Limited Distribution SC-88/CONF.007/13
10 August 1988
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
Twelfth Session
Unesco Headquarters, Paris. 14-17 June 1988
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
INTRODUCTION
1. The twelfth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee was
held at Unesco Headquarters in Paris from 14 to 17 June 1988. It was attended
by the members of the Bureau: Mr. J. Collinson (Canada), Chairman; Mrs. M.
Stantcheva (Bulgaria), Rapporteur, and representatives of France, Mexico, Sri
Lanka, Tanzania ( United Rep. of ), and Tunisia, Vice-Chairmen. Representatives
of thirteen States Parties to the Convention took part in the session as
observers. Representatives of the International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Monuments (ICCROM), the International
Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) attended the meeting in
an advisory capacity. The full list of participants appears as annex 1 to this
report.
2. The representative of the Director-General, Mr. A. Kaddoura, Assistant
Director General of the Science Sector, opened the session. He noted that there
were now 102 States Parties to the Convention. The Republic of Con°o, Cape
Verde and Paraguay had joined the Convention since the eleventh session of
the Committee, which was held at Unesco Headquarters from 7-11 December 1987.
This would make the World Heritage Convention the most universal
international legal instrument in the field of conservation. Mr. Kaddoura briefly
commented on the challenging and interesting agenda before the Bureau and
concluded by wishing success in its important work.
3. The agenda was adopted with the inclusion of an item on the revision of
the operational guidelines, for which a working document had been prepared.
4. The Secretary, Mr. B. von Droste, reported on activities undertaken since
the eleventh session of the Committee. He noted in particular the convening of
a working group under the Chairmanship of H.E. Ambassador Guruge to study
questions regarding the preparation, submission and evaluation of nominations
of cultural properties, and the future organization of the agenda of the
Committee and the Bureau. Mr. von Droste noted that all the projects for
international assistance approved by the Committee were being implemented. He
then reported on small scale projects which had been approved by the
Chairman since the Committee. Training had been the most frequently sought
type of international assistance. He also reported on promotional activities,
*[1]
which had been focussed on the preparation of new materials to promote the
Convention, including World Heritage exhibits. Finally, Mr. von Droste drew the
Bureau's attention to the critical state of the World Heritage Fund due to the
fact that States Parties had been slow in making their financial contributions
at the beginning of the 1988-89 biennium. He therefore urged States Parties to
pay in full their contribution to the World Heritage Fund as soon as possible to
ensure continuity in World Heritage conservation activities.
II. REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ESTABLISHED BY THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE AT ITS ELEVENTH SESSION
5. Before inviting the Chairman of the Working Group to present the report,
the Chairman of the Committee congratulated the Working Group for the
remarkable results it had achieved with a view to improving the management of
the Committee's work, particularly the examination of nominations in the light of
the criteria established by the Committee. The Chairman of the Working Group
wished to thank the Chairman of the Committee himself for the excellent
suggestions he had provided. He also expressed his thanks to the representa-
tives of three States members of the Group who had taken the initiative
drafting a set of extremely useful proposals and to the representative of
ICOMOS for his very helpful cooperation. He expressed high praise for t.
truly exceptional quality of the contribution the Secretariat had made to t
work of the Group.
6. The Bureau took note of document SC-88/CONF.007/2 summarizing the
deliberations of the Working Group. The Bureau then examined its
recommendations one by one, and approved them in their totality. A certain
number of imperfections in the French translation were underlined and duly
taken note of by the Secretariat. With respect to section 4.8 of the recom-
mendations, one member pointed out a contradiction between its title and its
contents, for paragraph 43 called for the postponement of considerations of
new towns, not the suspension thereof, as stated in the title of the section.
But another member pointed out that the Working Group's opinion had indeed
been that the consideration both of new towns and of contemporary architec-
ture should be provisionally suspended. In this connection, the representation
of ICOMOS stressed that contemporary sites could be just as "vulnerable" as
older towns, hence paragraph 29 of the Guidelines which had been used by t
Working Group was incorrect in its assumptions. Summing up the discussion,
the Chairman of the Committee observed that in fact further study appeared to
be needed with regard to all the categories of properties mentioned in this
section. The wording of the recommendations in paragraphs 42-43 should be
harmonized accordingly. The Bureau so decided.
7. With regard to the availability of documents in advance of the Com-
mittee's sessions (paragraph 34), the Bureau recommended that the deadline for
submission of nominations be brought forward to the date of 1 October of the
year preceding their examination by the Committee. One member having
requested a calendar showing the key dates in the different stages of proces-
sing of nominations, the Chairman of the Committee presented such timetable
that he had himself prepared. Finally, the representative of ICOMOS suggested
that the Chairman of the Committee formally request ICOMOS to hold the
meeting of its Bureau devoted to the examination of nominations of cultural
properties in the month of February each year, so that the new time-table of
work could be adhered to.
*[2]
8. The Director of the Division of Ecological Sciences mentioned several
implications for the examination of natural properties arising from the conclu-
sions of the Working Group, particularly as concerns improving the processing
of nominations. Also, certain questions raised by the Group such as the need
for a global reference list and the question of rural landscapes were clearly
pertinent in the consideration of natural sites.
9. The Chairman of the Committee requested ICOMOS and IUCN to kindly
draft comments on the recommendations of the Working Group as well as imple-
ment proposals in cooperation with the Secretariat. The Working Group and
the Secretariat should incorporate these proposals in the amended version of
the Operational Guidelines in English and French by the end of September ( see
Section III ).
III. REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
10. The Bureau examined document SC-88/CONF.007/12 which contained two
parts. The first section provided texts to be incorporated in the Operational
Guidelines ( document WHC/2 revised January 1987 ) following the decisions taken
by the Committee at its eleventh session concerning the monitoring of cultural
properties, the procedure for handling proposals for extensions to properties
already inscribed on the World Heritage List, and assistance for promotional
activities. The second part was prepared to update the Guidelines to make them
conform with current practice in the implementation of the Convention. The
Bureau examined the texts of this second part and recommended their adoption
by the Committee along with some amendments and additions, notably to draft a
text guiding States Parties as to the requirements for adequate legal protection
and management of cultural properties. The Bureau also recommended that the
procedure for the allocation of emergency assistance should enable the
Chairman to consult the other members of the Bureau by telex, as appropriate,
for approving requests for emergency assistance above $20,000. The Bureau
requested that document SC-88/CONF.007/12 be revised in this manner and be
submitted to the Committee for adoption at its next session.
IV. TENTATIVE LISTS
10. The Secretariat presented the information document prepared on this
subject and informed the Bureau that since the document had been prepared,
tentative lists had been received from Cuba, Egypt (in Arabic only), Iraq and
Tunisia, while the Syrian authorities had provided an English translation of the
tentative list they had provided earlier. The Secretariat reminded the Bureau
that the entire process of submitting and analyzing the tentative lists had
been discussed by the Working Group set up by the Committee at its eleventh
session. Inviting the Bureau to take note of the document, the Chairman
stressed that the tentative lists would be a helpful tool for the comparative
analysis recommended by the Working Group. He recalled the Committee's
interest in the tentative lists as a guide for historical analysis and possible
thematic review. A member of the Bureau asked whether States Parties could
still submit tentative lists. The Chairman replied in the affirmative and reite-
rated the invitation to States Parties which had not yet done so to submit
their tentative lists as soon as possible.
*[3]
V. NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND TO THE LIST OF WORLD
HERITAGE IN DANGER
12. The Bureau examined a total of 43 nominations and recommended that
the Committee inscribe 26 properties on the World Heritage List: these are
presented in section A below. The Bureau recommended to defer 8 nominations
presented in section B below. Section C contains the 4 nominations which the
Bureau recommended should not be inscribed on the World Heritage List. Sec-
tion D refers to 5 nominations for which evaluations were not available at the
time of the Bureau session. Section E concerns 2 nominations to the List of
World Heritage in Danger. It should be noted that the nomination of Cerro
Colorado was withdrawn by the Permanent Delegate of Argentina to Unesco on
14 June 1988.
A. Properties recommended for inscription on the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identification Contracting State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
Wet tropical 486 Australia N (i) (ii)
Rainforests of (iii) (iv)
North East Australia
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property on the
World Heritage List. The Bureau requested the Australian authorities to provide
clarifications and further information on the following points:
a) future management arrangements for the area. The Bureau noted the
consultations were underway on the establishment of a join
Commonwealth/Queensland management authority to administer the site which
were expected to be completed in September 1988;
b ) revision of the delimitation of the nominated area in order to make the
nomination more coherent. The Bureau considered this revision was required in
order to trim the boundaries to make the site a more manageable conservation
unit, and to excise areas where human modification was judged unacceptable
and to omit areas which did not contribute significant natural value;
c) land ownership by Aboriginal peoples and private citizens, and land uses for
military training and others such as stock grazing and mining, as outlined in
section 4 of the IUCN evaluation.
The Bureau requested the Australian authorities to provide this information to
the Secretariat by 1st October 1988 which would transmit it to IUCN in order
to enable lUCN to prepare a revised evaluation by mid-October. This revised
evaluation should be sent to the members of the present Bureau for comment. A
synthesis of these comments and the revised evaluation as well as the positive
appraisal by the Bureau at this session would then be`. transmitted to the
Committee at its twelfth session.
*[4]
The Bureau furthermore recommended that the name of this property be
reconsidered better to reflect the nature of the area. Finally, the Bureau urged
the Australian authorities to pursue a public awareness campaign to promote,
neater understanding of the aims of the Convention and to generate increased
support for the nominated site.
Parc national du 475 Central African V (ii) (iv)
Manovo-Gounda Republic
St. Floris
The Bureau recognized that this property had the potential to meet two of the
natural World Heritage criteria but that at the present time, the conditions of
integrity were not fulfilled, notably due to activities which conflict with the
conservation objectives such as grazing , poaching and hunting by a
concession. The Bureau noted, however, that the Central African Republic
authorities were fully committed to improve the protection of this site and that
a ten-year project funded by the EEC/FED at a cost of $27 million was just
starting which would improve anti-poaching measures, access to the park and
also develop research and basic infrastructure (provision of housing and staff).
The Bureau encouraged the Central .African Republic authorities to implement
this project and requested that once it began to show results, they provide a
progress report which would be submitted to the Committee. The Committee
would then be in a position to follow the Bureau's recommendation to inscribe
this site on the World Heritage List.
Strasbourg - Historic 95 France C (i) (ii) (iv)
Centre
M t. Athos 454 Greece C (i) (ii) (iv)
(v) (vi)
The Bureau recommended inscription of this site. Moreover, it requested that
IUCN communicate to the December 1988 session of the Committee its evaluation
of the natural aspects of Mt. Athos.
Meteora 455 Greece C (i) (ii)
(iv) (v)
The Bureau recommended that this property be inscribed, on condition that the
Greek authorities provide before the twelfth session of the Committee,
confirmation that the protection of the entire area proposed for inscription is
guaranteed by adequate legal measures.
Monuments of 456 Greece C (to be
Thessalonika determined)
The Bureau recommended inscription of this property, on condition that a new
nomination focussing specifically on early Christian and Byzantine monuments
be presented to the Committee's December session. The list of monuments
proposed for inscription should be drawn up by the Greek authorities in
consultation with ICOMOS.
Archaeological site 491 Greece C (i) (ii)
of Epidaurus (iii) (iv) (vi)
*[5]
Medieval City of 493 Greece C (ii) (iv)
Rhodes (v)
The Bureau recommended inscription of this property, having been informed
that all conservation work on the architectural heritage of Rhodes would be
carried out under the control of the Greek Ministry of Culture and in
accordance with the Venice Charter and the Toledo International Charter for
the conservation of historic towns and urban areas.
Nanda Devi 335 India N (iii) (iv)
National Park
The Bureau recommended that this site be inscribed on the World Heritage List.
The Bureau requested the Indian authorities to provide further information on
the following points:
a) the present status of the management plan;
b) the frequency and the extent of patrolling within the "Inner Sanctuary";
c) the future policy regarding provision for tourism, which should not detract
from the wilderness qualities of the site;
d ) the present status of wildlife populations, particularly the large mammals
such as the blue sheep, for which preparatory assistance could be provided
under the World Heritage Fund.
Old Towns of Djenné 116 rev. Mali C (iii) (iv)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property and, at the
same time, encourage the Malian authorities to ensure the long-term protection
of Djenné, paying particular attention to preserving the balance between the
built and unbuilt spaces of the town.
Old Town of Timbuktu 119 rev. Mali C (ii) (iv) (v)
The Bureau recommended inscription of the mosques, cemeteries and mausoleums
of Timbuktu, and encouraged the Malian authorities to ensure a global
protection of the whole town. In view of the threat of sand encroachment at
Timbuktu, the Bureau felt that the Malian authorities might wish to consider
nominating this property to the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Bureau regretted the absence of slides of this site and hoped that these
would be made available to the Committee.
Historic Centre of 482 Mexico C (i) (ii)
Guanajuato and (iv) (vi)
adjacent mines
The Bureau took note with satisfaction of the assurances given by the Mexican
authorities concerning protection of the mining operations of Guanajuato and
its surroundings.
*[6]
Pre-Hispanic City 483 Mexico C (i) (ii)
of Chichen-Itza (iii)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property and, at the
same time, request that the Mexican authorities ensure that the tourism and
hotel installations are not allowed to become obtrusive and that the site and its
environment are adequately protected.
Archaeological sites 434 Oman C (iii) (iv)
of Bat, Al-Khutm and
Al-Ayn
The Bureau took note with satisfaction of the extension of the original
nomination and recommended that the Committee stress to the Omani authorities
the necessity of ensuring the long-term protection of the whole area inscribed.
Convent Ensemble of 500 Peru C (ii) (iv)
San Francisco de Lima
The Bureau recommended that this property be inscribed, on condition that the
Peruvian authorities provide assurances before the twelfth session of the
Committee concerning the protection of the entire zone surrounding the
convent.
Old City of Salamanca 381 rev. Spain C (i) (ii) (iv)
The Bureau recommended inscription of Salamanca, the perimeter of which has
been extended, in accordance with the wishes of the Committee in l987, and the
exemplary nature of which clearly emerged from the comparative study carried
out by ICOMOS on the old European university cities. The Bureau
recommended that the Committee request the Spanish authorities to take all
possible steps to ensure that the laws concerning the protection of the town
be strictly applied.
Sinharaja Forest 405 Sri Lanka N (i) (iv)
Reserve
The Bureau recalled that at its sixth session in 1982, this nomination had been
deferred due to inadequate legal protection although it was recognized that the
site had the potential to meet criteria (ii) and (iv). The Bureau noted that the
required legislation, the National Wilderness Heritage Act, had recently been
passed in Sri Lanka but that the Sinharaja Forest Reserve had not ú et come
under the provisions of this Act. In the event that this legal matter were
resolved by the time of the Committee session in December 1988, the Bureau
recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List.
Sacred City of Kandy 450 Sri Lanka C (iv) (vi)
The Bureau noted with satisfaction that the landscape surrounding the site was
given an important protection guaranteed by legal texts. The Bureau regretted
the absence of slides on this site and hoped that these would be made
available to the Committee.
*[7]
Old Town of Galle and 451 Sri Lanka C (iv)
its fortification
The Bureau recommended inscription of this property but greatly deplored the
absence of any visual documentation that could have sufficiently testified to
the unique nature of the architectural syncretisms of this fortified colonial
city. The Bureau requested that a set of slides on this site be made available
to the Committee.
Medina of Sousse 498 Tunisia C (iii) (iv) (v)
The Bureau recommended inscription of this site after having noted that the
Tunisian authorities had provided assurances that it was adequately
protected. *
Medina of Kairouan 499 Tunisia C (i) (ii) (iii)
(v) (vi)
The Bureau recommended inscription of this site after having noted that the,
Tunisian authorities had provided assurances that it was adequately protected.
Xanthos-Letoon 484 Turkey C (ii) (iii)
The Bureau recommended inscription of this property on the World Heritage
List, on condition that the Turkish authorities extend the perimeter of
protection of the site so that the zones of necropolises be included and that
assurances be given that the environment will be protected.
Hierapolis-Pamukkale 485 Turkey C (iii) (iv)
The Bureau noted that this property had been evaluated by both ICOMOS and
IUCN. Although IUCN did not recommend the inscription of this site on the
basis of natural criteria, the Bureau nevertheless felt that recognition should
be given to the combination of natural and cultural elements of this property.
The Bureau agreed with ICOMOS that this site could be recommended for
inscription on the World Heritage List under cultural criteria (iii) and (iv)
The Bureau recognized however that at present, the site did not benefit from
adequate legal protection. The Bureau encouraged the Turkish authorities to
approve the proposal for a national park for the site and to update and adopt
the management plan which would enable this nomination to be re-considered
by the Committee for inscription on the World Heritage List.
Henderson Island 487 United Kingdom N (iii) (iv)
The Bureau recommended that this site be inscribed on the World Heritage List.
The Bureau requested that the British authorities provide a description of the
extent of the marine boundaries of the nominated site. The Bureau also wished
to encourage the British authorities to:
a) work with the Pitcairn islanders to ensure on-site protection;
* N.B. The Bureau suggested that a summary of the conclusions reached at the
meeting for harmonizing the tentative lists of Northern African countries
organized in 1985 by ICOMOS be presented at the next session of the Committee.
*[8]
b) review the legal status of the island and consider up-grading this status to
a nature reserve and prepare a management plan for the site:
c) consider more involvement in the strengthening the protection of the site
within the framework of the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme and
the Convention on the Protection of Natural Resources in the South Pacific and
the Convention on the Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific.
The Tower of London 488 United Kingdom C (ii) (iv)
The Bureau recommended inscription of this property, on condition that assur-
ances be given that the area surrounding the Tower of London is duly pro-
tected by the British authorities so that the site and its environment are safe-
guarded without further damage.
Canterbury Cathedral, 496 United Kingdom C (i) (ii) (vi)
St. Augustine's Abbey
and St. Martin's Church
The Bureau recommended inscription of thy site and suggested that the Ca-
thedral, St. Augustine's Abbey and St. Martin's Church be included in one and
the same protection area.
B. Nominations deferred by the Bureau
Bemaraha Strict 494 Madagascar
Nature Reserve
and ad adjacent forests
The Bureau welcomed this nomination which had the potential to meet criteria
for inscription on the World Heritage List. However, the Bureau requested the
Malagasy authorities and particularly the "Departement des Eaux et Forets" to
revise the nomination to focus primarily on the Bemaraha Strict Nature Reserve
and to provide further information on the precise limits of the site and the
status of the natural resources of the reserve. The Bureau also wished to
encourage the Malagasy authorities in their efforts to strengthen the protection
of the site and to draw up a management plan, for which preparatory
assistance could be provided under the World Heritage Fund.
Male Hukuru Miskiy 461 Maldives
Utheemu Gaduvaru 462 "
Eid Miskiy 463 "
Fenfushi Hukuru 464 "
Miskiy
Vadhoo Hukuru Miskiy 465 "
The Bureau recommended that the examination of these nominations be deferred,
considering the insufficiency of the documentation available. Furthermore, it
suggested that the Committee encourage the Maldivian authorities to reformulate
these nominations, with the technical assistance of Unesco and ICOMOS.
*[9]
New Lanark 429 United Kingdom
The Bureau recognized the qualities of this site. However, it felt that ins-
cription of this site would be premature until an overall view of the sites
where social doctrines of the contemporary world evolved in connection with
the industrial or agricultural revolutions had been realized and a comparative
study on the industrial sites of the nineteenth century had been carried out
by ICOMOS.
Pueblo of Taos 492 United States of America
The Bureau recommended that the examination of this site be deferred until: a
comparative analysis of the sites of Pueblo culture had been carried out; a
study on the complementarity between the site and its environment had been
completed; the United States and Mexico had had a consultation with a view to
harmonizing the question pertaining to Pueblo culture.
C. Properties not recommended for inscription on the World Heritage List
Hortobagy National Park 474 Hungary
The Bureau noted that this site is of national and regional importance and has
been designated under the Ramsar Wetland Convention and is also a biosphere
reserve under Unesco's Man and the Biosphere Programme. The Bureau was of
the opinion however that the site did not meet the criteria for inscription on
the World Heritage List.
SS "Great Britain" 489 United Kingdom
Although the Bureau noted the interest of this type of property, it considered
that it did not meet with the criteria of authenticity set up by the Convention.
Furthermore, the Bureau recalled .Article 22 of the Guidelines according to
which nominations concerning immovable property which are liable to become
movable will not be considered.
Navan Fort 490 United Kingdom
Although the Bureau recognized the importance of this property for the cul-
tural heritage of the United Kingdom, it considered that Navan Fort did not
possess the outstanding universal value which would justify its inscription on
the list.
Menai and Conwy 497 United Kingdom
Suspension Bridges
While noting the importance of Menai Bridge for the heritage of the United
Kingdom, the Bureau felt that it did not meet with the criteria of authenticity
set up by the Convention.
As far as Conwy Bridge is concerned, the Bureau considered that it would
constitute a complement of great interest to Conwy Castle, inscribed in 1986 as
one of The Castles and Town Walls of King Edward. The Bureau considered
*[10]
that the authorities of the United Kingdom might perhaps wish to propose an
extension of this property, so as to include the suspension bridge.
D. Nominations for which evaluations were not available at the time of the
Bureau session
Trinidad and the Valley de 460 Cuba
los Ingenios
The Bureau agreed that the evaluation of Trinidad and the Valley de los
Ingenios by ICOMOS could be directly presented to the Committee at its twelfth
session, since the Cuban authorities had informed the Secretariat that their
tentative list of cultural properties consisted of this property alone.
Petrified Forest on Lesbos 453 Greece
The Bureau noted that IUCN would provide an evaluation of this nomination
after a field review in September 1988. In order to help IUCN make this evalu-
ation, the Bureau suggested that a working group be set up to make a global
review of fossil sites including petrified forests, using the preparatory
assistance allocation of the World Heritage Fund if required.
Port Royal 457 Rev. Jamaica
Seville 458 " "
Spanish Town 459 " "
The Bureau noted that ICOMOS would only be in a position to provide its
evaluation of these three nominations after completion of its field review in
August, 1988.
E. Nominations to the List of World Heritage in Danger
Since ICOMOS was not yet in a position to evaluate the threats to the integrity
of the following two properties, the Bureau recommended that the Committee
take a decision on the nominations after further study has been carried out
(cf. paragraph 24 below).
Bahla Fort 433 Oman
Wieliczka Salt Mine 32 Poland
VI. EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS WITH A COMBINATION OF CULTURAL AND
NATURAL ELEMENTS
13. The Bureau realized that it had spent considerable time in examining
nominations of properties with an indissociable combination of cultural and
natural elements. The difficulty in the examination of such nominations arose
from the fact that "culture" and "nature" were evaluated separately by ICOMOS
and IUCN respectively, using separate sets of criteria. In order to facilitate the
work of the Committee in examining such nominations, the Bureau requested
that ICOMOS, IUCN and the Secretariat work together to agree on joint
criteria for the evaluation of such nominations in time for submission to the
Committee. The Bureau also considered that it would be useful if this group
*[11]
could also draft some notes on how to handle such nominations in the future,
including the necessity of making a comparative study to place such nomina-
tions in a global context.
VII. MONITORING THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON
THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
a) Natural properties
14. The representative of IUCN reported on the status of three natural sites,
two of which are inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, as follows:
Manu National Park (Peru): A commercial discovery of natural has had been
made next to the park and further exploration work was imminent. This work
would bring in many workers and settlers next to the western boundary of the
park and could result in encroachments and associated problems. The Bureau
requested the Secretariat to contact the Peruvian authorities and to see
further explanation.
Djoudj National Park (Senegal): The water supply to this park which was
modified by dam construction was now being assured by a sluice which had
been built with the support of the World Heritage Fund. A management plan
was also under preparation with funds from WWF. Although there was still a
need to improve the management of this site, the Bureau recognized that the
main threats were under control and requested the Secretariat to contact the
Senegalese authorities with a view to removing this site from the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania): The general situation of this site
had greatly improved. Equipment had been made available through the World
Heritage Fund and IUCN was working to strengthen policy, planning and train-
ing activities for the site with the Ministry of Natural Resources ; and Tourism
of Tanzania. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Tanzanian
authorities with a view to removing this site from the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
b) Cultural properties
15. The Secretariat summarized the report on this question ( document SC-
88/CONF.007/5), which described the progress achieved in the implementation of
the experimental monitoring system decided by the Committee at t eleventh
session. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that completed questionnaires on
four Bulgarian sites had in fact been received before the date of completion of
the report but, due to an error of transmission, had not reached the
Secretariat of the Committee. After the completion of the report, replies had
been received from the Federal Republic of Germany concerning one property
and from Tunisia concerning two properties. The Bureau took note of the
Secretariat's report.
16. The Permanent Delegate of Iran to Unesco made a statement regarding
the damages incurred by the Meidan Emam (Meidan Nagh Cheh Jahan) at
Isphahan which was hit by a rocket during the recent attacks on Iranian
cities. In the Permanent Delegate's opinion, the Meidan Emam should be
considered for the List of World Heritage in Danger.
*[12]
VIII. STATUS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND
17. The Bureau took note of document SC.88/CONF.007/8 presenting the
financial situation of the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau in particular noted
that relatively few of the contributions of States Parties to the Fund had as
yet been received at the beginning of the 1988-89 biennium. The Bureau
requested the Secretariat to remind States Parties of the need to pay their
contributions in full and as soon as possible in the biennium in order to allow
the World Heritage Committee to plan its work effectively.
IX. REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND TRAINING
18. The Bureau examined document SC-88/CONF.007/9 presenting requests for
technical cooperation and training under the World Heritage Fund.
19. The following requests were approved by the Bureau:
1. Consultancy services for the preparation of a plan for Royal Chitwan
National Park (Nepal) and purchase of equipment for implementing three proto-
type projects recommended by the plan: $ 30,000
2. Financial contribution to the purchase of a "UNIMOG", an all-terrain
vehicle, for use in field training activities at the Mweka College of African
Wildlife Management (Tanzania): $ 30,000
3. Purchase of two portable micro-earthquake systems and a micro-climato-
logical device for the Temple of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae (Greece): $ 30,000
20. The Bureau approved US$ 25,000 for training in Madagascar under the
condition that the training workshop will have a special focus on the "Tsigny
de Bemaraha" area nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List. The
Bureau requested that this workshop be used to revise the nomination of the
Tsigny de Bemaraha.
21. The Bureau recommended that the Committee approve the following
request:
1. Equipment for a visitor's centre and an all-terrain vehicle for Tassili
n'Ajjer National Park (Algeria): $ 53,000
2. Equipment essential for better patrolling the Virunga National Park
(Zaire): $ 40,000
3. Equipment and spare parts for Toyota vehicle to strengthen anti-poach-
ing measures in Garamba National Park (Zaire): $ 50,000
22. The Bureau recommended that the Committee be informed of other inter-
national assistance projects for these World Heritage sites such as projects
funded by the EEC.
23. The Bureau recommended that the Committee approve the following
request, on the understanding that further details be provided on the amounts
requested:
*[13]
Equipment for restoring the World Heritage properties of Anuradhapura,
Polonnaruwa and Sigiriya (Sri Lanka) and for training activities pertaining to
those sites.
24. Since ICOMOS was not yet in a position to provide an accurate evaluation
of the threats to the integrity of the following two properties, the Bureau
recommended that the Committee's decision on the two requests be taken after
further study has been carried out:
1. Urgent measures for strengthening the foundations of the wall and to
study methods of reconstructing doors, windows and other wooden elements at
Bahla Fort (Oman).
2. Equipment and technical assistance needed for restoration work at
Wieliczka Salt Mine (Poland).
25. With regard to a request from Brazil submitted on 16 June 1988 for
$30,000 towards a project for the conservation and management of the Jesus,
missions of the Guarani, the Bureau agreed with the Chairman's suggestion that
he approve project components up to an amount of $20,000. The remaining
$10,000 for the project, which would bring its value to a total of $30,00
should be requested from the Committee at its next session.
X. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
26. The Bureau took note with satisfaction of the Secretariat's report on
promotion (document SC.88/CONF.007/10) which presented the different activities
undertaken since the last session of the Committee. Emphasis had been
particularly laid on the production and diffusion of general information material
on the Convention and also on the preparation of new exhibit materials on the
Convention. These exhibits had been sent out to a number of States Parties.
In this connection the representative from Mexico expressed his gratitude to
the Secretariat for having provided one of these exhibits to his country.
27. The Bureau also noted that the Secretariat would henceforth concentrate
its efforts on improving the information basis for individual World Heritage
properties and that in this respect the Secretariat planned to produce short
descriptive texts for each property.
28. Concerning the establishment of national associations for the promotion of
the aims of the Convention, the Bureau took note of recent initiatives in two
States Parties. The Bureau expressed the hope that many more States Parties
would follow these examples.
XI. PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR THE TWELFTH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
29. The Bureau approved the Provisional Agenda prepared by the Secretariat
(SC-88/CONF.007/11) in accordance with the recommendations of the Working
Group set up by the Committee at its eleventh session. The Chairman recalled
that one of the tasks of the Working Group had been to suggest means of
better managing the agenda of the Committee's sessions.
*[14]
30. With regard to the place of the twelfth session (5-9 December 1988), the
Secretariat explained that the agreement required for the organization of the
session in Brasilia could be signed upon confirmation that the host country
would meet the extra cost to the Secretariat of organizing the session away
from Headquarters. The Deputy Permanent Delegate of Brazil to Unesco
informed the Bureau that all the elements needed in order to sign the agree-
ment would soon be available. Expressing his satisfaction that the next session
of the Committee would be held in Brasilia, one member requested the observer
from Brazil to urge his authorities to take all possible measures to provide
low-cost arrangements that might facilitate the participation of qualified
specialists from States Members of the Committee as well as from other States
Parties.
XII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
31. is he was closing the session, the Chairman informed the Bureau that he
had met with the Director-General who had confirmed his commitment to the
work of the World Heritage Convention as a major activity of Unesco. The
Director-General had agreed to augment the capacity of the Secretariat of the
Convention by the establishment of six additional posts under Unesco's Regular
Programme.
32. The Chairman thanked all participants for their contribution to a suc-
cessful session and closed the meeting.
*[Annex I/1]
Annex I
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
Twelfth Session
(Unesco Headquarters, 14-17 June 1988)
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU / ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU
BULGARIA / BULGARIE
Mme Magdalina STANTCHEVA Rapporteur
Professeur, Université de Sofia
M Konstantin PACHEV
Attaché à la Délégation
permanente auprès de l'Unesco
CANADA
Mr James D. COLLINSON Chairman / Président
Asst. Deputy Minister
Canadian Parks Service
Environment Canada
Mrs Christina CAMERON
Director-General
National Historic Parks
Environment Canada
FRANCE
M Jean-Pierre BADY
Directeur du Patrimoine
Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication
M François ENAUD
Inspecteur général
des monuments historiques
Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication
M Alain MEGRET
Ministère de l'Environnement
*[Annex I/2]
Mme Muriel DE RAISSAC
Direction du Patrimoine
Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication
M Gilbert SIMON
Ministère de l'Environnement
M Jean-Pierre BOYER
Commission nationale française pour l'Unesco
Mme Anita DAVIDENKOFF
Chef du Bureau de l'Unesco
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
Mlle Françoise DESCARPENTRIES
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
MEXICO / MEXIQUE
S.E. M Miguel LEON-PORTILLA
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent
auprès de l'Unesco
M Salvador DIAZ BERRIO
Chef des Projets techniques
Institut national d'anthropologie et histoire
Mme Guadalupe UGARTE de BERNARD
Deuxième Secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
SRI LANKA
H. E. Mr Ananda GURUGE
Ambassador and Permanent Delegate to Unesco
TUNISIA / TUNISIE
M Azzedine BESCHAOUCH
Président, Fondation nationale académique
M Adnan ZMERLI
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
Mme Sophie ZAOUCHE
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA / REPUBLIQUE UNIE DE TANZANIE
Mr Amini Aza MTURI
Principal Conservator of Antiquities
Mr Joseph MUWOWO
Minister Plenipotentiary
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
*[annex I/2]
II. OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS
STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION /
ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
ALGERIA / ALGERIE
M Noureddine GAOUAOU
Deuxième secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
ARGENTINA / ARGENTINE
S.E. Mme Elsa KELLY
Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire
Délégué Permanent auprès de l'Unesco
Mlle Stella PELAEZ AYERRA
Deuxième Secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
AUSTRALIA / AUSTRALIE
Hon. E. G. WHITLAM
Member, Unesco Executive Board
H.E. Mr. E. R. POCOCK
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr P. BRIDGEWATER
First Assistant Secretary
Natural Heritage and Environment Protection
Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment,
Tourism and Territories
Mr W. NICHOLLS
Rainforest Unit
Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment,
Tourism and Territories
Mr J. L. LANDER
Alternate Permanent Delegate to Unesco
BRAZIL / BRESIL
M Luiz Filipe, MACEDO SOARES
Délégué permanent adjoin auprès de l'Unesco
Mrs Isis DE ANDRADE
First Secretary
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
*[annex I/3]
CHINA (People's Republic of) / CHINE (République populaire de)
Mr LI Wenhua
Chairman, .MAB-ICC
Academica Sinica
COSTA RICA
S.E. Mme Vivienne SOLIS de RIVERA
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
Mme Iris LEIVA-BILLAULT
Délégué permanent adjoin auprès de l'Unesco
ECUADOR / EQUATEUR
Mr Miguel CARBO
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
GREECE / GRECE
Mme Androniki MILTIADOU
Ministère de la Culture Hellénique
HUNGARY / HONGRIE
M Béla KOVACSI
Conseiller du Ministère
INDIA / INDE
E. Ms Arundhati GHOSE
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr Pradeep SINGH
Second Secretary
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF / IRAN, REPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE D'
M Réza FEIZ
Délegué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
OMAN (Sultanate of) / OMAN (Sultanat d')
Mr Musa Jaafar HASSAN
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
PERU / PEROU
Mlle Lissette NALVARTE S.
Troisième secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
*Annex I/4]
TURKEY / TURQUIE
M A. Engin OBA
Délégué permanent adjoin auprès de l'Unesco
III. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY /
ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS) /
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
Mr Helmut STELZER
Secretary General
M Léon PRESSOUYRE
Professeur à l'Université de Paris I
Mr Colin KAISER
Acting Director of Secretariat
Mme Florence PORTELETTE
Documentaliste
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL
RESOURCES (IUCN) /
UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE ET DE SES
RESSOURCES (UICN)
Mr James THORSELL
Executive Officer
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas
Mr Jeffrey SAYER
Senior Advisor on Tropical Forests
Mr Michael GREEN
Senior Research Officer
Conservation Monitoring Centre
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE
RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY (ICCROM) /
CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA
RESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM)
Mr Jukka JOKILEHTO
Architect
IV. SECRETARIAT
Mr Abdul Razzak KADDOURA
Assistant Director General
for Science
Mr. D. DE SAN
Chief, International Standards
Division
Mr Bernd VON DROSTE
Director, Division of Ecological
Sciences
Mrs Jane ROBERTSON
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mr Natarajan ISHWARAN
Division of Ecological Sciences
Ms Mireille JARDIN
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mrs Anne RAIDL
Director
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mr Yudhishthir Raj ISAR
Chief, International Standards
Division of Cultural Heritage
Ms Chantal LYARD
International Standards
Division of Cultural Heritage
M Etienne CLEMENT
International Standards
Division of Cultural Heritage
Ms. Paule-Claude BENEDICT
International Standards
Division of Cultural Heritage
*[EOF]