kasbah of Algiers", and informed the Centre that the
training in Paris, financed by the World Heritage Fund, of
three architects in charge of drawing up the plan had been
satisfactory.
The Bureau, at its twentieth extraordinary session, took note
of the information provided and warmly thanked the Algerian
authorities for having informed it of their strong interest in
the preservation of the Kasbah of Algiers and the continuing
measures taken for its safeguard, and requested them to
continue to devote their efforts to the conservation of this
World Heritage site.
VII.60 City of Potosi (Bolivia)
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session noted with
satisfaction that, in response to a request from the Committee
at its nineteenth session and the Bureau at its twentieth
session, the Bolivian Mining Corporation had included the
preservation of the form, the topography and the natural
environment of the Cerro Rico as one of the objectives for
future exploitation of the Cerro Rico mountain. The Bureau
commended the Bolivian authorities for this action and
requested them to keep the Committee informed on further
developments in this respect.
VII.61 The Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples,
Chengde (People's Republic of China)
The Secretariat informed the Bureau at its twentieth
extraordinary session that a UNESCO mission visited the
Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples, in Chengde and noted
remarkable achievements in the restoration of several of its
buildings and of the landscape.
Major issues for the future are to bring development plans for
the town of Chengde in line with World Heritage conservation
needs, the improvement of buffer zone protection and the
reduction of air pollution.
The Representative of ICOMOS stated that even at the time of
the inscription of this site, the Chinese authorities had
expressed concern over the development of the town of Chengde
and how to control its impact on the site.
*[51]
The Bureau took note of the report provided by the Secretariat
and requested the authorities of China to inform the Committee
of the management and conservation and restoration programme
for this site, particularly regarding the development of the
town of Chengde.
VII.62 Aksum (Ethiopia)
The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session took note of
the report provided by the Secretariat that the site
management should be strengthened by providing and collecting
scientific documentation at the site level as the basis for
management and conservation planning, particularly in view of
the master plan that is being prepared.
The Bureau warmly thanked the Ethiopian authorities for all
their efforts and the measures already taken to ensure the
preservation and enhancement of this site. It asked the
Centre for Research and Conservation of the Cultural Heritage
(CRCCH) to continue its efforts and to ensure that the
scientific documentation at the site be made available to the
site manager. It reiterated that the compilation of this
documentation is a prerequisite for the preparation of the
management and conservation plans, and that UNESCO is always
ready to provide, where necessary, assistance in obtaining
documents that are not available in Ethiopia.
VII.63 Lower Valley of the Awash (Ethiopia)
The Secretariat reported that in spite of its difficult
access, it appeared that the site is subject to the
uncontrolled visits of individual tourists seeking souvenir
fossils. To provide better protection and in order to further
enhance this site, several measures were recommended,
including the:
* designation of a guide by the CRCCH;
* construction of a museum;
* eventual extension of the zone inscribed on the World
Heritage List.
The Bureau took note of the Secretariat´s report and
encouraged the Centre for Research and Conservation of the
Cultural Heritage (CRCCH) to implement the above-mentioned
proposals, and to keep the World Heritage Committee informed
of all progress accomplished.
*[52]
VII.64 Lower Valley of the Omo (Ethiopia)
The Secretariat reported that erosion endangers the site by
erasing the markers which had been planted during the last
scientific missions of 1974 and 1976 on the major sites,
especially those that had revealed hominid fossils.
Due to the suspension of the international missions since
1976, it was recommended that a survey should be carried out
on the present state of the deposits to record the changes
brought about by erosion, to seek out the markers still in
place, and position each locality by means of a GPS (Global
Positioning System).
The Bureau took note of the report provided by the Secretariat
and encouraged the Centre for Research and Conservation of the
Cultural Heritage (CRCCH) to undertake a survey and implement
the above-mentioned proposals, and requested the Ethiopian
authorities to keep it informed of the progress achieved.
VII.65 Fasil Ghebbi (Gondar, Ethiopia)
Gondar was the political capital of Christian Ethiopia from
1632 to the middle of the 19th century. The Secretariat
reported that an extensive and high quality three-year
restoration programme is being undertaken to transform the
main palace into a museum of Gondarian Civilization.
The Committee warmly thanked the Directorate of the Centre for
Research and Conservation of the Ethiopian Cultural Heritage
(CRCCH) for the financial and human efforts made towards the
preservation of this World Heritage site, as well as the site
manager for his commitment and the quality of his work. It
considered the conservation project underway to be highly
satisfactory and exemplary, and hoped that other World
Heritage sites will benefit from the competence and expertise
of the team in charge of the work. It would also be advisable
that the documentation concerning the history of the site and
its restoration be collected and deposited at Gondar and thus
made easily accessible to those working at the site.
VII.66 Tiya (Ethiopia)
The city of Tiya is representative of the numerous
archaeological sites of the Megalithic period which bear
witness to extinct cultures.
The Secretariat reported that the preservation of the site is
effective, but that it could be further improved by a series
of measures, including:
*[53]
* developing the surrounding area,
* installing a signposting system,
* numbering the stelae, and
* improving the maintenance of the grassy surface of the
site and the drainage system to avoid flooding during the
rainy season.
However, for it to be truly enhanced, the site should be
linked to its cultural environment, i.e., with all the
Megalithic sites of the Soddo region. It would therefore be
advisable to extend the site inscribed to a significant
regional cultural ensemble.
The Bureau encouraged the Centre for Research and Conservation
of the Cultural Heritage (CRCCH) to implement the above-
mentioned proposals which aim to improve the presentation of
the site, and to envisage its extension. It requested the
Ethiopian authorities to keep it informed of the progress
achieved.
VII.67 Roman Monuments in Trier (Germany)
It was recalled that the Secretariat presented to the Bureau
at its twentieth session a report on a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS
mission to Trier in reference to the construction of urban
villas and a proposed urban development scheme in the
immediate vicinity of the Roman amphitheatre. The Bureau
requested that a full report of the mission, as well as on the
progress made in undertaking the architectural competition for
the area north of the amphitheatre, be presented to its
session in November 1996.
ICOMOS reported that the mission had been successful. ICOMOS
was involved in the drawing up of the terms of reference for
the architectural competition. It will also participate in the
evaluation of the designs. The urban villas which are already
under construction could be limited in their height so that
they would not been seen from the inside of the arena.
The German Delegate gave further information concerning the
terms of reference of the competition. He stressed that the
main issue is to analyse the possibility of re-opening the
northern gate of the amphitheatre which has been closed for
centuries and to create a way of communication from this
northern gate to the other Roman monuments of the town.
The Bureau requested that the German authorities provide a
full report concerning the entire area surrounding the
amphitheatre by 15 April 1997 for examination by the next
session of the Bureau.
*[54]
VII.68 Vilnius Old Town (Lithuania)
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the rehabilitation
programme of Vilnius Old Town is progressing well. In
September 1996, the Danish/Scottish/Lithuanian consultant team
submitted their final report on the Revitalization Strategy
and steps are being taken to implement the consultants’
recommendations, notably the establishment of a management
structure for the rehabilitation programme. Furthermore a
computer-assisted information system for the rehabilitation of
the historic centre is in preparation. The President of the
Republic of Lithuania and the Director-General of UNESCO have
signed an agreement pledging to organize jointly, in the first
half of 1997, an International Donors and Investors Conference
for financing the rehabilitation
programme. The World Bank maintains its collaboration with
the World Heritage Centre in this endeavour.
ICCROM informed the Secretariat that it was also focusing its
attention on urban conservation in particular in the Baltic
Region and is planning to develop a training programme
involving this Region and expressed its wish to join forces
with the rehabilitation programme for Vilnius.
The Investors and Donors Conferences organized in both Nepal
and Lithuania, to obtain funds for their World Heritage sites,
were welcomed and it was requested that the experiences in
these two countries be published to serve as an example for
other States Parties and World Heritage sites.
The Bureau thanked the Danish Government, the World Bank and
the City of Edinburgh for their continuing support, welcomed
the agreement between Lithuania and UNESCO to organize the
International Donors and Investors Conference in 1997, pledged
its own support to this endeavour, commended the Lithuanian
authorities for their efforts, and encouraged them to pursue
this promising rehabilitation programme of Vilnius Old Town.
VII.69 Archaeological sites of Bat, Al-Khutun and Al-Ayn
(Oman)
On the occasion of a mission sent to Oman from 14 to 21
September 1996, UNESCO experts noted that several structures
of the site of Bat are now protected by wire fence enclosures,
but that several repairs and preventive measures should be
taken.
Having noted the Secretariat report on the state of
conservation of the archaeological site of Bat, the Bureau
thanked the Omani authorities for preserving the structures of
the site and *[55] encouraged them to implement as quickly as
possible the additional measures already foreseen:
- repair of the fenced enclosures;
- diversion of the course of the neighbouring Wadi
which threatens the protection of the site;
- discreet marking in-situ, by appropriate methods, of
the position of the stones still in place in the
walls;
- reinforcement of the security guards to avoid the
theft of the blocks of stone.
VII.70 The Monuments of Hue (Vietnam)
The inscription on the World Heritage List encouraged
donations and international patronage, in addition to
substantial financial allocation by the Vietnamese Government
for conservation activities. At present this support
contributes to the restoration of the monuments, the treatment
of the wood against termites, and to setting up a geographical
information data system.
The Secretariat reported that considerable urban and regional
development for the area of Hue - Da Nang is being planned and
major infrastructural works are being considered with a
possible negative impact on the World Heritage site of Hue.
The Centre maintains contact with the Institute for
Development and Strategy of Hanoi (DSI) and the French
Delegation for Territorial and Regional Development (DATAR),
as well as with the Japan International Cooperation Agency,
which are all involved in the development of the metropolitan
area of the Hue - Danang region, to ensure that the
development plan takes into consideration the conservation of
Hue.
To ensure both conservation and development of this living
historic city, landuse and building regulations need to be
urgently re-evaluated and improved, especially with regard to
the height and volume of the buildings, the width and
development of the streets, as well as the commercial and
residential landuse in the buffer zones (Zones 2 and 3)
surrounding the monument zone (Zone 1).
The Representative of ICOMOS expressed concern over the plan
to upgrade the road cutting across the World Heritage
protected area of Hue into a highway. The Secretariat stated
that the Vietnamese authorities have repeatedly assured
UNESCO, through the Hue-UNESCO Working Group on the
International Safeguarding Campaign, that the planned highway
will not cut through the site, nor have a negative impact on
the World Heritage value of Hue. The *[56] Secretariat, however,
expressed concern over the difficulty in keeping up-to-date on
the numerous major infrastructural development projects in
Vietnam of importance to the entire region.
The Bureau noted the Secretariat's report and requested UNESCO
to support the Vietnamese authorities to re-evaluate the
landuse and building regulations concerning the World Heritage
protected area and the buffer zones (Zones 2 and 3) as well as
to participate in the reflection on the various road
construction/upgrading projects currently under consideration.
The Bureau also suggested that the Vietnamese Government
strengthen its interministerial coordination to ensure that
the much-needed infrastructural development projects do not
undermine the World Heritage value of the site, and to
continue their on-going collaboration with the Governments of
France and Japan to reflect on the safeguarding needs of the
World Heritage Site of Hue within the context of the regional
development scheme.
VII.71 Historic Town of Zabid (Yemen)
The World Heritage Bureau during its twentieth session was
informed that renovations which were seriously threatening the
authenticity and integrity of the Great Mosque of Zabid had
been undertaken by the local authorities.
The Secretariat informed the Bureau at its twentieth
extraordinary session that, since then, it had received the
report of its expert stressing that the work is presently
being carried out in a manner more in keeping with the
traditional techniques; however, a water conveyance project
planned by the National Water and Sewerage Authority of Yemen
and the German Ministry for Cooperation (BMZ) and financed by
a German agency (KfW), could be a major hazard for the
preservation of the monuments of the city. Following
consultations with the Yemeni and German authorities the
Secretariat received confirmation from the German Delegation
that an agreement had been reached with the Yemeni authorities
that the water project will integrate sewage provisions.
The Bureau thanked the Yemeni authorities for having adopted
traditional methods more in conformity with the respect of
authenticity for the work of the Great Mosque of Zabid and
recommended that they consult as often as necessary the expert
designated by UNESCO. It also congratulated the Yemeni and
German authorities, the National Water and Sewerage Authority
of Yemen, the German Ministry of Cooperation (BMZ) and the KfW
for having decided last August to simultaneously implement the
water supply *[57] and sanitation systems in Zabid and other
historic cities in order to avoid any deterioration of their
cultural monuments.
VII.72 Great Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe)
Considerable progress was reported in the preservation
programme for this site managed by National Museums and
Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ). A site management plan is in
place. As a result of a special Donors Conference held in
1992, the site has also secured surveying equipment. A total
survey has been undertaken. The Bureau commended the Zimbabwe
authorities for their efforts of conservation and the
professional expertise which is available in situ. It
recommended that the World Heritage Committee be kept informed
of on-going activities.
VIII. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF
NOMINATIONS ON CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO
THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE
IN DANGER
VIII.1 The Secretariat informed the Committee that all the
cultural sites proposed for inscription were listed on the
tentative lists of the respective countries. Furthermore, the
Committee noted that, by November 1996, of the 147 States
Parties, 72 had submitted tentative lists corresponding to the
criteria laid down in the Operational Guidelines. The full
list of States Parties having submitted tentative lists as
well as the individual lists of each State Party have been
provided to the Committee members (Document WHC-
96/CONF.201/8).
A. NATURAL HERITAGE
VIII.2 The Bureau, at its twentieth session, examined
eleven new natural nominations received for review by IUCN.
IUCN had informed the Bureau that due to climatic conditions
field missions could not be carried out for all of these sites
in time for the June meeting of the Bureau. The Bureau also
examined one extension to a World Heritage site and two
previously deferred nominations.
VIII.3 At its twentieth extraordinary session the Bureau
reviewed six properties which were referred back. It deferred
three sites and recommended three sites for inscription. In
addition, the Secretariat informed the Bureau that one site,
*[58]
which was deferred in 1994, was withdrawn by the State Party
prior to the session.
A.1. Properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
VII.4 The Committee at its twentieth session examined the
state of conservation reports contained in Working Document
WHC-96/CONF.201/7B, and additional information provided in
Information Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.23 and decided to
include the following properties on the List of World Heritage
in Danger:
Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)
Garamba National Park (Zaire)
A.2. Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
Name of property Identi- State Party Criteria
fication having submitted
the nomination
(in accordance
with Article 11 of
the Convention)
Belize Barrier 764 Belize N(ii)(iii)(iv)
Reef Reserve
System
The Committee inscribed the Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System
under natural criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv) as the largest
barrier reef in the Northern hemisphere, as a serial
nomination consisting of seven sites. The Reef illustrates a
classic example of reefs through fringing, barrier and atoll
reef types. It commended the Belize authorities for having
responded to the Bureau´s request concerning the clarification
on the boundaries of the nominated property, confirmation of
the legal status of the different parts of the nomination and
statements on the concerns on oil exploitation at the reef.
The Committee took note of the request by the State Party to
change the name for the nominated property to "Belize Barrier
Reef Reserve System".
Lake Baikal 754 Russian N(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
Federation
The Committee inscribed Lake Baikal as the most outstanding
example of a freshwater ecosystem on the basis of natrual
criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). It is the oldest and
deepest of the world´s lakes containing nearly 20% of the
world´s unfrozen freshwater reserve. The lake contains an
outstanding variety of endemic flora and fauna, which is of
exceptional value to evolutionary science. It is also
surrounded by a system of protected areas that have high
scenic and other natural values. The Committee took note of
the confirmation of the revised boundaries of the site, which
correspond to the core areas defined in the Baikal Law
(excluding the five urban developed areas). It also noted that
the special Lake Baikal Law is now in its second reading in
the Duma. Finally, it noted concern over a number of integrity
issues including pollution, which should be brought to the
attention of the Russian authorities.
The Volcanoes of 765 Russian N(i)(ii)(iii)
Kamchatka Federation
The Committee inscribed the Volcanoes of Kamchatka as one of
the most outstanding examples of the volcanic regions in the
world on the basis of natural criteria (i), (ii) and (iii).
The site contains a high density of active volcanoes, a
variety of different types and a wide range of volcanic
features. The Peninsula location between a large continental
landmass and the Pacific Ocean also exhibits unique
characteristics with major concentrations of wildlife. The
discussions held at the twentieth extraordinary session of the
Bureau on the possibilities of mining near the site and the
need to strengthen site management capacity were noted.
W National Park 749 Niger N(ii)(iv)
of Niger
Following a request by the Delegate of Benin, the Committee
heard a presentation by IUCN on this nomination and a summary
report on the "Sub-regional Training Seminar for Biosphere
Reserve and World Heritage Site Managers from Francophone
Africa" held at La Tapoa, Niger, from 29 September to 6
October 1996. This report was presented by the Rapporteur of
the seminar and focused on the results concerning the three-
point mandate specifically given by the twentieth session of
the Bureau held in Paris in June 1996. The German Delegate
questioned if the report by the rapporteur, member of the
Delegation of Niger, was in conformity with *[60] Paragraph 62,
which stipulates that representatives of a State Party "shall
not speak to advocate the inclusion in the List of a property
nominated by that State".
A considerable debate followed, including the question of the
protection of the transfrontier ensemble of the three National
Parks (Benin, Burkina-Faso, Niger), the assessment of
associative cultural values for the region and the integrity
of the site. Several delegates expressed their difficulties in
making any decision being confronted with two contradictory
statements, one by IUCN indicating that the W National Park
of Niger does not meet any of the natural criteria and one by
the experts of the sub-regional training seminar at La Tapoa
recommending inscription of the site under natural criteria
(ii) and (iv) and the possibility to associate cultural
criterion (vi) in the future.
A vote took place on whether to inscribe the Niger National
Park on the World Heritage List or not, in conformity with
Article 13.8 of the World Heritage Convention. Nineteen
delegations were present, twelve voted in favour of the
inscription under natural criteria (ii) and (iv) (Benin,
Brazil, Cuba, Cyprus, Ecuador, France, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico,
Philippines, Morocco and Niger), three abstained (China, Japan
and Malta) and four (Australia, Canada, Germany and the United
States of America) voted against the inscription of the Niger
National Park. The statutory required majority of two-thirds
was reached and the W National Park of Niger was inscribed on
the World Heritage List on the basis of the natural criteria
(ii) and (iv) of the nomination.
Okapi Wildlife 718 Zaire N(iv)
Reserve
The Committee inscribed the property as one of the most
important sites for conservation, including the rare Okapi and
rich floral diversity, under natural criterion (iv). The
Committee expressed its hope that the activities outlined in
the new management plan would ensure the integrity of the
site. Considering the civil unrest in the country, the
question of the long-term security of the site was raised.
Several delegates mentioned the importance of the pygmy
population living at the site and the interaction between
traditional people and nature. The Committee encouraged the
State Party to review the cultural values of the site and to
consider nomination also under cultural criteria in the
future.
*[61]
A.3. Change in the name of an inscribed site on the World
Heritage List
Cape Girolata, Cape Porto, 258 France
Scandola Nature Reserve,
and the Piana Calanches
in Corsica
The Committee took note of the letter dated 30 July 1996, in
which the French authorities informed the Centre that they
wish to change the name of the site "Cape Girolata, Cape Porto
and Scandola Nature Reserve in Corsica" (France) and to add
"The Piana Calanches". The Committee adopted the following
name: "Cape Girolata, Cape Porto, Scandola Nature Reserve, and
the Piana Calanches in Corsica".
B. MIXED (CULTURAL AND NATURAL) PROPERTIES
B.1 Properties which the Committee inscribed on the World
Heritage List
Name of property Identi- State Party Criteria
fication having submitted
the nomination
(in accordance
with Article 11 of
the Convention)
Mount Emei Scenic 779 China C(iv)(vi)
Area, including N(iv)
Leshan Giant Buddha
Scenic Area
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property under
cultural criteria (iv) and (vi) considering the area of Mt.
Emei is of exceptional cultural significance, since it is the
place where Buddhism first became established on Chinese
territory and from where it spread widely throughout the east.
It is also an area of natural beauty into which the human
element has been integrated, and natural criterion (iv) for
its high plant species diversity with a large number of
endemic species.
It also underlined the importance of the link between the
tangible and intangible, the natural and the cultural.
*[62]
The Delegate of China informed the Committee of the
improvements in tourism management and underlined that the
Division for Religious Affairs is responsible for the
monasteries.
The Committee furthermore recommended that the Chinese
authorities carefully control tourism development at the site
and encourage involvement of the Buddhist monasteries in
conservation activities on the mountain.
The Laponian Area 774 Sweden C(iii)(v)
N(i)(ii)(iii)
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of natural criteria (i), (ii) and (iii) and cultural
criteria (iii) and (v). The Committee considered that the site
is of outstanding universal value as it contains examples of
ongoing geological, biological and ecological processes, a
great variety of natural phenomena of exceptional beauty and
significant biological diversity including a population of
brown bear and alpine flora. It was noted that the site meets
all conditions of integrity. The site has been occupied
continuously by the Saami people since prehistoric times, is
one of the last and unquestionably largest and best preserved
examples of an area of transhumance, involving summer grazing
by large reindeer herds, a practice that was widespread at one
time and which dates back to an early stage in human economic
and social development.
The Committee underlined the importance of the interaction
between people and the natural environment. Furthermore, it
recommended that the Swedish authorities continue to work with
local Saami people, extend the inventories on species,
consolidate the management plan for this site and would
welcome the consideration of a transboundary site with Norway.
The name of the property has been changed to "The Laponian Area".
*[63]
C. CULTURAL PROPERTIES
C.1 Properties which the Committee inscribed on the World
Heritage List
Name of property Identi- State Party Criteria
fication having submitted
the nomination
(in accordance
with Article 11 of
the Convention)
The Monastery of 777 Armenia C(ii)(iv)
Haghpat
The Committee decided to inscribe the Monastery of Haghpat on
the basis of cultural criteria (ii) and (iv) considering that
it is of outstanding universal value and an exceptional
example of ecclesiastical architecture that developed in
Armenia in the 10th to 13th centuries which is unique by
virtue of its blending of elements of both Byzantine church
architecture and the traditional vernacular building style of
this region.
The State Party was invited to consider the possible extension
of the site to include the Sanahin Monastery when restoration
works will be completed and a decision taken regarding the
ownership of this site, to also include the Sanahin Bridge
(Alaverdi) and the Kayanberd Fortress.
The Historic Centre 784 Austria C(ii)(iv)(vi)
of the City of
Salzburg
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi) and
considered that the site is of outstanding universal value
being an important example of a European ecclesiastical city-
state which preserves to a remarkable degree its dramatic
townscape, its historically significant urban fabric and a
large number of outstanding ecclesiastical and secular
buildings from several centuries. It is also noteworthy for
its associations with the arts, and in particular with music
in the person of its famous son, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
*[64]
The Palace and 786 Austria C(i)(iv)
Gardens of Schönbrunn
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property as an
ensemble on the basis of cultural criteria (i) and (iv)
considering that the site is of outstanding universal value
being an especially well preserved example of the Baroque
princely residential ensemble, which constitutes an
outstanding example of a Gesamtkunstwerk. The Palace and
Gardens are exceptional by virtue of the evidence that they
preserve of modifications over several centuries that vividly
illustrate the tastes, interests and aspirations of successive
Habsburg monarchs.
It also congratulated Austria on their first inscription of
two properties on the World Heritage List.
Lushan National 778 China C (ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)
Park
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis
of cultural cultural criteria (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi) as a
cultural landscape of outstanding aesthetic value and its
powerful associations with Chinese spiritual and cultural
life.
The Lednice-Valtice 763 Czech Republic C (i)(ii)(iv)
Cultural Landscape
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (i),(ii) and (iv) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value being a
cultural landscape which is an exceptional example of the
designed landscape that evolved in the Enlightenment and
afterwards under the care of a single family. It succeeds in
bringing together in harmony cultural monuments from
successive periods and both indigenous and exotic natural
elements to create an outstanding work of human creativity.
The Committee decided to include criterion (i) to the proposed
criteria since the ensemble is an outstanding example of human
creativity.
Verla Groundwood 751 Finland C(iv)
and Board Mill
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criterion (iv) considering that the
Groundwood *[65] and Board Mill and its associated habitation is an
outstanding and remarkably well preserved example of the
small-scale rural industrial settlement associated with pulp,
paper, and board production that flourished in northern Europe
and North America in the 19th and early 20th centuries, of
which only a handful survives to the present day.
The Committee congratulated Finland on the inscription of this
site which is the most representative example of this type of
industrial heritage.
Le Canal du Midi 770 France C(i)(ii)(iv)(vi)
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (i), (ii), (iv) and (vi)
considering that the site is of outstanding universal value
being one of the greatest engineering achievements of the
Modern Age, providing the model for the flowering of
technology that led directly to the Industrial Revolution and
the modern technological age. Additionally, it combines with
its technological innovation a concern for high aesthetic
architectural and landscape design that has few parallels.
The Committee endorsed the inscription of this property as the
Canal du Midi clearly is an exceptional example of a designed
landscape.
Upper Svaneti 709 Georgia C(iv)(v)
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (iv) and (v), considering that
the region of Upper Svaneti is of outstanding universal value
being an exceptional landscape that has preserved to a
remarkable degree its original medieval appearance, notable
for the distribution, form, and architecture of its human
settlements.
Cologne Cathedral 292Rev. Germany C(i)(ii)(iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (i), (ii) and (iv) considering
that the monument is of outstanding universal value being an
exceptional work of human creative genius, constructed over
more than six centuries and a powerful testimony to the
strength and persistence of Christian belief in medieval and
modern Europe.
*[66]
The Committee suggested that protective legislation should be
set up which would ensure that new constructions around the
property would be in conformity with the architectural
significance of the Cathedral.
The French Delegation emphasized the importance of the
inscription of Cologne Cathedral which is justified not only
for its medieval architecture but also for the restoration and
completion of the work begun early in the 19th century. This
recognition reflects the significance of present-day research
on historicism.
The Bauhaus 729 Germany C(ii)(iv)(vi)
and its sites
in Weimar and Dessau
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value since these
buildings are the seminal works of the Bauhaus architectural
school, the foundation of the Modern Movement which was to
revolutionize artistic and architectural thinking and practice
in the twentieth century.
The Committee also noted that this type of inscription
testifies a better recognition of the 20th century heritage.
The Luther 783 Germany C(iv)(vi)
Memorials in
Eisleben and
Wittenberg
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of criteria (iv) and (vi), considering that it is of
outstanding universal value bearing unique testimony to the
Protestant Reformation, which was one of the most significant
events in the religious and political history of the world and
constitutes outstanding examples of 19th century historicism.
The Committee congratulated the German authorities on this
nomination and considered that its symbolic value clearly
justifies inscription under cultural criterion (vi).
*[67]
The Archaeological 780 Greece C(i)(iii)
Site of Vergina
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (i) and (iii) considering that
the site is of outstanding universal value representing an
exceptional testimony to a significant development in European
civilization, at the transition from classical city-state to
the imperial structure of the Hellenistic and Roman periods.
This is vividly demonstrated in particular by the remarkable
series of royal tombs and their rich contents.
The Committee decided to add to the proposed criteria cultural
criterion (i), since the paintings found at Vergina are of
extraordinarily high quality and historical importance.
The Millenary 758 Hungary C(iv)(vi)
Benedictine Monastery
of Pannonhalma
and its Natural
Environment
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (iv) and (vi) considering that
the site is of outstanding universal value illustrating in an
exceptional manner the structure and setting of an early
Christian Monastery that has evolved over a thousand years of
continuous use. Its location and the early date of its
foundation bear unique witness to the propagation and
continuity of Christianity in Central Europe.
This nomination called the attention to the importance of the
Benedictine Monks who had been working towards peace among
countries and among its people and therefore clearly reflects
the spirit of UNESCO’s Constitution.
Sangiran Early 593 Indonesia C(iii)(vi)
Man Site
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated site under
cultural criteria (iii) and (vi) as one of the key sites for
the understanding of human evolution that admirably
illustrates the development of Homo sapiens sapiens from the
Lower Pleistocene to the present through the outstanding
fossil and artefactual material that it has produced.
*[68]
Skellig Michael 757 Ireland C(iii)(iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (iii) and (iv) considering that
the site is of outstanding universal value being an
exceptional, and in many respects unique example of an early
religious settlement deliberately sited on a pyramidal rock in
the ocean, preserved because of a remarkable environment. It
illustrates, as no other site can, the extremes of a Christian
monasticism characterizing much of North Africa, the Near East
and Europe.
Castel del Monte 398Rev. Italy C(i)(ii)(iii)
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (i), (ii) and (iii) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value in its formal
perfection and its harmonious blending of cultural elements
from northern Europe, the Muslim world, and classical
antiquity. Castel del Monte is a unique masterpiece of
medieval military architecture, reflecting the humanism of its
founder, Frederick II of Hohenstaufen.
The Delegation of Mexico emphasized the importance of the
Castle as a reference point in the landscape and the need to
preserve it.
The Trulli of 787 Italy C(iii)(iv)(v)
Alberobello
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (iii), (iv) and (v) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value being an
exceptional example of a form of building construction
deriving from prehistoric construction techniques that have
survived intact and functioning into the modern world.
The name of this property has been changed to "The Trulli of
Alberobello".
The Early 788 Italy C(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
Christian
Monuments of
Ravenna
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)
considering *[69] that the site is of outstanding universal value
being of remarkable significance by virtue of the supreme
artistry of the mosaic art that the monuments contain, and
also because of the crucial evidence that they provide of
artistic and religious relationships and contacts at an
important period of European cultural history.
The original name of the nominated property has been changed
to "The Early Christian Monuments of Ravenna".
The Historic 789 Italy C(i)(ii)(iv)
Centre of the
City of Pienza
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (i), (ii) and (iv) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value as it
represents the first application of the Renaissance Humanist
concept of urban design, and as such occupies a seminal
position in the development of the concept of the planned
"ideal town" which was to play a significant role in
subsequent urban development in Italy and beyond. The
application of this principle in Pienza, and in particular in
the group of buildings around the central square, resulted in
a masterpiece of human creative genius.
The Committee also congratulated Italy for having chosen
rather than a selective lecture of the Convention, a global
and diversified approach reflected by nominations illustrating
all heritage categories and bearing witness to the link and
interaction of cultures over a long period.
Hiroshima Peace 775 Japan C(vi)
Memorial (Genbaku
Dome)
The Delegation of China expressed reservations on the approval
of this nomination in a statement prior to the Committee
taking its decision. The text of China’s statement is
reproduced in Annex V.
The Committee decided to inscribe the Hiroshima Peace Memorial
(Genbaku Dome) on the World Heritage List, exceptionally on
the basis of cultural criterion (vi).
The Delegate of the United States of America made a statement
dissociating his Delegation from the Committee’s decision.
This text is reproduced in Annex V.
*[70]
Itsukushima Shinto 776 Japan C(i)(ii)(iv)(vi)
Shrine
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (i), (ii), (iv) and (vi) as the
supreme example of this form of religious centre, setting
traditional architecture of great artistic and technical merit
against a dramatic natural background and thereby creating a
work of art of incomparable physical beauty. The Delegate of
Germany suggested that the authorities may consider cultural
landscape criteria for a possible extension.
The Ancient ksour 750 Mauritania C(iii)(iv)(v)
of Ouadane,
Chinguetti, Tichitt,
Oualata
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria
(iii), (iv) and (v) considering that these four ancient cities
constitute exceptional examples of settlements built to serve
the important trade routes of the Sahara Desert, and which
were witness to cultural, social and economic contacts for
many centuries.
Several delegations emphasized the importance of this
inscription, following a long safeguarding campaign, which
adds to the richness of the World Heritage List. It
introduces the notion of halting places, necessary landmarks
of itineraries and trade routes. This new category of space
was identified thanks to the Global Strategy.
The Observer of Mauritania then thanked the members of the
Committee and underlined the commitment of his authorities for
the rehabilitation of these cities in the framework of
integrated development approach. He expressed his gratitude
for the efforts of the international community at bilateral
and multilateral levels.
The Prehispanic 791 Mexico C(i)(ii)(iii)
Town of Uxmal
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (i), (ii) and (iii) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value. The ruins of
the ceremonial structures at Uxmal represent the pinnacle of
*[71]
late Mayan art and architecture in their design, layout and
ornamentation, and the complex of Uxmal and its three related
towns of Kabáh, Labná and Sayil admirably demonstrate the
social and economic structure of late Mayan society.
The Committee also commended Mexico on the inscription of
Uxmal which is one of the most exceptional examples of Mayan
architecture in Mesoamerica.
The Historic 792 Mexico C(ii)(iv)
Monuments
Zone of Querétaro
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (ii) and (iv) considering that
the site is of outstanding universal value and an exceptional
example of a colonial town whose layout symbolizes its multi-
ethnic population. It is also endowed with a wealth of
outstanding buildings, notably from the 17th and 18th
centuries.
The Historic 793 Morocco C(iv)
City of Meknes
The Committee decided to inscribe the Historic City of Meknes
under cultural criterion (iv) because it represents in an
exceptionally complete and well preserved way the urban fabric
and monumental buildings of a 17th century Maghreb capital
city which combines elements of Islamic and European design
and planning in a harmonious fashion.
Furthermore, the Committee congratulated Morocco on the
presentation of Meknes, and welcomed its inscription Moulay’a
Ismail capital on the World Heritage List. Meknes strengthens
the coherence of the series of medinas of the Maghreb which
remain under-represented on the List.
The Defence 759 Netherlands C(ii)(iv)(v)
Line of
Amsterdam
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (ii), (iv) and (v) considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value as it is an
exceptional example of an extensive integrated defence system
of the modern period which has survived intact and well
conserved since it was created in the later 19th century. It
is also *[72] notable for the unique way in which the Dutch genius
for hydraulic engineering has been incorporated into the
defences of the nation's capital city.
The Historic 755 Portugal C(iv)
Centre of Oporto
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criterion (iv) considering that the site
is of outstanding universal value as the urban fabric and its
many historic buildings bear remarkable testimony to the
development over the past thousand years of a European city
that looks outward to the west for its cultural and commercial
links.
The Historic 781 Spain C(ii)(v)
Walled Town
of Cuenca
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (ii) and (v) considering that
the site is of outstanding universal value as it is an
exceptional example of the medieval fortress town that has
preserved its original townscape remarkably intact along with
many excellent examples of religious and secular architecture
from the 12th to the 18th centuries. It is also exceptional
because the walled town blends into and enhances the fine
rural and natural landscape within which it is situated.
La Lonja de la 782 Spain C(i)(iv)
Seda de Valencia
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (i) and (iv), considering that
the site is of outstanding universal value as it is a wholly
exceptional example of a secular building in late Gothic
style, which dramatically illustrates the power and wealth of
one of the great Mediterranean mercantile cities.
The Church 762 Sweden C(ii)(iv)(v)
Village of
Gammelstad, Lulea
The Committee decided to inscribe the nominated property on
the basis of cultural criteria (ii), (iv) and (v), considering
that the site is of outstanding universal value as it is a
remarkable example of the traditional church town of northern
Scandanavia, *[73] and admirably illustrates the adaptation of
conventional urban design to the special geographical and
climatic conditions of a hostile natural environment.
C.2 Extension of a World Heritage site
The City of Vicenza 712bis Italy C(i)(ii)
and the Palladian
Villas of the Veneto
The Committee decided to approve the extension of the site
inscribed in 1995.
The Committee expressed its satisfaction that the protection
of this property was extended to incorporate 22 Palladian
villas.
The name of the property was changed to "The City of Vicenza
and the Palladian Villas of the Veneto."
IX. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE GLOBAL STRATEGY AND THE
THEMATIC AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES
A. GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE
A.1 Follow up to the Harare Meeting (1995)
IX.1 The proceedings of the First Global Strategy meeting
held in Harare (Zimbabwe) from 11 to 13 October 1995, were
published as an illustrated document disseminated in Africa
through UNESCO Offices and National Commissions for UNESCO.
As a result of this meeting and thanks to preparatory
assistance, Zimbabwe organized another sub-regional meeting in
November 1996, to harmonize the tentative lists, and which was
attended by ten countries. The experts who had already
participated in the 1995 meeting, undertook to finalize their
tentative lists and to send them to the World Heritage Centre
at the beginning of 1997.
A.2 Second Global Strategy Meeting (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 29
July-1 August 1996)
IX.2 This meeting, decided by the World Heritage
Committee during its nineteenth session, was prepared by the
Centre and ICOMOS. Its goal was to improve the representa-
tivity of the *[74] World Heritage List. It was preceded by a
meeting, on 6 May 1996, of an international Scientific
Committee.
IX.3 The Addis Ababa meeting was attended by representa-
tives from seven countries (Chad, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Niger and Uganda). It was organized
around four themes:
- The Convention, the notion of cultural heritage today and
African heritage
- Archaeological heritage
- Historical heritage, human settlements and living cultures
- Religious places, places of technical production, cultural
itineraries and trade routes.
IX.4 The African experts presented a report on major
cultural heritage in their countries, emphasizing important
sites. They confirmed and illustrated the extraordinary
wealth and diversity of cultural heritage of this regional of
Africa. Through the examples presented significant groupings
became evident. Three of these types of cultural sites
requiring specific approaches were identified during
discussions:
- archaeological and historical heritage
- traditional architecture and material traces of living
non-monumental cultures, including technical heritage
and unbuilt sacred places
- routes, itineraries, vast natural zones where
traditional populations live.
IX.5 At the end of this meeting, the participants
concluded that it was unnecessary presently to modify the
cultural criteria in their actual form, but that in the
application of the Convention account should be taken of: i)
the total interaction of the nature-culture continuum in
African societies; ii) the spiritual and sacred heritage and
its physical supports; iii) the specificities of cultural
landscapes and exchange routes in Africa. They thanked the
Committee for their assistance in the organization of the
meeting which allowed them to become more familiar with the
Convention and provide a basis for reflection concerning the
specificities of African cultural heritage.
IX.6 Publication of the proceedings of the meeting in the
form of a bilingual scientific publication, in collaboration
with the African Research Centre of the University of Paris I
is under preparation. The synthetic report of the Addis Abeba
meeting was distributed as Information Document WHC-
96/CONF.201/INF.7.
*[75]
B. THEMATIC STUDIES
B.1 Regional Thematic Study Meeting: European Cultural
Landscapes of Outstanding Universal Value (Vienna, Austria,
21 April 1996)
IX.7 The Committee recalled that following the Action
Plan for Cultural Landscapes as adopted by the seventeenth
session of the World Heritage Committee held in Cartagena in
December 1993, a series of regional thematic study meetings
were organized in 1994 and 1995. In 1996 a regional thematic
study meeting on European Cultural Landscapes of Outstanding
Universal Value was organized by the UNESCO World Heritage
Centre, the advisory bodies and the Austrian National
Commission for UNESCO in cooperation with Austria Nostra in
Vienna (Austria) on 21 April 1996. The Committee noted that
the experts reaffirmed the three cultural landscape categories
for the European Region and addressed the identification,
assessment and evaluation of European cultural landscapes in
close cooperation with the Council of Europe and its proposed
European Landscape Convention.
C. GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR NATURAL HERITAGE
C.1 Expert Meeting on Evaluation of general principles and
criteria for nominations of natural World Heritage sites
(Parc national de la Vanoise, France, 22 to 24 March 1996)
IX.8 The Committee commended the French authorities for
hosting the expert meeting on "Evaluation of general
principles and criteria for nominations of natural World
Heritage sites" from 22 to 24 March 1996 at the Parc National
de la Vanoise (France) and took note of the full report of the
meeting presented in Information Document WHC-96/CONF.201/
INF.8 in English and French.
IX.9 The Australian Delegation endorsed the results of
the La Vanoise meeting and indicated Australia’s support for
the proposed Global Strategy for Natural Heritage. Australia
offered to contribute US$ 20,000 towards the undertaking of
such a Strategy.
IX.10 The expert group reviewed the natural heritage
concepts, the coverage of natural sites on the World Heritage
List as well as its balance, manageability and credibility.
IX.11 The expert group emphasized the unifying concept of
World Heritage embracing both cultural and natural heritage as
*[76]
outlined in the text of the Convention and the need for an
overarching Global Strategy for both natural and cultural
heritage. As a result of the discussions, the experts
recommended changes to the Operational Guidelines, which were
presented in Working Document WHC-96/CONF.201/18.
IX.12 The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its
twentieth session did not discuss the recommendations of the
experts in detail and that a Circular Letter No. 5/96 was sent
to all States Parties of the World Heritage Convention
together with the report of the expert meeting. The
Secretariat informed the Committee that replies to this
Circular Letter were received from the following States
Parties: Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Ireland, Lebanon, Morocco,
Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Spain and Switzerland, as well as by
ICOMOS Poland.
IX.13 The Committee took note that the replies were of
quite substantive nature and that general agreement and
support for the recommendations were expressed by Colombia,
Croatia, Ireland, Lebanon, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Spain
and Switzerland. Several States Parties underlined however,
the complexity of the issue, in particular the problem of the
application of "outstanding universal value", the usefulness
of one set of criteria, the definition of universal beauty and
the application of the conditions of integrity to all sites.
IX.14 Several delegates commented on the report of La
Vanoise and indicated that the interaction between culture and
nature is in the spirit of the Convention and that the report
of the experts is extremely interesting. There is however a
more in-depth discussion needed on (a) the application of the
"conditions of integrity" versus the "test of authenticity",
(b) the question of a unified or a harmonized set of criteria,
and (c) the notion of outstanding universal value and its
application in different regional and cultural contexts. The
Delegate of Italy proposed to involve other experts and
offered to select experts from his country.
IX.15 The Delegate of Canada proposed a truly joint
meeting of cultural and natural heritage experts to consider
these questions and to ensure that all advisory bodies be
involved. This proposal was adopted.
*[77]
C.2 Expert Meeting on Geological and Fossil Sites held at the
30th International Geological Congress (Beijing, China,
8 to 10 August 1996)
IX.16 The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its
eighteenth session in July 1994, had asked for an expert
meeting on geological and fossil sites. This expert meeting
was held at the 30th International Geological Congress
(Beijing, China, 8 to 10 August 1996) in order to enhance the
preparation of a comparative global study of Earth's
evolutionary history. The meeting was organized by the UNESCO
Division of Earth Sciences, the World Heritage Centre in
cooperation with IUCN and IUGS (International Union of
Geological Sciences). The Canadian authorities provided
financial support for participants’ travel to the expert
meeting.
IX.17 The Committee took note of the full report of this
expert group which is contained in Information Document WHC-
96/CONF.201/INF.10 and the annexed report "Earth´s Geological
History. A conceptual framework for assessment of World
Heritage fossil site nominations". The Delegate of Italy noted
that the list of sites proposed in this study is not
exhaustive. Following the experts’ recommendations, the
Committee (a) encouraged States Parties to the Convention to
prepare inventories of their national geological heritage, and
further to consider identifying from these inventories sites
for national tentative lists for World Heritage, (b) that
IUGS, through the Global Geosite Working Group, make a first
assessment of the values of these sites and compile a global
comparative inventory and database, (c) invited IUCN to
cooperate closely with IUGS and other NGOs as appropriate for
further evaluation of sites proposed for World Heritage
listing and (d) encouraged in-depth thematic studies, taking
into account the important study prepared by Mr Wells on
fossil sites.
D. PROJECTS FOR 1997 AND 1998
D.1 Global Strategy for Cultural Heritage
IX.18 The Committee approved a Global Strategy meeting for
the Pacific Region in 1997, and the principle of a meeting for
the Caribbean region with the French Ministry of Education
nationale et d'Enseignement Superieur et de la Recherche in
1998. The Committee allocated an amount of US$ 40,000 under
Chapter II of the budget for the Pacific region.
*[78]
D.2 Global Strategy for Natural Heritage
IX.19 The Committee decided that, in view of the Vanoise
conclusions on strengthening the links between cultural and
natural values, and in the spirit of the Global Strategy
adopted at the eighteenth session of the Committee in Phuket,
a regionally balanced workshop of experts from both cultural
and natural fields be organized in 1997. The Committee
allocated an amount of US$ 30,000 under Chapter II of the
budget for this Workshop.
D.3 Thematic Studies
i) Expert Meeting on Cultural Landscapes of the Andes
IX.20 Following regional thematic study meetings on
specific aspects of cultural landscapes in the Asia Pacific
Region and Europe, the Committee approved holding an expert
meeting on the cultural landscapes of the Andes in 1997 to
guide States Parties in the region in the identification,
selection and presentation of cultural landscapes in the
Andean Region. The Committee allocated an amount of US$
30,000 under Chapter II of the budget for this meeting.
ii) Expert Meeting on Cultural Landscapes in Africa
IX.21 Following recommendations by the subregional
training seminar held at La Tapoa, Niger, in September-October
1996, the Committee approved holding an expert meeting on
cultural landscapes in Africa in 1998.
E. COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON CULTURAL HERITAGE
IX.22 The Committee took note of the ICOMOS document on
Comparative Studies (Information Document
WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.11) and its results.
X. COOPERATION BETWEEN THE ADVISORY BODIES AND THE WORLD
HERITAGE CENTRE
X.1 The Secretariat presented a summary of Document
WHC-96/CONF.201/11 on the subject of Co-operation between the
Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre. With increasing
volume and complexity of work and relatively static funding
abilities, the Secretariat, advisory bodies and Committee had
*[79]
expressed concerns for the need of a close working relation-
ship between the Centre and the three advisory bodies to avoid
overlap, to effect cost efficiencies and to expedite the work
of the Convention. As no overall agreements between the Centre
and the advisory bodies existed, it was agreed that it was
desirable to clarify and define the respective roles, require-
ments, responsibilites and obligations through the development
of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) to reach these objectives
and to assure a timely and effective collaboration through the
annual contracting process. The twentieth session of the
Bureau June 1996 requested such Memoranda of Understanding be
prepared and further requested to review draft fee contracts
for 1997 (the annual UNESCO work contracts between the Centre
and the advisory bodies for the Centre to implement the
decisions of the Committee) as required under Article 14.2 of
the Convention.
X.2 The preparation of the Memoranda of Understanding was
described to the Committee as a productive, mutually
beneficial and interactive process, which in itself was very
constructive and led to strengthened co-operation. Progress to
date in the preparation of these agreements was reported as
the following: (a) The IUCN MoU had been successfully
completed with mutual and complete satisfaction to the
Parties, and on the occasion of the IUCN World Conservation
Congress and General Assembly had been signed by the Director
of the Centre and the Director General of IUCN. The MoU was
endorsed by the 3000 IUCN worldwide membership participants in
a World Heritage supporting resolution. A copy of this MoU was
provided to the Committee in Annex A of WHC-96/CONF.201/11.
(b) The ICCROM draft MoU, which had been identified as pending
legal review by ICCROM, reached a mutually satisfying final
draft stage during the Committee session in Merida. (c) The
ICOMOS draft MoU which had been identified as pending review
and consideration by ICOMOS, was endorsed in principle by the
ICOMOS Delegate during the twentieth session of the Committee.
The ICOMOS Delegate expressed enthusiasm with the nature of
the agreement and a desire to sign it rapidly. The Committee
was informed that the MoUs did not change the status of the
advisory bodies under the terms of the Convention and
Operational Guidelines, and did not replace the annual fee
contracts between the Centre and the advisory bodies to
perform work for the Committee.
X.3 The texts of draft fee contracts between UNESCO and
IUCN and ICOMOS for proposed advisory services to the
Committee in 1997 were presented to the Committee for review.
Following late submissions of proposed budgets by IUCN and
ICOMOS, proposed costs could not be provided in the document.
At the request of the advisory bodies, a sample budget
framework was provided to the advisory bodies.
*[80]
X.4 A review of close cooperation between the Centre and
the advisory bodies was also provided to the Committee. The
Committee took note that regular meetings are held with the
advisory bodies.
X.5 In response to the inquiry from the Delegate of
Canada, the three advisory bodies indicated respectively their
complete satisfaction with the terms and conditions of the
MoUs. The advisory bodies further indicated their full
appreciation for the efforts of the Centre in this regard.
X.6 The Delegation of Italy indicated reservations
regarding the authority and competency for the Centre to
conclude such agreements with the advisory bodies and proposed
three considerations to the Committee: (a) The Chair of the
Committee signs such agreements; (b) Having such a model as
the Nordic Heritage Office, Oslo, the Director-General of
UNESCO signs such agreements; and, (c) The MoUs are signed by
the Chair of the Committee, the Director-General of UNESCO and
by the executives of the three advisory bodies in a trilateral
arrangement.
X.7 The following delegations associated themselves with
Italy on these positions: Australia, Benin, Germany, Lebanon,
Malta, Morocco and Niger. The Committee decided that
henceforth these Memoranda of Understanding should be signed
by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee and by the
executives of the three advisory bodies.
X.8 Further discussion identified ICCROM as a special
case as it is an intergovernmental organization. In this
respect, the Delegation of Italy posed the following legal
considerations: (a) With intergovernmental organizations, who
is party to such an agreement?; and, (b) Who is responsible to
whom in such agreements, and for what? Given the
intergovernmental nature of ICCROM and of the Convention and
in order to avoid duplication, the Delegate of Italy proposed
that ICCROM be the priority partner in the field of training
in cultural World Heritage conservation and that it be
consulted on all requests for training assistance in order to
ensure quality and efficiency of training activities in the
framework of the adopted training strategy. This proposal was
adopted by the Committee. The Delegate of Mexico emphasized
the importance of a regional approach in training.
X.9 The Delegate of the United States of America
referred to paragraph 14.2 of the Convention which states that
the Director-General “shall have the responsibility for the
implementation of its (the Committee’s) decisions” and
requested *[81] a legal interpretation on its application regarding
the contracting with advisory bodies. The Delegate of the
United States requested a legal opinion from the Legal Affairs
of UNESCO on the matter of signature authority.
*[81]
XI. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE TRAINING STRATEGY
NATURAL HERITAGE
XI.1 The Secretariat gave a succinct presentation of the
World Heritage Convention Manual prepared by the Centre, which
explains the World Heritage conservation process in a clear
and logical way, and provided information concerning the
implementation of the training strategy for natural heritage
adopted in 1995.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
XI.2 The Director-General of ICCROM summarized the
findings of the expert meeting held in Rome (19-22 September
1996) to define “strategical approaches to training concerning
immovable cultural properties” (Information Document WHC-
96/CONF.201/INF.15). He recalled that to ensure the
enhancement of World Heritage sites, the creation of a strong
operational capacity is needed for their conservation and
management. This operational capacity includes: a) the
establishment of a legal framework and its application; b) a
strategy of human resource development; c) the establishment
of operational communication and support structures; d)
awareness within the professional and social environment.
XI.3 He then defined the parameters and principles of the
training strategy which should be based on the need: a) to
train qualified interdisciplinary teams; b) to understand the
specific conservation management process of the sites; c) to
respond to specific needs; d) to develop awareness and
educational programmes. He recalled that the Rome Meeting
highlighted a series of findings common to the six regional
presentations (Latin America and the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan
Africa, Arab States, Baltic States, South-east Asia and the
Pacific):
- insufficient awareness
- insufficient political support
- insufficient multidisciplinary interventions
- insufficient qualified trained staff and operational
support structures
- insufficient opportunities for information exchange
- insufficient link with economic planning.
*[82]
The Director-General of ICCROM also emphasized that once the
regional needs had been evaluated, strategic action plans
should be developed.
XI.4 He aso explained the strategic framework adopted in
Rome which is based on three levels of complementary
activities: i) training, awareness, education; ii)
demonstration/pilot projects; iii) information networks;
while, on the training level, emphasis is on the need (a) to
strengthen existing training opportunities; (b) to identify
national, regional, international partnerships; (c) to create
a network of training institutions; (d) to combine training
with education.
XI.5 He stressed that the strategic framework was in fact
a management tool to evaluate technical assistance and
training requests. The joint UNESCO/ICCROM approach will
greatly enhance cooperation. Moreover, the Committee will be
assured of the quality control of training activities.
XI.6 The Secretariat referred to the detailed analysis of
a regional survey conducted in forty-four countries south of
the sub-Sahara which has provided the factual data needed to
elaborate a pilot project for Africa. This project is expected
to be developed over a ten-year period, and a first set of in
situ training activities on World Heritage sites is already
foreseen and training requests shall be examined by the
Committee.
XI.7 Several Committee members expressed their full
satisfaction with the proposed training strategy for cultural
heritage. They took note of Information Document WHC-
96/CONF.201/INF.15 before approving a recommendation on the
principles which should guide training activities in the field
of natural and cultural heritage which is attached in
Annex IV. They announced their intention to increase the 1997 budget
line earmarked for training. The Representative of ICCROM
proposed that ICCROM coordinate the training initiatives in
order to avoid duplication.
XII. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
XII. The Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session noted
that several requests for international assistance were
related to state of conservation reports on the same
properties and suggested the Committee to consider if these
should be examined together. The Committee approved the
recommendation of the Bureau. Furthermore, the Delegate of
Germany proposed that all training requests submitted for
World Heritage funding on a yearly basis be studied together
so as to provide information on *[83] the level of funds obligated
on a regular basis. The Delegate of Canada insisted that
these training programmes be evaluated, as it has been done
within the training strategy for natural heritage. The
Committee requested the Secretariat “to call upon the advice
of the experts of the appropriate bodies (ICOMOS, IUCN and
ICCROM)”, according to paragraph 102 of the Operational
Guidelines. Australia requested that in presenting requests to
the Committee for international assistance, the Centre states,
when appropriate, if the competent advisory body has been
consulted. The Committee requested the advisory bodies to
inform the World Heritage Centre of all their activities
concerning World Heritage sites. In order to facilitate the
consultations with the advisory bodies, the Committee decided
to modify in paragraph 108 of the Operational Guidelines the
deadline for the submission of international assistance
requests, which will now be 1 September.
A. NATURAL HERITAGE
A.1 Technical Cooperation
A.1.1 Technical Workshop on the Conservation of Simen
National Park (Ethiopia) (US$ 46,000 requested)
The Committee approved the request for a reduced amount of US$
30,000 and requested the State Party in consultation with the
Secretariat and IUCN, to better define the programme of the
workshop, the expected outputs and to revise the budget.
A.2 Training
A.2.1 Nineteenth Protected Area Course CATIE, (Costa Rica)
(US$ 48,000 requested)
The Committee approved a sum of US$ 30,000 for participants to
attend the Nineteenth International Protected Area Course,
CATIE, Costa Rica.
A.2.2 Individual Scholarships for the School for the
Training of Wildlife Specialists, Garoua,
(Cameroon) (US$ 45,000 requested)
The Committee approved an amount of US$ 45,000 for three
scholarships for three students from State Parties of
francophone African countries for a two-year period (1997/98
and 1998/99).
*[84]
B. CULTURAL HERITAGE
B.1 Technical Cooperation
B.1.1 Historic Centre of the Town of Olinda (Brazil)
(US$ 33,000 requested)
Considering the potential inclusion of Olinda in a major
programme for the development of tourism in the north-east of
Brazil with subsequent funding possiblities for the
rehabilitation and restoration of Olinda, the Committee
approved the amount of US$ 33,000 for this technical
cooperation to support the municipality authorities in the
creation of a project office in Olinda for a feasibility study
on urban rehabilitation and restoration.
B.1.2 Conservation of Traditional Houses in Luang Prabang
(Laos) (US$ 49,900 requested)
The Committee approved an amount of US$ 39,900 to meet the
above request (with a reduction of input for the purchase of
building material from US$ 20,000 to US$ 10,000) to co-finance
a project to impart skills for the conservation of traditional
wooden houses; to ameliorate the quality of locally produced
bricks and roof tiles and to distribute traditional building
material (roof tiles and wood) to renovate ten houses owned by
poor families.
B.1.3 Serra da Capivara National Park (Brazil)
(US$ 35,000 requested)
The Committee approved an amount of US$ 35,000 for technical
cooperation for the documentation, inventory and observation
of the conditions of the rock paintings at Serra da Capivara
National Park.
B.1.4 Joya de Ceren Archaeological Site (El Salvador)
(US$ 10,000 requested in addition to US$ 25,000
already approved in 1994)
Considering the fragility of the site and the complexity of
its conservation and management and the need to continue the
process started in 1994, the Committee approved the additional
amount of US$ 10,000 for an international seminar on the
conservation and management of Joya de Ceren and its
surroundings that will be held in 1997.
*[85]
B.1.5 The Third General Assembly of the Organization of
World Heritage Cities and the 4th Symposium of World
Heritage (Evora, Portugal) (US$ 50,000 requested)
The Committee, in examining this request recalled the decision
of the Committee at its eighteenth session that the World
Heritage Fund should not finance statutory meetings nor
subsidies for other organizations. The Committee noted that
US$ 15,000 financial input from the 1997 UNESCO Regular
Programme budget to this General Assembly of O.W.H.C. was
proposed in the 1997 budget under the Promotional and
Educational Activities. The Committee decided to approve a
contribution of US$ 30,000 to the Municipality of Evora on an
exceptional basis, for the Symposium on Tourism and World
Heritage Cities. This grant from the Fund is to finance the
participation of mayors of World Heritage Cities in developing
countries.
B.2 Training
B.2.1 Regional Training Course on Conservation and
Protection of Monuments and Sites for Architects of
the Maghreb Region in Tunis (2nd session, November
1996 - July 1998)(Tunisia) (US$ 36,000 requested)
The Committee approved US$ 36,000 for three fellowships for
three non-Tunisian students for the second session of the two-
year course, which would result in a regional training
activity of the greatest importance.
B.2.2 Latin America and the Caribbean: Regional Graduate
Training Course on 'Integrated Urban and Territorial
Conservation' (ITUC/BR) (request submitted by
Brazil) (US$ 42,600 requested)
The course responds to the training strategy for cultural
heritage and the needs identified through a great number of
state of conservation reports. Considering that the course is
the first one of its kind in the region, that twenty-three
World Heritage sites in the region are historical cities or
urban areas representing fifty percent of the cultural sites,
the Committee approved an amount of US$ 40,000, providing that
fellowships be awarded to participants with a responsibility
for properties inscribed on the World Heritage List.
*[86]
B.2.3 Pilot Project on Conservation Programme James Island
(Gambia) (US$ 40,000 requested)
The Committee approved the amount of US$ 40,000 in the light
of the recommendation for the training strategy south of the
Sahara, and requested ICCROM/GAIA to implement this project
which is an illustration of their strategic approach. The
project will cover on-site training in James Island to enable
the Museums and Monuments Department to prepare conservation
plans not only for James Island but for other sites as well.
B.2.4 Training Course for an Integrated Approach to Urban
Conservation (ICCROM) (US$ 40,000 requested)
Given that the advisory bodies are being requested, within the
overall strategy described in Document WHC-96/CONF.201/12, to
develop thematic courses at the international level and adapt
them at the regional level, the Committee approved the amount
of US$ 30,000 to co-finance an international training workshop
for World Heritage City managers to be organized at ICCROM
with participants responsible for the conservation management
of historic cities or areas, and teachers.
B.2.5 Conservation of Immovable Property in Sub-Sahara,
Africa (ICCROM) (US$ 50,000 requested)
Given that the pilot project for Africa is part of the overall
training strategy for cultural properties as described in
Document WHC-96/CONF.201/12, the Committee approved the amount
of US$ 50,000. This amount will co-finance the implementation
of the first phase of the project, to organize a seminar in
Africa with African partners, and identify scientific partners
for thematic approaches for the preservation of stone, brick
and wood and timber conservation and archaeological sites.
XIII. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND APPROVAL
OF THE BUDGET FOR 1997, AND PRESENTATION OF A
PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR 1998
XIII.1 The Chairperson opened the session and referred to
Working Documents WHC-96/CONF.201/14A, B and C, as well as to
Information Documents WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.17, INF.18 and
INF.19. Mr Mark Warren, Deputy Comptroller of the Bureau of
the Comptroller of UNESCO, then presented the structure of the
accounts and the global proposals for 1997.
*[87]
XIII.2 The Deputy Comptroller explained that the documents
relating to this agenda item (with the exception of WHC-
96/CONF.201/14D which would be discussed later), had been
prepared in response to the Bureau’s decision at its twentieth
session for a more comprehensive and transparent presentation
of the budget. In particular, he drew the Committee’s
attention to Information Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.17 which
contained the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund
for the preceding biennium 1994-1995, which will be submitted
to the next General Assembly, and to Document WHC-
96/CONF.201/14C. This latter document provided the rationale
for the budget ceiling, the proposals concerning the Reserve
Fund and provided a detailed proposed budget for 1997.
XIII.3 The Director of the Centre then presented the
proposed budget for 1997 and gave explanations concerning the
differences proposed in the amounts allocated to the various
chapters of the budget. The details were the following:
US$
Approved Proposed Indicative
1996 1997 1998
Chapter I Overall servicing/functioning of
the World Heritage Convention 440 000 120 000 80 000
Chapter II Establishment of World Heritage
List 592 000 672 000 672 000
Chapter III Technical implementation of World
Heritage Convention 1 410 000 1 830 000 1 830 000
Chapter IV Monitoring and reporting on the
state of conservation of World
Heritage sites 260 000 280 000 280 000
Chapter V World Heritage documentation,
information and education programme
for the 25th Anniversary 298 000 398 000 308 000
Balance to be included in 1998
proposed budget when presented to
the twenty-first session of the
Committee 430 000
TOTAL WHF 3 000 000 3 300 000 3 600 000
XIII.4 Moreover, the Director recalled that if account is
taken that the staff costs of the Centre paid by the World
Heritage Fund will be absorbed in 1997 by the Regular
Programme of UNESCO, the increase in the fiscal resources to
the Fund available for World Heritage between 1996 and 1997
will be US$ *[88] 660,000, an almost 25% increase in fiscal
resources available for Committee allocation.
XIII.5 Several delegates thanked the Director-General for
having accepted to absorb in the Regular Programme of UNESCO
the staff of the Centre presently funded from the World
Heritage Fund. Furthermore, they welcomed the subsequent
increase in the proposed available budget funds, increasing
the capacity to respond to the needs of World Heritage sites.
Several delegates suggested increasing the World Heritage
budget by further reducing the reserves. Also, the management
capacity of the World Heritage Centre for a budget which will
be substantially increased was questioned. In this respect,
the Committee noted that it was possible to call upon ICOMOS,
ICCROM and IUCN and/or other competencies to increase the
capacity of implementation.
XIII.6 Questions concerning the World Heritage Fund
accounts as presented in the Documents WHC-96/CONF.201/14A and
WHC-96/CONF.201/14B were then discussed. In general, it was
considered that although the presentation of the information
requested by the Committee had much improved since the
nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee, the
division of Item 13 of the Agenda into six different documents
led to confusion and a lack of clarity. Therefore, they
considered that a reduction of documentation and the
production of an annual balance sheet for the past year and an
action plan for the coming year with forecasts for the
forthcoming two years, would be more than adequate and provide
the necessary global overview to facilitate the full
comprehension of the proposals.
XIII.7 With regard to the accounts as at 31 August 1996,
Cuba, France, Germany, Italy and Mexico questioned the
transparency of the accounts and noted some anomalies. They
remarked that they could not establish relationships between
the tables and that some amounts did not correspond, or were
incorrect. Moreover, they questioned the use of certain
expenses obligated by the Centre. Delegates then raised a
number of questions concerning details of the presentations
of the World Heritage Fund accounts as well as the Document
WHC-96/CONF.201/14/B "Synoptic Presentation of the World
Heritage Centre (1996)". With regard to the same
presentation, it was remarked that the staff costs of the
Centre funded by UNESCO could not be shown as resources of the
Centre. It was also recalled that, acting as the Secretariat
for the Convention, the Centre could not have its own
financial resources. (In fact, the Secretariat is the
instrument for the implementation of the Convention and the
decisions of the Committee.) Furthermore, several delegates
requested clarifications on the income of the Centre, notably
those coming from promotional activities.
*[89]
XIII.8 The Deputy Comptroller of UNESCO intervened and
responded to delegates’ queries, notably concerning the
accounts of the World Heritage Fund as at 31 August 1996. He
also presented two new documents entitled “Other Revenues of
the World Heritage Fund” (WHC-96/CONF.201/14A.Add.1) and
“Income from Contracts with Media Partners” (Information
Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.19Add.1).
XIII.9 The Director of the Centre assured the Committee
that the income indicated in Information Document WHC-
96/CONF.201/INF.19Add.1 had been paid into the World Heritage
Fund and that this was ongoing. The Committee requested that
the entire income could only be used upon the agreement of the
Chairperson of the Committee and that a report be made of this
income to the twenty-first session of the Bureau of the
Committee in June 1997. They then discussed in detail the
presentation of the Workplan proposed for 1997 and the
provisional budget for 1998 (WHC-96/CONF.201/14C).
XIII.10 The Delegate of Mexico drew attention to the fact
that it was not possible to evaluate objectively the
variations in proposals in comparison to 1996, because the
Committee did not dispose of any programme or project. He
considered that the proposals submitted to the Committee were
based on an analysis of past trends and emphasized that he
wished that future budgets be based on short, medium and long-
term programmes and plans, clearly relating to the objectives
fixed by the Committee. This analysis was endorsed by several
other delegations of States Parties to the Convention, notably
Australia, Benin, Canada, Cuba, France, Germany, Italy,
Lebanon, Malta, Niger and the United States of America. The
Secretariat undertook to provide a detailed written reply to
questions concerning Document WHC-96/CONF.201/14A.
XIII.11 The decisions of the Committee concerned two main
aspects:
- improvement of the financial procedures and management;
- revision of the budget of the World Heritage Fund for
1997 and the indicative budget for 1998.
XIII.12 Improvement of the financial procedures and
management
Delegates recalled that it was not the first time that there
had been disagreement between the Committee and the
Secretariat. Also, whilst recognizing the quality of the
presentation had greatly increased since the nineteenth
session, several delegates *[90] requested an external audit be
undertaken of the accounts of the World Heritage Fund and the
Centre and that, in order to disperse all ambiguity and seek
a satisfactory solution for the preparation of the statement of
accounts and provisional budgets.
Following several interventions, the delegates reached a
consensus to carry out the detailed evaluation of the
financial and management procedures which was read by the
Delegate of Australia. It was then proposed that: “in the
framework of the commemoration of the twenty-fifth
anniversary, the World Heritage Committee undertakes a review
on the way in which the Centre has assisted the Committee in
the implementation of the Convention. This review is to
consist of two parts: (a) an external audit specifically of
the World Heritage Fund (Article 6.3 of the Financial Rules of
the Fund) and an evaluation of the format, presentation and
content of the financial information and the budgets presented
to the Committee covering all the funds used by the Centre and
made proposals to improve the financial system; (b) an audit
of the management of the World Heritage Centre after five
years of functioning so as to see the achievements and ways in
which to improve its management structure and system.
This evaluation would be undertaken in 1997 so as to formulate
recommendations to the Committee at its next session (twenty-
first) and will be carried out by the constitution of a
consultative body and the recruitment of an independent
management advisory service of international repute, to carry
out this evaluation according to the terms of reference
elaborated by the consultative body. It will be financed from
the World Heritage Fund (funds proposed for the celebration of
the twenty-fifth anniversary) and the consultative body would
be composed of Committee delegates.”
This proposal was unanimously endorsed by the Committee and a
consultative body composed of the following members:
Australia, Benin, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Malta
and Mexico.
After having met, the Consultative Body thus constituted,
submitted to the Committee the following text containing the
terms of its task:
“MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE
The World Heritage Committee at its meeting in
Merida, Yucatan, Mexico, 2-7 December 1996, noted
with pleasure that 1997 marks the 25th anniversary
of the Convention. As part of the celebrations and
in view to contribute to the improvement of the
efficiency in the implementation of this
Convention, *[91] Committee members thought it would be
appropriate to review the functioning of the World
Heritage Centre, which itself is celebrating its
fifth year of operation. Therefore, the Committee
has created a Consultative Body, in conformity with
Article 10.3 of the World Heritage Convention. The
Consultative Body is composed of Committee members
from Australia, Benin, Canada, France, Italy,
Japan, Lebanon, Malta and Mexico.
The purpose of the Consultative Body is to take
action on the proposal adopted by the Committee, to
undertake a review of the way in which the World
Heritage Centre has assisted the Committee in
implementing the World Heritage Convention. The
Consultative Body recommends that the review be
undertaken in two phases:
1. In order to review the financial statements
and accounts presented to the Committee, the
Chairperson of the Committee is requested to seek
the support of the Director-General of UNESCO to
request UNESCO’s External Auditor to conduct a
specific audit of the World Heritage Fund for the
year ending 31 December 1996. The extra costs that
this might incur in the audit fee will be borne by
the World Heritage Fund.
This audit should cover all funding sources,
including revenue and other income. The audit
should include a review of the format of the World
Heritage Fund, presentation and content of the
financial statements, accounts and budget
information, as presented to the General Conference
and to the World Heritage Assembly as required by
the World Heritage Convention and the Financial
Regulations of the World Heritage Fund.
In addition, the External Auditor should be
requested to address a report of his audit to the
Director-General, and present it to the World
Heritage Bureau meeting at its twenty-first session
(June 1997) together with the comments thereon of
the Director-General.
2. The Chairperson of the World Heritage
Committee is asked to approach the Director-General
with the objective that UNESCO prepares a call for
bids for an international firm of management
consultants to conduct a review of management
practices in the World Heritage Centre.
*[92]
The draft call for bids together with the names of
management consultant firms to which it will be
sent, should be submitted to the Chairperson of the
World Heritage Committee for her agreement. The
costs would be borne by the Fund.
The overall objectives are to review the efficiency
and effectiveness of management practices in
achieving outcomes, and to examine the degree to
which programmes and budgetary procedures are
designed to meet the Committee’s needs.
In preparing their report and bringing forth
recommendations for improvement, the management
consultants should examine, among other matters,
the following:
* operational policies, criteria and frameworks for
decision-making
* strategic and work planning
* workload and division of work
* human resource capacity (skills sets,
staff/contractor mix)
* technical infrastructure and equipment
* the quality and timeliness of advice to the
Committee
* internal and external communications strategies
* accounting procedures related to other sources
of income.
The methodology should include interviews with key
stakeholders, including but not necessarily limited
to Committee members, advisory bodies and World
Heritage staff, to determine needs and
expectations.
At the appropriate time, the Chairperson will call
a meeting of the Consultative Body to review these
matters.”
This proposal was unanimously approved by the Committee. The
Delegate of France requested that the income received from
contracts on promotional activities carried out by the Centre
over and above the amounts foreseen in the budget be used to
cover the costs of this evaluation, if need be. The Delegate
also recommended the use of the Reserve Fund could be made
available for this purpose.
*[93]
XIII.13 Proposed Workplan for 1997 and provisional budget
for 1998
Whilst regretting that the details and explanations provided
by the Centre relating to the use of the funds foreseen in the
Workplan for 1997 were insufficient, the delegates questioned
the structure of the budget and the allocation of funds.
Thus, the following decisions were taken:
a) the budget for 1997 is increased to US$ 3.5 millon
instead of US$ 3.3 million originally foreseen;
b) the funds allocated for the twenty-fifth anniversary
celebrations of the Convention (US$ 40,000 in Chapter I
and US$ 100,000 in Chapter V) are allocated for other
purposes, of which an amount of US$ 120,000 for the
Evaluation of the Administrative Management of the World
Heritage Centre, placed in Chapter I);
c) increasing Chapter II to respond to demands of the
advisory bodies and a new item inserted “Other bodies and
individuals”;
d) increasing preparatory assistance and training in Chapter
III;
e) increasing funds foreseen to support States Parties in
monitoring and reporting, in Chapter IV;
f) Chapter V remains at the same level as in 1996, with the
elimination of the item on the twenty-fifth anniversary
and the strengthening of educational activities.
The budget below was approved unanimously.
*[94-95]
WORLD HERITAGE FUND
SYNOPTIC OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET
*[table omitted from www version]
In conclusion, the Committee thanked the Secretariat for the
efforts undertaken to improve the presentation and to respond
to the questions raised. It finally requested the Secretariat
to provide the future workplans in a document comprising: a
plan of action, the statement of accounts and forecasts, the
needs in resources.
*[96]
XIV. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION IN THE LIGHT OF
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS’PRACTICE
XIV.1 The Secretariat presented Document
WHC-96/CONF.201/15, “The implementation of the Convention in
light of twenty-years’ practice” which was divided into three
sections. Section I provided a review of the “Strategic
Orientations for the Future” including a synopsis of
achievements in meeting the five goals established by the
sixteenth session of the Committee in 1992. Section II
provided the highlights of the States Parties’ replies to the
25th Anniversary Circular Letter as of 23 October 1996.
Section III proposed a meeting of experts to thoroughly review
the implementation of the Convention and to draft a strategic
plan for future implementation.
XIV.2 The German Delegation drew the Committee’s attention
to an exhibition on World Cultural Heritage at the “World Fair
Expo 2000” and to a seminar being planned with Centre
involvement, which will be held in Hildesheim on the occasion
of the 25th anniversary. The Committee expressed interest and
support for this effort.
XIV.3 The Delegate of Italy noted that the proposed US$
40,000 for the scientific and technical meeting of experts had
not been accepted during the Committee’s earlier budget
considerations. In the further discussion on the proposed
experts’ meeting, the Committee reflected a general concern
for experts’ meetings being held without political decision-
makers participating. Several delegates indicated that such
meetings should not always be confined to the same experts
from the Advisory Bodies as in the past, and, to the extent
possible, should be broadened to include participants from the
proposed States Parties’ “lists of experts” which was proposed
by the Delegate of Italy. This proposal was strongly supported
by other delegations during preliminary budget considerations.
Several delegations noted that they had unfortunate
experiences with repeated use of the same experts. They also
noted that there was the need for an open selection process
for experts to avoid repeating past mistakes.
XIV.4 The Observer of Hungary indicated that, on the
occasion of the 25th anniversary, they would propose to host a
sub-regional World Heritage Workshop. The Delegate of the
United States indicated that it could provide space at the
Presidium of San Francisco if anyone wished to hold a workshop
there. In addition, the United States is considering a World
Heritage Workshop for World Heritage Site Managers. In such a
case, they would invite World Heritage site managers from
other countries.
*[97]
XIV.5 The Committee concluded that it did not support
neither a thorough review of the implementation of the
Convention nor the drafting of a strategic plan for the future
as proposed, and did not allocate the funding required for
this purpose.
*[97]
XV. PROMOTIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
XV.1 In introducing this agenda item on promotional and
educational activities carried out in 1996 and to examine the
proposals for 1997 (as contained in Document WHC-
96/CONF.201/16), the Chair stated that these activities play a
vital role in enhancing the implementation of the Convention
and that the Committee therefore attaches great importance to
these matters. She explained to the Committee that the World
Heritage Centre, in addition to managing such activities
financed from the World Heritage Fund, also coordinates
promotional and educational activities on World Heritage
carried out by other sectors of UNESCO and implements
activities in this field entrusted to the Centre by the
Director-General of UNESCO.
XV.2 The Chair requested the Secretariat to focus its
presentation on the 1997 proposed activities on the assumption
that the Committee has noted the activities carried out in
this field in 1996 as reported in the above-mentioned
document.
XV.3 The Secretariat began its presentation by responding
to the request from one of the members of the Committee for a
clarification on the notion of promotional activities, as
understood by the Centre. The Secretariat stated that
promotion was not to be confused with public relations and
marketing but refers to information and communication
activities for the enhancement of understanding and support by
the public of the World Heritage Convention and their
participation in its implementation.
XV.4 Towards the attainment of these objectives, and in
the furtherance of one of the principles of UNESCO which is to
provide access to information by as large a sector of the
world population as possible, the information and
communication strategy of the proposed programme is to produce
basic core information that is adaptable and could be expanded
for different target groups.
XV.5 The Secretariat explained that the proposed
programme aims to optimize limited financial and staff
resources, and to meet the needs of these different target
groups, ranging from political decision-makers; business
sector, including tourism; teachers and students; local
communities inhabiting in or near the World Heritage sites and
to the general public at large.
*[98]
XV.6 The Delegates of Germany and the United States of
America commended the excellent quality of the document and
the clarity of the Secretariat´s presentation, and
congratulated the Director and the staff of the Centre for
their accomplishments in this field.
XV.7 Several members of the Committee raised serious
concerns over the numerous errors contained in the CD-ROM on
World Heritage Cities co-produced by UNESCO and produced by
the media with the use of the World Heritage emblem and
insisted upon the need for quality control. The Committee felt
that UNESCO should share the text of the publications and
films with the States Parties concerned for verification in
conformity with the Operational Guidelines. A delegate drew
the Committee’s attention to the question of confidentiality
of Committee documents on Internet.
XV.8 Several members of the Committee also stated that
UNESCO had not always respected paragraph 125 of the
Operational Guidelines, regarding the commercial use of the
emblem. In this respect the Delegate of Italy stated that the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
Convention should be closely abided to, and in particular
paragraph 125, which does not authorize commercial
reproduction of images of World Heritage sites. It was
emphasized that on the contrary, the paragraph required that
the State Party concerned be consulted before dissemination of
information and images (even non-commercial) in order to avoid
errors. In any case, it is necessary to verify that the
intellectural property rights of each country are protected.
XV.9 With reference to the wide diffusion of documentary
information mentioned by the Delegation of Germany, the
Delegation of Mexico wished to express the surprise of their
authorities at the Ministry of Public Education who had
finalized the publication of a book on Mexican sites inscribed
on the World Heritage List, when discovering the
commercialisation of a publication on these same sites,
without forewarning or prior authorization, in another country
and which moreover contained important errors, especially with
regard to the illustrations. Consequently, the Delegation of
Mexico requested that the States concerned be systematically
consulted regarding all publications and proposed: (a) the use
of information (often already available at the World Heritage
Centre) in coordination with States; (b) that States be
provided with advance information regarding publication
programmes to avoid legal problems at the level of individual
States and therefore maintain the credibility of the
Convention. Many members of the Committee stated the need for
the Secretariat to bear in mind the information requirements
of developing countries and local communities which often do
not have access to telephones, much less the Internet. The
importance *[99] of the print and radio mediums for information
dissemination was stressed.
XV.10 As regards World Heritage Education, the Secretariat
recalled that the World Heritage Centre initiated in 1994,
jointly with UNESCO's Education Sector, a project aiming at
introducing knowledge about World Heritage in secondary
schools worldwide, primarily through UNESCO's network of
Associated Schools. Its main purpose is to empower local
people to protect their cultural and natural heritage by
helping them understand the Convention, and by having them
actively involved in local/national preservation efforts.
XV.11 The project focuses on working regularly with
students, teachers and specialists (curricula developers and
conservation specialists) in developing a World Heritage
Education Kit (consisting of a manual, texts, visual and audio
material) which should help teachers "translate" the
Convention into the language of their students, and raise the
students' awareness about cultural and natural heritage in
general. The first parts of this kit, produced on an
experimental basis, have been tested through UNESCO's
(sub)regional World Heritage Youth Fora which followed the
First Forum held in Bergen in 1995, namely: (a) the European
Forum held in Dubrovnik in May 1996, and (b) the Forum for
countries of English-speaking and Portuguese-speaking Africa,
held in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe in September 1996. Further
work on the material, in collaboration with ICOMOS and IUCN
will take place in 1997, and this will be tested during the
fora to be held in Asia and the Pacific, the French-speaking
countries of Africa, the Arab States and Latin America and the
Caribbean in the next two to three years.
XV.12 The main institutional partners for this project in
each country are the UNESCO National Commissions, ICOMOS and
IUCN chapters (as resource persons) and teachers'
associations. The project is receiving major financial support
from the Rhone Poulenc Foundation and NORAD (both
contributions go to a Special Account within UNESCO, earmarked
for this project) and is being carried out with assistance
from UNESCO Field Offices and other units of the Secretariat.
XV.13 In the ensuing debate, many of the members of the
Committee expressed their full support for the World Heritage
education work that is being done. Some stressed however the
importance of assuring follow up activities to the World
Heritage Youth Fora.
XV.14 The Director of the Centre in responding to the
comments and concerns raised by the Committee stated that the
Centre is trying to ensure the quality of the mulitmedia
information products by employing experts to check on the text
*[100]
from the servicing fees provided through contractual
agreements with the media and publishing partners. The amount
already received in the first ten months of the year has
permitted this in addition to a full-time consultant working
at the Centre to negotiate with media partners and to provide
them with the logistic support as defined in the contract. He
indicated that the costs for one full-time consultant for
backstopping the media and publishing partners for 12 months,
one expert to revise the German-language products for 6 months
and one expert to revise the English-language material for 3
months have been paid from the servicing fees from these
contracts.
XV.15 The Director was requested by the Chair to respond
to the following questions related to this agenda item raised
by members of the Committee during the examination of the 1997
budget.
(a) clear breakdown on incomes generated from contracts
with the media and publishers, and how they have
been spent;
(b) other expected income from these contracts in 1997;
(c) if the policy of the Centre is to reinvest these
incomes into promotional or operational activities;
(d) whether a marketing strategy is needed and if so,
whether this would be in keeping with the rules and
regulations of the Committee.
XV.16 The Director stated that the income received from
the contracts between 1 January and 31 October 1996, amounted
to US$ 94,437 as servicing fees (entered into the accounts as
earmarked contribution) and US$ 132,787 as contribution
towards the Fund for use to be determined by the Committee. He
specified that this amount does not take into account the
share on incomes retained by the UNESCO Publishing Office
(UPO) or other entities of UNESCO which also conclude
contracts related to World Heritage.
XV.17 He explained that income in 1997 will most likely
increase but that he was not in a position to provide the
amount since much of the income comes from percentages on
royalties which of course depends on the sales.
XV.18 The overall strategy and programme was approved,
with the exception of the proposed budgetary appropriation for
the 25th anniversary (US$ 100,000) and the State of the World
Heritage Report (US$ 35,000).
*[101]
XVI. USE OF THE WORLD HERITAGE EMBLEM
XVI.1 The Secretariat summarized Working Document
WHC-96/CONF.201/17 on the “Use of the World Heritage Emblem”
which was requested by the twentieth session of the Bureau in
1996, and which provided a legal analysis by UNESCO’s Legal
Advisor of the aspects concerning the use of the emblem, as
well as proposals as to the manner in which to guide its
appropriate use. The legal analysis determined that under the
terms of the contract with the artist, Mr. Olyff, who designed
the emblem, the owner of the emblem is UNESCO. However, it
was further underlined that the Committee adopted the artwork
as the emblem of the Convention at its second session in 1978,
and had developed guidelines for its use as represented in the
Operational Guidelines, paragraphs 122-128. The Secretariat
explained that the situation was multifaceted and complex as
well as not sufficiently addressed in the Operational
Guidelines to assure the consistent and timely authorization
of the use of the emblem. The Committee emphasized that it had
previously decided that the States Parties had the
responsibility to control the use of the emblem within their
sovereign territories and it was observed that two States
Parties (Canada and the United States of America) had taken
the necessary steps to regulate and control the use of the
emblem. The non-commercial and commercial, educational,
informational, promotional and presentational uses of the
emblem were noted as difficult determinations to make in the
absence of more detailed guidelines. While the prerogative of
the Committee to make such determinations on a case by case
basis is recognized in the Operational Guidelines, pragmatic
considerations for the use of the emblem had led the Centre to
make - for educational purposes with the private and public
sector media - contractural arrangements which have generated
contributions to the World Heritage Fund. The Centre sought
additional guidance from the Committee with respect to the
development of criteria for the consistent and appropriate
use, regulation and protection of the emblem.
XVI.2 It was brought to the attention of the Committee
that in the current Operational Guidelines, the use of the
term World Heritage “emblem” was recommended, but that the
term “logo” also appears. For consistency and to avoid a
nomenclature that implied a commercial connotation it was
suggested to use in the future exclusively the term “emblem”.
It was recommended that the Committee considers revising the
Operational Guidelines accordingly.
XVI.3 The Delegate of Lebanon concurred with a consistent
use of the term “emblem” throughout the Operational Guidelines
and *[102] the equivalent in the French text. He further expressed
the opinion that UNESCO had not respected the procedures for
the use of the emblem. The Delegate of Malta welcomed the
confirmation from UNESCO’s Office for International Standards
and Legal Affairs that the decision to adopt the design as the
emblem of the Convention could only be taken by the Committee,
and that UNESCO can only dispose of it through the Committee.
Therefore, Article 6 of the Agreement between UNESCO and the
Government of Norway was legally problematic. The Committee
believed that the development of more detailed guidelines for
the use of the “emblem” was necessary and that the abusive
commerical use of the “emblem” should be avoided.
XVI.4 The Committee decided to place this question on the
appropriate use and authorization of the World Heritage emblem
before the Consultative Body created by the Committee for the
purpose of reviewing the financial and management aspects of
the Centre.
XVII. REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
XVII.1 The Committee took note of the revisions to the
Operational Guidelines which were proposed by the Expert
Meeting on Evaluation of general principles and criteria for
nominations of natural World Heritage sites (Parc national de
la Vanoise, France, 22 to 24 March 1996) and of the full
report contained in Information Document WHC-
96/CONF.201/INF.8, as well as the responses by eleven States
Parties to the Circular Letter requesting comments on this
matter.
XVII.2 The Delegate of Canada proposed to keep the Vanoise
recommendations as well as comments by States Parties on
record and bring them up at the joint meeting of cultural and
natural heritage experts proposed under agenda item 9
"Progress report on the Global Strategy, and Thematic and
Comparative Studies". The Delegate of Lebanon emphasized that
these recommendations should not be brought from one expert
meeting to another, but to the twenty-first session of the
World Heritage Committee.
XVII.3 The Committee recalled that it had adopted the
nomination form as amended under agenda item 7.1. The
Committee revised Section I.G. of the Operational Guidelines
on the format and content of nominations and replaced
paragraph 64 of the Operational Guidelines by the following
text:
"64. The same form approved by the Committee is used for
the submission of nominations of cultural and natural
properties. Although it is recognized that all properties
have specific characteristics, States Parties are
encouraged to provide information and documentation on
the following items:
1. Identification of the Property
a. Country (and State Party if different)
b. State, Province or Region
c. Name of Property
d. Exact location on map and indication of
geographical coordinates to the nearest second
e. Maps and/or plans showing boundary of area
proposed for inscription and of any buffer zone
f. Area of site proposed for inscription (ha.) and
proposed buffer zone (ha.) if any
2. Justification for Inscription
a. Statement of significance
b. Possible comparative analysis (including state
of conservation of similar sites)
c. Authenticity/Integrity
d. Criteria under which inscription is proposed
(and justification for inscription under these
criteria)
3. Description
a. Description of Property
b. History and Development
c. Form and date of most recent records of site
d. Present state of conservation
e. Policies and programmes related to the
presentation and promotion of the property
4. Management
a. Ownership
b. Legal status
c. Protective measures and means of implementing
them
d. Agency/agencies with management authority
*[104]
e. Level at which management is exercised (e.g.,
on site, regionally) and name and address of
responsible person for contact purposes
f. Agreed plans related to property (e.g.,
regional, Local plan, conservation plan,
tourism development plan)
g. Sources and levels of finance
h. Sources of expertise and training in
conservation and management techniques
i. Visitor facilities and statistics
j. Site management plan and statement of
objectives (copy to be annexed)
k. Staffing levels (professional, technical,
maintenance)
5. Factors Affecting the Site
a. Development Pressures (e.g., encroachment,
adaptation, agriculture, mining)
b. Environmental Pressures (e.g., pollution,
climate Change)
c. Natural disasters and preparedness
(earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.)
d. Visitor/tourism pressures
e. Number of inhabitants within site, buffer zone
f. Other
6. Monitoring
a. Key indicators for measuring state of
conservation
b. Administrative arrangements for monitoring
property
c. Results of previous reporting exercises
7. Documentation
a. Photographs, slides and, where available,
film/video
b. Copies of site management plans and extracts of
other plans relevant to the site
c. Bibliography
d. Address where inventory, records and archives
are held
*[105]
8. Signature on behalf of the State Party
The Committee has adopted at its twentieth session
substantive Explanatory Notes to the above nomination
form. These notes relate to each of the above headings
and will be made available as an annex to the nomination
form to the States Parties in order to provide guidance
to those nominating properties for inclusion on the World
Heritage List."
XVII.4 The Committee also recalled that it had recommended
under agenda item 12 to amend the dates for submission of
international assistance requests and to revise paragraph 108
of the Operational Guidelines as follows:
"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 September 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."
XVII.5 The Committee recalled several discussions held on
the application of cultural criterion (vi) and decided to
amend paragraph 24 (a) (vi) as follows:
"be directly or tangibly associated with events or living
traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic
and literary works of outstanding universal significance
(the Committee considers that this criterion should
justify inclusion in the List only in exceptional
circumstances and in conjunction with other criteria
cultural or natural);"
XVII.6 The Committee took note of the "Glossary of World
Heritage Terms" contained in Information Document
WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.21 and expressed the wish that the
Glossary be prepared in other languages.
XVII.7 The Delegates of Germany and the United States of
America made statements as to the legal significance of the
Operational Guidelines and the fact that, in their views, the
Operational Guidelines had not been applied properly during this
*[106]
session. Both Delegates requested that their statements
be included in extenso in the report and are attached in
Annex IX.
XVII.8 The Delegate of Italy agreed to the strict
application of the Operational Guidelines, however, underlined
that the Guidelines had been followed and that the Committee
itself is the decision-making body of the World Heritage
statutory organs. The Delegate of France agreed to this
statement and said that it is common practice of the Committee
not always to follow recommendations by the Bureau and by the
advisory bodies. This was endorsed by the Delegate of Benin.
The statement of the Delegate of Italy is included in
Annex IX.
XVII.9 In concluding the debate which she found
constructive, the Chairperson recalled that each one of the
delegates of the Committee had made a serious analysis of the
case and of the spirit of the Convention before taking a final
decision, and that in respecting the statements of each of the
speakers, even if she considered not acceptable those of the
Delegates of Germany and the United States of America, the
Committee had retained its credibility and competence. The
statement of the Chairperson is also included in Annex IX.
XVIII. AMENDMENT OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE
XVIII.1 The Committee examined the proposals contained in
Document WHC-96/CONF.201/19 to ensure the continuing legality
for the functioning of the Bureau following each General
Assembly of States Parties until the election of the new
Bureau.
XVIII.2 The Committee decided to modify Rule 12.1 of the
Rules of Procedure as follows:
"The Committee, at the beginning of each ordinary
session, shall elect a Chairman, five Vice-Chairmen and a
Rapporteur, who shall remain in office until the
beginning of the next ordinary session. When its December
session precedes the year when the General Assembly will
be held, the Committee will decide to meet very briefly
in an extraordinary session at the end of the General
Assembly in order to elect its new Bureau, so that this
Bureau can meet the following month, prior to the
Committee, in all legality."
*[107]
XIX. DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIRST
SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
XIX.1 The Committee decided that the twenty-first session
of the Bureau will be held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris
from 23 to 28 June 1997.
XIX.2 The Committee adopted the provisional agenda for the
Bureau's session which is attached as Annex VIII.
XX. DATE AND PLACE OF THE TWENTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
XX.1 The Committee decided that, following the invitation
of the Government of Italy expressed at its nineteenth session
and reiterated at the twentieth session of the Bureau, the
twenty-first session of the Committee will take place in
Naples, Italy from 1 to 6 December 1997. The Committee
expressed its gratitude for this generous invitation.
XX.2 The Delegate of Japan informed the Committee that
his country would like to host the Committee in 1998. However,
as the Delegate of Niger had already transmitted, at the
nineteenth session of the Committee, his Government's
intention to host the 1998 session, consultations will take
place between the two countries in this respect.
XX.3 The Delegate of Australia informed the Committee
that her country would be pleased to receive the Committee in
Australia in the year 2000.
XXI. OTHER BUSINESS
XXI.1 Referring to the discussions under agenda item 7.2.
on the state of conservation of the Galapagos Islands, the
Minister of the Environment of Ecuador, Head of the Delegation
of Ecuador to the Committee, reiterated the commitment of his
Government to the preservation of the islands. He indicated
that several problems and risks exist and outlined the
measures taken by his Government to reverse the situation. He
mentioned in particular that his Government will meet the
obligations under the World Heritage Convention and that the
new law for the Galapagos Islands will be adopted by May 1997
at the latest. He expressed the hope that his country would be
able to count on the technical and financial support from the
World Heritage Fund, and that proposals will be submitted at a
later stage.
*[108]
XXII. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
XXII.1 The Rapporteur presented the draft report of the
session to the Committee and thanked the Secretariat for its
efficient support in its preparation. Following a detailed
examination of the draft report, the Committee adopted it with
the amendments noted and received in written form during the
debate.
XXIII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
XXIII.1 The Director of the Centre, on behalf of the
Director-General of UNESCO, expressed his gratitude to the
Mexican authorities for having provided the facilities for
this session and to the Chairperson, the Rapporteur and all
members of the Committee for their constructive participation
in the debates. He assured the Committee that the Secretariat
will do its utmost to implement the decisions of the Committee
in a timely and appropriate manner.
XXIII.2 The Delegate of Australia, speaking on behalf of all
participants, thanked the Government of Mexico for its
generous hospitality and for the excellent facilities
provided. She expressed the Committee’s appreciation for the
Mexican culture and cultural traditions and commended the
Government on the high standards of management and
conservation of the cultural and natural heritage sites. She
congratulated the Chairperson for her strategic skills, her
commitment and her considerable efforts to conclude in a
satisfactory way many difficult and sensitive matters. She
also thanked the National Commission for UNESCO and Mr
Salvador Diaz-Berrio for their efficient collaboration in
organizing this Committee’s session.
XXIII.3 She furthermore thanked the Director-General of
UNESCO for his presence at the opening ceremony and for his
inspiring speech and expressed the Committee’s appreciation
for the work and dedication of the Director of the Centre, the
Director of the Division of Cultural Heritage of UNESCO and
all staff of the World Heritage Centre.
XXIII.4 The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Ms
Maria-Teresa Franco, thanked the Committee for the confidence
placed in her and committed herself to furthering the work of
the World Heritage Convention. She thanked the Rapporteur for
the extensive report, the UNESCO Secretariat for its extremely
hard work, as well as the Mexican authorities and staff for
contributing to the excellent preparation and development of
the session. After having thanked the interpreters, both from
UNESCO and those provided by the host country, for having
facilitated *[109] simultaneous interpretation in three languages,
she then declared the session closed. The closing speech of
the Chairperson is included as Annex II.7.
*[EOF]