<
 
 
 
 
×
>
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 17:44:43 Dec 09, 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 The information on this web page may be out of date.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.
Loading media information hide
UNESCO
English Français
Help preserve sites now!
Join the 126,132 Members
Login
Paraty and Ilha Grande – Culture and Biodiversity (Brazil)
 

Advanced
  • Results
  • Exports
1873
Decisions
0
Resolutions
Excel file
RSS file
Theme:
Inscriptions on the World Heritage List
By Year
 1 2 3 4 ...  94  See 200 by page
CONF 001 VI.A(a).22
Establishment of the World Heritage List
Several members considered that an independent assessment by experts of the nominations submitted would be essential and it was proposed that the nominations should be transmitted, for comments and evaluation, to the Rome Centre, ICOMOS or IUCN, as appropriate.
Session: 1st session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 001)
Year: 1977
 View 
CONF 001 VI.A(f).38
Procedure and calendar for the submission of nominations
The very tight calendar proposed was discussed in some detail, with many participants referring once more to the difficulties their own governments would have to face in preparing in time their nominations. The question of limiting the number of nominations to be submitted by States was again raised, and whereas the decision previously taken in plenary not to impose any limit was maintained, it was decided that States would be requested to indicate an order of priority among the nominations submitted. States would, at the same time, be reminded that the process of submitting nominations ...
Session: 1st session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 001)
Year: 1977
 View 
CONF 001 VI.A(f).39
Procedure and calendar for the submission of nominations
The exact role to be played by the Rome Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN gave rise to some discussion, one member proposing that all nominations should be transmitted automatically by the Secretariat for comments and evaluation to the competent organization. The representative of the Director-General agreed that the organizations had an extremely important role to play in reviewing the dossiers submitted by States Parties, and in particular in putting them into order but he feared that the addition of another step in the already tight calendar might entail delays. It was therefore decided that the ...
Session: 1st session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 001)
Year: 1977
 View 
CONF 001 VI.A(f).40
Procedure and calendar for the submission of nominations
In order to present the Committee at its second session with a set of nominations that would be balanced by category and by geographical and cultural region, it was decided that the Bureau, meeting in June 1978, would review all the nominations received and decide which would be forwarded to the Committee. The following calendar would thus be followed: November 1977: dispatch to States Parties of Director-General's letter, together with printed nomination form; 1 April 1978: receipt of nominations from States Parties; April/May 1978: dossiers will be received and completed, if ...
Session: 1st session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 001)
Year: 1977
 View 
CONF 010 VIII.37
Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List
The Committee examined these three cases first and stated with satisfaction that appropriate documentation for two properties had in the meantime been received. As regards the third case (National Park of Ichkeul) the Committee decided, in agreement with the delegate of Tunisia, to defer its decision to its next session subject to receipt of the requested information.
Session: 2nd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 010)
Year: 1978
Sites: Ichkeul National Park
State Parties: Tunisia
 View 
CONF 010 VIII.38
Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List
The Committee, upon finding itself in full agreement with the list proposed by the Bureau, decided to enter the following 12 properties in the World Heritage List:   NAME OF PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST (STATE PARTY) L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Park (Canada) Nahanni National Park (Canada) Galapagos Islands (Ecuador) City of Quito (Ecuador) Simien National Park (Ethiopia) Rock Hewn Churches, Lalibela (Ethiopia) Aachen Cathedral  (Federal Republic of Germany) Cracow's Historic Centre (Poland) Wieliczka - salt mine ...
Session: 2nd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 010)
Year: 1978
Sites: Aachen Cathedral City of Quito Galápagos Islands Historic Centre of Kraków Island of Gorée L’Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site Mesa Verde National Park Nahanni National Park Rock-Hewn Churches, Lalibela Simien National Park Wieliczka and Bochnia Royal Salt Mines Yellowstone National Park
State Parties: Canada Ecuador Ethiopia Germany Poland Senegal United States of America
 View 
CONF 010 VIII.39
Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List
The Committee further decided to defer consideration of all other nominations listed in document CC-78/CONF.010/7 until its third session. All these nominations, as well as those received after the Bureau meeting and listed in document CC-78/CONF.010/7 Add.1 (for which it had been impossible to complete the technical review, translation and transmission to all States members of the Committee in time before the second session) would be transmitted to the Bureau for examination prior to their consideration by the Committee at its next session.
Session: 2nd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 010)
Year: 1978
 View 
CONF 010 VIII.40
Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List
The Chairman then thanked the States Parties for their efforts, which had made it possible to initiate the establishment of the World Heritage List. He also recalled that the time and order of entry of a property in the World Heritage List should by no means be interpreted as an indication of the qualification of a property or judgment on its value in comparison to other properties in the list, as all of them had met the criteria adopted by the Committee.
Session: 2nd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 010)
Year: 1978
 View 
CONF 010 VIII.41
Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List
The Committee continued its work by discussing suitable future closing dates for the submission of nominations and agreed that nominations, in order to be examined at the next Bureau meeting, should be with the Secretariat by 1 March 1979 at the latest. Thereafter, however, the deadline for submission of nominations would be 1 January so that more time would be available to the Secretariat, ICOMOS and IUCN for the processing and technical review of the new dominations.
Session: 2nd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 010)
Year: 1978
 View 
CONF 010 VIII.42
Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List
There followed considerable discussion as to whether the number of nominations per country and year should be limited or not and how to solve the problem of the increasing workload for all parties involved in the evaluation process, which may become rather time-consuming and may even exceed the capacity of the advisory organizations, the Bureau, the Committee and the UNESCO Secretariat in the future.
Session: 2nd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 010)
Year: 1978
 View 
CONF 010 VIII.43
Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List
In this connection, reference was made to Article 11 (1) of the Convention which stipulates no limit for the number of nominations by a single State Party. However, in recognizing this stipulation the Committee, for purely practical reasons, authorized the Chairman to convene, if necessary, a special Bureau meeting after the closing date for submission of nominations in order to examine, together with the advisory organizations and the Secretariat, the possibility of evaluating all new nominations and to adopt a procedure which would take into account the capacities of all parties ...
Session: 2nd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 010)
Year: 1978
 View 
CONF 010 VIII.44
Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List
Following a proposal made by the delegate of Yugoslavia who underlined the importance of the decisions taken by the Committee for the establishment of the World Heritage List, the Committee decided that a document concerning the nominations of States and presenting the recommendations of the Bureau thereon, would be prepared for the Committee which would examine the nominations one by one and would decide on the inclusion or non-inclusion in the List of each individual site.
Session: 2nd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 010)
Year: 1978
 View 
CONF 010 VIII.45
Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List
The delegate of Poland then drew the attention of the Committee to paragraphs 20 and 21 of the report of the Rapporteur on the first meeting of the Bureau. As noted in the report, Poland was the only State affected by the decision that on this first occasion, States Parties would be limited to nominating only two properties each for inclusion in the World Heritage List, since it had nominated three sites which clearly qualified for inclusion and for which complete documentation had been submitted: Auschwitz, Cracow and the Salt Mines of Wieliczka. It would, therefore, appear justified ...
Session: 2nd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 010)
Year: 1978
Sites: Auschwitz Birkenau
German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945) Historic Centre of Kraków Wieliczka and Bochnia Royal Salt Mines
State Parties: Poland
 View 
CONF 010 VIII.46
Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List
In response to this proposal the Committee agreed that in all future cases where eligible nominations were deferred by the Bureau, such nominations would be given priority consideration at the following Bureau meeting, unless these nominations had in the meantime been withdrawn by the State concerned.
Session: 2nd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 010)
Year: 1978
 View 
CONF 015 XI.19
Nomination submitted by Yugoslavia of the Kotor natural and historical region to the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger
The Bureau decided to recommend that this site be entered on the two lists provided that the Committee agreed with a special procedure for the emergency inscription of properties on the World Heritage List. The Bureau decided that the technical cooperation request should be examined after the Committee had taken decisions on the above mentioned matters.
Session: 3rd session of the Bureau (CONF 015)
Year: 1979
Sites: Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor
State Parties: Montenegro
 View 
CONF 003 XI.(b).37
Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of natural properties in the World Heritage List and guidelines for the evaluation of nominations by IUCN
In view of the difficulty of assessing nominations without an adequate inventory, the Committee decided to encourage States Parties to prepare such inventories. It was furthermore decided to ask IUCN to prepare a proposal for the next meeting of the Bureau relating to the methodology and cost of preparing an inventory on a global basis.
Session: 3rd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 003)
Year: 1979
 View 
CONF 003 XI.(b).38
Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of natural properties in the World Heritage List and guidelines for the evaluation of nominations by IUCN
The Committee decided to instruct IUCN to use great caution in the application of criterion (iv) when it was the sole criterion for recommending sites for the World Heritage List. The sites nominated under this criterion should be habitats where "significant populations" or "concentrations of populations" of rare or endangered species of plants or animals survive, that is, sites representing in some way "superlative situations".
Session: 3rd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 003)
Year: 1979
 View 
CONF 003 XI.32
Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of cultural and natural properties in the World Heritage List and Guidelines for the evaluation of Nominations to the World Heritage List by ICOMOS and IUCN
The Committee considered that it was absolutely essential that the List contained only properties which were of outstanding universal value. Unless this general criterion was applied to every nomination, the List could rapidly decline in value and indeed in credibility. With this in mind, the Committee recommended that the wording in the "Operational Guidelines" and the nomination forms should more adequately reflect this overriding consideration, and that ICOMOS and IUCN should be instructed to regard this requirement as of critical importance in their evaluation of nominations.
Session: 3rd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 003)
Year: 1979
 View 
CONF 003 XI.34
Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of cultural and natural properties in the World Heritage List and Guidelines for the evaluation of Nominations to the World Heritage List by ICOMOS and IUCN
On the general question of the number of inscriptions to be entered on the World Heritage List, as well as of the selection criteria to be applied, the Committee recalled that the Convention foresees in Article 11 paragraph 1 that each State Party "shall in so far as possible submit to the World Heritage Committee _an inventory of property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage_, situated in its territory and _suitable for inclusion_" in the World Heritage List (passages not underlined in the text of the Convention). The Committee recommends that States Parties in future ...
Session: 3rd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 003)
Year: 1979
 View 
CONF 003 XI.35
Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of cultural and natural properties in the World Heritage List and Guidelines for the evaluation of Nominations to the World Heritage List by ICOMOS and IUCN
In response to specific questions raised by Mr. Michel Parent's report, the Committee adopted the following principles: (i) States Parties may propose in one single nomination several individual cultural properties, which may be in different geographical locations but which should: -be linked because they belong to the same historico-cultural group, or-be the subject of a single safeguarding project, or-belong to the same type of property characteristic of the zone. the geographical zone in which these properties are situated should be delimited and the cultural properties individually ...
Session: 3rd session of the World Heritage Committee (CONF 003)
Year: 1979
 View 
 1 2 3 4 ...  94  See 200 by page