Limited distribution
WHC-94/CONF.001/10
Paris, 19 August 1994
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD
CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Eighteenth session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 4-9 July 1994
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
*[i]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. OPENING SESSION 1-2
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2
IV. REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE
SECRETARIAT SINCE THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE
COMMITTEE 2-4
V. UNESCO'S MEDIUM-TERM PLAN FOR THE WORLD HERITAGE
CENTRE FOR 1996-2001 AND WORLD HERITAGE CONSERVATION:
ELEMENTS OF ORIENTATION 4-7
VI. THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED
ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST 7-31
VII. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR TRAINING PROVIDED
UNDER THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND: REVIEW, EVALUATION
AND STRATEGY 31-34
VIII. EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF PROPERTIES TO THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE
IN DANGER 34-45
IX. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE 45-50
X. MARKETING AND FUND-RAISING STRATEGY 50-51
XI. ORGANIZATION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES
PARTIES IN 1995 AND ELECTION OF SEVEN MEMBERS TO
THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 51-53
XII. GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR A REPRESENTATIVE WORLD
HERITAGE LIST 53-57
XIII. PREPARATION OF THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE, INCLUDING A DRAFT AGENDA 57
XIV. OTHER BUSINESS 57-58
XV. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION 58
(i)
*[ii]
ANNEXES
Annex I List of Participants
Annex II UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan for 1996-2001 and
World Heritage Conservation
Annex III Progress report on the implementation of the
decisions of the World Heritage Committee
regarding the methodology of systematic
monitoring
Annex IV Expert Meeting on the "Global Strategy" and
thematic studies for a representative World
Heritage List
Annex V Proposal by Thailand regarding General
Assembly election procedures
(ii)
*[1]
I. INTRODUCTION
I.1 The eighteenth session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee was held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from
4 to 9 July 1994. The following members of the Bureau attended:
Ms Olga Pizano (Colombia), Chairperson, representatives of China,
Oman, Senegal, Thailand and the United States of America as Vice-
Presidents and Mr D. José Guirao Cabrera (Spain) as Rapporteur.
I.2 Representatives of the following States Parties to the
Convention attended the meeting as observers: Argentina,
Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, El Salvador, France, Georgia,
Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Laos People's Democratic
Republic, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Niger, Norway,
Peru, Philippines, Slovak Republic and the Syrian Arab Republic.
I.3 Representatives of the Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the
International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the
World Conservation Union (IUCN) also attended the meeting in an
advisory capacity. The full list of participants appears in
I.
II. OPENING SESSION
II.1 The Representative of the Director-General, Mr Henri
Lopes, Assistant Director-General for External Relations, having
welcomed the members of the Bureau, the representatives of the
advisory bodies and the observers, began his statement by
underlining the recent threats to World Heritage sites which have
increased in the past period. He therefore congratulated the
Committee for having decided, at its seventeenth session, to
establish an emergency fund of one million dollars, which is an
important first step in responding rapidly to emergency
situations. This, however, needed to be complemented by the
efforts which each of the States Parties must undertake by
itself to implement the Convention on its own territory. The
World Heritage properties cannot be properly protected, he
emphasized, unless they are adequately staffed and financed. He
therefore urged the representatives of all 138 States Parties to
ensure that governments provide adequate financial resources for
the effective management of properties under their jurisdiction.
II.2 Having pointed out the rapid progress of the
implementation of the Convention, reflected in the fact that to
date 138 States Parties have signed the Convention and that there
are presently 411 sites on the World Heritage List (89 natural,
306 cultural and 16 properties which meet both cultural and
natural criteria), Mr Lopes further stressed that UNESCO will for
its part ensure, particularly through the work of the World
Heritage Centre, that the preservation of cultural and natural
properties of outstanding universal value remain among the
Organization's priority tasks by: ensuring prompt intervention
in the case of natural and man-made disasters; mobilizing
international support for safeguarding operations and by
strengthening training of specialists; enhancing preventive
*[2]
action by the Member States of the Organization and particularly
by States Parties to the Convention, for the protection of
cultural and natural properties, including sites of potential
World Heritage values; ensuring systematic and continuous
monitoring of the state of conservation of sites, and lastly, by
promoting the World Heritage Convention among Member States and
the general public.
II.3 Underlining the Convention's unique character as an
international instrument which links nature and culture in its
text and spirit, Mr Lopes recalled that the inscription of the
first cultural landscape on the List, at the seventeenth session
of the Committee, made the World Heritage Convention the first
important international instrument to recognize and protect
cultural landscapes. Finally, before concluding and wishing the
Bureau a successful meeting, the Representative of the Director-
General underlined the importance of bringing the World Heritage
Convention and its related concerns to the level of local
communities, as the World Heritage properties will be truly
protected only when the people who live on these sites or near
them become fullY involved in the conservation endeavours.
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
III.1 The Bureau adopted the agenda as proposed in document
WHC-94/CONF.001/1Rev. following the clarification given by the
Secretariat, in response to the intervention of the Delegate of
Oman, that two additional nominations had been added to the
proposed agenda item 6 (Examination of Nominations of Properties
to the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in
Danger).
IV. REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT SINCE
THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE
IV.1 As Secretary of the World Heritage Committee, Mr Bernd
von Droste, Director of the World Heritage Centre, reported on
the activities undertaken by the Secretariat since the last
session of the Committee, held in Cartagena, Colombia, in
December 1993. His presentation being just an outline of the key
points, Mr von Droste reminded the Bureau that more detailed
information was provided in the working documents prepared for
this session.
IV.2 He first delineated the areas in which the World
Heritage Centre has succeeded in breaking new ground in the past
six months. These are: (i) a further development of conceptual
approaches to systematic monitoring; (ii) development, in
cooperation with UNESCO' s Education Sector, of projects aiming
at introducing World Heritage awareness-building into school
curricula; (iii) the initiation of a World Heritage marketing and
fund-raising strategy; (iv) the progress achieved, through
cooperation with ICOMOS, in defining the global strategy on the
basis of which a more representative World Heritage List can be
*[3]
achieved and (v) the progress made in establishing links with
other international conventions such as the Convention on
Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl
Habitat (RAMSAR), Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), Convention on Biological
Diversity (RIO), Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer
("Vienna"), Framework Convention on Climate Change, Convention
on the Law of the Sea, Convention for the Protection of Cultural
Property in the Event of Armed Conflict ("The Hague Convention")
and the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the
Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural
Property. In this context, he thanked the Culture Sector for its
cooperation in inviting the States Parties which have adhered
to both the World Heritage Convention and the "The Hague"
Convention to consider placing their World Heritage properties
under strengthened protection.
IV.3 In this context, Mr von Droste informed the Bureau that
with four more States Parties having recently adhered to the
Convention - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Myanmar - there were now altogether 138 States Parties to the
Convention.
IV.4 Having presented the Centre's main publications of the
past six months, Mr von Droste drew the Bureau's attention to the
list of past and forthcoming meetings and special events among
which regional World Heritage meetings hold a prominent place.
He then focused on the results of the previous consultations
regarding the development of a monitoring methodology, pointing
out the three types of monitoring that have bean suggested so
far: (i) systematic monitoring (a continuous process of
monitoring the conditions of the World Heritage sites with
periodic reporting); (ii) ad-hoc monitoring (reporting on the
state of conservation of a site in case of need) and (iii)
administrative monitoring (follow-up to ensure the implementation
of the Convention by States Parties as well as recommendations
of the World Heritage Bureau and Committee). Finally, within this
context, he specified also the roles that each of the partners
are expected to play in monitoring, i.e., the site managers, the
States Parties, the World Heritage Committee and the World
Heritage Centre.
IV.5 Speaking of the forty-one properties that have been
presented for nomination to the World Heritage List in 1994, Mr
von Droste drew the Bureau 's attention to the continuing
imbalance in the nominations coming from different regions: 51%
of the newly proposed sites are situated in Europe, 22% are in
Asia and the Pacific, 12% are in Latin America, 12% are in Africa
and 3% are in the Arab States. It is therefore hoped that with
the work on the global strategy, the upcoming regional and sub-
regional meetings and the possible future development of regional
and sub-regional World Heritage focal points ("Centres") this
imbalance may finally be redressed.
IV.6 Sketching briefly the accomplishments in the area of
World Heritage training, Mr von Droste informed the Bureau that
*[4]
an analysis of the training carried out in the period from 1988
to 1992 shows that as regards the natural World Heritage sites,
altogether 61 group training courses and 37 individual
fellowships were financed by the World Heritage Fund (totaling
USS 1,274,000) and 56 fellowships and 10 courses in-situ
(totaling US$ 1,514,000) for the cultural heritage sites. This
training focused mainly on wildlife management, ecology and
conservation, protected areas management, conservation of stone,
wood, mural paintings and architecture and the conservation and
rehabilitation of historical cities. Mr von Droste seized this
opportunity to thank the Centre's main partners in the World
Heritage training programmes for their cooperation. These
include: ICCROM, the Brazilian Institute for Cultural Heritage
and the Federal University of Bahia, Brazil, and ICOMOS for the
cultural part, and IUCN, the Wildlife Colleges in Africa, CATIE
(Costa Rica) and Dehra Dun (India) for the natural sites.
IV.7 The Bureau was also informed of the marketing and fund-
raising study which had recently been undertaken, as requested
by the Director-General of UNESCO and in pursuance of the
decision of the World Heritage Committee at its sixteenth session
(Santa Fe, USA, 1992). This was entrusted to two internationally
known experts, Mr Charles de Haes, former Director-General of the
World Worldwide Fund for Nature, and his collaborator, Mr David
Mitchell. A summary of their findings was to be presented to the
Bureau before the end of the session (see Chapter X).
IV.8 The Chairperson thanked the Director of the World
Heritage Centre for the report and congratulated the Centre on
its work of the past six months.
V. UNESCO'S MEDIUM-TERM PLAN FOR THE WORLD HERITAGE
CENTRE FOR 1996-200' AND WORLD HERITAGE CONSERVATION:
ELEMENTS OF ORIENTATION
V.1 The Bureau studied document WHC-94/CONF.001/2 (see
Annex II of this report) regarding which the Director of the
Centre reminded that this was a preliminary reflection and an
intellectual framework for the Centre's contribution to UNESCO' s
Medium-Term Plan to be submitted for adoption by UNESCO's General
Conference in November 1995. The Bureau members were invited to
propose suggestions, on the basis of which the Centre would
prepare a more "operational" document for the Committee's
eighteenth session in December 1994.
V.2 The Director then briefly presented its main
components:
I. Future action of the Centre: to move from the quantitative
to the qualitative:
1) to ensure optimum representativeness of the List and thus
increase its credibility, as proposed by the meeting of experts
on global strategy whose recommendations are attachad in Annex
IV.
*[5]
2) to improve the methods of reporting on the state of
conservation of the sites, i. e. developing systematic
decentralized and preventive reporting at the regional and sub-
regional level, within the framework of a continuous dialogue
with the States Parties, and in consultation with NGOs and the
civil communities, as outlined in working document WHC-
94/CONF.001/3aAdd.1 (see Annex III).
3) to change the scale of international assistance, to seek
additional resources over and above those of the World Heritage
Fund by means of a fund-raising policy; to develop the
educational aspects and create awareness of the values inherent
in World Heritage and the necessity for its safeguard; to
establish intersectoral partnerships within UNESCO and with its
decentralized structures and especially with local populations,
local NGOs and experts in the field;
4) to define and implement an effective project policy:
establish technological partnerships and involve the local
populations;
5) to orient promotional activities towards education in
World Heritage and its values, the activities at individual
sites, concerted activities in forthcoming major international
events as well as the celebrations for the 50th anniversaries of
the United Nations and UNESCO, and further develop audiovisual
and multimedia projects.
II. Two major lines of action:
1) to broaden intellectual reflection on the content and the
present scope of the concept of the heritage of humanity, the
symbolic and ethical values of World Heritage, and new attitudes
to nature and its relationships with humankind;
2) to define a more decentralized approach, especially by
the progressive establishment of several "small world heritage
centres", in the regions or sub-regions.
III. To undertake action in three directions:
1) centrifugal, to bring us closer to the sites and
humankind;
2) centripetal, to increase our information and benefit
from the knowledge and intellectual collaboration of
professionals of the scientific international community and the
great variety of world cultures;
3) transversal and transectoral within UNESCO, to make the
concept of world heritage an activating and federative force.
*[6]
V.3 The Delegate of Thailand congratulated the Centre for
the quality and innovative nature of this approach. He asked if
UNESCO's Regular Programme budget would be able to provide
additional human and financial resources to implement this
project, especially for the increased activity foreseen from the
regional world heritage centres. He stressed that the sites of
South-East Asia were under-represented in the present List,
especially those of Hindu and Buddhist cultures. He also
enquired whether the fund-raising policy would be implemented by
a professional in this field on a permanent basis within the
World Heritage Centre or by other means, and whether, to improve
the living conditions of the people living near the sites and
associate them with the safeguard, the States Parties would be
involved with the management of the funds in question.
V.4 Concerning the first point, the Director of the Centre
replied that the plan must be realistic and provide the necessary
means to implement it. The Director-General of UNESCO has
already given substantial support to the World Heritage Centre
since the Committee's seventeenth session in Cartagena.
V.5 With regard to the two other points, the Director of
the Centre cited terse articles of the Convention (Arts. 17, 18
and 28) which indicate that the States Parties would encourage
the creation of fund-raising agencies. This was not yet the case
everywhere and should be encouraged, as it would permit the
decentralised management of the funds obtained to preserve the
monuments, create better living conditions for local populations,
and help them become more involved in conservation; at the same
time it would give a humanitarian dimension to our action,
especially in city centres, where the problems of poverty were
an obstacle to conservation. The problem of education and
schools in these areas would be especially important. Finally,
as a working hypothesis, if a marketing infrastructure closely
related to the Centre was to be envisaged, it would be essential
to respect the concerns and cultures of the State Party concerned
and work together.
V.6 The Representative of IUCN stressed that, in his
opinion, the document seemed to refer especially to the cultural
heritage in stating that the world heritage was already largely
identified, but this was not at all the case with the natural
heritage in many regions of the world. The Director replied that
in fact it was especially the European cultural heritage which
has bean largely identified, and that the select group of experts
on global strategy had indicated that much cultural property
situated outside of Europe or belonging to certain categories,
or dating from certain periods, had not yet been identified.
V.7 The Representative of ICOMOS also congratulated the
Centre for the document's intellectual quality and precision, and
endorsed the dynamic approach and intellectual development
towards greater anthropological and global understanding of the
heritage of humanity and the relationships between nature and
humankind.
*[7]
He made five observations:
1) the "quantitative" aspect of the work should not be
under-estimated, because many properties still remained to be
identified and inscribed:
2) the rhythm of implementation should be respected, because
the improvement of the procedure proposed by the document would
increase the complexity of the work and call for greater
reflection;
3) that which concerned the World Heritage in danger should
be developed in a specific manner;
4) promotion should be the responsibility of the Centre
together with the State Party concerned. But care must be taken
not to neglect States Parties' "national" heritage not inscribed
on the List:
5) if the heritage of the countries of the South was under-
represented, it was due also to the lack of human and financial
resources to identify this heritage, propose it for inscription,
and then protect it. This point, and the development of
international solidarity that it called for, must also be
highlighted in this document.
V.8 The Representative of Senegal also congratulated the
Centre for the quality of the document and made two remarks:
- the "quantitative" should not be neglected;
- a cost study should be made of the possibilities for
partnerships with States Parties which could provide facilities
and personnel for "Regional World Heritage Centres". The Centre
should also contact different bodies, such as the European
Development Bank which could help finance projects.
VI. THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST
VI.1 The Secretariat introduced the working documents that
were prepared for this Bureau session:
- working document WHC-94/CONF.001/3a on the methodology of
systematic monitoring with its Addendum 3a.Add.1 which
provided a progress report on the implementation of the
decisions of the World Heritage Committee regarding the
methodology of systematic monitoring;
- working document WHC-94/CONF.001/3b which included state
of conservation reports on specific natural and cultural
properties. Four addendums to this document were presented
to the Bureau as follows:
- 3b.Add.1: reports on the state of conservation of natural
properties prepared by IUCN
*[8]
- 3b.Add.2: reports on the state of conservation of
cultural properties prepared by ICOMOS
- 3b.Add.3: reports on six cultural properties prepared by
the Coordinator of the '100 historical sites'
Programme for the Mediterranean (MAP/UNEP)
- 3b.Add.4: report on safeguarding the three principal
mosques of Timbuktu, Mali.
A. THE METHODOLOGY OF SYSTEMATIC MONITORING
VI.2 The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its
seventeenth session in December 1993 reviewed the recommendations
made by an expert meeting that was held in November 1993 in
Cambridge in order to define the concept and framework of
systematic monitoring. At that occasion the Committee endorsed
the view that three types of monitoring can be distinguished:
- systematic monitoring: the continuous process of monitoring the
conditions of World Heritage sites with periodic reporting on its
state of conservation,
- ad-hoc or reactive monitoring: the reporting by the Centre,
other sectors of UNESCO and the advisory bodies to the Bureau and
the Committee on the state of conservation of specific World
Heritage sites that are under threat, and
- administrative monitoring: follow-up actions by the World
Heritage Centre to ensure the implementation of recommendations
and decisions of the World Heritage Committee and Bureau at the
time of inscription or at a later date.
VI.3 The Committee also endorsed the view that, in the
spirit of the Convention, it is the prime responsibility of the
States Parties to put in place on-site monitoring arrangements
as an integral component of day-to-day conservation and
management of the site, but that at the same time, it is
essential that external and independent professional advisers are
involved in a periodic reporting system.
VI.4 The Committee at its seventeenth session invited the
Secretariat to develop concrete proposals for systematic
monitoring, to report on the progress to the Bureau and to
present final proposals, including a draft text on monitoring for
inclusion in the Operational Guidelines, to the eighteenth
session of the Committee.
VI.5 The Secretariat introduced a detailed outline of
systematic monitoring (see Annex III) which had been developed
in collaboration with the advisory bodies and independent experts
and which incorporates two complementary elements, both of which
are thought to be indispensable for a credible and successful
monitoring and reporting system.
VI.6 The first is the systematic and repeated observation
of the conditions of a site and its periodic reporting - with
*[9]
external advice - to the World Heritage Committee. These
activities are generally being understood to be the prime
responsibility of the States Parties and the agency with
management authority and require the commitment of the States
Parties on all levels.
VI.7 The second element is the Committee's strategy towards
systematic monitoring which would be characterized by a regional
approach and the involvement of regional agencies and other
channels to provide external advice and assistance to the States
Parties in setting up appropriate management and monitoring
structures and in preparing the periodic state of conservation
reports.
VI.8 In order to create a practical system of monitoring,
it was proposed that a new nomination form be established which
would provide, at the time of nomination and inscription of a
property, a sound baseline information and at the same time would
serve as a model for the reporting, on the basis of a five-year
cycle, to the Committee.
VI.9 Such an integral monitoring system would involve the
following actions:
1) Monitoring, the continuous observation of the
conditions of the site, is (to be) incorporated
in the day-to-day management of the site,
resulting in annual reports to be prepared by the
site manager or management authority.
2) Parallel to inviting the States Parties to put
monitoring and reporting systems in place, the
Committee instructs the Secretariat to initiate
regional monitoring programmes.
3) The Secretariat establishes a workplan for
worldwide and regional monitoring programmes and
identifies the most appropriate partner(s) for
monitoring in each of the regions, who will serve
as the regional focal point for monitoring.
4) In the context of these regional programmes, the
Centre establishes contacts with States Parties,
site-managers and other possible participants and
defines jointly with them the most appropriate
regional monitoring strategy. If necessary,
regional seminars will be held to initiate the
monitoring process.
5) 5-year state of conservation reports will be
prepared by the States Parties with the
involvement of the site-manager/management
authority and an external partner, preferably in
the context of the regional monitoring programmes
that will be set up by the Secretariat.
*[10]
6) Upon request and in line with the decisions of
the World Heritage Committee, the Centre provides
assistance and external advice to the States
Parties and the site-manager on management
practices and collaborates in the preparation of
the 5-year state of conservation reports.
7) The State Party will present the 5-year reports
to the Secretariat.
8) The Secretariat will collect the 5-year reports,
verify their contents and prepare with the help
of its decentralized regional structure Regional
State of the World Heritage Reports for
presentation to the World Heritage Committee. The
first of these reports will be presented to the
World Heritage Committee at its eighteenth
session: the State of the cultural World Heritage
in Latin America and the Caribbean, which will be
the result of the UNDP / UNESCO Latin American
Monitoring Programme. Regional monitoring
programmes will be launched in the coming years
for Asia, Africa, Europe and the Arab States.
Once the monitoring system is properly launched,
the Committee would review every year the report
on one specific region.
9) On the basis of these reports, the World Heritage
Committee will, if appropriate, make specific
recommendations to the State Party on actions to
be taken. Decision-making regarding regional or
national World Heritage policies and activities
and regarding requests for technical cooperation
will equally be basad on those reports.
VI.10 The Delegates of Spain and Thailand as well as the
representatives of the advisory bodies expressed their
appreciation of the proposals made by the Centre and stressed the
need to put a monitoring system in place. The Delegate of
Thailand expressed two concerns: the system should be
sufficiently flexible, but at the same time allow for comparison
of the results of the monitoring and reporting system in
different countries and regions; and the processing of the great
number of site, country and regional reports should be secured
as well as making them accessible to the States Parties and other
World Heritage partners.
VI.11 The Delegate from China emphasized the important role
of the States Parties and national and local experts in the
monitoring process. The full involvement of these partners would
be a pre-requisite for communication and a better understanding
of local and national knowledge, practices and techniques and
establish a real dialogue between all World Heritage partners.
*[11]
VI.12 The Representative of ICOMOS confirmed that his
Organization is prepared to further collaborate with the
Secretariat in coordinating monitoring programmes and initiatives
and called for further discussion of the proposals with the
States Parties, site managers and other partners. He made
specific mention of ICOMOS' involvement in national and regional
monitoring programmes in the United Kingdom, Sri Lanka and Asia
and stressed that these should be seen as a contribution to the
development of the global monitoring strategy and that some of
the elements of the proposed systematic monitoring methodology
would be tested in the field.
VI.13 He also called for the need for a more global
assessment of the implementation of the World Heritage Convention
in the States Parties, e. g. national heritage legislation,
institutional structures, training facilities.
VI.14 The Representative of IUCN, while agreeing with the 5-
year reporting system and the revision of the nomination form,
emphasized the continued need for reactive monitoring and
referred particularly to the Operational Guidelines where a
particular role for IUCN is indicated. He also expressed his
disappointment that the twenty-year in-depth review, the so-
called 'sunset clause', which had been recommended on various
occasions, was not included in the proposals. The general feeling
of the delegates and the Secretariat was that this is a delicate
legal matter which should be looked at in the context of the
Convention, but that, in fact the proposed monitoring and
reporting system implies every five years an in-depth assessment
of the World Heritage values of the inscribed sites.
VI.15 A discussion developed on the most appropriate
terminology for monitoring and reporting. The Secretariat will
lock again into this matter in the context of the further
development of the proposals.
VI.16 The Director of the Centre confirmed the important role
of the advisory bodies in monitoring and reporting and in the
overall implementation of the Convention and thanked them for
their commitment and involvement in all aspects of World Heritage
work. He invited them to further collaborate in the refinement
of the proposals for monitoring and to coordinate monitoring
activities in the different regions of the world. The Director
also recognized that difficulties might arise in setting up the
regional monitoring programmes and in handling and processing the
continuous flow of information. He was confident, however, that
the regional approach would be an adequate response and proposed,
now that the pilot programme in Latin America is coming to an
end, to develop, for presentation to the eighteenth session of
the Committee, a regional monitoring plan for Asia, making full
use of the already existing and well-staffed UNESCO structure and
the specific capacities of the advisory bodies in that region.
VI.17 The Bureau requested the Centre, in collaboration with
other World Heritage partners, to consider the observations made
by the Bureau, to revise the proposals accordingly, to enter into
*[12]
consultation with States Parties and site-managers at the
occasion of regional and national World Heritage activities and
seminars, and to prepare final proposals, including a text for
inclusion in the Operational Guidelines for presentation to the
eighteenth session of the World Heritage Committee.
B. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
VI.18 The Bureau noted that the recommendations and
observations made by the Committee at its seventeenth session,
in Cartagena, Colombia, in December 1993, had been transmitted,
when appropriate, to the States Parties concerned and expressed
its satisfaction that, in many cases, a positive response was
received from the States Parties.
VI.19 The Bureau noted also with satisfaction that an
increased number of States Parties had taken the initiative to
present state of conservation reports on the World Heritage
properties on their territories. Reference was made particularly
to reports that had been presented or announced by Bulgaria,
Mexico, Norway and the Nordic Countries, Portugal and the United
Kingdom. The Bureau took note of these reports and commended the
States Parties' commitment to the preservation of the sites and
the reporting thereon to the Bureau and the Committee.
VI.20 As to (sub)regional monitoring programmes, the Bureau
noted that the Latin American pilot monitoring programme will be
concluded by the end of this year and that a Regional State of
the Cultural World Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean
will be presented to the eighteenth session of the World Heritage
Committee. The Bureau also took note of the UNEP Action Plan for
the Mediterranean which provides technical advice to a hundred
historical sites in the Mediterranean basin. The Coordinator of
this Action Plan provided the Bureau with detailed information
on six of these sites.
VI.21 The Bureau examined the working documents for this
agenda item, as well as additional information received from the
Secretariat, the advisory bodies and representatives of States
Parties to the Convention. The Bureau reviewed the state of
conservation of a great number of natural and cultural properties
on the World Heritage List and on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
Natural Properties
Natural Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed in 1983 and
placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992.
Furthermore, it noted that considerable discussion had taken
place both at the Committee and it's Bureau sessions regarding
the possible desisting of the site, and that IUCN reports on the
*[13]
status of the site indicating the degradation of its natural
values have been reviewed continuously since December 1991.
Furthermore, a report by wetland experts from the United States
National Park Service indicate that major effort is required to
restore the site. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the
Bulgarian Ministry for the Environment presented a report on
restoration efforts by the Bulgarian authorities from 1992 to
1994, including an extension from 600 to 902 ha, the elaboration
of an hydraulic system for Srebarna Lake and to review the re-
establishment of the links between the Lake and the Danube.
The Bureau took note of the report and commended the authorities
for their efforts. It decided, however, that the site should be
continuously monitored and that a detailed report on the site
should be given to the nineteenth session of the Bureau in 1995.
It was recommended that on behalf of the Bureau, the World
Heritage Centre should write to the appropriate authorities
stressing the need for maintaining a research/monitoring station
at Srebarna.
Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed in 1983 and added
to the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 due to threats
from poaching and a road construction. A field mission was
carried out in 1993 and a report was submitted to the seventeenth
session of the World Heritage Committee in December 1993. A
short up-date report has been provided by the IUCN Office in
Ecuador, indicating major restructuring of the park
administration and a reduction of personnel. Furthermore, the
Macas-Guamote road construction is progressing with no attention
being paid to the conditions of the inter-institutional
agreement. The Bureau decided to request the Centre to prepare
two letters, one to be signed by the Director-General of UNESCO
and the other by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee,
addressed to the Government of Ecuador, expressing the Bureau 's
above concerns.
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The Bureau took note that the Government of India finally
responded to the concerns of the World Heritage Committee and its
Bureau by letter dated 24 January 1994. However, the Bureau
showed continued concern with regard to the management of the
site, the increase in poaching and the continuous decline of this
World Heritage site in Danger. It therefore, endorsed
international assistance, if officially requested by the Indian
Government, and requested the Centre and IUCN to work closely
together with two non-governmental organizations, WWF-India and
the Swaminathan Foundation, to obtain a detailed monitoring
report on the state of conservation of the threatened site.
*[14]
Natural Properties on the World Heritage List
Shark Bay (Australia)
The Bureau was informed of a recent IUCN mission to the site
giving an account on (a) the implementation of the Commonwealth
and State Management Agreement which has been signed, but no
further action has been taken so far and (b) on the efforts to
achieve more effective conservation of the site, for which
improvements have been made.
The Bureau requested the Centre to write to the Australian
authorities informing them of its concerns and requesting that
an up-date on progress in implementing the Agreement be presented
to the next session of the Committee.
Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia)
The Bureau took note that several reports have been sent to the
Centre and Bureau members by the Wilderness Society concerning
Tasmania World Heritage site and the impact of logging operations
in areas adjacent to the current World Heritage area. By letter
of 22 March 1994, the Centre informed the Permanent Delegate of
Australia and requested a response from the Australian
authorities regarding this matter. The Observer from Australia
indicated that discussions between the Government and the State
of Tasmania are taking place at the moment. The Bureau requested
the Centre to follow-up and report back at its next session.
Willandra Lakes Region (Australia)
The Bureau was informed by IUCN of the first World Heritage
mission to this mixed site. The report indicated problems at the
site with landowner residents, aboriginal concerns as well as the
fact that no management plan has yet bean prepared. However, the
Commonwealth is taking up these issues and furthermore, a socio-
economic impact study is underway. IUCN suggested that all
authorities consider renominating the area under cultural
criteria and with a reduced boundary. The Observer of Australia
informed the Bureau that through the agreed management
arrangements for the site, a review of the boundaries is being
conducted by a Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee. The
results of this review will be conveyed to the World Heritage
Centre.
The Bureau took note of IUCN's suggestions that the Willandra
Lakes site be considered for a revised nomination based on
cultural criteria and that redefinition of the boundaries of the
site be considered. The World Heritage Centre was requested to
consult the Australian Government, ICOMOS, the International
Union of Geological Sciences and IUCN and to report back on the
findings to the Committee.
*[15]
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
The Bureau was informed that a fire broke out at Isabela Island
on 12 April 1994 and was discovered by a patrol boat of the
Galapagos National Park authorities. The fire combat was very
difficult, involving park personnel and both the army and the
navy. After one month the fire was under control, but 4,500 ha
were burnt. The giant tortoises are not at risk, but the
extinction danger remains. The authorities have received
emergency aid from the World Heritage Fund (US$ 50,000), UNESCO
(US$ 20,000) and several governments, NGOs and individual donors.
The Bureau took note of the report and recalled that the
extension of the marine reserve of the Galapagos Islands will be
discussed under the nomination section of this report.
Mount Athos (Greece)
The Bureau recalled that at its sixteenth session it noted
concern over increasing forestry activities at the site, however,
no mission was carried out. A recent report by WWF and the
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EPC) on the ecological
state of the site indicates serious threats, including
overgrazing, chemical pollution as well as a proposed hydrodam
construction. IUCN stressed the need for impact studies, a forest
management plan and a system of reserves. The Bureau took note
of the report and requested the Centre to write to the
appropriate authorities transmitting its concerns with regard to
the content of the afore-mentioned report. A report should be
requested from Greece for presentation to the eighteenth session
of the Committee.
Banc d'Arguin National Park (Mauritania)
The Bureau took note of the Centre's report on the Paris-Dakar
rally crossing the site, which had very little impact on the
ecological situation of the Park. IUCN reported on the plan to
capture six monk seals from the seal population of the park (100-
130) and move them to Antibes (Southern France) for captive
breeding. After some discussion on captive breeding experiences,
the Bureau requested that the propensity of the planned capture
operation be reported to the World Heritage Committee.
Te Wahipounamu (New Zealand)
The Bureau took note of the report by IUCN on the following
issues: (a) legal matters, in particular land claims and sacred
sites of the Maori people; (b) continued cattle grazing which has
an impact on the natural World Heritage values and should be
phased out, and (c) that the 1986 IUCN recommendation to include
the site of the coastal forest (Waitutu forest) in the World
Heritage area, was not taken up. Plans have been made by the
Maori owners to sell the land for logging operations.
*[16]
The Bureau requested the Centre to send a letter to the New
Zealand authorities transmitting the above concerns.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania)
The Bureau was again informed about the continuing illegal and
random cultivation at the site, and noted that no official
response had been received from the Tanzanian authorities,
although the Cultural Commissioner of Tanzania indicated that a
response would be sent to the Centre. The Bureau again expressed
its concern and asked the Centre to send a letter to the
authorities concerning the ongoing cultivation at site, and
requesting them to cooperate with the IUCN mission scheduled for
October 1994.
Thungyai Huai Eha Rhaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries (Thailand)
The Bureau was informed that a fire broke out at the site on 22
February 1994 in the buffer zone area and rapidly swept through
the site. A report by the Forest Fire Control and Rescue Division
of the Royal Forest Department in Bangkok indicated that fire
fighting was difficult, particularly in the mountain area of the
Sanctuary. It furthermore stated that the fire was completely
extinguished by 15 March 1994 and damage assessment revealed that
10,924 ha were burnt. The report noted that fire is a normal and
frequent occurrence at the site but generally it is not damaging.
The Bureau took note of the report and commended the Thai
authorities for submitting a detailed report which was
distributed at the Bureau session.
Yellowstone (United States of America)
The Delegate of the United States informed the Bureau about a
report concerning Yellowstone National Park, inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1978. The Park is faced with a proposed
mining project of a gold mine two miles north of the northeast
boundary of the site. The area concerned is both public and
private with 20% under the administration of the US Forest
Service. The mine would remove 56 acres of wetlands to build an
artificial lake and would call for construction of access roads
and housing for the workers. The economic value of the project
is estimated at US, 1 billion in recoverable gold, silver and
copper. The mine sits at the head of three drainages, one of
which, Soda Butte Creek, flows into the National Park. Thus,
potential threats would be the degradation of surface and ground
water, the changes in water quantity, as well as the displacement
of wildlife and other disturbances. The Delegate underlined that
the United States will keep the Committee and its Bureau informed
about further developments. The Observer from Canada stressed
that the Canadian Government will check about direct or indirect
Government-support for the parent company of the proposed mine.
*[17]
Mana Pools National Park, Sapi and Chowere Safari Areas
(Zimbabwe)
The Bureau was informed that the property was one of the most
important black rhino refuges at the date of inscription with a
population of 500. The ten remaining rhinos are being captured
and translocated for intensive protection. The site has never
received assistance from the World Heritage Fund to control
poaching.
The Bureau raised concern about this loss of one of the World
Heritage values of the site, and asked the Centre to work closely
together with CITES and IUCN to determine the lessons learned
from this unfortunate experience. This specific case could be
used to coordinate efforts by the World Heritage Convention and
the CITES Convention Secretariats.
Cultural Properties
Cultural Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Angkor (Cambodia)
Mr. Mounir Bouchenaki, Director of the Division of Physical
Heritage, recalled the recommendations made by the Committee at
the time of the inscription of the Angkor site on the World
Heritage List in December 1992, and informed the Bureau of the
latest action taken by the Director-General of UNESCO for the
safeguard of Angkor. The Director-General decided to give
additional support to the UNESCO Office in Cambodia, by assigning
Mr. Khamliène Nhouyvanisvong, former Acting Assistant Director-
General for External Relations, to the post of Director of this
Office, and also naming him Personal Representative of the
Director-General. Mr. Richard Engelhardt was called upon to
undertake new functions at UNESCO' s Regional Office for Asia and
the Pacific in Bangkok, as Regional Advisor for Culture. Mr.
Bouchenaki also informed the Bureau of the nomination of Mr.
Azedine Beschaouch to the post of Special Advisor to the
Assistant Director-General for Culture. However, Mr. Beschaouch
will continue to monitor the technical work for the safeguard of
Angkor in his capacity of Special Representative of the Director-
General.
Mrs. Minja Yang, who is responsible for the intersectoral
programmes for Cambodia and Chief of the Angkor Unit, was invited
to present the latest developments of the Zoning and
Environmental Management Plan (ZEMP). Mrs. Yang defined the
categories for the protection of the cultural sites which serve
as a basis for establishing the different zones at Angkor: i)
monumental sites; ii) protected archaeological reserves; iii)
protected cultural landscapes; iv) archaeological,
anthropological and historical points of interest. She stressed
the importance of taking into consideration the sociological,
touristic and economic aspects, with a view to integrated
sustainable develoPment in the region of Angkor.
*[18]
As complementary information on the zoning of the Angkor site,
Mr. Beschaouch presented the conclusions of his recent mission
to Cambodia. He stressed the fact that the International
Coordinating Committee for the Safeguarding and Development of
Angkor, which had been created during the Intergovernmental
Conference of Tokyo, and is co-chaired by France and Japan with
UNESCO ensuring the secretariat, had strictly observed the
recommendations of the World Heritage Committee. In this regard,
on the basis of proposals made by the "ZEMP", the Royal
Government of Cambodia, by a decree dated 4 June 1944 relating
especially to the zoning and management of the Angkor site,
defined a zone of safeguard, the total area of which (including
Angkor, Banteay Srei and Roluos) covers an area of 401 square
kilometers. Mr. Beschaouch added that, during the next
parliamentary session of the Kingdom of Cambodia, two legislative
texts relating to the protection of cultural property and the
administration of the Angkor site should be submitted for
examination to the National Assembly. He stressed the exemplary
effort of the Kingdom of Cambodia to set up a legal, legislative,
technical and administrative structure for the integrated
safeguarding of the site of Angkor.
Following this report, the Representative of ICOMOS expressed
satisfaction with the action undertaken during the last eighteen
months for the safeguarding of the site of Angkor and
congratulated the UNESCO Secretariat for its work. The Delegate
of Thailand proposed that a letter of congratulations be sent to
the Royal Government of Cambodia. The Delegate of Senegal, after
congratulating Mr. Beschaouch for his nomination at UNESCO,
endorsed that initiative.
The Bureau approved this proposal.
As complementary information, Mr. Beschaouch stressed the volume
and quality of the work undertaken by the French and Japanese
teams at Angkor. He indicated that the "WMF" had proposed, in
agreement with the Royal Government of Cambodia, to develop and
diversify its action. Finally, as concerns the database produced
with the "Integraph" software in the framework of the "GIS"
programme, he draw attention to the interest in converting this
data to the "SPANS" base, thanks especially to the collaboration
of "Parks Canada".
Timbuktu (Mali)
The three mosques of Djingareiber, Sankore and Sidi Yahia were
placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1990. These
properties are threatened by obvious, precise and imminent
dangers:
a) serious alteration of the mud construction materials
b) serious alteration of the structures
c) the climatic factor of desertification.
*[19]
The Bureau was informed of the content of the report, produced
in French, concerning the state of conservation of the three
mosques, by the UNESCO consultant. In 1990, this consultant
elaborated the proposal for the placing of the mosques on the
List of World Heritage in Danger, and in his present report he
noted that the situation was more or less the same as in 1990 and
that the mosques remained threatened by the dangers which were
identified at that time. The consultant also highlighted the
threats to the mosques during the annual maintenance work. This
work, which is coordinated by the religious authorities in
consultation with the management committees and the masons
attached to each mosque, is organized by means of an appeal for
donations of material and voluntary labour. The voluntary system
in force contributes to the rapid degradation of traditional
technology. The poor quality of the mud construction materials
("banco") prepared and applied each year by inexpert hands causes
water infiltration and attack by micro-organisms, and this
attempt at creating a protective coating for the building also
tends to weaken its structure.
The report recommends a method of intervention involving the
local population which, since the construction of the mosques,
has been responsible for their upkeep, thus perpetuating a living
religious culture. This method foresees the organization of a
pilot work site in a restricted zone of each mosque, to be
implemented in three stages:
1) preparation of a documented study recording all the stages
of the annual maintenance work, so as to clearly determine the
organization of the voluntary work sites;
2) identification, together with specialists, of the
appropriate additives and stabilisers for the "banco" of
Timbuktu:
3) organization of a pilot work site which should be entrusted
to a Mali architect assisted by municipal technicians. The
architect would also have the responsibility for defining a long-
term conservation programme taking account of the local
realities, whilst respecting and improving traditional
techniques.
The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to ask the Mali
authorities to prepare a report to be submitted to the eighteenth
session of the Committee, concerning follow-up action with regard
to the report of the UNESCO consultant. Considering the grave
situation of the city where insecurity abounds, and which is
threatened by the advance of the dunes, the World Heritage Centre
should define, together with the Mali authorities, appropriate
cooperative action to meet this situation.
Wieliczka Salt Mine (Poland)
During its present session, the Secretariat informed the Bureau
that this site, inscribed in 1978, continued to be threatened by
frequent floods. However, thanks to financial assistance from
*[20]
the European Union, the Polish authorities have at their disposal
the necessary pumping material to maintain a satisfactory level
of salubrity of the historic part of the mine.
Furthermore, Bureau members were informed that in 1991 the Polish
authorities prepared a humidity-level study, and that in 1993 the
data collected was examined during a seminar held in the United
States, which was attended by two Polish experts, thanks to
assistance from the World Heritage Fund. The seminar drew up
recommendations for the long-term conservation strategy of the
mine.
This strategy includes a project for ventilation and
dehumidification for which the purchase of equipment amounting
to US$ 156,000 is necessary. In the coming months, the Polish
authorities may present a request for technical cooperation from
the World Heritage Fund for partial financial support for the
purchase of this equipment.
The Bureau took note of this information with satisfaction, and
the World Heritage Centre will be kept informed of the different
stages of this project.
Cultural properties on the World Heritage List
Butrinti (Albania)
The Coordinator of the MAP/UNEP "100 historical sites" programme
presented this archaeological site inscribed in 1992, which is
immerged below 1.50m of water due to subsidence. However, the
maintenance work there is being carried out in a satisfactory
manner by the Archaeological Institute of the Department of
Antiquities, in spite of the lack of human and financial
resources. The Bureau was informed of the wish of the Albanian
authorities to create a natural and cultural archaeological park.
To accomplish this, the Hydrology Institute of Tirana has
prepared a study in order to identify the causes of subsidence.
Consequently, the Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to
write to the Albanian authorities requesting information on the
following:
- specific legislation for the site
- results of the study prepared by the Hydrology
Institute
- progress made in the programme for the protection and
management of the site;
- the advisability of setting up a committee of
international experts to work together with the
archaeological missions working at the site.
The World Heritage Centre will transmit this information, if
received, to the Committee.
*[21]
Great Wall; Imperial Palace of the Ming and Qing Dynasties;
Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor; Mogao Caves; Peking Man Site
at Zhoukoudian (China)
The Bureau was informed about the results of a World Heritage
Centre monitoring mission to the existing five cultural World
Heritage Sites in China, namely the Great Wall, the Imperial
Palace of the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the Mausoleum of the First
Qin Emperor, the Mogao Caves and the Peking Man Site at
Zhoukoudian. The mission had been generally impressed with the
standard of maintenance of Chinese World Heritage sites and the
professionalism of the staff responsible for them. Nevertheless,
the mission had been able to raise specific technical issues with
the State Bureau of Cultural Relics and other responsible
authorities in China, in particular the need for training in
techniques for the conservation of ruined stonework, the
conservation of earthen structures, the conservation of marble,
new jointing techniques for timber conservation, the conservation
of wall paintings, computer-assisted recording of standing
monuments and geophysical archaeological recording techniques.
The mission had pointed out that monitoring was a two-way process
and that the representatives of the state party whose sites were
being monitored could often provide invaluable technical
information which was relevant to World Heritage sites in other
countries. With regard to the management of World Heritage sites
in China, the report dealt with tourist facilities, visitor
pressures and intrusive structures in the World Heritage sites,
a number of them erected since inscription.
The Representative of China expressed his thanks for the work of
the mission and explained that a number of the technical points
raised by the mission had also bean matters of concern for
Chinese experts, about which the State Bureau of Cultural Relics
was already in contact with provincial and other responsible
authorities. China was attempting to ensure that conservation
work conformed to accepted international standards. He said that
cultural heritage was of increasing public interest in China,
which made the work of the mission particularly useful. He
welcomed the fact that the mission had been able to clear up a
number of misunderstandings about plans for the Mogao Caves, for
which there had bean concern both within and without China. He
locked forward to the results of the mission being made available
in the form of a written report.
In response to a request made by the Representative of Thailand,
the Director of the World Heritage Centre stated that he would
liaise with the Chinese authorities and the members of the
mission in the hope that its results could be made available in
time for the next meeting of the Bureau. He looked forward to
a follow up in the form of further liaison between the Centre and
the Chinese authorities and reported that he had already received
requests for technical assistance in connection with the training
needs identified by the mission.
*[22]
Roman and Romanesque Monuments of Arles (France)
The MAP/UNEP Coordinator of the "100 historical sites" Programme
emphasized the exemplary character of the conservation measures.
He reported on the considerable financial support from the
Municipality, and he briefly outlined the "Safeguard Plan for the
Enhancement of the Safeguarded Sector of Arles". He also
mentioned the plan for preventive action to combat atmospheric
pollution to conserve the Primatiale Saint-Trophime. This
project, partially financed by the World Monument Fund, has
elaborated a 24-hour surveillance system which can detect and
forecast atmospheric changes.
The Observer of Germany expressed his satisfaction with the work
accomplished, and suggested that the French and German
specialists involved in the conservation of the stone could
exchange their observations and experiences.
The Bureau noted with satisfaction of the considerable efforts
undertaken by the State and the Municipality, and reiterated
their exemplary character.
Hanseatic City of Lubeck (Germany)
The Bureau was informed of the outcome of an ICOMOS mission which
visited Lubeck in May 1994 to discuss problems arising from the
development plans for the city centre. The Bureau recommended
that the authorities in Lubeck be encouraged to revise its
heritage protection legislation so as to allow sufficient time
for the proper investigation of the city's rich archaeological
heritage and to implement measures to make the important
archaeological and artistic discoveries accessible to the general
public. It also recommended that the authorities should seek the
assistance of an experienced international planning consultancy
in the preparation of an integrated development strategy which
reconciles the competing objectives of heritage conservation,
tourism and economic growth.
Delos (Greece)
This archaeological site, inscribed in 1990 and excavated since
the 19th century, continues to suffer from violent winds, high
humidity and the sea. Conservation work has not bean carried out
systematically after each excavation campaign, and the site
museum is too small. Moreover, the personnel responsible for the
surveillance of the site appear to be insufficient. Furthermore,
it seems that pastures close to the archaeological site have bean
rented to the Municipality of Myknos for grazing land.
*[23]
The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to ask the Greek
authorities for precise information on the possibility of a
concession of grazing land close to the-archaeological site, and
the action they would be obliged to take to ensure the
conservation of Delos.
Pythagoreion and Heraion of Samos (Greece)
This site, which was inscribed in 1992, is threatened by the
expansion of activities linked with tourism. The avenues and
surrounding area of the archaeological site are threatened by
urbanism and the construction of hotel complexes. Moreover, the
archaeological site is subject to vibrations from the nearby
airport which now accommodates large carriers, and for which an
extension is planned.
The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to request the
Greek authorities to ensure that the Antiquities Law is strictly
observed, so as to limit threats weighing on the site due to
tourist development activities and notably the construction of
hotels in the zone of Pythagoreion. In view of the danger caused
by increased air traffic, the authorities should be requested to
halt possible plans to extend the airport and preferably to
identify a more appropriate site.
Piazza del Duomo, Pisa (Italy)
This site was inscribed in 1987. The MAP/UNEP Coordinator of the
100 historical sites" Programme informed the Bureau that the
Technical and Scientific Committee created in 1988 and which was
responsible for evaluating the security of the Tower of Pisa, did
remarkable work. A series of enquiries, measures and studies
were undertaken to obtain information on all the physico-
mechanical characteristics of the substratum, and to make various
hypotheses of structural evolution. The intervention approved
by the Technical Committee in the spring of 1992 necessitated the
development of a numerical model of finite elements of the
substratum and the structure. The Committee retained the
solution to reduce the inclination of the tower by 1/2 degree.
The Bureau noted with satisfaction this information.
Pétra (Jordan)
The Bureau expressed concern following the report presenting the
different threats to the integrity of the site of Pétra,
especially with regard to:
24
1) the serious impact of some ten new hotels planned or
under construction, both on the visitor capacity of the site,
their visibility from the site and the disproportion of several
of them in relation to the village habitations, the destruction
of archaeological vestiges which they cause, pollution and soil
erosion;
2) the negative impact of the pumping station planned for
Wadi Musa and its new hotels;
3) the risks caused to the site by projects for the
development of residential zones such as those included in the
master plan of Wadi Musa, as well as the absence of building
specifications and building height restrictions;
4) the necessity of applying existing legislation governing
businesses, especially in the proximity of the monuments of the site;
5) the necessity of ensuring proper conservation of the
vestiges of the Temple of the Lion and the sculptured blocks
scattered throughout the site.
The Bureau agreed to a contribution from the World Heritage Fund
to organize, together with the Jordanian authorities, a select
meeting of experts at the site to implement the master plan of
the site of Pétra as quickly as possible, and to take the
necessary measures to ensure by all possible means the
preservation of the values of the site.
Quseir Amra (Jordan)
The Bureau expressed concern with the lack of general maintenance
of the site, especially the lack of permanent and effective
surveillance. It requested the World Heritage Centre to request
the Jordanian authorities to take the necessary measures to
ensure the satisfactory maintenance and management of the site.
World Heritage sites in Mexico
The Observer of Mexico informed the Bureau that the Mexican
National Institute for Anthropology and History (INAH) prepared
state of conservation reports on the ten cultural and natural
sites that were inscribed on the World Heritage List until 1992.
He emphasized that Mexico has taken this initiative as it feels
that it is an integral element of the implementation of the World
Heritage Convention in the country and that it is one of the
obligations of the States Parties to the Convention to report on
the state of conservation of the sites and on the actions taken
by them to ensure their adequate protection and conservation. The
Observer announced that the report is now available in Spanish
and that a translation into English and/or French is forthcoming.
The Bureau thanked the Mexican authorities for this initiative
and requested the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to evaluate
the report for presentation to the eighteenth session of the
World Heritage Committee.
*[25]
Puebla (Mexico)
The Bureau recalled that the case of Puebla was briefly discussed
at the seventeenth session of the Committee. The Secretariat
informed the Bureau that since then, it continued to receive
letters and reports from individuals, associations and
organizations on the rehabilitation plan for Puebla, particularly
the so-called Rio San Francisco area.
A report was received on 28 March 1994 from the Mexican National
Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) that a regional
development programme called ANGELOPOLIS is in preparation for
an area of the State of Puebla including 14 municipalities and
35% of the population of the State of Puebla. It also reported
that in the context of this regional development plan an urban
rehabilitation project is planned for the Rio San Francisco area
in Puebla which would include the development of a pedestrian
area and the construction of hotels, a convention centre and
commercial areas. The report re-affirmed the statement made by
the Delegate of Mexico at the seventeenth session of the
Committee, namely that to date no concrete proposals exist for
the area concerned. It confirmed, however, that the proposal in
Puebla would concern 27 of the 391 building blocks within the
World Heritage site. The report stressed that the National
Institute would create a special commission to evaluate future
projects for this area.
The Bureau was also informed that the Director-General of UNESCO
decided, at the request of the Governor of Puebla, to send an
expert to Puebla to advise the municipal and state authorities
on the rehabilitation plans. This mission was undertaken in early
June by an architect/urbanist from the University of Venice.
The draft mission report, which was received only a few days
before the Bureau session and which includes an analysis of the
urban structure and morphology of the historic centre of Puebla,
concludes that the projected intervention would be valid in the
sense that it would upgrade an area now partially abandoned and
would re-establish the visual and functional links between the
eastern and the western parts of the centre, but that the
structure and morphology of the area should be maintained and
reinforced, and should form the basis for future plans.
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that as a follow-up to the
mission a request for technical assistance had been presented by
the Government of Mexico to obtain the services of the expert who
undertook the mission, for advice and guidance in the further
development of the plans.
The Representative of ICOMOS informed the Bureau that it also had
tried to examine the situation in Puebla through its national
committee, but that it had not succeeded. He offered, however,
ICOMOS' services and expertise in the evaluation of the expert
mission report and the information received from the Mexican
authorities.
*[26]
The Bureau decided that at this point it could not form a clear
opinion on the plans for Puebla and requested the World Heritage
Centre and ICOMOS to evaluate the reports and to report in more
detail to the eighteenth session of the Committee.
Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
The current state of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site had
been the cause of apprehension since 1992 and had already
appeared on the agenda of a number of meetings of the Bureau and
of the World Heritage Committee. The Bureau was informed of the
conclusions of the joint UNESCO/ICOMOS Review Mission of 14-30
November 1993, which had recommended that the site be placed on
the List of World Heritage in Danger and returned to the World
Heritage List within a period of one to three years, after
sixteen specific matters of concern had been met. It was
explained that the World Heritage site consists of seven distinct
monument zones, three of them urban, centered round the palaces
of the cities of Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur, and the
remainder, two Buddhist and two Hindu shrines, which had formerly
been in rural surroundings. The mission report had recommended
the effective desisting of parts of the Kathmandu Darbar Square
and Bauddhanath monument zones, following a general failure to
control development, but an extension of the monument zones of
Swayambunath, Patan and particularly Bhaktapur, which was now the
only Newari city to retain its overall traditional character.
It was pointed out that the Hindu shrine of Pashupati, although
part of the World Heritage site, had never been afforded the
protection of being gazetted as a protected monument area in
Nepalese law.
The mission report illustrated examples of demolition,
encroachment, traffic pressure, the unsympathetic introduction
of modern services and conservation practices which did not
conform to accepted international standards. UNESCO had
undertaken a number of initiatives, including plans for technical
training and an advisory mission on amendments to the Nepalese
Ancient Monuments Preservation Act. ICOMOS had plans for a
professional seminar in October 1994.
The Representative of Thailand stated that it was important to
judge the degree to which the site had deteriorated and whether
it was now worthy of being included in the World Heritage List.
The Nepalese State Party should be made aware of the Bureau' s
concerns and informed that, if the situation was not remedied,
steps to delist the site would be initiated. He suggested that,
rather than desisting part of the monument zones, that the State
Party should be asked to redefine the areas which constitute the
World Heritage site. The Representative of the United States
concurred in these sentiments. The German Observer highlighted
the importance of concentrating efforts on the core areas, where
the best results could be achieved, rather than on peripheral
areas which might still be part of the monument zones but in
which traditional buildings had since been demolished and
replaced with concrete-framed structures.
*[27]
ICOMOS argued that the matter was an extremely delicate one,
which could be approached from a number of standpoints. It would
be possible to suggest that in the spirit of the World Heritage
Convention, the site should be placed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger, but Nepalese opposition to such a move might
make it self-defeating. He emphasized that it was important to
do what was best for the site, which should be in cooperation
with the Nepalese authorities to try and resolve outstanding
difficulties. The Representative of Senegal also proposed a new
approach which would enable the Nepalese to be more protective
towards the World Heritage Site and argued that the State Party
should be made fully aware of the Bureau 's concerns with regard
to violations of the articles of the World Heritage Convention.
The Director of the Centre endorsed the idea of redefinition of
the monument zones but proposed that, rather than the site being
placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, it would be more
constructive if a package of assistance to the Nepalese could be
developed which would enable them to act as more effective
guardians of the World Heritage site in cooperation with UNESCO
and other relevant agencies. He would be contacting his
colleagues in the Division of Physical Heritage to develop more
concrete proposals.
The Chairperson summarized the discussion, to the effect that a
letter should be sent to the State Party expressing the Bureau' s
deep concern about the state of the Kathmandu Valley World
Heritage site. The Bureau recommends to the Committee to
envisage partial desisting and redefinition of the part still
intact and qualifying as World Heritage, which should be placed
on the List of World in Danger to bring particular attention to
the need to avoid further deterioration. At the same time,
UNESCO is asked to work out an international assistance project.
Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation)
The Bureau was informed of the considerable improvements for site
conservation and management in the two years since the initial
mission. These improvements were achieved with the support of
the Canadian Government. The Bureau noted with satisfaction that
ICOMOS will provide a detailed report to the Committee session
in December, including a long-term assessment of conservation
Problems at the site for the decade to come.
Island of Gorée (Senegal)
This property inscribed in 1978 was also the subject of an
International Campaign of UNESCO. The Coordinator of the
MAP/UNEP "100 historical sites" Programme presented the results
of the studies and restoration work carried out since 1965. The
evaluation would indicate that a number of buildings have been
preserved and conserved, however the island's problems of socio-
economic and development have yet to be resolved. Restoration
*[28]
work is no longer sufficient; the needs of the population struck
by unemployment must be considered. Actions to create employment
to allow the population to remain on the island need to be
promoted and coordinated with the National Committee for the
Safeguarding of Gorse. This action especially concerns:
- protection of the shores
- revision of the sanitation system
- improvement of the public lighting system
- development and repair of grounds and streets
- installation of an incinerator
- organization of a handicraft sector
- development of cultural activities, especially the possibility
of producing a "son et lumière" show, a spectacle which would be
presented during the entire tourist season.
The Bureau took note of this information, and of the numerous
supporting agencies (European Union, World Bank, France, Germany,
UNESCO etc.) which finance projects on the island.
Burgos Cathedral (Spain)
In December 1993, on the occasion of the seventeenth session of
the World Heritage Committee in Cartagena, it was reported that
information from local and national authorities in Spain
confirmed the setting-up of a multidisciplinary advisory council
(Building Committee) which had drafted a Master Plan setting out
the priorities for restoration and all other work on Burgos
Cathedral.
ICOMOS confirmed to the Bureau that the issue of coordinating
actions and respective roles with regard to the Cathedral have
now been solved. The Ministry of Culture, the Regional
Government of Castille and Leon, and the Chapter of the Cathedral
have signed an agreement for the implementation of emergency
restoration measures. It provides for the restoration of the
towers, spires, ridges, part of the altars, and the stained glass
windows, as well as the solving of problems caused by humidity.
The Bureau congratulated the various Spanish organizations
involved on the actions taken in the conservation of Burgos
Cathedral. At the same time, however, it expressed a desire to
see those components of the total project which are still under
negotiation put into effect with the minimum delay.
For its part, ICOMOS informed the Bureau that it will
continue, through its National Committee, to monitor the progress
of the project and will report further to later meetings of the
World Heritage Committee and Bureau, if needed.
Old City of Damascus (Syrian Arab Republic)
The Bureau was informed that, in accordance with the
recommendations of UNESCO's expert mission carried out in
*[29]
December 1993, a working meeting was held at Headquarters on 31
May 1994, with the Delegate of the Syrian Arab Republic to UNESCO
and the national authorities in charge of the conservation of the
cultural heritage.
A work plan for this site was thus prepared which will be
financed through the US$ 19,500 accorded by the Chairperson of
the World Heritage Committee in 1992. A technological
partnership has been set up by UNESCO with the Electricity of
France which will provide one or two experts in hydrogeology, and
thus make substantial savings. A contract for the use of the
balance of the US$ 19,500 is being prepared with the Syrian
Ministry of Culture. The Bureau noted with satisfaction the
progress made on this project.
Site of Palmyra (Syrian Arab Republic)
The Bureau was informed that, in accordance with the
recommendations of UNESCO' s expert mission carried out in
December 1993, a working meeting was held at Headquarters on 31
May 1994, with the Delegate of the Syrian Arab Republic to UNESCO
and the national authorities in charge of the conservation of the
cultural heritage.
The World Heritage Centre was thus informed that the Syrian
authorities are currently preparing a global project to safeguard
and develop the city of Palmyra, for which a contribution to the
national financial efforts will be requested from the Committee
at its eighteenth session in December 1994, inasmuch as all the
components of this global plan will have been defined. The
Bureau noted with satisfaction the progress made on this project.
Göreme National Park and the rock sites of Cappadocia (Turkey)
The Bureau was informed that the Proceedings of the International
Seminar on the Preservation of the Rock Churches of Göreme, which
was held at the site from 5 to 11 September 1993 with the support
of the World Heritage Fund, are currently under publication at
ICCROM, in close collaboration with the Turkish authorities in
charge of conservation. The World Heritage Fund provided US$
10,000 to finance this publication. The Bureau took note of this
information
Pueblo de Taos (United States of America)
The Delegate of the United States of America recalled that the
Committee at its seventeenth session expressed its concern about
plans for the extension of the Taos Airport, as this would pose
a potential threat to this World Heritage site.
The Delegate informed the Bureau that the National Park Service
has been in close and continuous consultations with Pueblo's
Governing Council, attorneys representing the Pueblo interests
*[30]
and with the responsible federal agency, (Federal Aviation
Administration), and that it is of the opinion that full
consultation and assessment procedures to evaluate effects on
historic structures, as required by Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, apply to this case. The National Park
Service has requested the status of a cooperating agency in the
environmental impact assessment. This request is pending a
decision. The National Park Service believes that this airport
project may have significant effects of noise and vibrations on
the historic, archaeological and architectural features of
Pueblo, and that the traditional living culture of the Pueblo may
also be impacted by the increased air traffic and associated
transportation and community development projects.
The Delegate informed the Bureau that the United States of
America will provide a more complete report to the next Committee
meeting.
Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites (United Kingdom)
This site which was inscribed in 1986 is threatened by the path
of the A303 motorway through the southern part of the site. At
the request of the Observer of the United Kingdom, a
communication prepared by the concerned authorities was brought
to the attention of the Bureau. Two proposals for the
organization of the site will be discussed on 8 July 1994 at a
meeting organized by The English Heritage and the National Trust,
in which the representatives of the Ministry of Transportation
and international experts will participate. The first foresees
the construction of a tunnel which would be dug under the site.
The second foresees the creation of an access bridge for visitors
at the eastern end of the site which would be linked to an
observation station on the top of the hill dominating Stonehenge.
The first option is by far the most costly.
The Bureau took note of this information and expressed the wish
that a satisfactory project could be undertaken as soon as
possible.
VI.22 Concluding the examination of the proposals for
systematic monitoring and the great number of site specific state
of conservation reports, several delegates noted the increased
number of state of conservation reports, which, if a systematic
monitoring programme would be set up, would increase even further
and require more time for discussion at the Bureau and Committee
sessions. They also noted the different approaches applied by the
Secretariat and the advisory bodies and suggested an improved and
advanced planning of monitoring missions and reports.
VI.23 Both IUCN and ICOMOS made the suggestion that the
ordinary session of the Bureau in July of each year concentrates
on the examination of the nominations for inscription on the
World Heritage List, and that the extraordinary session in
December would be dedicated to monitoring the state of
*[31]
conservation of the already inscribed World Heritage sites. The
Delegates of the United States of America and Thailand, however,
pointed out that the Bureau 's recommendations on specific sites
may also be required at the July session and that these, in many
cases, have a decisive influence in the decision-making process.
It was concluded that those cases on which a recommendation from
the Bureau is required, would also be brought forward to the July
session, but that information and 'success stories' would be
presented to the December session of the Bureau and the
Committee.
VI.24 The Director of the World Heritage Centre stressed the
value of regular consultative meetings with the advisory bodies
for enhanced coordination of World Heritage work.
VII. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR TRAINING PROVIDED UNDER THE
WORLD HERITAGE FUND: REVIEW, EVALUATION AND STRATEGY
Introduction
VII.1 The Bureau recalled that during the seventeenth session
of the Committee there was considerable discussion regarding
several international assistance requests that had been submitted
for financing under the World Heritage Fund. The Committee
therefore asked the World Heritage Centre to prepare for the
eighteenth session of the Bureau a proposal on the evaluation of
international assistance projects which had received
contributions from the World Heritage Fund. The preparatory work
for such an evaluation, covering in particular the last five
years (1988-1992), has already begun.
VII.2 The Bureau, having recalled that training is a vital and
integral part of the World Heritage Convention (Articles 5, 22
and 23) and its Operational Guidelines (paragraphs 87 to 91),
welcomed the Centre's initiative to present a preliminary review
of the training activities undertaken within the framework of the
World Heritage Convention. In this context, the Bureau underlined
that training is primarily the obligation of the States Parties.
Their lack of commitment in this regard, however, manifests
itself through insufficient infrastructural investment,
institutional development and international assistance for
training in many developing countries.
VII.3 The Secretariat stressed its intention of undertaking an
in-depth evaluation of its training activities before defining,
with its partners, a strategic planning process in order to
encourage a pro-active attitude. The outline submitted to the
Bureau aimed at informing it of the most relevant facts
concerning training, which are:
- assessment of the funding disbursed to the Centre's
partners in the period from 1988 to 1992:
*[32]
- identification of the nature and the periodicity of
the courses;
- identification, by region, of the beneficiaries of
fellowships.
Review and assessment of natural heritage training activities
(1988-1992)
VII.4 It was underlined that training concepts have undergone
major changes in the last twenty years. This is particularly true
in the case of training of protected area managers, as the
objectives and principles of protected area management, and the
definitions of national parks and other reserves, have changed
considerably. There has been a shift to an interdisciplinary
approach rather than to traditional natural sciences. Moreover,
there has been a need to focus training courses more on the
conceptual approaches to management, biodiversity status of the
protected areas and the monitoring of the state of conservation.
VII.5 Training under the natural part of the Convention can
be distinguished thematically into three different groups:
(1) wildlands, wildlife and game management
(2) biology, ecology and conservation
(3) protected area management.
Two types of training courses have been supported under the Fund,
group training, which became the major part and individual
training as fellowships financed from the World Heritage Fund.
VII.6 The group training courses (461 courses from 1988 to 1992)
ranged from in situ training at natural World Heritage sites to
regional and sub-regional workshops on natural resources
conservation and management, as well as some specialized
workshops. The training workshops were held in practically all
regions of the world, however, cooperation developed over the
years with several specialized training institutes and
organizations, such as CATIE (Costa Rica), ENGREF (France),
Colorado State University, Smithsonian Institution (USA), Dehra
Dun (India). Protected area management courses included the
large majority of the short-term training courses over the last
five years.
VII.7 The main partners for training under the natural part
of the Convention providing long-term training courses
(fellowships) for 12 to 24 months for selected students are the
School for Training of Wildlife Specialists (Garoua, Cameroon)
and the Collage of African Wildlife Management (Mweka, Tanzania),
both of which focus mostly on wildlife and protected area
management. The discussion focused on the outcome of the
training courses for the protection of World Heritage sites and
that for an in-depth analysis the Schools (Garoua and Mweka)
should be involved, as well as other course organizers. In
total, 37 individual fellowships for short- or long-term training
were granted from 1988 to 1992.
*[33]
VII.8 The review by the Centre emphasized some shortcomings
in the selection of candidates, the outcome of the courses as
well as communication between the course organizers and the World
Heritage Centre concerning the content of the training activity.
Action by the Bureau
VII.9 The Bureau approved US$30,000 for a workshop to be held
in 1994-1995 with a selected number of experts, specialists and
key individuals, including agreement by the schools, to review
the curricula of the courses, management objectives as well as
the outcome of the courses. The Bureau asked that the Centre
submit the evaluation findings as well as recommendations by the
experts for a future training strategy for natural heritage to
the World Heritage Committee.
Review and assessment of cultural heritage training activities
(1988-1992)
VII.10 The outcome of the preliminary analysis for the
cultural part is still general but can be summarized as follows:
42 fellowships out of 56 were awarded to trainees who
attended ICOMOS and IBPC courses;
10 in-situ courses were organized at the request of States
Parties;
the total expenditure for training in the cultural domain
for the past five years amounts approximately to US$ 1
million;
all regional needs were far from being covered.
The Centre's partners are ICCROM and the Brazilian Institute for
Cultural Heritage in Bahia, Brazil (IBPC).
It was also stated that the World Heritage Centre not only needs
to refine its analysis but to discuss with its partners the
content and impact of each course and examine emerging needs in
that field. Greater diversity in courses is required and
training packages need to be renewed and strengthened. Curricula
and training modules will have, in certain instances, to be
redefined or adapted to cover specific regional needs. Reference
was also made to the more general question of monitoring and to
the twin issues of conservation and site management which need
to be addressed
VII.11 The Representative of ICCROM underlined that the
strategic planning process currently being undertaken by ICCROM
to understand current training needs at the international,
regional and national levels and in order to better redefine its
curricula, were in line with the World Heritage Centre's
objectives. ICCROM and the Centre have a common purpose and
share the same approach. The Bureau was informed of the
evaluation exercise being undertaken by ICCROM, which has sent
*[34]
questionnaires to all the participants of their courses in order
to assess their long-term benefits.
VII.12 The ICCROM Representative then briefly introduced the
regular ICCROM courses which take place in their premises, in
Rome, (architectural conservation, mural paintings, science and
technology of conservation) and referred to the "new" in situ
courses which will be organized in the coming months for the
Maghreb, the Baltic, and the Central Asian countries and focus
on the philosophy and ethic of conservation. He also referred
to the summer course on Conservation Management of World Heritage
Historic Ensembles which is taking place at Potsdam "Sans Souci"
which will cover the training needs of Eastern and Central
European site managers and address the issues of site management
and conservation. He stressed that these new training packages
were being defined after completing inventories of needs and
assessments of resources on a regional and sub-regional basis.
VII.13 The ICCROM Representative underlined the need for
different approaches for international courses which put the
emphasis on methodology and use of comparative analyses; while
regional courses promote the creation of professional networks
and the exchange of technical information. On the other hand,
national courses are usually meant to address specific
administrative questions and more detailed issues of
conservation.
VII.14 The Delegate of Thailand stressed the importance of
inviting foreign participants to in-situ courses in order to
enhance the learning process and better promote the exchange of
information.
Action by the Bureau
VII.15 The Bureau approved US$30,000 for the organization of
a workshop to be held in 1994-1995 with a selected number of the
Centre's training partners in the field of the conservation and
preservation of the cultural heritage, key individuals and
colleagues from UNESCO' s Secretariat to provide a sound basis for
a fresh strategy. The Bureau asked the Centre to submit the
overall evaluation findings as well as recommendations for a
future training strategy to the World Heritage Committee.
VIII. EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD
HERITAGE LIST AND THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
VIII.1 The Bureau examined the nominations of 11 natural
properties. of which two were extensions of already inscribed
sites). The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe six of
them, recommended not to inscribe one site, referred three
*[35]
nominations back to the States Parties concerned for further
information and deferred one nomination.
VIII.2 The Bureau also examined the nomination of 26 cultural
properties, of which two were extensions of already inscribed
sites. The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe 14
properties, not to inscribe two properties, referred four
nominations back to the States Parties concerned for further
information and deferred six nominations.
VIII.3 The Bureau did not examine the two natural sites
submitted by Congo, as an IUCN field inspection of the site had
been postponed due to circumstances beyond the control of IUCN.
VIII.4 Furthermore, the Secretariat provided information
received on four natural World Heritage sites, which were
deferred by previous sessions of the Bureau.
Natural Properties
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on
the World Heritage List
Name of Identifi- State Party Criteria
Property cation having submitted
No. the nomination in
accordance with
Article 11 of the
Convention
Australian 698 Australia N (i) (ii)
Fossil sites
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe a modified
version of the site as Riversleigh/Naracoorte Fossil site,
excluding the site of Murgon until its significance can be more
convincingly demonstrated. The Bureau noted that Riversleigh
provides outstanding examples of middle to late Tertiary mammal
assemblages and one of the world's richest Oligo-Miocene mammal
records in a continent whose mammalian history has been most
isolated and distinctive, whereas Naracoorte preserved
outstanding terrestrial vertebrates and illustrates faunal change
spanning two ice ages.
The Bureau furthermore underlined that the inscription of the
fossil sites is a new challenge, as there are only very few sites
with fossil values on the list and that this inscription is a
major precedent for the Committee.
*[36]
Tatshenshini- 72bis/rev. Canada/USA N (ii) (iii)
Alsek Provincial (iv)
Wilderness Park
(extension of the
Glacier Bay/Wrangell/
St. Elias/Kluane site)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this as an
extension to the Glacier Bay/Wrangell/St. Elias/Kluane World
Heritage site. The site comprises spectacular river and high
mountain scenery and a diversity of wildlife (genetically viable
population of grizzly bears) and fish, as well as outstanding
examples of geological and geomorphological processes.
The Bureau furthermore commended the Government of British
Columbia on the action taken to prevent mining in the area and
it complemented the government agencies involved in moving
towards the establishment of an International Advisory Council
and endorsed, in principle, the 19th IUCN General Assembly
Resolution concerning the area. The Bureau underlined that any
decision made by the Committee would not prejudice the land
claims over the area by the First Nation people (Champagne-
Aishihik). The Delegate of the United States emphasized that
proposals for a less cumbersome name for the expanded site such
as "St. Elias Mountain Parks" are the prerogative of the States
Parties. This statement was endorsed by the Observer of Canada
and concurred with by IUCN.
Los Katios 711 Colombia N (ii) (iv)
National Park
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this site,
which adjoins Darien World Heritage site in Panama, and which
represents a rich biota comprising elements of both the North and
the South American continent, embodying a centre of endemism for
flora and fauna. Los Katios displays exceptional biodiversity and
provides the habitat for a number of threatened animal and plant
species. The Bureau commended both the Colombian and the
Panamanian Governments for the bilateral cooperative management
agreement and recommended that the site be inscribed as a
transfrontier site with Darien National Park (Panama).
Donana National 685 Spain N (ii) (iii)
Park (iv)
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site which
contains an exceptional example of a large Mediterranean wet land
site with diverse habitats of marshes, forests, pristine beaches,
dunes and lagoons which contain a high faunal diversity,
particularly for its ornithological values.
The Bureau furthermore complemented the Spanish authorities on
the improved protection of the site during the past two years and
their efforts to maintain the integrity of the site. It noted,
*[37]
however, continuing threats to the integrity of the hydrological
system and therefore encouraged the Spanish authorities in their
on-going efforts to restore disturbed parts of the park and to
report back on progress with the European Union project in 1998.
Bwindi 682 Uganda N (iii) (iv)
Impenetrable
National Park
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site which
has one of the richest faunal communities in East Africa,
including almost half of the world's mountain gorillas, and one
of the most important forests for mountain butterflies and birds.
It furthermore commended the Government of Uganda as well as the
donors on their efforts to obtain international funding for the
establishment of a model management regime.
Rwenzori 684 Uganda N (iii) (iv)
Mountains
National Park
The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site,
which is also known as "Mountains of the Moon", for their
aesthetic and scenic values as well as for their significance as
the habitat of threatened species and the exceptional variety of
species within the extraordinary altitudal range of the Park.
B. Properties which the Bureau did not recommend for
inscription on the World Heritage List
Murchison Falls 683 Uganda
National Park
The Bureau recognized Murchison Falls as an important natural
phenomena and as a habitat of elephants, giraffes and Nile
crocodile. The Bureau felt, however, that it has been
significantly degraded and does not now meet World Heritage
criteria and therefore did not recommend the site for
inscription. It commended the Government of Uganda and the GTZ
for their efforts to restore the site.
C. Properties for which nominations were referred back to the
national authorities for further information
Galapagos Marine 1bis Ecuador
Resource Reserve
(extension of the
Galapagos Islands)
The Bureau recognized the outstanding universal significance of
the Galapagos Marine Reserve as an extension to the Galapagos
*[38]
Islands World Heritage site. Its marine environment has been
recognized as a distinct biotic province including 307 species
of fish (51 endemic) and large numbers of dolphins, whales, sea
lions and fur seals, sharks, rays and turtles.
The Bureau, however, noted that the management plan for the
marine part is not being implemented and requested the Centre to
prepare a letter to the national authorities under the
Chairperson's signature, requesting the confirmation of the
following commitments and evidence of progress concerning the
management of the marine reserve: (1) augment the management
capacity (2) encourage institutional cooperation (3) step up
enforcement activities to ensure the integrity of the marine
reserve and (4) conduct research on the sustainability levels of
fishing.
It took note of severe management problems of the area including
illegal sea cucumber fishing and other human-related stresses on
the marine resources. Discussion focused also on the possibility
by the Committee to nominate the site directly to the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
Glacier and 354rev. Canada/USA
Waterton National
Parks
The Bureau recalled that it referred the site back to the
authorities in 1986 and noted that the revised nomination
included, as requested, the Waterton National Park. However, it
did not provide any sufficient additional information which
distinguished it from other similar World Heritage sites in the
Western Cordillera. The Bureau noted that the site has important
values for threatened species, significant geological formations,
as well as spectacular mountain landscapes.
After considerable discussions and statements by the Delegate of
the United States and the Observer of Canada, the Bureau referred
the site back to the authorities to allow them to prepare a
revised nomination, with comparison to other World Heritage sites
in the surrounding regions.
Canaima National 701 Venezuela
Park
The Bureau recognized the outstanding universal value of the
site, in particular the unique table mountains (tepui), and
requested the Centre to inform the authorities of this. However,
it requested that the authorities proceed with the identification
of revised boundaries of the site, including the famous tepui
formations, but excluding the low elevation grasslands inhabited
by indigenous people who have not been involved in the nomination
process. Furthermore, a second phase to incorporate other tepuis
outside the nominated area was encouraged. The Bureau strongly
encouragad the Venezuelan authorities to proceed with the
revised boundaries so that the Committee could inscribe the site
in 1994.
*[39]
The Bureau furthermore asked the Centre to contact the Brazilian
authorities to express concern over the illegal occupation and
mining in the adjacent Monte Roraima National Park and to request
action to halt these threats.
D. Deferred nominations
Miguasha 686 Canada
Provincial Park
The Bureau recognized the importance of the fossil values of the
site, in particular the evolution of fish and amphibious species
moving from sea to land. It felt, however, that the context is
missing to judge on the universal importance of the site within
the Devonian fish sites and the wider context of fossil sites.
After considerable discussion, the Bureau asked the Centre to
organize a comparative global study of Earth's evolutionary
history together with IUCN and the relevant international
experts, including the International Union of Geological Sciences
(IUGS) and the International Geological Correlation Programme
(IGCP). Such a study would give a framework for consideration of
fossil sites meeting the criteria of the World Heritage
Convention.
However, the Observer of Canada whilst thanking the Bureau for
its debate, and recognizing the complexity of the issue,
underlined that the site is a significant one in relation to the
evolution of humankind and illustrates an unique ecosystem
existing 370 million years ago. The Observer of Canada offered
her country's full support for the study once its extent and
magnitude is determined, and in due course would re-submit the
nomination.
E. Information on previous nominations
Central Eastern 368bis Australia
Australian
Rainforest
(extension of the
Australian East Coast
Temperate & Sub-
tropical Rainforest
Park)
The Bureau recalled that the site was submitted as an extension
and a renomination of the Australian East Coast Temperate and
Sub-Tropical Rainforest Park. At its seventeenth session, the
Bureau recommended the acceptance of the extension of the site
and made several recommendations for final boundary limitations
(review of the inclusion of Iluka), details of a new management
committee and a more explicit name. The Minister for the
Environment, Arts and Territories informed the World Heritage
Centre on 21 October 1993 that negotiations will take more time
*[40]
and that advice will be given on the outcome in due course. The
Observer of Australia informed the Bureau that information will
be provided in time for the eighteenth session of the Committee
in December 1994.
Jiddat-al- 654 Oman
Harasis
The Bureau recalled that the site was reviewed at its seventeenth
session and was referred back to the authorities to complete the
nomination with an effective management regime and administrative
structure, as well as legislation. The Centre was informed by the
Ambassador and Permanent Delegate of Oman on 20 January 1994 that
His Majesty, the Sultan of Oman, Sultan Qaboos, has issued the
Royal Decree to demarcate the site as an area to be known as "The
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary". The administration statute will be laid
down by the Ministry of Regional Municipalities and Environment.
Concerning a management plan, a preparatory assistance request
was submitted to the Centre and approved by the Chairperson. The
Ambassador of Oman informed the Bureau that information will be
provided in time for the eighteenth session of the Committee. The
Bureau took note of this information.
St. Paul's 652 Philippines
Subterranean
National Park
At its seventeenth session, in June 1993, the Bureau reviewed the
site and was of the view that an extended nomination may meet
criteria (iii) and (iv). The Philippine authorities informed the
World Heritage Centre on 12 May 1994 that appropriate legislation
expanding the area of the Park from 5,753 ha to 86,000 ha is
expected to be officially approved by the Philippine Government.
The Observer of the Philippines informed the Bureau that
information will be provided in time for the eighteenth session
of the Committee.
Ha-Long Bay 672 Vietnam.
The Bureau recalled that at its seventeenth session it recognized
that the site would fulfil natural criterion (iii) because of its
outstanding scenic values. However, a clear definition of the
boundaries and an effective management regime and legislation was
requested. On 27 June 1994 the Centre was informed by the
Ambassador of Vietnam to UNESCO, that additional documents and
mans have been provided which the Centre has transmitted to IUCN.
*[41]
Cultural Properties
A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on
the World Heritage List
Name of Identifi- State Party Criteria
Property cation having submitted
No. the nomination in
accordance with
Article 11 of the
Convention
The Mountain 703 China C (ii) (iv)
Resort and its
Outlying Temples
The Potala 707 China C (i) (iv) (vi)
Palace, Lhasa
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this site on the World
Heritage List and requested the Chinese authorities to envisage
the possibility in the future of extending the first site to
include the historic village of Shol, the Temple of Lukhang and
its willow parks, as well as the Chakpori Hill.
Jelling Mounds, 697 Denmark C (iii)
Runic Stones and
Church
The City-Museum 708 Georgia C (iii) (i)
Reserve of
Mtskheta
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property on the
World Heritage List and suggested to the State Party to change
the name to "Historic Churches of Mtskheta".
Bagrati Cathedral 710 Georgia C (iv)
and Gelati
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property on the
World Heritage List and recommended the ICOMOS mission evaluation
report to be transmitted to the State Party.
*[42]
The Collegiate 535rev Germany C (iv)
Church, Castle,
and old town of
Quedlinburg
Völklingen 687 Germany C (ii) (iv)
Ironwerks
Vicenza 712 Italy C (i) (ii)
The Bureau recommended the inscription of this property on the
World Heritage List and that the ICCROM/ICOMOS mission evaluation
report be transmitted to the State Party. Moreover, it was
suggested to change the name of the property by adding the words
"The City of Palladio".
Historic monu- 688 Japan C (ii) (iv)
ments of Ancient
Kyoto (Kyoto,
Uji and Otsu Cities)
The City of 699 Luxembourg C (iv)
Luxembourg: its
old quarters and
fortifications
The Church of 634rev. Russian C (ii)
the Ascension, Federation
KolomensKoye
The Rock Carvings 557rev. Sweden C (i) (iii) (iv)
in Tanum
EXTENSIONS
Surroundings 331bis Spain C (i) (ii)
of the Mosque *[correct number=313] (iii) (iv)
of Cordoba
(extension
of the Mosque of
Cordoba)
The Bureau recommended that the nomination of the surroundings
of the Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba be considered as an extension
of the existing World Heritage site of the Mosque of Cordoba.
The Bureau endorsed the suggestion made by the Delegate of Spain
to adopt the name "The Historic Centre of Cordoba".
*[43]
Historic Centre 314bis Spain C (i) (iii)
of Granada (iv)
(extension of the
Alhambra and the
Generalife, Granada,
to include the
Albayzin quarter)
The Bureau endorsed the suggestion made by the Delegate of Spain
to adopt the following name: Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzin,
Grenada.
B. Properties which the Bureau did not recommend for
inscription on the World Heritage List
The Monastery 691 Czech Republic
Church of the
Ascension of the
Virgin Mary at
Kladruby
The Cathedral of 681 Slovak Republic
St. Elizabeth,
the Chapel of St.
Michael and Urban's
Tower, Kosice
C. Properties for which nominations were referred back to the
national authorities for further information
The Temple of 704 China C (i) (iv)
Confucius, the (vi)
Cemetery of Confucius,
and the Kong Family
Mansion in Qufu
The Bureau took note of the ICOMOS evaluation and referred this
nomination to the Chinese authorities requesting them to provide
precise information on the buffer zone of the site. This
information should be communicated before 1 October 1994, to
allow ICOMOS to complete its evaluation which will be submitted
to the next session of the Bureau in December 1994.
The ancient 705 China C (i) (ii)
building complex (vi)
in the Wudang
Mountains
The Bureau took note of the ICOMOS evaluation and referred this
nomination to the Chinese authorities requesting them to provide
precise information on the management plan for the site and give
*[44]
assurances concerning the implementation of conservation measures
for its more distant monuments. This information should be
communicated before 1 October 1994 to allow ICOMOS to complete
its evaluation which will be submitted to the next session of the
Bureau in December 1994.
The Pilgrimage 690 Czech Republic
Church of St.
John of Nepomuk
at Zelena Hora
The Bureau took note of the ICOMOS evaluation and referred this
nomination to the State Party concerned for additional
information concerning the effect of the new legislation on the
protection of ecclesiastical monuments and on the on-going
restoration project. This information should be communicated
before 1 October 1994 to allow ICOMOS to complete its evaluation
which will be submitted to the next session of the Bureau in
December 1994.
The Lines and 700 Peru C (i) (iii)
Geoglyphs of (iv)
Nasca and
Pampas de Jumana
The Bureau referred this nomination to the State Party to define
the boundaries of this cultural property. If this information
is communicated before 1 October 1994 and ICOMOS makes a positive
evaluation, the property may be inscribed on the World Heritage
List under criteria (i), (iii) and (iv).
D. Deferred nominations
The Ruins of 706 China
Jiaohe City
The Bureau deferred the examination of the nomination until
precise information is provided by the Chinese authorities on the
existence and effective application of a management plan for the
site, including the conservation, restoration, control of tourist
visitation, and protection against archaeological looting, and
which would also apply to the other visible archaeological sites
in the area.
Roskilde 695 Denmark
Cathedral
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination until a
comparative study on religious brick Gothic architecture is
completed.
*[45]
Kronborg Castle 696 Denmark
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination until a
satisfactory programme has been adopted by the State Party for
the removal of the major part of the disused shipyard and the
landscaping of the area.
Upper Svaneti 709 Georgia
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination to enable
the State Party to give a clearer indication of the area
proposed, and provide more information on the conservation and
management plan which is under preparation.
The Old City 689 Jordan
of salt
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination until the
Jordanian authorities have confirmed that the Action Plan ("Salt:
A Plan for Action"), 1990, had bean finally adopted and that its
implementation has become effective.
The earliest 16th 702 Mexico
Century Monasteries
on the slopes of
Popocatepetl
The Bureau deferred the examination of this nomination and
requested the World Heritage Centre to transmit to the State
Party a copy of the ICOMOS mission evaluation report. However,
if the requested information concerning a conservation and
management plan and information about buffer zones is received
by 1 October 1994, the nomination could be re-examined at the
eighteenth session of the Bureau of the Committee in December
1994.
ICOMOS informed the Bureau that it would present to the next
session of the Bureau in December 1994, a favourable report on
the proposed extension of the zone of protection surrounding the
ramparts of Dubrovnik (Croatia).
IX. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
IX.1 The Bureau examined the following documents WHC-
94/CONF.001/5, WHC-94/CONF.001/5Corr., WHC-94/CONF.001/5Add1,
Add2 and Add3 and approved 18 requests for international
assistance.
*[46]
IX.2 Requests approved
A. NATURAL HERITAGE
A.1 Training
Training in the Conservation and Management of Natural Heritage
in the Arab Region
The Bureau reviewed a request for USS 30,000 for a two-week
regional training seminar submitted by the Egyptian authorities
to be held in Egypt in April 1995 on conservation and management
of natural heritage. The Bureau approved the requested sum of US$
30,000 for the course and asked the Centre to proceed with an
agreement on the course programme with the national authorities.
B. CULTURAL HERITAGE
B.1 Technical Cooperation
Historic Centre of the Town of Olinda (Brazil) - US$ 19,000: for
a tourist study which would form part of the Urban Development
Plan.
Rock-hewn Churches of Ivanovo Monastery and Monastery of Rila
(Bulgaria) - US$ 21,000: of which US$ 16,000 will be earmarked
for the purchase of equipment and US$ 5,000 for advisory services
on the nature conservation measure to be undertaken.
Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia) - US$ 8,000: for the restoration
of mural paintings in the 18th century Baroque Festival Palace,
which was severely damaged in 1991. ICCROM will supervise the
project in collaboration with the Croatian Institute for
Restoration. However, Croatia should first pay its outstanding
dues to the World Heritage Fund.
Joya de Ceren (El Salvador) - US$ 25,000: to define an integral
development for the site of Joya de Ceren in the context of a
wider area of archaeological importance (including sites such as
San Andres, El Cambio, etc). Participants attending the workshop
would be representatives of all national institutions involved,
with a limited number of external experts.
Antigua Guatemala (Guatemala) - US$ 20,000: for the purchase of
equipment.
National History Park Citadel, Sans Souci, Ramiers (Haiti) -
US$ 17,510: for the purchase of exhibition panels, climate
control equipment and other allied costs.
*[47]
Given the international embargo and the socio-economic situation,
the UNDP Resident Representative in Haiti is requested to
cooperate in the implementation and supervision of this
assistance.
Authenticity Conference (Japan) - US$ 30,000: to cover the
travel costs of participants from Africa and Latin America
attending the Conference, which will propose a draft text on the
"test of authenticity" to the World Heritage Committee for World
Heritage nominations, revising and enlarging the definition of
the different aspects and criteria of authenticity as contained
in the Operational Guidelines.
Medina of Marrakesh, Morocco (Restoration of the Medersa Ben
Youssef) - US$ 30,000: to contribute to the restoration of the
monument (rehabilitation, water-proofing, floor coverage,
decoration and in particular the sculptured plaster and "zellij"
tiles as well as the protective mortar).
Historic Zones of Istanbul (Turkey) (Restoration of the Mosaics
of Hagia-Sophia) - US$ 30,000: to continue the restoration work
of the mosaics of the dome (purchase of materials and equipment
and travel, per diem and remuneration of restoration experts).
B.2 Training
Argentina - US$ 20,000: for a series of seminars which will be
held at different sites in Argentina and on different subject
matters:
1) Posadas, 5-8 September 1994: Safeguarding the Jesuit
Missions.
2) Mar del Plata, 30-31 August 1994: Tourism and cultural
heritage.
3) Salta, 5-8 September 1994: Preservation of historic
centres.
4) Cordoba, 5-8 September 1994: Interventions in the
archaeological heritage.
5) Buenos Aires, 5-8 September 1994: Recycling versus
restoration.
6) Trelew-Chubut, 5-8 September 1994: Natural heritage, its
relevance in the development process.
Brazil (Historic Town of Ouro Preto) - US$ 19,250: to organize
a training seminar for site managers of Historical Cities (eight
from Brazil and seven from other Latin American countries).
*[48]
China (National training course on "Conservation of Timber
Buildings") - US$30,000: for a two-week training course, with
the objectives to improve trainees' theoretical and technical
knowledge in restoration work and to introduce new methodology
of intervention and to promote the development of conservation
and restoration of ancient building structures to the public at
large.
Germany - Training course "Conservation and management of the
World Heritage sites" (Palaces and Parks of Potsdam) - US$
20,000: to cover the travel costs of participants from Central
and East Europe.
Haiti (National History Park - Citadelle, Sans Souci, Ramiers) -
US$4,100: to organize a one-month on-site training workshop for
five architectural students. Technical expertise will be
provided by ISPAN for training in inventory and documentation of
architectural structures as well as for the preparation of state
of conservation reports.
Given the international embargo and the socio-economic situation,
the UNDP Resident Representative in Haiti is requested to
cooperate in the implementation and supervision of this
assistance.
Italy (International training course on "Information,
documentation and use of UNESCO publications regarding Cultural
and Natural World Heritage") - US$ 20,000: a one-week training
course for 20 participants: participants from 15 countries from
Eastern Europe and 5 countries from Africa.
B.3 Emergency assistance
Archaeological Park of Tierradentro (Colombia) - US$ 69,500: in
accordance with paragraph 85 of the Operational Guidelines which
indicate that emergency assistance may be approved "for work in
connection with cultural and natural properties included or
suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List and which have
suffered severe damage due to sudden, unexpected phenomena" to
undertake the following actions as a first phase of an overall
conservation plan:
1) Field an expert mission (4 Colombians and 2 international
experts) to draw up an action plan for the safeguarding of
the site.
2) Take measures to evacuate the rainwater, particularly in
the tombs in the Alto de Segovia area.
3) Emergency scaffolding in tombs that are in danger of
collapse.
4) Consolidation of the mural paintings.
*[49]
National History Park Citadel, Sans Souci, Ramiers (Haiti) - US$
73,000: for emergency measures to be undertaken for the
structural consolidation of the entire roof construction of the
Royal Battery of the Citadel.
Given the international embargo and the socio-economic situation,
the UNDP Resident Representative in Haiti is requested to
cooperate in the implementation and supervision of this
assistance .
IX.3 Requests were deferred by the Bureau:
Establishment of an itinerant conservation laboratory which would
service the seven sites inscribed on the World Heritage List
(Bulgaria) - US$ 39,000: The Bureau recommended that this request
be re-examined by the Secretariat and ICCROM before being
submitted to its next session in December 1994.
Historic Centre of Puebla (Mexico) US$ 18,000 - to elaborate a
rehabilitation plan to secure the safeguarding of the remaining
historical buildings in the area, the introduction of new
functions and structures compatible with the urban architecture
and a maintenance programme to keep the locality in good
condition.
The Bureau recommended that this request be re-examined by the
Secretariat and ICOMOS before it is re-submitted to the
Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee.
Historic Town of Zabid (Yemen) - Taking into account the present
situation in the country and the particular menace of rapid
degradation which threaten the Historic Town of Zabid, the Bureau
requested the Centre to request the Yemeni authorities to
reformulate their request in the form of emergency assistance.
The request shall be submitted as soon as possible to the World
Heritage Centre for approval by the Chairperson.
IX.4 Requests not approved by the Bureau:
China (Biodiversity Measuring and Monitoring Course): The Bureau
reviewed a request for US$ 19,000 for a biodiversity measuring
and monitoring course to be held in Guangdong Province in China
in November/December 1994. It felt however, that two Chinese
participants had already been financed from the World Heritage
Fund for a similar course in the United States in 1994 and,
moreover, that the course did not involve World Heritage site
managers, nor was it being held at a World Heritage site. The
Bureau therefore, did not approve the request.
IX.5 At the end of the debate, the Bureau was informed that
the amounts approved for training were slightly superior to the
budget allocation available for this activity, and therefore it
*[50]
authorized the Director of the World Heritage Centre to commit
the approved funds by transferring the amount required from the
technical assistance budgetary line.
X. MARKETING AND FUND-RAISING STRATEGY
X.1 A presentation to the Bureau by Mr Charles de Haës, Special
Advisor to the Director-General and former Director-General of
the World Wildlife Fund, who was asked by the World Heritage
Centre to carry out a preliminary study on marketing, promotion
and fund-raising strategies, was rendered under the form of
"preliminary recommendations for discussions".
X.2 The following major points were raised by Mr de Haës in his
report, which is to be submitted in written form in the near
future.
a) There exists a potential for raising money for the Fund and
promotion of the Convention; in order to achieve this goal,
however, a fully integrated approach is necessary (under
the authority of the Director of the Centre who will report
to the Director-General);
b) it is necessary to coordinate the various efforts that are
currently carried out within UNESCO related to the
Convention;
c) the Director of the Centre should overview all the
opportunities for promotion or fund-raising arising either
within the Secretariat or at regional or national level;
d) the World Heritage Centre should turn into a "Centre of
managerial excellence" capable of raising the
extrabudgetary funds which are increasingly going to be
required. Thus, not only the Centre will benefit, but also
UNESCO;
e) conditions for the above (d) are:
- to create a legal entity capable of owning trademarks
and concluding contracts;
- adoption of a fully integrated working approach;
- increase the WHC Director's authority with reference
to an overall plan and budget;
definition of objectives, priorities and
responsibilities;
- maintain the co-operative support of other relevant
UNESCO units for the Convention:
*[51]
- shift the World Heritage Centre from its present site
to other office space close to the Culture and Science
Sectors;
- contract private sector expertise to develop
communications and fund-raising;
- amend the World Heritage Logo to make its relevance
more evident.
X.3 In the debate which followed this presentation, comments
were made by the Delegates of Oman, Senegal, Spain, Thailand and
the United States of America. Most of these felt that the
proposals were essentially positive and that the Director-General
deserved high praise for having taken timely and prompt action
following the recommendation of the World Heritage Committee at
its sixteenth session held in 1992 in Santa Fe. The Bureau
therefore decided unanimously to express to the Director-General
its satisfaction on this matter. The Delegates of Spain and the
Observers from Australia, Italy and France, felt furthermore that
these important innovations should first be examined by the
Director-General before being presented to the Committee.
XI. ORGANIZATION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES IN
1995 AND ELECTION OF SEVEN MEMBERS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE
XI.1 In order to remedy a situation which was judged
prejudicial to the smooth running of the election of members to
the World Heritage Committee, the Centre presented proposals for
the modification of Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure of the
General Assembly, paragraphs 8 and 12. According to this
proposal, Rule 13.8 of the Procedure would be modified as
follows:
"Members of the World Heritage Committee will be elected in
such a manner as to limit the number of ballots by using the rule
of simple majority at the third ballot.
States having obtained the absolute majority in the first
ballot are declared elected, unless the number of these States
is superior to the number of seats to be filled.
In this last case, States having obtained the greatest
number of votes, up to the number of seats to be filled, are
declared elected.
If the number of States having obtained the absolute
majority is inferior to the number of seats to be filled, a
second ballot will take place with absolute majority ruling.
The election will be limited to States having obtained the
greatest number of votes in the preceding ballot, up to twice the
number of seats to be filled.
*[52]
Finally, if all the seats are not filled at the end of the
second ballot, a final ballot will take place with a simple
majority."
With regard to item 29 of the report of the Ninth General
Assembly and the necessity for equitable rotation of States
Parties to the Committee, it would be possible to add the
following rule:
Rule 13.12: it is forbidden for an outgoing State Party to stand
for election for a second mandate immediately.
XI.2 The Delegate of Thailand also presented a document (see
Annex V) which modifies paragraphs 9 and 10, harmonizing them
with paragraph 8, as amended in the Secretariat's proposal. The
text now reads:
"II. Proposed Amendments (the underlined words):
13.8 Those States obtaining in the first ballot the
required majority shall be elected, unless the number
of States obtaining that majority is greater than the
number of seats to be filled. In that case, the
States obtaining the greatest number of votes, up to
the number of seats to be filled, shall be declared
elected. If the number of States obtaining the
majority required is less than the number of seats to
be filled, there shall be a second ballot to fill the
remaining seats, the voting being restricted to the
States obtaining the greatest number of votes in the
previous ballot, to a number not more than twice that
of the seats remaining to be filled.
13.9 In the second ballot. the candidates obtaining the
greatest number of votes up to the number of seats to
be filled. shall be declared elected.
13.10 If, in the second ballot, two or more candidates
obtain the same number of votes, the Chairperson shall
decide between them by drawing lots."
Paragraphs 11 and 12 remain unchanged.
XI.3 The Bureau members as well as the observers all
concurred in that the procedure for election of new members to
the Committee should be simplified. Specifically, the Observer
of Italy, endorsed by several other delegates and observers,
suggested that there should be four ballots with an absolute
majority, after which a simple majority rule would apply.
XI.4 With regard to paragraph 12 of Rule 13, there was
unanimous agreement that the word "forbidden" should be deleted.
However, most of the speakers agreed on the necessity of
following the spirit of the Convention in finding a solution
which would limit the possibility of an outgoing State Party to
*[53]
present its candidature for a second mandate, in order to allow
a better representation of different regions and cultures in the
Committee.
XII. GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR A REPRESENTATIVE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
XII.1 For several years now, the Committee has constantly
stressed the importance of completing the identification of world
heritage and ensuring a truly representative List, and thus its
credibility. Consequently, it has also stressed the necessity
to implement the "Global Study" of the List and the associated
thematic studies on the different types of cultural properties
which could be proposed for inscription, including those which
are at present little or not at all represented.
XII.2 In July 1993 in Colombo (Sri Lanka), ICOMOS organized
a meeting of six experts to prepare a framework for this Global
Study. However, the absence of a conceptual and methodological
consensus on this matter within the scientific community was
afterwards confirmed.
XII.3 During its seventeenth session at Cartagena (Colombia),
the Committee requested the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to
continue their efforts in this direction.
XII.4 The World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS therefore jointly
organized a first expert meeting at UNESCO Headquarters from 20
to 22 June 1994, representing the different regions of the world
and the different disciplines concerned (cultural heritage
specialists, anthropologists, art and architecture historians,
archaeologists, etc.) with the objective of reviewing the issues
and considering all the different approaches, and especially all
the work and contributions made to date, in an attempt to define
a conceptual framework, a methodology and common goals.
XII.5 The Vice President of ICOMOS presented to the Bureau
the report of the expert meeting and a summary of its
recommendations to the World Heritage Committee, as they are set
out "in extenso" in the working document WHC-94/CONF.001/INF.4,
which figures as Annex IV to this report.
A) The principal objectives of the meeting were to:
1) examine the present representative structure of the
World Heritage List with regard to cultural
properties;
2) carry out an in-depth study of all the studies and
earlier contributions to the "Global Study" and in
particular the proposals presented in Mr. H. Cleere's
report of 23 November 1993 and in Mr. Léon
Pressouyre's publication La Convention du Patrimoine
mondial, vingt ans après;
*[54]
3) integrate the international scientific community's
most recent findings and ideas on the content and
concept of cultural heritage over the past twenty
years.
B) The experts were in full agreement on the following points:
1) that there is a serious imbalance in cultural heritage
on the World Heritage List in its present form with
regard to regions of the world, types of properties
and the periods represented. Living cultures,
especially those of "traditional" societies, are
largely under-represented;
2) earlier proposals and the work carried out from 1984
to 1993 on the "Global Study", in particular the
three-dimensional space-time-human achievement grid,
have been found invaluable to the process of
reflection in this complex and difficult domain.
Thus, they were indispensable steps towards the new
anthropological and multidimensional approach proposed
by the experts in the more dynamic, continuous and
evolutive form of a "global strategy";
3) the development of knowledge and the process of
reflection within the international scientific
community over the past twenty years has led to an
evolution in the content and the extension of the
concept of cultural heritage, and to the abandon of a
basically "monumental" vision for a far more
anthropological and global conception of material
evidence of the different cultures of the world. This
material evidence is no longer considered out of
context, but in its multiple relationships to its
physical and non-physical environment.
C) The conclusions of the expert meeting are formulated in
seven recommendations which will be presented to the World
Heritage Committee at its eighteenth session in December 1994
(see Document WHC-94/CONF.001/INF.4, Annex IV to this report).
XII.6 The Delegate of Senegal congratulated and thanked the
expert group. He noted with satisfaction the evolution of the
process of reflection expressed in the document, as well as its
new orientations which are in accordance with Senegal's wishes.
Their implementation, with the move away from the strongly
"monumental" concept which has prevailed thus far, will permit
the nomination of many African cultural sites to the World
Heritage List. African cultural heritage has its roots in living
cultures, and the role of humankind in all its aspects is
essential.
XII.7 The Delegate of Spain also congratulated the group of
experts for its work and its conclusions which throw new light
on the World Heritage List. He endorsed the idea that
"monumentality" should not be the foremost consideration in the
*[55]
concept of cultural heritage and particularly stressed
Recommendation No. 3 of the expert meeting (p.7 of the document
WHC-94/CONF.001/INF.4) regarding the necessity to encourage
nominations from regions and for types of properties which are
under-represented.
XII.8 The Delegate of the United States congratulated the
expert group for the ideas and proposals contained in the working
document which he would communicate to specialists upon his
return. He underlined the importance and need to take better
account of living cultures and stated that further reflection
along these lines should be continued for the development of this
study.
XII.9 The Delegate of Thailand expressed satisfaction with
this work which achieved far more than previous studies and which
highlighted important matters of great concern to Thailand and
many other regions. He endorsed the change in the name "Global
Study" to "Global Strategy for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention". This change illustrates the need to
redirect attention to important aspects of this implementation
which must be considered with care. The preparation of a global
strategy will help to throw light on the work of the Committee
far better than a simple "study". This strategy will also permit
the identification of indispensable elements for a more balanced
approach to establishing the List.
The Delegate of Thailand then made several comments on the
modifications to certain cultural criteria proposed by the
experts in Recommendation No. 7. He endorsed the modification
proposed for criterion (i) and stressed the importance of the
proposed modification to criterion (ii) which, in its present
form, only takes into account cultural influences which occurred
in one direction only, between the different continents. This
re-examination should be carried out in-depth in order to avoid
all notion of any cultural domination: efforts must be made to
achieve diversity of the manifestations of different cultures in
their interaction with their environment.
The experts' suggestion for criterion (iii) is good, however,
cultures which have disappeared should not be forgotten. The
Delegate of Thailand felt that this remark should also apply to
criterion (v). With regard to criterion (vi), it should be
studied with care so that the idea of outstanding universal value
which is expressed here, is not just a simple tautology of what
has previously bean affirmed, point also endorsed by the Delegate
of the United States. He continued by proposing to reflect upon
the concept of "outstanding" in its temporal dimension. Finally,
the Delegate of Thailand stressed that these different remarks
were not to be interpreted as criticism but that, on the
contrary, he hoped that the group of experts would continue their
work along the same lines.
XII.10 The Delegate of China congratulated the group of
experts for its remarkable work and underlined the importance of
the reflection on the concept of cultural heritage and the need
*[56]
to continue according attention in the future to the diversity
of cultures so as to achieve a fully representative List.
XII.11 The Observer of Italy requested clarification of the
concept of living culture and the types of properties which could
be proposed for inscription according to the thematic categories
proposed by the experts. The Vice President of ICOMOS gave him
the examples of the Route of Santiago de Compostela, inscribed
by the Committee in 1993, which is a good illustration, amongst
others, of the cultural dimension of humankind's peregrinations
through space; the nomads of Australia, who maintain very special
cultural relationships with the land and space; and the Island
of Gorée where one of the principal dimensions is symbolic,
referring to the phenomenon of slavery.
XII.12 The Observer of Australia also congratulated the
experts on their important and very useful report which
introduced significant changes in the process of reflection,
especially in favour of living cultures. He advocated a more
proactive role for the Committee, the Bureau and the States
Parties, and more cooperation between the latter to coordinate
their proposals for inscription in a more constructive manner
than at present. This should lead to improved coherence in the
nominations for inscription and consequently in the List itself.
XII.13 The Observer of Germany fully endorsed the remarks made
by the Delegate of Thailand on the need for reflection on the
definition and implications of "outstanding" and "universal"
within time and space.
XII.14 The IUCN Representative remarked that the cultural
sites were far more numerous on the List than the natural ones,
and as concerns the natural criteria, they had already been
revised with regard to the definition of "outstanding", reflected
in the Bureau Report of 1979, as "Best property of its type".
This concept is not defined elsewhere and IUCN has always applied
this formulation ever since: the World Heritage List has, of
course, to be very selective; one must be rigorous.
XII.15 The Secretary General of ICOMOS was satisfied with the
excellent cooperation between the Centre and ICOMOS for the
preparation and organization of this meeting. The study of these
issues should be continued, with particular attention to the
evolution of the concepts of heritage and conservation. The
findings of this study should be widely disseminated to States
Parties to encourage a general reflection, and ICOMOS would
naturally wish to be associated with any future regional
meetings. The reflection of the group surpasses a simple
opposition between nature and culture, it seeks to identify the
sites which display a relationship between humankind and nature.
The increase in the number of mixed sites could resolve the
question raised by the IUCN Representative.
XII.16 The Director of the Centre announced that the final
report of the expert meeting would be annexed to the Bureau
*[57]
Report (Annex IV), and that its wide diffusion would be ensured,
that the proposals of the experts on global strategy would be
submitted to the eighteenth session of the Committee, and that
the Centre will propose, in its Work Plan and Budget for 1995,
the adoption of the necessary measures to continue the work of
the expert group and especially to organize the proposed regional
meetings.
The Chairperson of the Committee requested the Bureau members to
make their written comments to the World Heritage Centre in
respect of this document.
XIII. PREPARATION OF THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE, INCLUDING A DRAFT AGENDA
XIII.1 The Delegate of Thailand, Dr Adul Wichiencharoen,
informed the Bureau that the preparations of the eighteenth
session of the Committee (to be preceded by a two-day meeting of
the outgoing Bureau) were well underway. The meetings will be
held at the Meridien Hotel, on the Island of Phuket, from 9-10
December (outgoing Bureau) and from 12 to 17 December 1994
inclusive (Committee).
XIII.2 Bureau members endorsed the provisional agenda as
presented in document WHC-94/CONF.001/9, with a modification of
item 14, proposed by the Observer of Italy. The modified text now
reads: "Examination of the World Heritage Fund and approval of
the budget for 1995, and the presentation of a provisional budget
for 1996".
XIII.3 The Bureau also endorsed the proposed draft agenda for
the next meeting of the outgoing Bureau (which will meet in
Phuket, Thailand, on 9 and 10 December 1994, prior to the
Committee session) as presented in document WHC-94/CONF.001/8,
with the correction in the French text, item 6, pointed out by
the Observer of Italy. The modified text should read:
"Examination de la situation du Fonds du patrimoine mondial et
du budget provisoire pour 1995 et du budget provisoire pour
1996".
XIV. OTHER BUSINESS
XIV.1 The Observer of the Philippines informed the Bureau that
his country will host in April 1995 a regional thematic
comparative study meeting: "Rice Cultivation and Rice Terraces
Landscapes", organised jointly by the National Commission of the
Philippines for UNESCO, the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS.
XIV.2 Mr Azedine Beschaouch, Representative of the Assistant
Director-General, Culture Sector, informed the Bureau of the
follow-up to the declaration concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina,
which the World Heritage Committee adopted at its seventeenth
session, in Cartagena, and addressed to the Director-General of
*[58]
UNESCO. Since then, UNESCO undertook to prepare, in cooperation
with the Council of Europe, an inventory of the cultural
monuments in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and a corresponding action
plan. A copy of the Director-General's progress report on this
action will be submitted to the forthcoming session of the
Executive Board, and will then be presented to the World Heritage
Committee at its eighteenth session, in Phuket, with an
invitation to all States Parties to participate in the action.
XV. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
XV.1 On behalf of the Bureau members and the observers, the
Chairperson, Ms Olga Pizano, thanked the Rapporteur and the
Secretariat of the World Heritage Centre for their efficiency in
preparing the report, and for an overall successful meeting.
XV.2 The Chairperson then declared the session closed.
*[Annex I/1]
ANNEX I/ANNEXE I
Distribution limited WHC-94/CONF.001/INF.2
Distribution limitée Paris, 9 July/juillet 1994
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND
CULTURAL ORGANIZATION/ORGANISATION DES
NATIONS UNIES POUR L'EDUCATION, LA SCIENCE ET LA CULTURE
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD
CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE/CONVENTION CONCERNANT
LA PROTECTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL CULTUREL ET NATUREL
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
Bureau du Comité du Patrimoine mondial
Eighteenth session/ Dix-Huitième session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris/Siège de l 'UNESCO, Paris
4-9 July/4-9 juillet 1994
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU/ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU
CHINA/CHINE
Mr Fuzeng YU
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of China to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mr Zhan GUO
Director
Division of Cultural Relics
State Bureau of Cultural Relics
BEIJING
*[Annex I/2]
Mr Feng JING
Programme Officer
Chinese National Commission for UNESCO
BEIJING 100816
Mr Kemiao CHEN
Counsellor
Permanent Delegation of China to UNESCO
23 Blvd. Pasteur
75015 PARIS
COLOMBIA/COLOMBIE
Ms Olga PIZANO
Deputy Director General of Cultural Heritage
COLCULTURA
Colombian Institute for Culture
Calle 9# 8-31
BOGOTA
Mr Jose SALAZAR
Asesor Subdireccion de Patrimonio
COLCULTURA
Colombian Institute for Culture
Calle 9# 8-31
BOGOTA
Ms Isabel VERNAZA
First Secretary
Permanent Delegation of Colombia to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
OMAN
Dr Musa Bin Jaffar Bin HASSAN
Ambassador
Permanent Delegation of Oman to UNESCO
UNESCO HOUSE
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mr Kamal Hassan MACKI
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Oman to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
*[Annex I/3]
SENEGAL
Mr. El Hadji Mbaye Bassine DIENG
Director
Historic and Ethnographic Culture
B.P. 4001
DAKAR
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Mr D. José GUIRAO CABRERA
Director-General
Bellas Artes y Archivos
Plaza del Rey No. 1
MADRID 28071
Ms Maria MARINE ISIDRO
Deputy Director of Monuments and Archaeology
c/Greco No.4
MADRID 28040
THAILAND/THAILANDE
Dr. Adul WICHIENCHAROEN
Chairman
Thai National Committee on the Convention
for Protection of World Heritage
BANGKOK
H.E. M.R. Thep DEVAKULA
Ambassador
Permanent Delegate of Thailand to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mr. Sunthad SOMCHEVITA
Secretary-General
Office of Environmental Policy & Planning
60/1 Phibulwattana 7
Rama VI Road
BANGKOK 10400
Mrs Srinoi POVATONG
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Thailand to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
*[Annex I/4]
Mr Chalermsak WANICHSOMBAT
Deputy Director-General
Department of Environmental Quality Promotion
60/1 Pibulwatana 7
Rama VI Rd. Phyathai
BANGKOK
Mr Payung NOPSUWAN
Director of Natural Resources Conservation Office
Royal Forest Department
BANGKOK
M.L. Chiranand HASDINTRA
Director of Economic Projects Division III
Bureau of Budget
BANGKOK
Mr Bovornvate RUNGRUJEE
Director
Ayutthaya Historic City Project Office
Ayutthaya Province
Mrs Usa KIATCHAIPIPAT
Environmental Officer
Office of Environmental Policy & Planning
60/1 Soi Phibulwattawa 7
Rama VI
BANGKOK 10400
Mrs Prasertsuk CHAMORNMARN
Environmental Officer
Office of the National Environment Board
BANGKOK
Mr Amornsate SINGHA
Second Secretary
Royal Thai Embassy
8 rue Greuze
75116 PARIS
Mr Nathapol KHANTAHIRAN
Second Secretary
Royal Thai Embassy
8 rue Greuze
75116 PARIS
*[Annex I/5]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mr Robert MILNE
Chief, Office of International Affairs
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON D. C. 20013
Mr. Richard COOK
Chief, International Affairs
National Park Service
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON D. C. 20013
Ms Dennise MATHIEU
United States Observer
US Permanent Observer Mission to UNESCO
US Embassy
2 av. Gabriel
PARIS
II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/ORGANISATIONS
PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE
RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR
LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM)
Mr. Jukka JOKILEHTO
Chief
Architectural Conservation Programme
Via di S. Michele 13
00153 ROME
Italy
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL
DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS)
Mr Jean-Louis LUXEN
Secretary General
Hôtel Saint Aignan
75 rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
Mr Henry CLEERE
World Heritage Co-ordinator
Hôtel Saint Aignan
75 rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
*[Annex I/6]
Mr Daniel DROCOURT
Mediterranean Action Plan/UNDP
10ter Square Belsunce
13001 MARSEILLE
Mr Leo van NISPEN
Director
Hôtel Saint Aignan
75 rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
Ms Joan DOMICELJ
Vice President ICOMOS
102 Alfred Street
Milsons Point 2061
Australia
Mme Carmen ANON FELIU
President, Advisory Committee
Puerto Santamaria 49
28043 MADRID
Spain
Mr David MICHELMORE
Advisor
Horbury Hall Chruch Street
Horbury, Wakefield WF4 6LT
U.K.
Ms Regina DURIGHELLO
Assistant to World Heritage Coordinator
Hôtel Saint Aignan
75 rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)/UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE
(UICN)
Mr. James THORSELL
Senior Advisor - Natural Heritage
Rue Mauverney 28
CH-1196 GLAND
Switzerland
WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE
Mr James PAINE
Senior Research Officer
219 Huntingdon Road
CAMBRIDGE CB3 ODL
U.K.
*[Annex I/7]
III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS
ARGENTINA/ARGENTINE
Ms Maria Susana PATARO
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Argentina to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
Dr Alison McCUSKER
Assistant Secretary
Environment Strategies Directorate
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories
G.P.O. Box 787
CANBERRA A.C.T. 2601
Mr Jonathan BROWN
Alternate Permanent Delegate of Australia to UNESCO
Australian Embassy
4 rue Jean Rey
75015 PARIS
BELGIUM/BELGIQUE
Ms Françoise DESCAMPS
ICOMOS-Belgium
106 rue du Cornet
B1040 BRUXELLES
CANADA
Ms Jane Roszell
Director-General National Parks
Parcs Canada
25 Eddy Street (4th floor)
HULL, Quebec K1A OM5
Ms Gisèle CANTIN
Chief, International Affairs
Parcs Canada
25 Eddy Street
HULL, Quebec K1A OM5
*[Annex I/8]
Mr Marius ARSENAULT
Director
Miguasha National Park
Province of Quebec
COSTA RICA
Ms Iris LEIVA-BILLAULT
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Costa Rica to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Mr Michel BENES
Secretary for Cultural Affairs with UNESCO
Ministry of Culture
Valdstejnska 10
ll000 PRGAUE 1
Mr Josef STULC
Director
State Institute for the Preservation of
the Cultural Monuments
Americka 2
2 PRAGUE 12000
Mr Karel KOMAREK
Deputy Permanent Delagate
Permanent Delegation of the Czsch Republic to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
EL SALVADOR
Ms Carmen Maria GALLARDO HERNANDEZ
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of El Salvador to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
*[Annex I/9]
Ms Nanette VIAUD-DESROCHES
Councillor
Permanent Delegation of El Salvador to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
FRANCE
Mr Jean-Louis PONS
Chief, International Mission
Ministry of Environment
Mme Stéphanie MORY
Second Secretary
Permanent Delegation of France to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mme Anne LEWIS-LOUBIGNAC
Technical Advisor
French National Commission
42 Av. Raymond Poincaré
75116 PARIS
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Mr. Hans CASPARY
Conservator of Historic Monuments
Landesamt fur Denkmalpflege
Rheinland-Pfalz
Göttelmannstrasse 17
D-55130 Mainz
Germany
Mr. H. PLACHTER
Professor for Biology & Natural Preservation
University Marburg
Lahnberge
DW-MARBURG
GREECE/GRECE
Mme Maria GUICA
Counsellor
Permanent Delegation of Greece to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
*[Annex I/10]
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
Mr Zoltan SZILASSY
Deputy Head of Department
National Authority for Nature Conservation
Ministry of Environment and Regional policy
Kolto u.21
H-1121 BUDAPEST
Mr Béla KOVACSI
Advisor to the Minister
Ministry of Environment and Regional Planning
P.O. 351
BUDAPEST H-1394
INDIA/INDE
Mrs Nina SIBAL
Ambassador
Permanent Delegation of India to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mrs Nagma Mohamed MALLICK
Second Secretary
Permanent Delegation of India to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
ITALY/ITALIE
Mr G. LEO
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Italy to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mme Marina MISITANO BERAUD
Permanent Delegation of Italy to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
*[Annex I/11]
JAPAN/JAPON
Mr Takenu SASAGUCHI
Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Japan to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mr Kanefusa MASUDA
Chief Senior Specialist
Agency for Cultural Affairs
3-2-2 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-ku,
TOKYO 100
Mr Makoto MOTONAKA
Senior Specialist, Monuments and Sites
Agency for Cultural Affairs
3-2-2 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO 100
Ms Tokuko NABESHIMA
Attaché
Permanent Delegation of Japan to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
LAOS/LAO
Mr Khamphao PHONEKEO
Secretary General of the Laos National
Commission for UNESCO
Ministry for National Education
Vientiane
LEBANON/LIBAN
Mr Rizk BAHJAT
Cultural Attaché
Permanent Delegation of Lebanon to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
*[Annex I/12]
LUXEMBURG/LUXEMBOURG
Mr Jean-Pierre KRAEMER
President
UNESCO National Commission
4 Chemin Zinaca
7626 LAROCHETTE
Mr Georges CALTEUX
Director
UNESCO National Commission
26 rue Munster
9160 LUXEMBURG
MEXICO / MEXIQUE
Mr Salvador DIAZ-BERRIO
Deputy Director for Technical Support and Training
INAH
CORDOBA 45
06700 MEXICO D.F.
NETHERLANDS/PAYS-BAS
Ms Sabine M. GRIMBRERE
Ministry for Cultural Affairs
Legal Advisor for International Cultural Affairs
P.O. Box 3009
2280 ML RYSWYK
The Netherlands
NIGER
Mr Lambert MESSAN
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Niger to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Ms Ingunn KVISTEROY
Deputy Secretary General
Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO
P.O. Box 1507 VIKA
N-0117 Oslo
*[Annex I/13]
Mr Amund SINDING-LARSEN
Vice-President ICOMOS-Norway
Stasjonsveien 35
1300 SANDVIKA
PERU/PEROU
Ms Ana Marine ALVARADO de DIAZ
Counsellor
Permanent Delegation of Peru to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
PHILIPPINES
Mr Augusto F. VILLALON
Commissioner for Philippine Cultural Heritage
Philippine National Commission for UNESCO
MANILA
Mrs Deanna ONGPIN-RECTO
Office of European Affairs
Department of Foreign Affairs
Ms Evangeline ONG-JIMENEZ
Philippine Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Mme. Viera POLAKOVICOVA
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Slovakia to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
Mr Jozef KLINDA
Director, Department of Environmental Policy
Ministry of the Environment
Hlboka 2
81235 BRATISLAVA
*[Annex I/14]
Ms Viera DVORAKOVA
Advisor
Institute for Protection of Monuments
Hnezdoslavovo Nam. E.5
BRATISLAVA
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE ARABE SYTIENNE
Mr Abd El Karim SAOUD
Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Syria to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Mr Taner KARAKAS
Councillor
Permanent Delegation of Turkey to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1 rue Miollis
750l5 PARIS
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAME-UNI
Mr Francis GOLDING
Secretary, ICOMOS U.K.
10 Barley Mow Passage
LONDON W4 4PH
SECRETARIAT
Mr Henri LOPES
Assistant Director-General
Bureau of Relations with Member States
Mr Mounir BOUCHENAKI
Director
Representative of the Assistant Director-General
Sector for Culture
Mr Azedine BESCHAOUCH
Representative of the Assistant Director-General
Sector for culture
*[Annnex I/15]
Mr Bernd von DROSTE
Director
World Heritage Centre
Mr Pierre LASSERRE
Director
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mr Giancarlo RICCIO
Deputy Director
World Heritage Centre
World Heritage Centre Staff
UNESCO/UNDP
Mr Sylvio MUTAL
Chief, UNDP/UNESCO Project
Casilla 4480
LIMA, Peru
Mr Francisco CARRILLO
UNESCO Representative
TUNIS, Tunisia
*[ANNEX II/1]
Limited distribution WHC-94/CONF.1/2
7 June 1994
Original: French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION
OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Eighteenth session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room X (Fontenoy)
4-9 July 1994
Item 4 of the Provisional Agenda: UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan for
1996 - 2001 and World Heritage Conservation
Over the past twenty years, the World Heritage Convention has
given a new perspective to the eternal integration of nature and
culture, and, in the years to come, this will remain a major
thread of continuity in actions undertaken by the World Heritage
Centre.
Although different international conventions concerning either
culture or nature (such as The Hague Convention or the
Biodiversity Convention) have been strengthened or have recently
come into force, the 1972 Convention remains the only one to
consider as inseparable these two essential elements of life and
the evolution of man on earth.
Therefore, over and above the perspectives of daily or medium-
term action of the World Heritage Centre, the strengthening and
broadening of intellectual reflection which it must help to
incite will become increasingly essential: to encourage new
insights into nature and its enduring links with the diverse
cultural history of mankind; not only has nature consistently
served as support, but the balanced use of its resources has
permitted the survival of the human race. Therefore, the Centre
should also contribute to a better understanding of cultural
identities and their specific characteristics. Each culture is
not only a group of monuments, beliefs, traditions and knowledge,
but it also has specific relationships with animals, plants and
all the natural elements. These are amongst the aspects that the
1972 Convention and the World Heritage Centre should help to
explore.
*[Annex II/2]
However, the value and significance of the cultural heritage goes
beyond the rich and multifaceted interactions between nature and
culture: the majority of cultural monuments and sites inscribed
on the World Heritage List were not all chosen for their
"beauty", but also for their significance, their symbolic
importance in the main religious beliefs and major events of the
history of humankind.
Thus, they are also messengers of the cultures which have erected
them, or the events which have seen them emerge and to which they
bear witness. Each one of them can and should also play a
primordial role as a channel or support for dialogue between
cultures and reflection on humankind, and thus respect for others
and their identity, and the fight against exclusion. In this
way, they would contribute directly to one of the major goals of
UNESCO, the construction of a culture for peace.
World Heritage. which is the crystallization of understanding of
the relationship between nature and culture on the one hand. and
between human beings on the other, also appears as one of the
most central and mobilizing themes for environmental education
projects, the understanding and respect of cultural diversity,
and tolerance and peace.
Consequently, what assessment can be made of the functioning of
the Centre and what directions are to be retained for the future?
After twenty years of existence of the Convention and two years
of existence of the Centre, their institutional mechanisms have
proven their effectiveness:
* The List comprises 411 properties inscribed as of 1
January 1994, and it can be said that, except for the
properties situated on territories of States which
have only recently (or not yet) ratified the
Convention, the essential components of the world
heritage as we know it today have at least been
identified. The List of course is not closed, but it
is more through the recognition of new types of
properties that one can expect the most significant
future developments.
* The mechanisms for reception, analysis, treatment and
implementation of international assistance requests
are at present well-orchestrated at the Centre, and
all requests are studied and treated without delay.
Within the Sectors, the cooperation and coordination
of activities, seen in a "cultural and natural
heritage" perspective rather than one of "World
Heritage properties", is continually being
strengthened and improved. The States Parties are
satisfied with the actions implemented by the Centre,
and UNESCO in general, in this field.
* The bases for a promotional policy have been
established and several activities in this field have
been implemented over recent years, in particular at
the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the
Convention. Here again, although much remains to be
done, we are on solid ground.
*[Annex II/3]
These different points should provide the basis for reflection
on the perspectives, both conceivable and desirable, for the
World Heritage Centre for the period 1996-2001.
It would appear that the conclusions to be drawn are that we must
evolve from the quantitative to the qualitative, and in several
directions:
1. For the future development of the List, and to complete
World Heritage identification, qualitative rather than
quantitative reflection is called for. Most of the
monuments and sites of universal importance, considered
from the viewpoint of traditional categories of "classical"
art history, have already been identified, and for the most
part, inscribed.
Reflection should now focus on more fundamental and
somewhat "philosophical" problems: What concept of human
heritage is relected by the List as it exists today? What
is human heritage today, does it only comprise the types of
properties representing the majority on the List today, or
does it also comprise other categories of properties,
little or not represented, or even those to which no
thought has yet been given? The recent revisions to the
Convention's criteria, which introduce the idea of cultural
landscapes, now allows the international recognition of new
forms of non-monumental cultural heritage of different
cultures, and correlatively of associated beliefs and
traditions.
This widening of the Convention 's concept of cultural
heritage to non-constructed aspects should obviously be
pursued and elaborated without going beyond the framework
established in 1972.
On the practical side, it will allow the States which are
not yet Party to the Convention and whose national cultures
have produced few or no "monuments", to join the Convention
and find their place. This requires a serious qualitative
reflection on the List, the notion of human heritage, and
consequently on the global study and~ the necessary
associated thematic studies.
2. Monitoring the state of conservation of site:
Ninety-six reports on the state of conservation of the 378
sites inscribed at that time were presented in 1993 to the
Committee or its Bureau. If this number should further
increase in the future, it is more towards an improvement
of the monitoring methods of the sites already inscribed
(or to be inscribed) that efforts should be made, in close
liaison with the States Parties themselves:
a) for basic reasons of principle : it serves no purpose
to inscribe a site of universal value on the List if
its preservation is not assured:
b) for reasons related to the history of the Convention:
because the heritage of the highly developed countries
*[Annex II/4]
was largely inscribed in the first years of the
Convention, and amongst those that have been inscribed
recently, or will be in the future, the proportion of
properties situated in countries which have a more
pressing need for assistance in this field, will
probably increase:
c) for reasons owing to the general evolution of the
world: because over the years, the number of threats
which weigh upon the heritage appear, unfortunately,
to increase.
For all these reasons, not only must extensive monitoring action
be developed, but also, and especially, its quality must be
improved. This entails the development of monitoring mechanisms
which are systematic decentralized and particularly, as far as
possible, preventive. This monitoring should be carried out
using to the greatest extent possible, the centralized services
of the Organization, its regional offices and its field
representatives, but also with our "traditional" partners, which
are the international and "local" NGOs (e. g. ICOMOS , IUCN, WCMC,
WWF and others) and especially in close cooperation with the
States Parties themselves, which of course assume the major
responsibility for the conservation of the sites. Recognition of
the need to safeguard the sites and prevent any political,
economic or administrative action occurring which would endanger
the values and characteristics for which the site was inscribed
on the List must be encouraged. Site managers and local
authorities as well as local populations should be made aware of
the immense value of the sites, so they may fully recognize that
they belong to world heritage and thus are of exceptional value.
The general public should be informed and educated so that they
may contribute to the protection of the sites. These are some
of the actions for which cooperation with the States Parties is
indispensable in order to safeguard this heritage.
Links should be established or strengthened with the NGOs, in
particular all those that work at the regional, national and
local levels and which testify, in their associative forms, to
the citizens' interest in their heritage, so that state of
conservation reports can be compiled regularly from the "field".
3. At present, all requests for international assistance
received by the Centre are treated and implemented
satisfactorily, but in the coming years the chance in
the scale of our action must be taken into account.
Indeed, due consideration being given to the
increasing threats to the conservation of sites,
which, alas, are amplified owing to political unrest,
civil wars, natural or man-made catastrophes and
increasing poverty in many rural zones of developing
countries where numerous World Heritage sites are
situated, our actions should be carried out on quite
another scale than that which is presently provided
for by the Convention. The funds currently available
play an important catalytic role in preparing
conservation measures and consequently giving momentum
to the implementation of projects, especially as
concerns preparatory_assistance. But, even if this
allocation is greatly appreciated by the States
*[Annex II/5]
Parties, the three types of assistance available
(technical cooperation, training and promotion) will
become increasingly insufficient: our action should be
carried out on a much greater scale, and this is why
we are attempting to establish a fund-raising policy
based on the project policy (cf. point 4). As the
ultimate goal of our action is to respond not only to
isolated requests but to encourage significant
transfers, financial, human and technical, not only in
order to fufil these needs, particularly in their
mutliple aspects, but especially to ensure that the
populations and site managers are given the
opportunity to learn that their true interest lies in
being our partners in the long-term conservation of
the sites. and not in committing destructive actions
for immediate but temporary benefits.
In increasing the three budget lines of the World
Heritage Fund for technical cooperation. monitoring
and the global study (for the latter, very modestly),
during its seventeenth session in 1993, the Committee
made way for future development. But in the coming
years, other means should be found to increase
technical cooperation and more particularly, our
efforts should concentrate on the quality of our
action, (here again it is with regard to the
qualitative aspect that efforts should be made):
- by foreseeing the needs of States Parties.
through continual close cooperation with them and
the site managers (cf. monitoring), so as to
develop a liaison and a preventive and advisory
role, and through this to envisage, even to
instigate, with them well before damage occurs,
well-targeted and formulated requests for
international assistance, and to ensure close
monitoring of the implementation and evaluation
of the results, and possible necessary future
action.
- In further developing cooperation with the
Sectors, not only Culture (CLT/CH) and Science
(SC/ECO), but also with the other divisions or
sectors, and in closely associating conservation
and the sustainable development of populations.
For example, with the Education Sector for all
that concerns heritage education and creating
people's awareness of their traditional cultures,
non-physical heritage, science for sustainable
development, cultural tourism, etc. In this way,
world heritage should hold a central place in
UNESCO with a mobilizing and "catalytic" role.
4. A veritable project policy should be elaborated rather
than waiting for isolated requests from States
Parties. This policy could cover the training
component, for which professional competence already
exists at the Centre, and also fund-raising for
specific conservation projects. On this basis, a fund-
raising policy and even a marketing approach should be
conceived and refined in a global and strategic
perspective avoiding isolated and uncoordinated
*[Annex II/6]
actions. The elaboration of a clear and coherent
concept of our engagement and the links which could be
established between heritage conservation and the
interests of potential important donors should permit
not only to secure financial or in-kind assistance,
but also to establish true technological partnerships
for the safeguarding of the sites with technically-
advanced major international companies. It could also
encourage local populations to become increasingly
involved in in-situ conservation of their cultural
heritage, by preserving its aspect of a support for
social life which is a source of continual
regeneration of community life and is also propitious
in conserving the traditions, techniques and knowledge
of cultures of which this heritage is born.
The great majority of local populations could and
should be closely associated with the management and
safeguarding of the sites, regardless of whether, for
example, specific techniques concerning the
conservation of material of vegetal origin are
concerned or a profound knowledge of nature and its
ecological balance. In any event, it is clear that
the long-term conservation of properties inscribed on
the List will never be guaranteed unless human
heritage is first and foremost the concern of those
who live alongside it.
5. Promotion of the Convention should of course continue
to be developed and, as is already reflected in the
present biennium, should no longer solely promote the
Convention, but should also disseminate information on
the heritage and values of members of every culture of
the world. In order to achieve this, and fully carry
out its role at World Heritage sites, as well as with
the entire civil community, promotion must be in step
with the 21st century by mobilizing the most advanced
technologies: its field of intervention is worldwide,
and information dissemination between the sites
scattered throughout our Planet should be continual
and thorough. The progressive establishment of a
number of small "World Heritage centres" in a few
selected countries according to the geographical size
of the region or the sub-region, the number of sites
inscribed, the number and specificity of the cultural
areas which are represented and the countries' ability
to mobilize human and financial resources, also
requires live multimedia communication such as will be
provided by the "information highways" which are
already under construction. As a first objective, two
or three "centres" could be envisaged for the
Europe/United States/Canada region, one or two for
Latin America, one for the Arab States, one or two for
Africa, and two or three for Asia and the Pacific.
Here again, all means must be mobilized in order to
anticipate technological progress, rather than, as is
often the case, attempt to catch up with it :
information channels for promotion will also be used
by the constellation of partners in need of advice,
assistance, training and education -- sites, but also
relays of the civil society -- which will increasingly
*[Annex II/7]
express themselves in terms of values represented by
world heritage. Several events of worldwide
importance should also be the occasion for a very
broad diffusion of world heritage messages. At the
occasion of the 50th anniversaries of the UN in 1995,
then UNESCO in 1996, carefully prepared large
exhibitions on World Heritage sites should be
presented, to show how, by their symbolic impact and
the messages they carry on beliefs, hopes and events
of the history of humankind, they illustrate and
embody -- sometimes positively, sometimes also
negatively -- the great ideals that we defend: peace,
justice, tolerance, education, recognition and respect
of others. Other important world events, such as the
World Exhibitions of 1996 and 2000, amongst others,
should provide the opportunity to disseminate
throughout the world the messages of our Organization
based on heritage values.
To complement these important events, and to ensure
the continuity and permanence of diffusion of our
message, we will continue to develop our publication
The World Heritage Newsletter, which is extremely
well-received by States Parties and our partners, to
reinforce cooperation with our partners in the field
(State Party officials, site managers, international
and local NGOs...) and our colleagues in the
Organization (CLT, SC, ED, OPI...) to diffuse our
experiences of concrete problems and actions
undertaken, in a clear and precise manner. Links
could also be established through worldwide reviews
and journals specializing in our field of competence.
All these considerations indicate two major lines of action for
the years to come:
a) an in-depth intellectual reflection on our concepts
and practices. Not only on the continual study of the
concept of humankind's heritage, but also on the best
ways of ensuring the safeguarding of the cultural and
natural heritage, sustainable human development and
the preservation of the diversity of cultural
identities which mutually sustain one another.
b) a more decentralized approach to problems.
All this holds true, as we have seen, with respect to the
completion of the identification of world heritage and the
completion of the List, monitoring, the implementation of
international assistance and promotion/education.
Our future direction should now focus on a threefold action, with
more flexible and autonomous administrative and organizational
structures which can only be clearly defined through the
Organization's thorough reflection and careful self-examination.
This threefold action will be:
- centrifugal in order to expand and disseminate our
message throughout the world, probably at a sub-
regional level, to get closer to the sites and
*[Annex II/8]
populations, without losing our role of dec:..ion-
making and central guidance: this is decentralization,
or perhaps rather deconcentration;
- centripetal, not only to be immediately informed of
the problems, preoccupations and achievements of those
in the field, but also to centrally converge the
knowledge, reflections and intellectual collaboration
which must be expressed in accordance with the
specificies of world cultures to which belong, first
and foremost, the sites and monuments which it is our
duty to protect.
- transversal, to unite in a project and a global action
the different components of UNESCO, and foresee a
transectoral working situation of the Centre, whereby
World Heritage is a federative and mobilizing concept
and one of the focal points for the implementation of
the Organization's action.
Only under these conditions can the 1972 Convention attain its
ultimate philosophical goals which, beyond the safeguarding of
the great achievements of humankind and Nature, clearly concern
their reciprocal interactions, the memory of their past and the
guarantee of their perpetuity.
*[Annex III/1]
Limited distribution WHC-94/CONF.001/3a.Add.1
17 June 1994
Original: English
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION
OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATIONAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Eighteenth session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room X (Fontenoy)
4-9 July 1994
Item 5.1. of the Provisional agenda: State of conservation of
properties inscribed on the World Heritage List:
addendum 1: Progress report on the implementation of the
decision of the World Heritage Committee
regarding the methodology of systematic
monitoring.
1. SUMMARY INTRODUCTION
Following the recommendations of the expert meeting on the
methodology of systematic monitoring (Cambridge, 1-4 November
1993) and the decisions of the World Heritage Committee at its
seventeenth session in December 1993, the Secretariat proceeded,
in consultation with the advisory bodies and individual experts,
with the further development of the framework and methodology of
systematic monitoring of the state of conservation of World
Heritage sites.
This progress report presents a proposal which integrates
two complementary elements, both of which are indispensable for
a credible and successful monitoring and reporting system.
The first is the systematic and repeated observation of the
conditions of a site and its periodic reporting -with external
advice- to the World Heritage Committee. These activities are
generally being understood to be the prime responsibility of the
States Parties and the agency with management authority.
*[Annex III/2]
The second element is the Committee's strategy towards
systematic monitoring which would be characterized by a regional
approach and the provision of external advice and assistance to
the States Parties in putting management and monitoring
structures in place and in preparing the periodic state of
conservation reports.
Such an integral monitoring and reporting system would have
an immediate and long-term impact on actions and decisions taken
on all levels.
World Heritage site: Improved site management, advanced
planning, reduction of emergency and ad-hoc interventions.
State Party: Improved World Heritage policies, advanced
planning, improved site management.
Region: Regional cooperation, regional World Heritage
policies and activities better targeted to the specific
needs of the region.
Committee/Secretariat: Better understanding of the
conditions of the sites and of the needs on the site,
national and regional levels. Improved policy and decision
making.
The proposed monitoring structure implies a cooperative
effort between the site-manager, the States Parties and the World
Heritage Committee, with two objectives in mind: improved
site-management and conservation, and a more effective regional,
national and site specific World Heritage cooperation.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The immediate background to these proposals is the
World Heritage Committee session in Cartagena and the
expert meeting in Cambridge. To set the proposals in
context, however, it is useful to go all the way back
to the World Heritage Convention and the Operational
Guidelines themselves
2.2 Article 4 of the Convention states:
"Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that
the duty of ensuring the identification, protection,
conservation, presentation and transmission to future
generations of the cultural and natural heritage
referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its
territory, belong, primarily to that State. It will do
all it can to this end, to the utmost of its own
resources and, where appropriate, with any
international assistance and co-operation, in
particular, financial, artistic, scientific and
technical, which it may be able to obtain."
*[Annex III/3]
Article 27.2 states:
They [the States Parties] shall undertake to keep the
public broadly informed of the dangers threatening
this heritage and of activities carried on in
pursuance of this Convention."
2.3 Article 29 of the Convention states:
"1. The States Parties to this Convention shall, in
the reports which they submit to the General
Conference of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization on dates and in
a manner to be determined by it, give information on
the legislative and administrative provisions which
they have adopted and other action which they have
taken for the application of this Convention, together
with details of the experience acquired in this field.
2. These reports shall be brought to the attention of
the World Heritage Committee."
It is also worth noting that the Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention require the State Party to inform
the Committee "of their intention to undertake or
authorize in an area protected under the Convention
major restorations or new constructions which may
affect the World Heritage value of the property"
(par. 58) and a state of conservation report to
accompany all requests for technical assistance
(par. 94.e).
2.4 By adhering to the Convention the States Parties have
thus accepted the obligation to report to the
Committee on the implementation of the Convention in
general and on the conditions of and threats to the
sites in particular.
2.5 Following the sixteenth session of the Committee where
"The Committee noted that the monitoring of the state
of conservation of World Heritage sites will receive
greater emphasis than the identification and
designation of sites in the future work of the
Convention", the Operational Guidelines also define
the role of the Committee in monitoring. Paragraph 3
states that the Committee ''has four essential
functions." The second of these is to "monitor the
state of conservation of properties inscribed on the
World Heritage List" (ibid).
Other references to monitoring in the operational
Guidelines relate to the List of World Heritage in
*[Annex III/4]
Danger. Paragraph 81 reads: "The Committee shall
review at regular intervals the state of property on
the List of World Heritage in Danger. This review
shall include such monitoring procedures and expert
missions as might be determined necessary by the
Committee."
2.6 Taken together with the calls for assessments of
nominated sites before inscription and before
inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger,
the Operational Guidelines thus indicate what might be
termed reactive quasi-judicial monitoring, the
assessment of sites by external experts against
objective criteria with a view to procedural action as
a consequence.
2.7 In practice, as shown widely in the papers of the
World Heritage Bureau and of the Committee, there has
been much monitoring and reporting of sites on the
World Heritage List. Since the mid 1980's there has
also been a continuing feeling that a more systematic
and less reactive system should be introduced. The
expert meeting in Cambridge in November 1993 was
conceived in order to carry this work forward.
3. DISCUSSION
3.1 The Cambridge meeting focused on the difference
between monitoring, the systematic repeated
observation of a site at regular intervals, and
reporting, the compilation of summary reports of those
observations together with proposals for remedying
problems identified. See WHC-93/CONF.002/INF5 for
fuller definitions of the terms used. It considered
the importance of involving different agencies at
different levels in the monitoring process and
stressed the need to obtain and up-date information on
a systematic basis. Underlying this discussion there
was a commonly held view amongst the participants that
monitoring should lead to better management of
the sites and should enable the achievement or
non-achievement of management aims to be recorded.
3.2 Before bringing forward proposals for advancing this
work, it may be worth briefly considering the
underlying assumption about systematic observation.
This implies that in respect of each World Heritage
Site it will be possible to establish indicators in
the form of statistical data which can be measured at
regular intervals in order to observe the health of a
site and the quality of its management. These
*[Annex III/5]
indicators will need to be specific to a site or type
of site, but the expectation seems to be general that
they can be found.
3.3 Consideration of the evidence and practical experience
in monitoring sites suggest that this is a false hope.
Factual data about the name, ownership, location and
extent of sites need to be recorded, but say nothing
about their state of conservation. In the case of
natural sites the number of species is highly
important. An important decline in number would be
significant, but would come at the end of a process of
poor management, increasing pollution, natural
disaster or other threat. Other data held by the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) is selective and
descriptive and is not in the form of statistical
indicators.
3.4 In the case of cultural sites the problem is greater
in that many of the objective indicators which might
be chosen -the rate of erosion of a stone surface, for
example- present problems of measurement as well as of
selection. It would be wrong, however, to over-stress
the differences between the types of sites; in both
cases objectivity is not easily achievable by
statistical means.
3.5 This apparently negative point has been stressed for
several related reasons. It explains the aspiration
for a methodology which is consistent and objective,
and at the same time it explains why previous attempts
to devise questionnaires and centralized approaches
have been opposed by experts and have not been
fruitful. It also points to the difficulties faced by
any external observer who wishes to measure change
over time. It underlines the need for any account of
a site to be both descriptive and to be based on an
informed judgement, preferably on the part of someone
closely familiar with the site.
3.6 In the light of these considerations it is possible to
set out some criteria for a system of monitoring and
reporting.
4. REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING PROCEDURES
4.1 Documentation should be prepared on a consistent
basis, not because sites are the same or can use the
same indicators, but simply for ease in compiling,
storing, accessing and handling information.
*[Annex III/5]
4.2 Within the operation of the World Heritage Convention,
the process of describing a site should take the same
form from its nomination for inscription onwards.
4.3 Information about a site and an expert view of its
condition and changes over time should be reported
regularly through the World Heritage Centre to the
World Heritage Committee and stored with the papers
relating to each site in a way which makes it readily
accessible to the Committee and to other interested
parties. It is essential that the site managers be
involved in the process of monitoring, and that there
be a participation by professionals or an agency
independent of the national organization with direct
management responsibility in order to ensure the
credibility and objectivity of the reporting.
4.4 At the level of the individual site, however,
monitoring should be a normal part of the management
process, keeping track of expenditure, works of
maintenance and repair, staffing changes, external
threats and so on. It should be carried out by those
with the greatest relevant knowledge, those with
direct management responsibility for the site. In
larger sites, notably but not exclusively historic
towns, this management approach will need to be
incorporated into the work of a number of agencies.
4.5 At the level of the State Party, information which
results from monitoring should be used to generate a
report on the way in which it is meeting its
obligations under the World Heritage Convention and an
indication of the strength of its heritage management
systems. The systems devised to establish and oversee
monitoring should also provide a way of ensuring
co-ordination and co-operation between the various
agencies responsible for World Heritage sites.
4.6 At the level of the Committee and the Centre, a
properly functioning monitoring and reporting system
should provide the evidence that the Convention is
fully respected by States Parties. It should provide
the basis on which the resources of the Fund and other
kinds of assistance can be directed. In time, it
should reduce the need for exercise in reactive
monitoring in response to specific problems and
reports (but see paragraph 6.16 below). It is
therefore important to produce a system which leads to
a gradual improvement in the management and state of
conservation of the sites .
*[Annex III/7]
4.7 At the level of the Centre, the system should improve
information and communication with the sites and the
State Parties. It should enable the Centre and other
World Heritage partners to make the best use of their
ability to assess, advise and train, as well as to
enhance their information base.
4.8 In order to optimize the impact and efficiency of
monitoring and the results thereof, a national or
regional approach to monitoring should be applied by
the Centre. For each programme of monitoring,
appropriate partners should be identified for
involvement. Such programmes could be initiated with
workshops for the partners and other participants in
the monitoring activity with the objectives of
establishing the framework, defining needs for
training in the methods of management and monitoring,
and identifying professional resources in the region.
5. THE BASIS OF THE PROPOSALS
5.1 Under the Convention it is the States Parties which
accept obligations towards the World Heritage sites
and obligations to prepare reports for the Committee.
The State Party, therefore, is crucial to, and should
be at the centre of, the world-wide monitoring and
reporting system which it is intended to introduce.
5.2 This is not to say that the State Party at the level
of central government or national institution should
carry out the task in isolation. On the contrary, it
should already be clear that involvement at the site
level is imperative if monitoring worth the name is to
take place. To provide authority and credibility,
another necessary element for reporting is an
independent element, working alongside the site
authorities and the state parties. This might come
from an individual or organization with relevant
experience from within or outside the country.
Regional cooperation can also provide a useful
mechanism for establishing systems and providing an
independent element: these proposals draw heavily on
the experiment in Latin America co-ordinated by the
UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project. What is vital, however,
is that there should be a reporting relationship
between the State Party and the Committee underlying
any other relationship or form or organization
involved in the monitoring. These proposals will only
be made to work effectively if States Parties accept
the obligation to produce regular reports and
introduce arrangements for doing so.
*[Annex III/8]
5.3 A pro-active strategy from the World Heritage
Committee towards the States Parties and the sites is
equally indispensable. The experience of the Latin
American monitoring programme has shown that an
external involvement in monitoring is fully acceptable
to most of the States Parties if this is based upon a
continuous cooperation between an external partner -in
this case a UNESCO project- and the States Parties and
the site managers. Essential elements of a monitoring
strategy should be: regional cooperation, the
provision of information, advice and assistance in
setting up adequate management and monitoring
structures, and involvement in the preparation of
credible state of conservation reports.
A regional approach will optimize the impact and
efficiency of monitoring and will enable the Committee
to define regional strategies for World Heritage
activities.
5.4 The basis of these proposals can be described as
follows:
The States Parties' Responsibility
a) Monitoring, the continuous observation of the
conditions of the site, is (to be) incorporated
in the day-to-day management of the site,
resulting in annual reports to be prepared by the
site manager or management authority.
b) 5-yearly state of conservation reports will be
prepared by the States Parties with the
involvement of the site-manager/management
authority and an external partner, preferably in
the context of the regional monitoring programmes
that will be set up by the Secretariat.
c) The State Party will present the 5-year reports
to the Secretariat
d) The Secretariat will collect the 5-year reports,
verify their contents and prepare with the help
of its decentralized regional structure Regional
State of the World Heritage Reports for
presentation to the World Heritage Committee. The
first of these reports will be presented to the
World Heritage Committee at its eighteenth
session: the State of the cultural World Heritage
in Latin America and the Caribbean, which will be
the result of the UNDP/ UNESCO Latin American
Monitoring Programme. Regional monitoring
programmes will be launched in the coming years
for Asia, Africa, Europe and the Arab States.
*[Annex III/9]
Once the monitoring system is properly launched,
the Committee would review every year the report
on one specific region.
e) On the basis of these reports, the World Heritage
Committee will, if appropriate, make specific
recommendations to the State Party on actions to
be taken. Decision-making regarding regional or
national World Heritage policies and activities
and regarding requests for technical cooperation
will equally be based on those reports.
The Pro-active Monitoring Strategy
f) Parallel to inviting the States Parties to put
monitoring and reporting systems in place, the
Committee instructs the Secretariat to initiate
regional monitoring programmes.
g) The Secretariat establishes a workplan for
worldwide and regional monitoring programmes and
identifies the most appropriate partner(s) for
monitoring in each of the regions, who will serve
as the regional focal point for monitoring.
h) In the context of these regional programmes, the
Centre establishes contacts with States Parties,
site-managers and other possible participants and
defines jointly with them the most appropriate
regional monitoring strategy. If necessary,
regional seminars will be held to initiate the
monitoring process.
i) Upon request and in line with the decisions of
the World Heritage Committee, the Centre provides
assistance and external advice to the States
Parties and the site-manager on management
practices and collaborates in the preparation of
the 5-year state of conservation reports.
6. DETAILED PROPOSALS
Nomination Form
6.1 Since the beginning of the process for a potential
World Heritage site is the compilation of a nomination
form, it seems appropriate to begin detailed proposals
with that form. Annex I lists the headings under which
it is proposed to group the questions on the form and
the questions themselves. The aim is to produce a
logical series of groupings for the questions, to seek
for more precision in replies than the current form,
and to give much more weight to management
*[Annex III/10]
considerations. The notes to the form should emphasize
the need to provide specific information and to annex
important documents such as management plans. In this
way the question of World Heritage site nomination
should from the beginning be brought close to the
management process. Site managers should always help
to complete it.
6.2 Approval is sought for the Nomination form outlined in
Annex I with the understanding that explanatory notes
will be prepared to accompany the nomination forms.
"Baseline" Information
6.3 Once completed, the nomination form should also serve
as the first "monitoring report" on each World
Heritage site. It should be regarded as the basic
source of data. For that reason, if the Centre or the
advisory bodies have significant questions to raise
about a nomination, it is recommended that they are
answered by way of a specific amendment or revision of
the nomination form. No site should be recommended by
the advisory bodies for inscription until they are
satisfied with the contents of the form.
6.4 The Secretariat will make the necessary arrangements
for the adequate storage and management of the
nomination file, state of conservation reports and
other relevant material, forwarding copies to the
appropriate advisory bodies and making full use of the
information/documentation services of WCMC/IUCN,
ICOMOS and ICCROM, and others. Particularly where
cultural sites are concerned, there is a need for
considerable further work to develop systems for
storing, handling and networking information.
6.5 Approval is sought for these proposals for using and
storing the baseline informations.
Monitoring
6.6 Once a site has been inscribed, monitoring should be
the responsibility of those in day-to-day charge of
the site. This should be built in to the planning and
budgeting process. Each year, at the start of the
planning round, the information in the nomination form
should be reviewed. Much of the information will not
change from year to year and only significant changes
need to be noted.
*[Annex III/11]
6.7 On certain matters, however, a brief written statement
should be prepared each year for the use of site
managers and information of the State Party.
These are.
6.7.1 Present state of conservation (Ref. 3d in
the form)
6.7.2 Agreed plans relating to the property (Ref.
4f in the form)
6.7.3 External Factors Affecting the Site (Ref.
5a-f in the form).
6.8 In the light of the report described in the previous
paragraph, annual budgets and plans for maintenance,
conservation and management should be prepared or
rolled forward.
6.9 Approval is sought for this formula for regular
monitoring, and of the proposal that State Parties
should be invited to ensure that such arrangements are
in place.
Monitoring and Reporting Strategy
6.10 The Secretariat develops proposals for regional
monitoring programmes for approval by the Committee
for each of which the most appropriate partner(s)
should be identified. These regional programmes should
aim at establishing a communication and collaboration
between the States Parties, the sites and the
Secretariat, promoting regional cooperation, providing
information, advice and assistance in setting up
adequate management and monitoring structures,
assisting in the preparation of credible five-year
reports (as described in the following section) and
preparing regional state of conservation reports for
presentation to the World Heritage Committee.
6.11 Approval is sought for this regional monitoring and
reporting strategy.
Regular Reporting
6.12 It is proposed that every five years the information
in the nomination form should be carefully reviewed,
and a written report should be sent by the State Party
*[Annex III/12]
to the World Heritage Centre. The State Party should
be responsible for ensuring the reports are prepared.
Site managers should also be involved in the
preparation, but there should always also be an
independent element, i.e. the involvement of a
qualified agency or individual from outside the
organization responsible for managing the site, e.g:
in the context of the regional programmes that will be
set up by the Secretariat (see paragraph 6.10).
6.13 In addition to providing up-to-date information, each
report should include a schedule of recommended action
to deal with problems or threats identified, together
with an identified agency for taking the action and an
indication as to whether the agency concerned has
accepted responsibility for, and the practicality of,
the action concerned. These recommendations may
involve the State Party, the Bureau and the Committee,
as well as agencies more directly involved. In
forwarding the reports, the State Party should comment
on each recommendation
6.14 In cases where a request for technical assistance is
made to the Centre, such a report should always be
prepared and annexed to the request (Operational
Guidelines, paragraph 94.(b)). In the case of sites
which are already inscribed on the list, it is
proposed that within five years reports based on the
revised nomination form be prepared and submitted.
6.15 Approval is sought for these proposals for the
compilation, submission and handling of regular
monitoring reports.
Reactive Monitoring
6.16 In the case of sites which are threatened or damaged
by natural disasters or unforeseen dangers, or where
for whatever reason there is perceived to be a major
problem or concern, it will remain necessary to
undertake special missions of investigative analysis
and recommendations. Such cases will continue to be
handled as they arise. It is, however, to be hoped
that as a system of systematic monitoring and
reporting is introduced, the need for such missions
will gradually decline.
6.17 Properties in the List of World Heritage in Danger
will, in accordance with the Operational Guidelines
paragraphs 75-82, be systematically monitored on a
regular basis so as to assess whether additional
*[Annex III/13]
measures are required to conserve the property,
whether the property should be deleted from the List
of World Heritage in Danger if the property is no
longer under threat, or whether to consider deletion
of the property from the World Heritage List.
Training
6.18 It will be clear from what has been said above that it
would be wrong to conceive of monitoring as a subject
for separate training. A site which is well-managed
will be well-monitored and it would be contrary to the
spirit and intention of these proposals to specify
training based simply around the proposals set out in
this paper.
6.19 Two training approaches to these proposals seem to be
appropriate:
6.19.1 Discussion of the proposals once adopted as
an item on the agenda of existing meetings,
seminars and training activities, both
national and regional.
6.19.2 Regional workshops on the management and
monitoring of World Heritage sites for site
managers directly involved.
Resource Requirement
6.20 Systematic monitoring by management staff will not
impose an additional requirement on managers.
Experience suggests that an independent contribution
to a five-yearly monitoring report should take of the
order of 10 person days (in the range 5-15 days
depending on the complexity of the site). In
exceptional cases and within the limits of the
available resources, assistance may be provided to
this effect.
7. PROPOSED ACTIONS 1994-1995
The Bureau is requested to consider the proposals as
presented in this document and to formulate recommendations
thereon .
The Bureau is requested to endorse the following workplan
for the remainder of 1994 and for 1995:
*[Annex III/14]
- July-October 1994: initiate discussions of the amended
proposals with World Heritage site managers and
representatives of States Parties at the occasion of
regional/national seminars.
- December 1994: report on the outcome of these
consultations and presentation of the proposals for
consideration and decision-making to the Committee at
its eighteenth session. The Secretariat will attempt
to present a draft text on monitoring for inclusion in
the Operational Guidelines as well as a revised
nomination form.
- Early 1995: inform the States Parties of the decisions
of the Committee and invite them to put monitoring
structures in place. Implement the decisions of the
Committee.
- Bureau Meeting mid-1995: first evaluation of the
application of the new monitoring procedures.
*[Annex III/15]
WORLD HERITAGE LIST NOMINATION FORM
To be completed on A4 paper
with mans and plans to a maximum of A3
1. Identification of the Property
a. Country
b. State, Province or Region
c. Name of Property
d. Category of Property (e.g. historic town, medieval
cathedral, tropical forest)
e. Exact location on map and indication of geographical
coordinates
f. Maps and/or plans showing boundary of area proposed
for inscription and of any buffer zone
g. Area of site proposed for inscription (ha.) and
proposed buffer zone (ha.) if any (natural sites
only ) .
2. Justification for Inscription
a. Statement of signification
b. Comparative analysis (including state of conservation
of similar sites)
c. 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. Authenticity/integrity
4. Management
a. Ownership
b. Legal status
c. Protective measures and means of implementing them
d. Agency/agencies with management authority
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
*[Annex III/16]
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)
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
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.
*[Annex IV/1]
Distribution Limited WHC-94/CONF.001/INF.4
Paris, 28 June 1994
Original : French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Eighteenth session
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room X (Fontenoy)
4-9 July 1994
Expert Meeting on the "Global Strategy" and thematic studies for
a representative World Heritage List
(UNESCO Headquarters, 20-22 June 1994)
I. Background and objectives
A document (WHC-93/CONF.002/8) on the current situation and
the prospects of the "Global Study" and thematic studies was
presented by the Secretariat to the Committee at its 17th Meeting
in Cartagena (Colombia). After this document had been studied
by the Committee, the Delegate of the United States of America
urged ICOMOS and the Centre to continue this activity, taking
into account the work that had already been carried out.
To this end, the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS organized
a working group meeting at the UNESCO Headquarters on 20-22 June
1994 to concentrate on the representative nature of the World
Heritage List and the methodology for its definition and
implementation, to which experts from Australia, Brazil, Canada,
France, Germany, Niger, Sri Lanka, and Tunisia were invited (the
list of participants is annexed to this report).
Many high-quality attempts had been made over the past
decade to consider the best ways of ensuring the representative
nature, and hence the credibility, of the World Heritage List
in the future, but they had failed to achieve a consensus among
the scientific community, despite the fact that all the component
bodies and partners of the Convention were conscious of its
weaknesses and imbalances. Since the adoption of the Convention
*[Annex IV/1]
by the General Conference of UNESCO in 1972, moreover, the
concept of cultural heritage had also developed considerably in
meaning, depth, and extent. The object of this meeting was
therefore to carry out an examination in depth of all the studies
made of this question over the last ten years and to arrive at
concepts and a common methodological procedure as a result of a
detailed analysis of the different approaches adapted.
All the earlier contributions to this debate, which had been
brought together and analysed in the ICOMOS document Framework
for a Global Study, were therefore studied in the initial phase
of the meeting:
- 1984 Efforts by the Secretariat to put forward initial
thoughts, which were both thematic and centred on
architecture .
- 1987-1988 Expert groups convened by the Sri Lankan
Ambassador to study the concept of a "Global
Study" and its frame of reference, with several
thematic studies.
- 1991 Recommendation by the World Heritage Bureau that
a combined temporal, cultural, and thematic
approach should be adopted for the Global Study.
- 1992 ICOMOS proposal based on the idea of "cultural
provinces" and proposal from the USA and Greece
to expand the ICOMOS proposal by developing a
three-dimensional" time-culture-human
achievement" grid and implementing this by means
of numerous thematic studies.
- 1992 Proposal by M. Léon Pressouyre, in his
publication La Convention du patrimoine mondial
vingt ans après, that there should be a thematic
approach oriented towards categories of property
that are little or not at all represented on the
World Heritage List.
- 1993 ICOMOS expert meeting in Colombo (Sri Lanka)
during which the approach involving the three-
dimensional grid and "cultural provinces" was
reaffirmed. The results of this meeting gave
rise to many discussions in the expert communit
II. The content of the meeting.
The three days of in-depth discussions by the experts led
to unanimous agreement being reached on a number of observations.
It was apparent to all the participants that from its
inception the World Heritage List had been based on an almost
exclusively "monumental" concept of the cultural heritage,
ignoring the fact that not only scientific knowledge but also
intellectual attitudes towards the extent of the notion of
cultural heritage, together with the perception and understanding
of the history of human societies, had developed considerably in
the past twenty years. Even the way in which different societies
looked at themselves - their values, history, and the relations
that they maintained or had maintained with other societies - had
developed significantly. In 1972 the idea of cultural heritage
had been to a very large extent embodied in and confined to
architectural monuments. Since that time, however, the history
of art and architecture, archaeology, anthropology, and ethnology
no longer concentrated on single monuments in isolation but
rather on considering cultural groupings that were complex and
multidimensional, which demonstrated in spatial terms the social
structures, ways of life, beliefs, systems of knowledge, and
representations of different past and present cultures in the
entire world. Each individual piece of evidence should therefore
be considered not in isolation but within its whole context and
with an understanding of the multiple reciprocal relationships
that it had with its physical and non-physical environment.
Against this background, therefore, it was appropriate to
set aside the idea of a rigid and restricted World Heritage List
and instead to take into account all the possibilities for
extending and enriching it by means of new types of property
whose value might become apparent as knowledge and ideas
developed. The List should be receptive to the many and varied
cultural manifestations of outstanding universal value through
which cultures expressed themselves.
This process of reflection should thus be continuous,
pragmatic, and evolutionary in nature, based on systematic
reference to the international scientific community; it should
also be at all times prepared to identify the gaps in the List
and to organize studies of those gaps.
A number of gaps and imbalances were already discernible on
the World Heritage List:
- Europe was over-represented in relation to the rest of the
world;
- historic towns and religious buildings were over-
represented in relation to other types of property;
- Christianity was over-represented in relation to other
religions and beliefs;
*[Annex IV/4]
- historical periods were over-represented in relation to
prehistory and the 20th century;
- "elitist" architecture was over-represented in relation to
vernacular architecture:
- in more general terms, all living cultures - and especially
the "traditionnal" ones -, with their depth, their wealth,
their complexity, and their diverse relationships with
their environment, figured very little on the List. Even
traditional settlements were only included on the List in
terms of their "architectural" value, taking no account of
their many economic, social, symbolic, and philosophical
dimensions or of their many continuing interactions with
their natural environment in all its diversity. This
impoverishment of the cultural expression of human
societies was also due to an over-simplified division
between cultural and natural properties which took no
account of the fact that in most human societies the
landscape, which was created or at all events inhabited by
human beings, was representative and an expression of the
lives of the people who live in it and so was in this sense
equally culturally meaningful.
In order to ensure for the future a World Heritage List that
was at the same time representative, balanced, and credible, the
expert group considered it to be necessary not only to increase
the number of types, regions, and periods of cultural property
that are under-represented in the coming years, but also to take
into account the new concepts of the idea of cultural heritage
that had been developed over the past twenty years. To achieve
this it was advisable for there to be a process of continuous
collaborative study of the development of knowledge, scientific
thought, and views of relationships between world cultures. In
addition, the expert group preferred the more dynamic,
continuous, and evolutionary concept of a "Global Strategy" to
the term "Global Study", which conjured up the idea of a study
that was rigid, unique, and definitive.
This global strategy should take the form of an action
programme covering several phases over at least five years. It
should be basad on a methodological technique designed to
identify the major gaps relating to types of property, regions
of the world, cultures, and periods in the List.
It would result in comparative studies that would call upon
the skills and ideas of the international scientific community
and in a strategy for encouraging nominations of types of
property and from regions that were under-represented on the List
and would, if necessary, make proposals for changes in the
criteria for inscription and in the Operational Guidelines.
*[Annex IV/5]
Two initiatives must therefore be undertaken concurrently:
rectification of the imbalances on the List between regions of
the world, types of monument, and periods, and at the same time
a move away from a purely architectural view of the cultural
heritage of humanity towards one which was much more
anthropological, multi-functional, and universal.
For example, 20th century architecture should not be con-
sidered solely from the point of view of "great" architects and
aesthetics, but rather as a striking transformation of multiple
meanings in the use of materials, technology, work, organization
of space, and, more generally, life in society. This new
approach would naturally require something more than a "world
prize" for architects in the development of a methodology that
would make it possible to identify a battery of objective
criteria and operational procedures that would reveal the
significant characteristics of this category of cultural property
so as to produce selections that were truly relevant.
Themes other than 20th century architecture were also
identified by the group in moving from a "monumental" and static
view to a more comprehensive and diversified perception of the
wealth of human cultures. The world heritage should thus
consider the products of culture by means of several new thematic
approaches: modes of occupation of land and space, including
nomadism and migration, industrial technology, subsistence
strategies, water management, routes for people and goods,
traditional settlements and their environments, etc.
Only by means of this thematic approach would it be possible
to appreciate cultural properties in their full range of
functions and meanings. The three-dimensional time-culture-human
achievement grid might in this sense be considered as a stage in
the process of reflection which had been of great value but which
should give way to a process of reflection that was more
anthropological and global.
In order to pursue this process of reflection on the new
dimensions of the world heritage in greater depth and in this way
to ensure that the representative nature and credibility of the
List are maintained, it would be necessary to proceed not by sub-
contracting the work exclusively to a single NGO, which could not
guarantee the diversity of approaches and disciplines required,
nor by means of large conferences, which would certainly be
costly and largely unproductive, but rather through a small
number of thematic studies, carefully targeted and forward-
looking, and concentrating on new or little known aspects of the
heritage, especially that of under-represented regions such as
Africa or the Pacific (rather than categories of property that
were already extensively covered in the scientific literature),
and organized as regional or sub-regional meetings. These
meetings should bring together regional experts, experts from the
international scientific community in the relevant disciplines,
and countries in the region which were States Parties to the
Convention and those which had not yet joined. These meetings,
each of which would be organized with reference to its specific
*[Annex IV/6]
objective, would be convened by the World Heritage Centre and
ICOMOS, the latter drawing upon its network of experts and
preparing a document that explained the meaning and content of
the Convention so as to assist those experts who had so far not
been involved with it to work within the framework that it
provided.
The expert group was convinced that these different
approaches and initiatives were such as to make a major
contribution to the balance, the representative nature, and
therefore the credibility of the World Heritage List, which the
World Heritage Committee in 1992 identified as lying at the heart
of several of the major goals of its strategic guidelines for the
future.
III Recommendations
State of the World Heritage List (cultural)
The group judged that the current state of the World
Heritage List (for cultural and mixed sites) did not meeting the
original concept of heritage as set forth in the World Heritage
Convention (I, article 1). The List in its present form suffers
from geographical, temporal, and spiritual imbalances. With its
emphasis still on architectural monuments, the World Heritage
List projects a narrow view of cultural heritage and fails to
reflect living cultures, ethnographic and archaeological
landscapes, and many of the broad areas of human activity which
are of outstanding universal value.
This assessment of the state of the World Heritage List
makes it imperative that steps be taken to achieve a
representative, balanced, and credible List. The group therefore
recommends for the consideration of the World Heritage Committee
the following:
1. Building on previous discussions connected with the global
study, the group proposes to pass from a typological
approach to one that reflects the complex and dynamic
nature of cultural expression. They therefore propose that
the project should be renamed "Global Strategy for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention".
2. In order to redress the imbalances in the current List,
some areas have been identified as having high potential to
complete gaps in representation. Areas such as these
should be considered in their broad anthropological context
through time:
*[Annex IV/7]
HUMAN COEXISTENCE WITH THE LAND
- Movement of peoples (nomadism, migration)
- Settlement
- Modes of subsistence
- Technological evolution
HUMAN BEINGS IN SOCIETY
- Human interaction
- Cultural coexistence
- Spirituality and creative expression.
3. In order to encourage nominations from under-represented
regions, the group strongly preferred a series of regional
meetings to the proposal for a large scientific conference.
Regional meetings for States Parties and for regional
experts should be organized, using as working documents the
areas identified in recommendation 2 as well as analyses of
properties already inscribed on the World Heritage List.
In addition, in preparation for such regional meeting,
States Parties are encouraged to develop tentative lists of
properties for inscription as an additional working
document.
4. In order to benefit from the wealth of scientific activity
under way in all parts of the world, systematic approaches
should be made to international scientific organizations to
determine their interest in contributing to these reflec-
tions.
5. In an effort to achieve a representative List, the World
Heritage Centre should actively encourage the participation
of States Parties that have never nominated properties to
the List, as well as countries that have not yet signed the
Convention.
6. In the short term, after considering the list of proposed
comparative studies needed to address current nominations
to the List, the group noted that work is under way on
industrial heritage, cultural landscapes, and 20th century
architecture. In its conviction that comparative studies
should be targeted to gaps in the List, the group
recommends support for studies on protohistoric sites
(especially in sub-Saharan Africa) as well as properties in
the Caucasian region. The group strongly suggested that
comparative studies on areas already well covered in the
international scientific literature, such as brick Gothic
architecture and fortified towns, should only be undertaken
with the participation of the States Parties involved in
relevant nominations.
7. In order to encourage inscriptions of properties that would
fill gaps in the List, the group recommends the
modification of the cultural criteria (Operational
Guidelines, paragraph 24) as follows:
*[Annex IV/8]
Criterion (i) Remove "unique artistic achievement" from
the English version so that it corresponds
with the French;
Criterion (ii) Re-examine this criterion so as to reflect
better the interaction of cultures, instead
of the present formulation, which suggests
that cultural influences occur in one
direction only;
Criterion (iii) Removed "which has disappeared", since this
excludes living cultures;
Criterion (v) Remove the phrase "especially when it has
become vulnerable under the impact of
irreversible change," since this favours
cultures that have disappeared;
Criterion (vi) Encourage a less restrictive interpretation
of this criterion.
*[Annex IV/9]
LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS / LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Dr. Christina Cameron Director-General of National
Présidente de la réunion Historic Sites
Chairperson Parks Canada
Department of Canadian Heritage
Hull, Canada
Ms. Maria Dolores de Almeida Cunha
Division of Intellectual Co-operation
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil
M. Azedine Beschaouch Ancient Président et Rapporteur
du Comité du patrimoine mondial.
M. Isac Chiva Directeur d' Etudes
à l' Ecole des Hautes études
en Sciences Sociales
Paris, France
Ms. Joan Domicelj Vice-President of ICOMOS
Cultural Heritage Consultant
Australia
S. Exc. M. Lambert Messan Ambassadeur,
Délégué permanent du Niger
auprès de l'UNESCO
M Léon Pressouyre Vice-Président de l'Université
de Paris I
Paris, France
Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang W. Wurster Deutsches Archaologisches Institut
Kommission fur Allgemeine und
Vergleichende Archaologie
Bonn, Germany
*[Annex IV/9]
Dr. Henry Cleere Coordinateur de l'ICOMOS pour le
patrimoine mondial /
World Heritage Coordinator
Ms. Regina Durighello ICOMOS
Dr. Bernd von Droste Directeur du Centre du patrimoine
mondial pour l'UNESCO /
Director of the UNESCO World Heritage
Centre
M. Laurent Lévi-Strauss Centre du patrimoine mondial /
World Heritage Centre
*[Annex V/1]
ANNEX V
Ref. Item 9 of the Agenda and Document WHC-94/CONF. 001/7
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY THAILAND TO REMEDY
THE CUMBERSOME AND TIME-CONSUMING PROCEDURE OF ELECTION
OF MEMBERS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE ENCOUNTERED
BY THE-NINTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATE PARTES TO THE
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL
AND NATURAL HERITAGE
I. Existing Rules of Procedure:
13.8 Those states obtaining in the first ballot the required majority shall be
elected, unless the number of states obtaining that majority is greater
than the number of seats to be filled. In that case, the States obtaining
the greatest number of votes, up to the number of seats to be filled,
shall be declared elected. If the number of States obtaining the majority
required is less than the number of seats to be filled, there shall be
additional ballots to fill the remaining seats, the voting being restricted
to the States obtaining the greatest number of votes in the previous
ballot, to a number not more than twice that of the seats remaining to
be filled.
13.9 If necessary, in order to determine the candidates to participate in a
restricted ballot, an eliminating ballot may be taken, which shall be
confined to the candidates having obtained the same number of votes
in the previous ballot.
13.10 If, in final ballot or an eliminating ballot, two or more candidates
obtain the same number of votes. the Chairman shall decide between them
by drawing lots.
II. Proposed Amendments (the underlined words):
13.8 Those States obtaining in the first ballot the required majority shall be
elected, unless the number of States obtaining that majority is greater
than the number of scats to be filled. In that case, the States obtaining
the greatest number of votes, up to the number of seats to be filled,
shall be declared elected. If the number of States obtaining the majority
required is less than the number of scats to be filled, there shall be
a second ballot to fill the remaining seats, the voting being restricted
to the States obtaining the greatest number of votes in the previous ballot,
to a number not more than twice that of the seats remaining to be filled.
13.9 In the second ballot, the candidates which obtain the greatest number
of votes, up to the number of seats to be filled, shall be declared elected.
13.10 If, in the second ballot, two or more candidates obtain the same number
of votes, the chairman shall decide between them by drawing lots.
*[EOF]