Limited distribution CLT-82/CH/CONF.015/8
Paris, 17 January 1983
Original : English and French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC
AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION
OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
World Heritage Committee
Sixth Session
Paris, 13-17 December 1982
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The sixth session of the World Heritage Committee which was
held at Unesco Headquarters in Paris from 13 to 17 December
1982 was attended by the following States Members of the World
Heritage Committee : Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cyprus,
Egypt, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Guinea, Iraq, Italy,
Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama, Senegal,
Switzerland, Tunisia, the United States of America and Zaire.
2. Representatives of the International Centre for Conservation
in Rome (ICCROM), the International Council of Monuments and
Sites (ICOMOS), and the International Union for Conservation of Na-
ture and Natural Resources (IUCN) attended the meeting in an ad-
visory capacity.
3. Observers from 18 States Parties to the Convention not members
of the Committee, namely Afghanistan, Algeria, Canada, Central
African Republic, Chile, Cuba, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Mauri-
tania, Morocco, Niger, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sri Lanka and Syrian
*[2]
Arab Republic also participated in the session, as well as observers
from two intergovernmental organizations, the Arab Educational, Cul-
tural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO) and the Council of Europe,
and three international non-governmental organizations, the Interna-
tional Council of Museums (ICOM), the International Union of Archi-
tects (IUA) and the Organization for Museums, Monuments and Sites of
Africa (OMMSA). Nine States not Parties to the Convention demonstrat-
ed their interest in the implementation of the Convention by sending
representatives to follow the work of the Committee. The full list
of participants will be found in Annex I to this report.
II. OPENING OF THE SESSION
4. The meeting was declared open by the outgoing Chairman, Profes-
sor R.O. Slatyer (Australia) who welcomed the delegates and ob-
servers. The Chairman recalled the conditions in which it had been
decided that the meeting would be held in Paris and expressed the re-
gret he shared with the authorities of Pakistan that it had not been
possible to hold the sixth session of the Committee in Pakistan.
5. In his welcome address on behalf of the Director-General, Mr.
Makaminan Makagiansar, Assistant Director-General for Culture,
once again drew attention to the importance of the role of the Com-
mittee. He referred to the World Conference on Cultural Policies
(Mexico City, August 1982), to the IUCN World National Parks Congress
(Bali, October 1982) and to the Extraordinary Session of the General
Conference of Unesco (Paris, November 1982), at which special atten-
tion was called to the safeguarding of the cultural and natural heri-
tage. After having assured the Committee of the interest taken in
the implementation of the World Heritage Convention by the Director-
General of Unesco, Mr. Amadou Mahtar-M'Bow, he expressed his pleasure
at the adherence to the Convention of eight new States, five of which
are African States. Finally, he considered the situation of the
World Heritage Fund and the budget to be very healthy.
6. The Chairman informed the Committee of requests he had receiv-
ed from organizations which did not have an official status of
observer to meetings of the Committee that they should be allowed to
address the Committee. The Secretariat explained the decisions which
the Committee had taken at previous sessions when similar requests had
been received, namely that such groups would not be authorized to
address the Committee direct nor to circulate material in the meeting
room and that they should be requested to contact their national dele-
gations; since the meeting of the Committee was public, these groups
could however attend as members of the general public. The Committee
confirmed its previous decisions.
*[3]
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
7. The Committee adopted the agenda for the meeting.
IV. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRMEN AND RAPPORTEUR
8. Professor R.O. Slatyer (Australia) was re-elected Chairman of
the Committee by acclamation, and gave a brief speech. Profes-
sor Slatyer informed the Committee that he would stand down from the
Chair when the two Australian nominations were considered by the Com-
mittee.
9. The Committee thereafter elected by acclamation the delegates
of the following States members of the Committee : Argentina,
Bulgaria, Guinea, Italy and Pakistan as Vice-Chairmen.
10. Mr. Azedine Beschaouch (Tunisia) was re-elected Rapporteur by
acclamation.
V. REPORT ON THE SIXTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE
11. The Rapporteur, Mr. A. Beschaouch, referred to the main points
of the report on the sixth session of the Bureau of the Committee
which was held in Paris from 21 to 24 June 1982. In particular, he
drew attention to the twenty-four properties which had been recommend-
ed for inclusion in the World Heritage List and to the Bureau 's re-
quest to IUCN and ICOMOS to draw up draft guidelines for the inscrip-
tion of cultural and natural properties on the List of World Heritage
in Danger. He added that, in response to this request, a report was
presented to the Committee by these two organizations on this question.
VI. REPORT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL ON ACTIVITIES
UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
12. In his report on the activities undertaken for the implementation
of the Convention since the fifth session of the World Heritage
Committee, the representative of the Director-General, Mr. Michel Batisse,
Deputy Assistant Director-General for Science indicated that a total of
*[4]
sixty-nine States had now ratified, accepted or acceded to the Conven-
tion, and that one hundred and twelve properties nominated by thirty-
three States Parties were now included in the World Heritage List. He
reported on the activities which had been decided upon by the Committee
at its fifth session and drew attention in particular to the training
programme and to the various initiatives taken to produce and disse-
minate information material to a wide public. Finally, he indicated
that the surplus in the World Heritage Fund as at 31 October 1982
amounted to over 2.3 million dollars. He considered that, despite
some difficulties to be foreseen in the receipt of contributions, the
overall situation of the Convention and of the Fund was satisfactory
and constituted an excellent example of international co-operation in
the present circumstances.
VII. TENTATIVE LISTS
13. The Committee noted that, with the withdrawal by the Italian au-
thorities of their list, only seven States Parties had so far
submitted tentative lists of cultural and natural properties considered
suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List. The delegates of
Argentina, Brazil and Italy indicated that tentative lists would soon
be available for submission to the Committee.
14. It was noted furthermore that the lists submitted by India and
Portugal referred to cultural properties only, and the Committee
expressed the hope that similar lists would be prepared by these two
States on natural heritage sites.
15. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany informed the
Committee that a second list, comprising some fifty properties,
which had been prepared in the light of the list submitted by the
authorities of France, would shortly be available for submission to
the Committee. This statement gave rise to remarks by the Rapporteur
and the representative of ICOMOS on the desirability of discussion
among States of the same cultural region before tentative lists are
submitted. The Rapporteur also indicated that ALECSO was co-ordinat-
ing the drawing up of tentative lists of cultural and natural proper-
ties in the Arab States which are Parties to the Convention.
16. The Chairman drew attention to the availability of preparatory
assistance to States Parties for the establishment of tentative
lists
*[5]
17. The representative of IUCN indicated that his organization had
compiled a global inventory of natural heritage sites, for the
purposes of indicating to States the type of sites considered appro-
priate for nomination to the World Heritage List and of stimulating
the submission of tentative lists. The representative of ICOMOS in-
dicated that ICOMOS was engaged in a similar exercise with respect
to cultural properties.
18. In concluding the discussion on this item, the Committee reite-
rated the request made at previous meetings that those States
which had not so far submitted tentative lists should prepare lists
and make them available as soon as possible for submission to the
Committee.
VIII. NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
19. Before the Committee examined the nominations to the World
Heritage List, a series of slides on some of the cultural and
natural properties nominated was shown by ICOMOS and IUCN. The Com-
mittee then took up one by one the nominations of those properties
which the Bureau had recommended for inclusion in the World Heritage
List. In each case the Committee was informed of the point of view
of the Bureau as presented by the Rapporteur and took note of the
comments of the representatives of ICOMOS and/or IUCN, who had made
an evaluation of each property in relation to the criteria for the
inscription of properties.
20. The Committee decided to enter in the World Heritage List the
twenty-four cultural and natural properties which had been re-
commended by the Bureau .
Contracting State
having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with Identification
Name of Property the Convention No.
_________________________________________________________________________
Tassili n'Ajjer Algeria 179
The M'Zab Valley " 188
*[6]
Contracting State
having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with Identification
Name of Property the Convention No.
_________________________________________________________________________
Djemila Algeria 191
Tipasa " 193
Timgad " 194
Western Tasmania Wilderness
National Parks Australia 181
The Committee is seriously concerned at
the likely effect of dam construction in
the area on those natural and cultural cha-
racteristics which make the property of
outstanding universal value. In particular,
it considers that flooding of parts of the
river valleys would destroy a number of
cultural and natural features of great si-
gnificance, as identified in the ICOMOS and
IUCN reports. The Committee therefore re-
commends that the Australian authorities
take all possible measures to protect the
integrity of the property. The Committee
suggests that the Australian authorities
should ask the Committee to place the pro-
perty on the List of World Heritage in
Danger until the question of dam construc-
tion is resolved.
Lord Howe Island Group " 186
In view of the importance of Lord Howe Is-
land as a World Heritage site, the World
Heritage Committee suggests that steps be
taken to replace the telecommunications
towers as soon as satellite communications
are available.
Historic Centre of the town of Olinda Brazil 189
*[7]
Contracting State
having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with Identification
Name of Property the Convention No.
_________________________________________________________________________
Old Havana and its Fortifications Cuba 204
The Royal Saltworks of Arc et Senans France 203
National History Park -
Citadel, Sans Souci, Ramiers Haiti 180
The Committee recommends that the Haitian
authorities exercise the greatest care as
regards the restoration and consolidation
work on the entire site, which should be
carried out in conformity with interna-
tionally recognized conservation standards.
Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve Honduras 196
The Historic Centre of Florence Italy 174
Tai National Park Ivory Coast 195
Archaeological Site of Leptis Magna Libyan Arab 183
Jamahiriya
Archaeological Site of Sabratha " 184
Archaeological Site of Cyrene " 190
Aldabra Atoll Seychelles, 185
Republic of
Sacred City of Anuradhapura Sri Lanka 200
Ancient City of Polonnaruva " 201
*[8]
Contracting State
having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with Identification
Name of Property the Convention No.
_________________________________________________________________________
Ancient City of Sigiriya Sri Lanka 202
Selous Game Reserve Taszania 199
Cahakia Mounds State Historic Site United States of 198
America
The old walled City of Shibam Yemen, 192
People's Democratic
Republic of
21. The Committee furthermore decided that the site of Mount Nimba
Strict Nature Reserve, which was already included in the World
Heritage List on the proposal of Guinea, would be extended through the
addition of that part of the Reserve situated in Ivory Coast, which
was nominated by that State.
22. The Committee also decided that the Old Stone Town of Zanzibar
which had been nominated by Tanzania should not be considered
further for inclusion in the World Heritage List.
23. The delegate of Italy informed the Committee that the Italian au-
thorities withdraw the nomination of the Medici Villas in the
Florentine region.
24. The delegate of Pakistan requested the Committee to postpone
consideration of the nominations of Kirthar National Park and
Lal Sohanra National Park since the Government of Pakistan wished to
have the opportunity to provide further information on these two sites
before a final decision was taken by the Committee.
25. With respect to the nomination by the Syrian Arab Republic of
Aleppo, the Rapporteur recalled the request made by the Bureau
that the Syrian authorities should :
*[9]
- provide a clear definition of the zones granted absolute
protection in Aleppo; and
- adapt an urbanization policy analogous to that advocated
in the report of the Unesco mission to Aleppo.
As soon as these additional steps have been taken, the Syrian
authorities are invited to inform the Secretariat so that the nomina-
tion can be re-examined. This information should reach the Secreta-
riat by the end of February 1983 to enable the Bureau to take up this
nomination at its next session.
IX. GUIDELINES FOR THE INSCRIPTION OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES
ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
26. In introducing the draft guidelines which had been prepared
jointly by IUCN and ICOMOS, the representative of IUCN drew at-
tention to the following three objectives of the List of World Heritage
in Danger :
a) to support national efforts towards safeguarding the
integrity of a property;
b) to demonstrate to world opinion the reality of the
danger threatening a property;
c) to contribute to the effectiveness of international
fund-raising campaigns by identifying the property
for which the public is being asked to contribute.
He stated that the list was considered as being a short list,
thus limiting operations by the international community to a reason-
able number. Furthermore, inscription of a property on the list would
be an exceptional action for an emergency measure of limited duration.
27. During the discussion that ensued on the draft criteria and pro-
cedure for the inscription of properties on the List of World
Heritage in Danger, several amendments were suggested to the text in
paragraph 5.5 of the IUCN/ICOMOS document which was proposed for inser-
tion in the "Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World
Heritage Convention". These amendments related to the difficulty of
inscribing properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger when
major operations were not required to protect the property and when the
State concerned did not require assistance under the Convention. The
Committee decided, however, to adapt the guidelines in their present
form and to request the Bureau to examine the proposed amendments at
its next meeting. The text of these guidelines is attached in Annex II.
*[10]
X. NOMINATION OF THE "OLD CITY OF JERUSALEM AND ITS WALLS"
TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
28. The Rapporteur recalled that the Bureau, on the proposal of the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, examined the request for the in-
clusion of the "Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls" in the List of
World Heritage in Danger, and that, since a consensus could not be
reached on this nomination, the Bureau declared that "it will be for
the Committee, at its sixth session, to take in this respect the de-
cision which in any case has to be taken by the Committee".
29. At the Committee's request, ICOMOS pursued its examination of
the file concerning this nomination. In this examination, ICOMOS
took into account the following points :
a) in giving a favourable opinion, in April 1981, on
the inscription of this property on the World
Heritage List, ICOMOS had already drawn attention
to the "severe destruction followed by a rapid
urbanization";
b) the mission of experts, entrusted with the task of
verifying in situ "the nature and the extent of
the threats", had not been able to proceed to Je-
rusalem, for reasons beyond the control of ICOMOS;
c) in the absence of a statement dating from 1982,
ICOMOS has referred to reports made between 1970
and 1980, at the request of the Director-General of
Unesco, by his personal representative, Professor
Lemaire.
Consequently, ICOMOS considered that the situation, as described by
the personal representative of the Director-General, meets criteria
proposed for the inscription of properties on the List of World He-
ritage in Danger as they apply to both "ascertained danger" and
"potential danger".
30. The delegate of the United States, while underlining the uni-
versal importance of the monuments and spiritual heritage of
Jerusalem, recalled the position taken by his government when the
Old City had been nominated to the World Heritage List and explained
the reasons for which he was opposed to its inscription on the List
of World Heritage in Danger which would be equally contrary to the
Convention. He stressed that a property must be situated in the
territories of the nominating State and, in the opinion of his govern-
ment, Jordan had no standing to make such a nomination. Furthermore,
the consent of Israel would be required since it effectively controll-
*[11]
ed Jerusalem. His Government held that the ultimate status of Jeru-
salem should be determined through negotiations by all the parties
concerned. The urban transformations that had taken place in the
Old City did not constitute "serious and specific dangers". The
documents referred to in the ICOMOS analysis did not present a com-
pelling case in favour of inscription, the nomination file did not
contain the urban plan called for by the Bureau and Jordan was in
no position to assume the responsibility stipulated in Article 26 of
the Convention. He proposed that the Committee reserve judgement on
this nomination and stated that, if the Committee were to take a de-
cision now, his delegation would oppose the inscription and call for
a vote to register its position.
31. Many delegates expressed their support for the nomination and
unanimously insisted on the exceptional value and unique reli-
gious and cultural significance of the Old City of Jerusalem. They
recalled that the Old City of Jerusalem must be safeguarded in its
entirety as a coherent whole and that the threats to any one of the
elements of which it is composed endanger the property as such, as
well as its authenticity and its specific character. Finally they
considered that the situation of this property corresponds to the
criteria mentioned in the ICOMOS note and, in particular, to crite-
ria (e) (significant loss of historical authenticity) and (f) (im-
portant loss of cultural significance) as far as "ascertained danger"
is concerned, and to criteria (a) (modification of juridical sta-
tus of the property diminishing the degree of its protection), (b)
(lack of conservation policy) and (d) (threatening effects of town
planning) as far as "potential danger" is concerned.
32. Finally the delegate of Jordan called the attention of the
Committee to the serious and specific dangers which threaten
the "Old City of Jerusalem". He specifically pointed out the des-
truction of religious properties, threats of destruction due to ur-
ban development plans, deterioration of monuments due to lack of
maintenance and responsible management, as well as of the disastrous
impact of tourism on the protection of the monuments. Consequently,
he urged the Committee to protect the Old City of Jerusalem and its
Walls by inscribing the property on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
33. After discussion, the Committee decided, by 14 votes for, 1
against and 5 abstentions, to inscribe the "Old City of Jeru-
salem and its Walls" on the List of World Heritage in Danger. One
State Member of the Committee was absent when the vote was taken.
*[12]
34. In explaining the reasons for his abstention which were legal
in nature, the delegate of Switzerland recalled the statement
made by his delegation when the Committee decided to enter the Old
City of Jerusalem on the World Heritage List, regarding the special
status of Jerusalem (corpus separatum according to the 1947 partition
plan of the United Nations). The Swiss Government considers that the
City of Jerusalem is situated neither on Jordanian nor on Israeli
territory. His delegation would furthermore have wished to have more
complete information on the present state of Jerusalem and he con-
sidered it regrettable that the Committee had not been able to ob-
tain a recent expert evaluation.
35. The delegates of Argentina, Nepal and Zaire also-explained their
vote. These delegations had supported the proposal made by Jor-
dan to inscribe the Old City of Jerusalem on the List of World Heritage
in Danger in view of the outstanding cultural and historical signifi-
cance of this site. They underlined, however, that inscription on the
list had no political implications and should in no way be regarded
as a means for registering political or sovereignty claims by any State.
XI. STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND
AND BUDGET FOR 1983
36. The Committee was informed by the Rapporteur that a working
group met on 14 December 1982 at Unesco Headquarters in order to
consider the different budget lines of the draft budget for 1983 and
to provide the Committee with recommendations concerning the technical
co-operation requests received as well as the budgetary provisions for
the various activities to be undertaken to implement the Convention.
Representatives of the following States Members were present at this
working group : Australia, Bulgaria, Federal Republic of Germany,
France, Italy, Jordan and Pakistan. Mr. A. Beschaouch, the Rapporteur
of the Committee, was Chairman. Representatives of ICOMOS and ICCROM,
as well as Mr. Batisse, the representative of the Director-General,
and members of the Secretariat were also present.
37. The recommendations of the working group were presented to the
Committee in the form of a draft budget.
38. On the recommendations of the working group, the Committee adopt-
ed the following budget for the period 1 January - 31 December
1983 :
*[13]
B U D G E T US $
----------- ------------
I. Preparatory assistance
and regional studies 100 000
II. Technical co-operation
- "large" requests : 596 000
- "small" requests : 149 000
_______
745 000
III. Training 500 000
IV. Emergency assistance 220 000
V. Promotional activities and information 150 000
VI. Advisory services
- ICOMOS : 65 000
- IUCN : 35 000
__________ 100 000
VII. Temporary assistance
to the Secretariat 120 000
_________
1 935 000
3% contingencies 58 050
TOTAL 1 993 050
=========
*[14]
39. As far as temporary assistance to the Secretariat is concerned,
some delegates considered that the Secretariat of the Conven-
tion should be financed from the regular budget of Unesco, as had
been repeatedly stated at previous sessions of the Committee. In
responding to these remarks, the representative of the Director-
General reminded the Committee that, if the Secretariat of the Con-
vention was in fact placed under the responsibility of Unesco accord-
ing to Article 14, the management of the World Heritage Fund foreseen
in Part IV should, according to Article 15.2, be carried out in con-
formity with the provisions of the financial regulations of Unesco
which govern trust funds. In this respect, the practice is to take a
sum totalling 14 % of these funds for general management costs. In
the case of the Convention, the funds for assistance to the Secreta-
riat to cover management costs which have thus far been requested are
considerably less than those which the Organization could legitimately
claim.
40. The Committee approved the interim statement of accounts of the
Fund for the three-year financial period 1981-1983 as set out in
document CLT-82/CONF.015/4. The Committee noted that as of 31 October
1982, the surplus in the Fund amounted to US $ 2,372,715.
XII. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION REQUESTS
41. The Rapporteur reminded the Committee that the Bureau had not
made recommendations on the technical co-operation requests pre-
sented in document CLT-82/CONF.015/5 as a certain number had required
further clarifications. The Bureau had decided, on an exceptional
basis, to submit these requests to the Committee. The Rapporteur in-
formed the Committee that the working group which examined the budget
for 1983 had also examined each of the requests for technical co-ope-
ration. On the basis of the recommendations of the working group, the
Committee approved the following technical co-operation requests :
US$
--------
- Bulgaria - Boyana, Ivanovo and Madara Rider
Request 42 - 43 - 45.1 48 000
- Haiti - Citadel Henry, National History Park
Request 180.1 57 200
*[15]
US$
--------
- Honduras - Maya Site of Copán
Request 129.1 24 050
- Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan - Old City of Jerusalem
Request 148.1 100 000
- Pakistan - Archaeological ruins at Moenjadaro
Request 138.1 34 000
- Yugoslavia - Natural and Culturo-Historical
Region of Kotor
Request 125.1 (rev.) 50 000
Sub-total for technical co-
operation requests concern-
ing cultural properties 313 250
- Ethiopia - Simen National Park
Request 9.1 (rev.) 21 000
- Honduras - Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve
Request 196.1 (rev.) 67 025
- Nepal - Sagarmatha National Park
Request 120.1 (3) (rev.) 61 995
- Panama - Darien National Park
Request 159.1(rev.) 55 000
*[16]
US$
--------
- Senegal - Nickolo-Koba National Park
Request 153.1 (rev.) 27 031
- Senegal - Djoudj National Park
Request 25.1 (rev.) 29 132
- Seychelles - Aldabra Atoll
Request 185.1 21 000
Sub-total for technical co-
operation requests concern-
ing natural properties 282 183
_______
TOTAL concerning cultural
and natural properties 595 433
& 25 % reserve for
small-scale projects 148 858
_______
TOTAL 744 291
=======
42. The Committee approved without reservation the technical co-
operation request from Senegal concerning Djoudj National Park.
It expressed its concern, however, concerning the consequences of the
changes in the hydrological system on Djoudj National Park which would
result from the works envisaged on the River Senegal and suggested
that the authorities of Senegal request the inscription of this site
on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
*[17]
XIII. TRAINING
43. The Chairman reported that the Bureau had recommended that
priority in training activities should be given to group train-
ing at the local and regional levels and that the training of indi-
vidual persons should be essentially limited to short-term refresher
courses. The Rapporteur presented the requests for such training
activities that had been submitted by States Parties as part of tech-
nical co-operation projects and recalled that these would be funded
under the budget line for training which had just been adopted by the
Committee, amounting to US$ 500,000.
44. The Committee approved the following requests for training :
US$
--------
- Honduras - Maya Site of Copan 28 950
- Pakistan - Archaeological Ruins at Moenjadaro 20 000
Sub-total for training requests in the
field of cultural heritage conservation 48 950
- Honduras - Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve 4 975
- Tanzania - College of African Wildlife Management 45 000
Regional training centre)
Sub-total for training requests in the
field of natural heritage conservation 49 975
TOTAL of requests in the fields of cul-
tural and natural heritage conservation 94 925
*[18]
XIV. FORM IN WHICH THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST IS TO BE PUBLISHED
45. The Committee took note of the recommendation of the Bureau
which had proposed that the States having nominated the pro-
perties inscribed on the World Heritage List should be presented in
the published list under the following heading "Contracting State
Having Submitted the Nomination of the Property in accordance with
Article 11 of the Convention".
46. After examining this question the Committee decided that no
reference should be made in the heading to any specific ar-
ticle of the Convention and that the heading should therefore read
as follows "Contracting State Having Submitted the Nomination of the
Property in accordance with the Convention".
XV. PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND REPORTS ON THEIR CONDITION
47. This item on the agenda gave rise to a lengthy discussion with
several participants referring to the desirability of the Com-
mittee receiving regular reports from States Parties on World Herit-
age sites. In particular, it was considered that it would be useful
if the Committee could be regularly informed (a) on the state of con-
servation of the properties; (b) on the measures taken to protect
and to manage the properties; (c) on the way in which funds allocat-
ed under the World Heritage Fund for the safeguarding of sites are
used, as well as details on the conservation methods and techniques
followed in the projects concerned. It would also be desirable if
the Committee could be informed of action taken by States Parties
with respect to the different recommendations formulated by the Com-
mittee regarding the preservation of properties at the time of their
inscription on the World Heritage List or on the List of World Herit-
age in Danger.
48. It was felt, however, that the question of reporting by States
Parties required careful study before the Committee could take
any decision on this matter, although the principle of yearly report-
ing was considered to be highly desirable. The Committee therefore
requested IUCN and ICOMOS, in collaboration with ICCROM, to prepare
for the next meeting of the Bureau proposals on the contents of the
reports which may be requested from States Parties on World Heritage
sites and on the procedure to be followed for the preparation and
submission to the Committee of such reports. In this connection,
the organizations should take account of the different types of cul-
tural and natural properties in the various regions of the world.
*[19]
The Committee furthermore expressed an interest in the establishment
of guidelines for the protection and management of properties in-
scribed on the World Heritage List.
XVI. PUBLIC INFORMATION ACTIVITIES
49. The Committee examined the report by the Secretariat on the
state of implementation of the public information activities
which the Committee at its fifth session had requested the Secretar-
iat to undertake (document CLT-82/CONF.015/6) and it expressed its
satisfaction thereon. It furthermore approved the proposals made by
the Secretariat for future promotion and information activities, in
particular the publication of a special issue devoted to the World
Heritage of the magazine "Ambio" (published by the Swedish Royal
Academy of Science) and of the periodical "Monumentum" (published by
ICOMOS), as well as the preparation of a poster for the information
of the public. The Committee considered it desirable that the manu-
scripts of the booRs for children be submitted to the States concern-
ed, to the extent that the arrangements already concluded with the
publishing house "Etudes vivantes" allow this to be done.
50. The Rapporteur drew the attention of the observer from ALECSO
to the desirability of producing in Arabic a series of books on
World Heritage sites. These would be complementary to the publica-
tions which have already appeared or are planned in English, French
and Spanish on World Heritage sites.
51. The representative of the Director-General underlined the im-
portance of a sustained effort of high-level promotion for the
future of the Convention and he indicated that a detailed plan of
action concerning both public information and promotion in general
would be submitted to the Bureau at its next session.
XVII. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE 22nd SESSION
OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE
52. The Committee took note of the draft report prepared for the
period September 1980 to November 1982, given in document
CLT-82/CONF.015/7. It agreed to the suggestion of the Secretariat
that the report would be completed with information on the implemen-
tation of the Committee's decisions adopted at its sixth session and
be submitted to the Bureau at its next meeting for approval and sub-
*[20]
mission to the next General Conference. The Committee decided that
a reference shall be added to the report which stresses the need for
adequate staff resources particularly in view of the increasing num-
ber of properties on the World Heritage List.
XVIII. OTHER BUSINESS
53. The Committee took note of recommendation No. 16 concerning the
World Heritage Convention which was adapted by the World Na-
tional Parks Congress (Bali, 11-22 October 1982). It approved the
suggestion made to Unesco to launch international campaigns for the
protection of the natural heritage which would be similar to those
which are currently under way for the preservation of the cultural
heritage.
54. The Committee took note of recommendation No. 45 adopted by
the World Conference on Cultural Policies (Mexico City, 26
July - 6 August 1982) in which the Conference "expresses the hope
that the World Heritage Committee will take the initiative of in-
cluding the Mediterranean in the World Cultural and Natural Herit-
age List".
55. Following a proposal made by IUCN, the Committee commended
and encouraged efforts under way in the United States of
America to develop improved water release and delivery plans affect-
ing Everglades National Park, a world heritage site, which will more
closely approximate natural, cyclic conditions. These efforts will
further assure continued integrity of the site as well as long-term
recovery for this world-famous ecosystem.
56. The representative of ICOMOS presented to the Committee the
study undertaken by ICOMOS on the heritage of the Jesuit mis-
sions in North and South America. The Committee noted that some of
these missions would be nominated jointly to the World Heritage
List by Argentina and Brazil. Another joint nomination to be made
by these two States concerned Iguazu National Park.
57. As concerns the meeting place for its next session, the Com-
mittee noted with gratitude the intention expressed by the
delegate of Italy of inviting the Committee to hold its next meeting
in Italy. The delegate of Cyprus informed the Committee that the
authorities of his country have the intention of inviting the Com-
mittee to hold one of its future sessions in Cyprus and that they
*[21]
were considering inviting the Committee in 1985, on the occasion of
the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Antiquities Department.
The delegate of Bulgaria stated that her Government would also like
to host one of the future sessions of the Committee. The Rapporteur
also referred to the wish of the Tunisian authorities to invite the
Committee to hold one of its meetings in Tunisia; however, since
the term of office of Tunisia on the Committee was due to expire at
the end of the 22nd session of the Unesco General Conference to be
held in October/November 1983, the Tunisian authorities could not
issue an invitation at this stage.
58. The delegate of Guinea, speaking on behalf of the members of
the Committee, expressed his appreciation for the admirable
way in which Professor Slatyer, due to his wisdom, tranquil force
and perfect knowledge of the problems of nature conservation, had
chaired the sixth session of the Committee. The delegate also paid
tribute to the enthusiasm and dynamism of Mr. Beschaouch, the Rap-
porteur of the Committee.
59. Following an expression of thanks to all those who had con-
tributed to the smooth running of the meeting, the Vice-
Chairman from Bulgaria, acting as Chairman, declared the meeting
closed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CLT-82/CH/CONF.015/8/Annex I
17 December 1982
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION
DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL, CULTUREL ET NATUREL
WORLD HERITAGE COMITTEE/COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
Sixth Ordinary Session/Sixième session ordinaire
Paris, 13-17 December 1982
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE
ARGENTINA/ARGENTINE
Prof. Carlos GELLY y OBES Vice-Chairman/Président
Presidente de la Comision Nacional de Mussos,
Monumentos y Lugares Históricos
S. Exc. M. Victor MASSUH
Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire de la
République argentine en France
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
M. Javier FERNANDEZ
Ministre plénipotentiaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
Professor R. O. SLATYER Chairman/Président
Professor of Environmental Biology
Australian National University, Canberra
Dr Donald McMICHAEL
Secretary
Department of Home Affairs and Environment
Mr Max BOURKE
Director, Australian Heritage Commission
Mr Ernst WILHEIM
Attorney-General's Department
Mr John WATSON
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
*[Annex I/2]
BRAZIL/BRESIL
M. Augusto Carlos da SILVA TELLES
Directeur du Service du Classement et de la
Conservation du patrimoine artistique et historique national
Secrétariat à la Culture
M. le Professeur Marcos Viniclos VILACA
Secrétaire à la Culture
Ministère de l'Education et de la Culture
M. Carlos Alberto LOPES ASFORA
Deuxième secrétaire d'Ambassade
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Mme M. STANTSCHEVA Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Maitre de recherches, Archéologue
CYPRUS / CHYPRE
H. Exc. Mr Constantinos LEVENTIS
Ambassador
Permanent Delogate to Unesco
Mr Christos CASSIMATIS
Deputy Permanent Delogate to Unesco
EGYPT/EGYPTE
Dr Ahmed KADRY HELMY
Deputy Minister of Culture
President, Egyptian Antiquities Organisation
M. Abdalla El ATTAR
Chief, Islamic and Coptic Section
Egyptian Antiquities Organization
Dr Ahmed Abdel-Hamid YOUSSEF
Director, Centre of Documentation on Ancient Egypt
FRANCE
M. Jean ROZAT
Sous-Directeur, Direction du Patrimoine
Ministère de la Culture
M. André ZAVRIEW
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
M. François ENAUD
Inspecteur général des monuments historiques
M. Lucien CHABASON
Chef du Service de l'espace et des sites
Ministère de l'urbanisme et du logement
*[Annex I/3]
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY/REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Dr Magnus BACKES
Bayerisches Landesamt fur Denkmalpflege
(State Office for Protection of Ancient Monuments)
H. Exc. Mr Alfred B. VESTRING
Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Dr Nils GRUEBER
Deputy Permanent Delogate to Unesco
GUINEA/GUINEE
Monsieur Youssouf DIARE Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Délégué permanent auprés de l'Unesco
IRAQ/IRAK
Dr Adill NAJI
Archaeology expert
State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage
ITALY/ITALIE
S. Exc. M. Guglielmo FOLCHI
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
Mme Licia VLAD BORRELLI Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Inspecteur central pour l'archéologie
JORDAN / JORDANIE
S. Exc. M. Taher N. MASRI
Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire
de Jordanie en France
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
M. A. AL-TAWIL
Conseiller, Ministère de l'Education
M. S. BADER
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
*[Annex I/4]
LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA/JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE
Dr Abdullah SHAIBOUB
Director-General of the Department of Antiquities
S. Exc. M. Abdulgader EL-ATRASH
Ambassadeur
Délagué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
M. A. H. ZOUBI
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
NEPAL
H. Exc. Mr K. R. ARYAL
Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary
of Nepal to France
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr N. D. SHRESTHA
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. R. SHARMA
Technical Officer
Ministry of Education and Culture
PAKISTAN
H. Exc. Mr Jamsheed K. A. MARKER Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président
Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary
of Pakistan to France
Permanent Delogate to Unesco
Mr Mir Abad HUSSAIN
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr Mustafa Kamal KAZI
First Secretary, Embassy of Pakistan
PANAMA
S. Exc. Mme Josefa Maria PRADO
Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
SENEGAL
M. Henri MENDY
Conseiller
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
*[Annex I/5]
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
S. Exc. M. Charles HUMMEL
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
M. Ernest MARTIN
Architecte SIA/FAS
Membre correspondant de la
Commission fédérale des monuments historiques
Mme Sylvie MICHL-KELLER
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
TUNISIA / TUNISIE
M. Ahmed KHALED
Chef du Cabinet du Ministre des Affaires culturelles
S. Exc. M. A. GUELLOUZ
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
M. Azedine BESCHAOUCH Rapporteur
Directeur des Recherches
Institut national d'archéologie et d'art
Mme Mounira RIAHI
Sous Directeur de l'Institut national d'archéulogie et d'art
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mr Russell E. DICKENSON
Director, National Park Service
Department of the Interior
Mr Philip RIZIK
Director, Unesco Affairs
Bureau of International Organization Affairs
Department of State
Mr Robert C. MILNE
U.S. National Park Service
ZAIRE
M. Makili BOGUO
Ministre Conseiller
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
Mme M. MBOKOLO
Secretaire d'Ambassade
*[Annex I/6]
II. ORGANISATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/
ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)/
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
M. Abdeleziz DAOULATLI
Secretaire général de l'ICOMOS
Président du Comité national tunisien de l'ICOMOS
M. Jacques DALIBARD
Délégué général aux finances
Monsieur Jorge Osvaldo GAZANEO
President, Argentine Committee of ICOMOS
M. François LEBLANC
Directeur du Secrétariat
M. Léon PRESSOUYRE
Professeur à l'Université de Paris 1
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (IUCN)/
UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE ET DE SES RESSOURCES
Mr Jeffray A. McNEELEY
Executive Officer
Commission on National Parks and Protected Aress
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION IN ROME/
CENTRE INTERNATIONAL POUR LA CONSERVATION A ROME (ICCROM)
Mr Jukka Jokilehto
Architect
III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS
A. OTHER STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
AUTRES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
AFGHANISTAN
Mr Rafi SAMIZAY
First Secretary
Liaison Officer
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
*[Annex I/7]
ALGERIA/ALGERIE
M. S. D. Ahmed BAGHLI
Délagation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
CANADA
M. Benoit FORTIN
Architecte
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE CENTRAFRICAINE
M. Gaston AZIBOLO
Premier Secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
CHILE/CHILI
S. Exc. M. Alfredo PRIETO
Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
M. Dennis BIGGS
Conseiller, Delegation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
CUBA
Sra Nilda ALBA ARANGO
Funcionaria, Organismos Internacionales
Ministerio de Cultura
Sra Marta ARJONA
Directora de Patrimonio Cultural
HAITI
M. Arnold BASTIEN
Ministre Conseiller auprès de l'Unesco
HONDURAS
Sra Alma RODAS de FIALLOS
Ministro de Educacién P6blica
Mme Sonia MENDIETA de BADAROUX
Premier Secrétaire
Ambassade du Honduras
INDIA/INDE
Mr Inam RAHMAN
Permanent Representative of India to Unesco
*[Annex I/8]
IRAN
M. Riza FEIZ
Délagué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
MAURITANIA/MAURITANIE
M. J. OULD ABDI
Directeur de l'Institut mauritanien des Recherches scientifiques
MOROCCO/MAROC
M. Abdeslam BENSOUDA
Ministre plénipotentiaire
Conseiller à la Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
NIGER
M. Souleymane DAN-BOUZOUA ABARRY
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
POLAND/POLOGNE
M. Krzysztof PAWLOWSKI
Directeur général adjoint du Service des Monuments historiques
PORTUGAL
M. Luiz dos Santos CASTRO LOBO
Directeur du Département du patrimoine architectonique
Institut portugais du patrimoine culturel
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
M. Jose Miguel MERINO DE CACERES
Arquitecto Jefe de Zona de Bellas Artes
Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid
SRI LANKA
Mr Roland SILVA
Director General
Ministry of Cultural Affairs
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE ARABE SYRIENNE
S. Exc. M. Youssef CHAKKOUR
Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire
de la République arabe syrienne en France
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
*[Annex I/9]
B. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS /ORGANISATIONS INTER GOUVERNEMENTALES
ARAB EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION/
ORGANISATION ARABE POUR LiEDUCATION, LA CULTURE ET LA SCIENCE (ALECSO)
M. Ahmed DERRADJI
Représentant permanent auprès de l'UNESCO
COUNCIL OF EUROPE/CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE
Melle Graziella BRIANZONI
Chef du Bureau de Paris
C. INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ORGANISATIONS
INTERNATIONALES NON GOUVERNEMENTALES
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MUSEUMS/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MUSEES (ICOM)
Mr Luis MONREAL
Secretary General
ORGANIZATION FOR MUSEUMS, MONUMENTS AND SITES OF AFRICA (OMMSA)/
ORGANISATION POUR LES MUSEES, LES MONUMENTS ET LES SITES D'AFRIQUE
Mr Kwasi MYLES
Secretary General
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ARCHITECTS/UNION INTERNATIONALE DES ARCHITECTES
(UIA)
M. Emile DUHART
Membre de la Section française
Représentant du Secrétariat international
*[Annex I/10]
IV.UNESCO SECRETARIAT/SECRETARIAT DE L'UNESCO
Mr. Makaminan Makagiansar
Assistant Director-General for Culture
Mr. Michel Batisse
Deputy Assistant Director-General
Science Sector
Mr K. Vasak
Director, Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs
Mr. F. Di Castri
Director
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mr. S. Naqvi
Acting Director
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mr D. de San
Chief, International Standards Division
Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs
Mrs. Anne Raidl
Chief, International Standards Section
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mr. Bernd von Droste
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mrs. Margaret van Vliet
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mrs. Jane Robertson
Division of Ecological Sciences
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CLT-82/CH/CONF.015/8
Annex II
DEVELOPING GUIDELINES FOR INSCRIPTION OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL
PROPERTIES ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
A report of IUCN and ICOMOS in response to
a request from the World Heritage Bureau
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The World Heritage Convention states that the World Heritage Committee
is required to establish both the World Heritage List and the List of World
Heritage in Danger. While criteria and procedures for the World Heritage
List have been elaborated in the Operational Guidelines (October 1980),
criteria and procedures for the List of World Heritage in Danger have not
yet been established.
1.2. At the meeting of the World Heritage Bureau, held in Paris from 21 to
24 June 1982, ICOMOS and IUCN were asked to develop guidelines for cultural and
natural sites, respectively, for inscription on the List of World Heritage in
Danger. A working group met in Paris on 1-2 October 1982 at the invitation of
ICOMOS to develop guidelines for cultural sites. A paper was prepared on natural
sites by IUCN's Commission on Environmental Planning in cooperation with the
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas; this paper was presented to
the World National Parks Congress in Bali, Indonesia, from 11 to 22 October
and revised on the basis of discussions.
1.3. The approaches of these two separate but related exercises were so similar
that it was felt advisable to combine them into a single document for presenta-
tion to the World Heritage Committee. The following paper results from a
combination of the views of ICOMOS and IUCN.
2. The World Heritage Convention
2.1. The Cultural and the Natural Heritage are defined under Articles 1 and 2
of the World Heritage Convention.
2.2. In conformity with the provisions of Article 11, Paragraph 4 of the
Convention, a World Heritage property, as defined in Articles 1 and 2, may only
be proposed for inscription on the "List of World Heritage in Danger" if the
following conditions are fulfilled:
a) the property under consideration is on the World Heritage List;
b) the property is threatened by serious and specific dangers;
c) major operations are necessary for the conservation of the
property;
d) assistance under the Convention has bean requested for the
property;
e) an estimate of the cost of such operations has bean submitted.
3. The List of World Heritage in Danger
3.1. Essentially the List of World Heritage in Danger has three objectives:
a) to support national efforts towards safeguarding the integrity of
a property;
*[Annex II/2]
b) to demonstrate to world opinion the reality of the danger
threatening a property;
c) to contribute to the effectiveness of international fund-
raising campaigns by identifying the property for which
the public is being asked to contribute.
3.2. This list is conceived as being a short list, limiting operations by
the international authority to a reasonable number.
3.3. By definition, inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage
in Danger is an exceptional action for an emergency measure of limited duration.
The inscription on the List will remain valid so long as serious threats and
specific dangers persist.
3.4. The site is removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger when the
action of the State Party and the international community has brought about
the removal of the threats or caused the undertaking of conservation activities
which, in the opinion of the Committee, are leading to the removal of the
threats.
3.5. If the "serious and specific dangers" are not removed and there is severe
deterioration or irreversible modifications entailing the loss of those character-
istics which determined its inclusion in the World Heritage List, the property shall
be removed both from the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage
List. The procedure for the deletion of properties from the World Heritage List
as set out in the Operational Guidelines will be applicable.
4. CONSIDERATIONS FOR INSCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE
IN DANGER
4.1. A World Heritage property -- as defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the
Convention -- can be entered on the List of World Heritage in Danger by the
Committee when it finds that the condition of the property corresponds to at
least one of the criteria in either of the two cases described below, both of
which are elaborated upon in the draft criteria which follow.
4.2. ASCERTAINED DANGER. The property is faced with specific and proven
imminent danger.
4.3. POTENTIAL DANGER. The property is faced with major threats which could
have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics.
4.4. In addition, the factor or factors which are threatening the integrity
of the property must be those which are amenable to correction by human action.
4.5. The Committee may also wish to bear in mind supplementary factors concern-
ing the nature of threats when considering the inclusion of a cultural or
natural property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. These are elaborated
upon in the draft criteria which follow.
4.6. The Committee may also wish to bear in mind that the inscription of a
property on the List of World Heritage in Danger necessarily implies an aware-
ness of the dangers by the concerned State Party and its will to seek remedy
by requesting assistance and otherwise conforming to the provisions of
Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the Convention.
*[Annex II/3]
5. PROCEDURE AND CALENDAR FOR PROCESSING REQUESTS FOR INSCRIPTION ON THE
LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
5.1. In compliance with the provisions of the Convention, the Committee may
at any time and whenever circumstances shall so require inscribe on the List
of World Heritage in Danger a property which meets the requirements of Article
11 of the Convention. This inscription should be made on the basis of a
professional assessment, including, when required and upon the request of the
Chairman of the Committee, expert missions which will be organized with the
help of the World Heritage Secretariat, in consultation with the competent
NGO(s).
5.2. In case of emergency, (e.g. immediate danger of severe deterioration or
total destruction of the property) the Chairman of the Committee, after consult-
ing with the Director-General of Unesco and the competent NGO, may initiate
any measure necessary for the inscription of the property on the List of World
Heritage in Danger (expert reports, missions, supply of equipment for analysis
or evaluation, etc.). These activities will be organized with the help of
the World Heritage Secretariat in consultation with the competent NGO(s).
5.3. The Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention
(Document WHC 2/Revised October 1980, paragraphs 20 to 32) present criteria
for the selection of properties for the World Heritage List and for the
deletion of properties from the List. In adding criteria for the List of
World Heritage in Danger, it would seem appropriate to consider that List
as being of transitional character; before deleting a property from the World
Heritage List, the property should first be recognized as being in danger and
steps should be taken to remove the source of that danger.
5.4. In practice, this would mean that following the inclusion of a property
in the World Heritage List, the World Heritage Committee might evaluate whether
it should also be considered for the List of World Heritage in Danger. If the
property is considered to be so endangered, the Committee should take steps to
ascertain what measures should be undertaken to improve the situation.
5.5. In view of the above, it is suggested that the following be inserted as
a new section E in the Operational Guidelines (requiring the current paragraph E
to become paragraph F, and all following paragraphs to be renumbered):
- E. Guidelines for the inclusion of properties in the List of World
Heritage in Danger
24. In accordance with Article 11, Paragraph 4 of the Convention:
"The Committee shall establish, keep up to date and publish, whenever
circumstances shall so require, under the title of "List of World
Heritage in Danger", a list of the property appearing in the World
Heritage List for the conservation of which major operations are
necessary and for which assistance has been requested under this
Convention. This list shall contain an estimate of the cost of such
operations. The list may include only such property forming part
of the cultural and natural heritage as is threatened by serious and
specific dangers, such as the threat of disappearance caused by
accelerated deterioration, large-scale public or private projects or
rapid urban or tourist development projects; destruction caused by
changes in the use or ownership of the land; major alterations due to
unknown causes; abandonment for any reason whatsoever; the outbreak
*[Annex II/4]
or the threat of an armed conflict; calamities and cataclysms, serious
fires, earthquakes, landslides; volcanic eruptions; changes in water
level, floods, and tidal waves. The Committee may at any time, in case
of urgent need, make a new entry in the List of World Heritage in
Danger and publicize such entry immediately."
25. The Committee may include a property in the List of World Heritage
in Danger when the following requirements are met:
(i) the property under consideration is on the World Heritage List;
(ii) the property is threatened by serious and specific danger;
(iii) major operations are necessary for the conservation of the property;
(iv) assistance under the Convention has bean requested for the property;
(v) an estimate of the cost of such operations has bean submitted.
- PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES IN THE LIST OF WORLD
HERITAGE IN DANGER
26. A World Heritage property -- as defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the
Convention -- can be entered on the List of World Heritage in Danger by
the Committee when it finds that the condition of the property corresponds
to at least one of the criteria in either of the two cases described below.
26.1. In case of cultural properties
26.1.1. ASCERTAINED DANGER - The property is faced with specific and
proven imminent danger, such as :
a) serious deterioration of materials;
b) serious deterioration of structure and/or ornamental features;
c) serious deterioration of architectural or to'=-planning coherence;
d) serious deterioration of urban or rural space, or the natural environment;
e) significant loss of historical authenticity;
f) important loss of cultural significance.
26.1.2. POTENTIAL DANGER -.The property is faced with threats which could
have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics. Such threats are,
for example :
a) modification of juridical status of the property diminishing the degree
of its protection;
b) lack of conservation policy;
c) threatening effects of regional-planning projects;
d) threatening effects of town planning;
e) outbreak or threat of armed conflict;
f) gradual changes due to geological, climatic or other environmental factors.
26.2. In the case of natural properties.
26.2.1 ASCERTAINED DANGER - The property is faced with specific and proven
imminent danger, such as :
*[Annex II/5]
a) A serious decline in the population of the endangered species or the other
species of outstanding universal value which the property was legally
established to protect, either by natural factors such as disease or
by man-made factors such as poaching.
b) Severe deterioration of the natural beauty or scientific value of the
property, as by human settlement, construction of reservoirs which
flood important parts of the property, industrial and agricultural
development including use of pesticides and fertilizers), major public
works, mining, pollution, logging, firewood collection, etc.
c) Human encroachment on boundaries or in upstream areas which threaten
the integrity of the property.
26.2.2. POTENTIAL DANGER - The property is faced with major threats which
could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics. Such threats
are, for example :
a) a modification of the legal protective status of the area;
b) planned resettlement or development projects within the property or
so situated that the impacts threaten the property;
c) outbreak or threat of armed conflict;
d) the management plan is lacking or inadequate, or not fully implemented.
26.3. In addition, the factor or factors which are threatening the integrity
of the property must be those which are amenable to correction by human
action. In the case of cultural properties, both natural factors and man-
made factors may be threatening, while in the case of natural properties,
most threats will be man-made and only very rarely will a natural factor
(such as an epidemic disease) be threatening to the integrity of the
property. In some cases, the factors threatening the integrity of a
property may be corrected by administrative or legislative action, such
as the cancelling of a major public works project or the improvement of
legal status.
- SUPPLEMENTARY FACTORS
26.4. The Committee may wish to bear in mind the following supplementary
factors when considering the inclusion of a cultural or natural property
on the List of World Heritage in Danger :
a) Decisions which affect World Heritage properties are taken by Governments
after balancing all factors. The advice of the World Heritage Committee
can often be decisive if it can be given before the property becomes
threatened.
b) Particularly in the case of ascertained danger, the physical or cultural
deteriorations to which a property has been subjected should be judged
according to the intensity of its effects and analyzed case by case.
c) Above all in the case of potential danger to a property, one should
consider that:
-- the threat should be appraised according to the normal evolution of
the social and economic framework in which the property is situated;
-- it is often impossible to assess certain threats -- such as the
threat of armed conflict -- as to their effect on cultural or
natural properties;
*[Annex II/6]
-- Some threats are not imminent in nature, but can only be
anticipated, such as demographic growth.
d) Finally, in its appraisal the Committee should take into account any
cause of unknown or unexpected origin which endangers a cultural or
natural property.
- PROCEDURE FOR THE INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES IN THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE
IN DANGER
27. When considering the inclusion of a property in the List of World Heritage
in Danger, the Committee shall develop, and adapt in consultation with the
State Party concerned, a programme for corrective measures.
28. In order to develop the programme referred to in the previous paragraph,
the Committee shall request the Secretariat to ascertain, in cooperation with
the State Party concerned, the present condition of the property, the dangers
to the property and the feasibility of undertaking corrective measures. The
Committee may further decide to send a mission of qualified observers from
IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM or other organizations to visit the property, evaluate
the nature and extent of the threats and propose the measures to be taken.
29. The information received, together with the comments of the State Party
and the advisory organization(s) shall be brought to the attention of the
Committee by the Secretariat.
30. The Committee shall examine the information available and take a decision.
Any such decision shall be taken by a majority of two-thirds of the Committee
members present and voting.
31. The State Party concerned shall be informed of the Committee's decision.
32. The Committee shall allocate a specific, significant portion of the
World Heritage Fund to meeting funding requests for assistance to World
Heritage properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
33. 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.
34. On the basis of these regular reviews, the Committee shall decide, in
consultation with the State Party concerned whether :
(i) additional measures are required to conserve the property ;
(ii) to delete the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger
if the property is no longer under threat;
(iii) to consider the deletion of the property from both the List of
World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List if the property
has deteriorated to the extent that it has lost those characteristics
which determined its inclusion in the World Heritage List, in accordance
with the procedure set out in paragraphs 24 to 32 of the Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
(WHC/2 Revised, October 1980).