Distribution limited CC-86/CONF. 003/10
Paris, 5 December 1986
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Tenth Session
(Unesco Headquarters, 24-28 November 1986)
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The tenth session of the World Heritage Committee was held at
Unesco Headquarters in Paris from 24 to 28 November 1986. It was
attended by the following States Members of the World Heritage
Committee: Algeria, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus,
Germany (Federal Republic of), Greece, Guinea, India, Jordan,
Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mexico, Norway, Sri Lanka, Turkey,
United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen Arab Republic and Zaire.
2. Representatives of the International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), of
the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and of
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity.
3. The following 37 States Parties to the Convention, not members
of the Committee, were represented by observers: Antigua and
Barbuda, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Chile, China, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Holy See,
Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Mali, Malta, Morocco,
Mozambique, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines,
Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic,
Tunisia, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States of America,
Yugoslavia. Representatives of the Arab Educational, Cultural and
Scientific Organization (ALECSO), of the Council of Europe, and of
the International Council on Museums (ICOM) also attended the
meeting. The full list of participants is to be found in Annex I to
this report.
II. OPENING OF THE SESSION
4. On behalf of the Director-General of Unesco, Mr. H. Lopes,
Assistant Director-General for Culture and Communication welcomed
the participants. He noted that the number of States parties was
progressing regularly and had now reached 91 and he drew the
attention of the participants to decision 5.4.3 adopted by the
Executive Board at its 125th session in which it appealed, on the
one hand, to States not parties to the Convention to examine the
possibility *[2] of becoming party thereto and, on the other hand,
to States Parties to pay promptly and regularly to the World
Heritage Fund 1 % of their contribution to the Regular Budget of
Unesco. The Assistant Director-General went on to underline the
importance of certain of the items which were before the Committee,
such as the question of tentative lists which continued to increase
in number but too slowly, the numerous nominations which the
Committee would have to examine this year and the problem of
monitoring the state of conservation of world heritage sites, in
particular cultural properties, on which the Secretariat had
undertaken a study. Mr. Lopes recalled the close links between the
World Heritage List and Unesco's international safeguarding
campaigns and he indicated that the situation of the World Heritage
Fund gave rise to a certain optimism, mentioning the generous
contributions received from two States not parties, Austria and
Grenada, as well as from the Leventis Foundation. Finally the
Assistant Director-General noted the fundamental role that could be
played by States Parties in promoting the Convention, for instance
by the twinning of world heritage sites.
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
5. The Committee adopted the agenda for the meeting (document
CC-86/CONF.003/1).
IV. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRMEN AND RAPPORTEUR
6. Mr. J.D. Collinson (Canada) was elected Chairman of the
Committee. The delegate of Brazil (Mr. L.F. Seixas Correa) was
elected Rapporteur and the delegates of the following States
members of the Committee were elected Vice-Chairmen: Algeria,
Bulgaria, India, Mexico and Zaire.
V. REPORT OF THE SECRETARIAT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE
NINTH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
7. The report of the Secretariat focussed on efforts made to widen
the participation of States in the Convention and on action taken
to implement technical co-operation projects approved by the
Committee and the Chairman. Information received from certain
States concerning their intention to ratify the Convention and the
interest expressed by other States was transmitted to the Committee
which was given assurances that the Secretariat took every
opportunity to encourage further ratifications. The Committee was
informed of the arrangements made to organize in 1987 three
regional workshops which would be a useful means of creating a
better awareness of the objectives of the Convention. The important
contribution made by both IUCN and ICOMOS in this respect was also
underlined. It was noted that so far sites in 55 countries had been
included in the World Heritage List and that, with the possible
addition at the present session of sites in 4 other countries,
there would still remain some thirty States Parties which had not
nominated any sites for inclusion in the World Heritage List; the
Secretariat indicated that it had recently been in contact with
several of these countries but it undertook to renew contacts with
the authorities of all of them to ascertain if any help was
required in drawing up nominations and tentative lists. As for the
state of implementation of technical co-operation projects, the
Secretariat reported to the Committee on action taken on two
projects for the safeguarding of sites included in the List of
World Heritage in Danger as well as on four large-scale projects
which had all been approved by the Committee at its last session.
The Committee was also informed of the small-scale projects
approved by the Chairman during the preceding year which included
eight preparatory assistance projects, emergency assistance to two
States, eleven small-scale technical co-operation projects,
nineteen individual fellowships and one group training project.
VI. REPORT ON THE TENTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE (Paris, 16-19 June 1986)
8. In the absence of Mr. Davidson, the former Rapporteur, the
report on the tenth session of the Bureau held in June 1986
(document CC-86/CONF.001/11) was presented by the Director, *[3]
Division of Cultural Heritage, who drew attention, in particular,
to the thirty-one nominations to the World Heritage List which had
been examined by the Bureau, of which twenty-nine had been
recommended to the Committee for inscription and one recommended as
an extension of a site already inscribed. The Committee was
informed of discussions at the Bureau on the proposals to draw up
guidelines for the identification and nomination of mixed cultural
and natural properties or rural landscapes as well as guidelines on
the nomination of contemporary architectural structures: in both
cases the Bureau had felt that no new specific guidelines were
required at the present stage. As regards the monitoring of the
state of conservation of world heritage properties, Mrs. Raidl
reported on the discussion at the Bureau meeting of the proposal
prepared by ICOMOS on the establishment of a monitoring system for
cultural properties and the subsequent request to the Secretariat
for the preparation of a complementary report, which was submitted
to the Committee at its present session. The report on the Bureau
meeting also included information given by IUCN on the state of
conservation of fifteen natural heritage sites included in the
World Heritage List. The Bureau had also considered the status of
the World Heritage Fund, noting replies received to the letters
which the Committee had asked the Chairman and the Secretariat to
address to States Parties concerning their contributions to the
World Heritage Fund. In concluding, Mrs. Raidl provided details on
the recommendations formulated by the Bureau with regard to the
technical co-operation projects which it had examined.
9. The representative of Greece referred to the statement made in
the report concerning the dangers threatening the site of Delphi.
He stated that the information given was based on erroneous reports
in the press and was for the most part incorrect. He later
circulated a written note to the members of the Committee.
VII. TENTATIVE LISTS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES
10. The Secretariat recalled that the Committee had for several
years been inviting States parties to submit tentative lists of
cultural and natural properties which they were considering
nominating to the World Heritage List, the aim of which was to
enable the Committee and the non-governmental organisation
concerned to carry out comparative studies necessary for a
methodical approach in building up the World Heritage List. The
Committee was reminded that it had decided that individual
nominations of cultural properties would not be examined unless a
tentative list had been presented by the State concerned. The
Secretariat drew attention to the tentative lists received since
the preceding session from Greece, Hungary (for cultural
properties), India (for natural properties), Mexico, the United
Kingdom and Yugoslavia, which were submitted to the Committee for
its consideration (document CC-86/CONF.003/2). In addition two
States had informed the Secretariat of their wish to add sites to
their tentative lists of cultural properties: Spain had requested
the addition of three sites, and Brazil had indicated its decision
to include Brasilia.
11. The Chairman drew attention to the importance of tentative
lists, and expressed the hope that those States which had not so
far submitted such lists would do so in the near future. He
reminded the Committee that preparatory assistance could be made
available to help the national authorities to draw up their
tentative lists. The representative of the Federal Republic of
Germany indicated that, contrary to the information given in the
recapitulary table included in the working document, his country
had not submitted a tentative list for natural sites.
VII. NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND TO THE LIST OF
WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
12. The Committee examined 32 nominations to the World Heritage
List, taking account of the recommendations of the Bureau and of
the comments of ICOMOS and IUCN on each property (document
CC-86/CONF.003/3). The Committee decided to include 31 cultural and
natural properties on the World Heritage List and to extend a site
already listed. These are set out below: *[4]
Cultural and natural properties included in the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identification Contracting State Criteria
No. having submitted
the nomination of
the property in
accordance with
the Convention
Australian East Coast 368 Australia N(i)(ii)(iii)
Temperate and Sub-Tropical
Rainforest Parks
The Australian authorities, by letter of 9 October 1986 to the Secretariat,
agreed to the two conditions recommended by the Bureau for the inscription of the
property on the World Heritage List. The first of these was to exclude the Mt.
Dromedary Flora Reserve from the nominated areas and the second concerned the
changing of the name of this property. The name given above and suggested by the
Australian authorities was considered appropriate by the Committee. In relation
to the Bureau's suggestion regarding the desirability to extend this property to
include contiguous rainforests in the state of Queensland, the Australian
authorities informed the Committee, through the Secretariat, that they do not
anticipate making any immediate proposals to this effect. IUCN noted that this
suggestion of the Bureau was not a prerequisite for the inscription of this
property on the World Heritage List. The World Heritage Committee, while
inscribing this property on the World Heritage List, noted the IUCN observation
that future modifications to the boundaries of this natural property to include
other small patches of rainforests might be possible.
Iguaçu National Park 355 Brazil N(iii)(iv)
[n response to the Secretariat's request for advice on the future listing of this
property, the delegation of Brazil indicated its wish to list this property
independently, as proposed by Brazil, without any link to the concept of
transfrontier site or any other similar concept in force or that might be
accepted in the deliberations of the Committee. The Delegation of Brazil also
mentioned that Brazilian legislation did not allow for any commitment regarding
joint management of national parks. The World Heritage Committee, although it
took note of IUCN's position regarding the technical desirability of listing this
as one property along with the Iguazu National Park of Argentina, preferred to
list this as a separate property as the Iguaçu National Park of Brazil on the
World Heritage List. The Committee endorsed the concerns of Brazil in maintaining
its wish to list this property separately in the World Heritage List and welcomed
the willingness of Brazil to cooperate with Argentina in the conservation and
preservation of the two national parks within their respective territories. The
delegate from Brazil informed the World Heritage Committee that the road which
passed through the wilderness zone of this National Park, brought to the notice
of the Committee by IUCN, had been closed.
*[5]
Monuments of Trier 367 Germany C (i)(iii)
(Fed.Rep.of) (iv)(vi)
The Committee was informed of plans to use the amphitheater in Trier for
entertainment purposes and it requested the Chairman to write to the authorities
of the Federal Republic of Germany to express its reservations on the plans as
at present conceived which risked to prejudice the authenticity and integrity of
the monument.
Temple of Apollo 392 Greece C(i)(ii)(iii)
Epicurtus at Bassoe
The Committee took note of the statement made by the Greek authorities that the
area surrounding the temple was controlled by the Ministry of Culture and that
no construction of any sort (roads or buildings) was allowed in that area.
Churches and convents 234 India C(ii)(iv)(vi)
of Goa
Khajurcho group of monuments 240 India C(i)(iii)
Group of monuments at Hampi 241 India C(i)(iii)(iv)
Fatehpur Sikri 255 India C(ii)(iii)(iv)
Old Town of Ghadamès 362 Libyan Arab C(v)
Jamabiriya
Westland and Mount Cook 375 New Zealand N(i)(ii)(iii)
National Park
The Committee expressed its satisfaction regarding the manner in which the
management plans drawn up for the two national parks have addressed the question
of aircraft use. The Committee requested the State Party to keep it informed of
any changes in the legal status of the recently added lands in Westland National
Parks.
Fiordland National Park 376 New Zealand N(i)(ii)
(iii)(iv)
The Committee noted the importance of including the waters of the fiords as an
integral part of this national park and requested the New Zealand authorities to
keep it informed of any reconsideration of the proposal to export fresh water
from the area which has been currently withdrawn. The Committee welcomed the *[6]
initiatives of the New Zealand authorities to bring the waters of the fiords
under the control of the park and endorsed the efforts of the New Zealand
Wildlife Service to rehabilitate takahe habitat and restore population numbers.
The Committee also noted that the Waikutu Forest, if added to the park, would
become an acceptable part of the World Heritage site and encouraged the State
Party to implement the redevelopment plan for the Milford Area.
Chan Chan archaeological zone 366 Peru C(i)(iii)
On the recommendation of the Bureau and following a request from the Peruvian
authorities, the Committee also decided to inscribe Chan Chan archaeological zone
on the List of World Heritage in Danger. In so doing, the Committee recommended
that appropriate measures be taken for the conservation, restoration and
management of the site and specifically that the excavation work on the site be
halted unless it was accompanied by appropriate conservation measures and that
all possible steps be taken to control the plundering of the site.
Historic Centre of Evora 361 Portugal C(ii)(iv)
Mudejar Architecture 378 Spain C(iv)
of Teruel
Historic City of Toledo 379 Spain C(i)(ii)
(iii)(iv)
Garajonay National Park 380 Spain N(ii)(iii)
The Committee commended the efforts of the Spanish authorities and local people
in restoring and maintaining the conservation values of this site and wished to
encourage initiatives to extend the boundaries of the park and to undertake
further ecosystem research work.
Old Town of Caceres 384 Spain C(iii)(iv)
Ancient City of Aleppo 21 Syrian Arab C(iii)(iv)
Republic
The Committee considered that it would be important to re-examine the situation
of the old city at one of its future sessions to ascertain whether inclusion in
the List of World Heritage in Danger would then be warranted.
*[7]
Necropolis of Arg 322 Add. Tunisia
al-Ghazwani Kerkwan *[error; should be 332]
(extension to Punic Town
of Kerkwan)
Hattusha 377 Turkey C(i)(ii)
(iii)(iv)
The Committee noted that the management plan prepared by a German archaeological
team had the approval of the Turkish authorities and that it was expected that
steps at present underway to proclaim Bogazköy and Alacahöyük as a National Park
would be completed before the end of 1987.
The Giant's Causeway and 369 United Kingdom N(i)(iii)
causeway coast
The Committee was informed by the observer from United Kingdom that this property
was expected to be declared a National Nature Reserve within the next few weeks.
Durham Castle and Cathedral 370 United Kingdom C(ii)(iv)(vi)
Ironbridge Gorge 371 United Kingdom C(i)(ii)
(iv)(vi)
Studley Royal Park 372 United Kingdom C(i)(iv)
including the ruins of
Fountains Abbey
Stonehenge, Avebury and 373 United Kingdom C(i)(ii)(iii)
associated sites
The Committee noted with satisfaction the assurances provided by the authorities
of the United Kingdom that the closure of the road which crosses the avenue at
Stonehenge was receiving serious consideration as part of the overall plans for
the future management of the site.
The Castles and Town Walls 374 United Kingdom C(i)(iii)(iv)
of King Edward in Gwynedd
*[8]
St. Kilda 387 United Kingdom N(iii)(iv)
The Committee was informed of the proposals to expand the radio tracking
facilities on Hirta Island and was satisfied with the decision of the Secretary
of State for Scotland, acting in concertation with local nature conservation
authorities, to take appropriate measures concerning the siting, size, and
colouring of these facilities which would minimise their impact on the nature
conservation values. Given the high value of the marine area surrounding the
archipelago of St. Kilda, any proposal in the future by the authorities of the
United Kingdom to extend the nominated area would be welcomed by the Committee.
Old City of Sana'a 385 Yemen C(iv)(v)(vi)
The Committee recommended that an adequate buffer zone should be established
around the old city. It noted that the set of municipal regulations recently
drawn up had now been adopted.
Studenica Monastery 389 Yugoslavia C(i)(ii)
(iv)(vi)
Skocjan Caves 390 Yugoslavia N(ii)(iii)
The Committee noted that the area inscribed on the World Heritage List included
the underground chamber of the Hanke Canal extending in the direction of
Druskovec. As concerns the integrity of the property, the Committee congratulated
the Yugoslav authorities on the recent important measures taken to halt the
industrial pollution of the underground Reka River and to strengthen protective
measures for controlling land use on the land above the caves and particularly
the entrance point.
Great Zimbabwe National 364 Zimbabwe C(i)(iii)(vi)
Monument
The Committee recommended that measures should be studied of strengthening the
surveying, restoration and maintenance programme on the site (photogrammetry of
the stone walls, mapping of the site, clearance of the trees on top of the walls,
support for the collapsing walls).
*[9]
Khami Ruins National 365 Zimbabwe C(iii)(iv)
Monument
The Committee shared the concerns expressed by ICOMOS on the state of
preservation of the site which was seriously deteriorating due to the climatic
conditions and the encroaching vegetation. It recommended that the state of the
site be carefully followed and recognized that inscription on the List of World
Heritage in Danger may be warranted. The Committee expressed its willingness to
provide help for the safeguarding of the site.
Deferred Nominations
13. The Committee noted that examination of the following nominations had been
deferred at the request of the States Parties concerned :
Name of Property Identification No. Contracting State having
submitted the nomination
of the property in accor-
dance with the Convention
Kakadu National Park 147 Australia
(Stage II)
The leader of the Australian Delegation requested permission to put before the
World Heritage Committee an order of the Federal Court of Australia. He read this
in full to the Committee and then made it available to delegates. The Australian
Delegation then requested the World Heritage Committee to defer, until further
notice, the consideration of State II of the Kakadu National Park as part of the
Kakadu World Heritage Property already inscribed on the World Heritage List in
1981. The Committee agreed. The representative of IUCN noted that the 1981 review
had indicated that the existing area of the nomination would be inadequate and
the hope that Kakadu Stage II would be added. He said this would increase the
viability and integrity of the nomination. Having now seen the new management
plan he considered the whole nomination would be a superb area and commended the
Australian Government for proposing to add it to the list. He had seen officials
in Canberra last January and asked for more information on the extension, noting
that this was not a new nomination. The boundary extension was quite extensive
but this had been foreseen in 1981. The main question now concerned the mining
which would affect the integrity of the Park. He had seen the Australian Prime
Minister's statements questioning mining and would need further information from
officials.
*[10]
Jerash 324 Jordan
Sarajevo 388 Yugoslavia
Brioni National Park 391 Yugoslavia
and Commemorative Sites
IX. MONITORING THE STATUS OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INCLUDED
IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
A) Monitoring the state of conservation of natural properties
14. As in previous years, IUCN reported on the conservation of
natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and the
List of World Heritage in Danger. An information document
(CC-86/CONF.003/INF.4) prepared by IUCN presented up-to-date
information on some 16 natural properties.
15. The Committee was glad to learn of improvements or of a
stabilisation in the previously deteriorating situation of certain
properties, notably Djoudj National Park (Senegal), Ngorongoro
Conservation area (Tanzania) and Garamba National Park (Zaire) (all
inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger). Improvements
were also noted for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia),
Pirin National Park (Bulgaria), Manas Tiger Reserve (India),
Niokolo Koba National Park (Senegal) and Aldabra Atoll
(Seychelles). The Committee requested IUCN to keep it informed of
the conservation status of Iguazu and Los Glaciares National Parks
(Argentina), Mt. Nimba (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire) and Ichkeul National
Park (Tunisia).
16. As concerns the Galapagos Archipelago (Ecuador) the Committee
noted with satisfaction the recent addition of the surrounding
marine area to the national park and requested the Secretariat to
contact the Equatorian authorities encouraging the possible
inclusion of this area in the site inscribed on the World Heritage
List.
17. The Committee was greatly concerned with the continuation of
the serious threats to Tai National Park (Côte d'Ivoire) and
requested the Secretariat to redouble efforts with the national
authorities to inscribe this property on the List of World Heritage
in Danger and, at the same time, to develop a project, in
cooperation with IUCN, to improve the protection of this Park.
18. The Committee, when learning of the dramatic increase in
poaching reported by IUCN for Mana Pools, Sapi and Chewore Reserves
in Zimbabwe and for Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania, recognised
that this particular problem should also be approached globally, by
stemming the illicit trade in wildlife and especially of elephant
tusks and rhinoceros horn. In this regard, the Committee requested
that its Chairman contact the Secretariat of the Convention on the
International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
(CITES), which has been ratified by many States Parties to the
World Heritage Convention, to express the Committee's concern that
the illicit trade was severely affecting certain natural World
Heritage properties and requesting that measures be taken within
the framework of the two Conventions to eradicate pouching in such
sites. One member of the Committee suggested also that certain
industrialised countries could consider "twinning" arrangements
between one of their own natural world heritage sites *[11] and a
site located in a developing country which did not dispose of
sufficient resources for its protection and maintenance. In this
connection, IUCN noted that it was currently developing a
"twinning" programme for parks which could have many implications
for World Heritage properties. Another member of the Committee
suggested that Committee members, with the assistance of the
Secretariat as appropriate, should contact national authorities in
particular through their representation in Paris, to explore the
suitability of bilateral assistance to improve the protection and
maintenance of natural World Heritage properties reported by IUCN
as being under threat. As concerns Selous Game Reserve in
particular, the Committee indicated its willingness to set aside a
contribution from the World Heritage Fund towards a project aimed
at enhancing the protection of this site.
19. In concluding the debate, the Committee decided that the
following measures should be taken:
a) that the Chairman would write to the CITES Secretariat to
explore the means to use both conventions to mitigate the
situation in Selous National Park (Tanzania) and Mana Pools,
Sapi and Chewore Reserves (Zimbabwe) in particular, and for
combating poaching in natural World Heritage properties in
general;
b) the Secretariat should contact the authorities of Tanzania and
Zimbabwe (in Paris and in the capitals) respectively to
develop, in cooperation with IUCN (and other appropriate
organisations and institutions) suitable projects for
technical cooperation under the World Heritage Fund, and in
parallel, to study the possibility of inscribing Selous
National Park and Mana Pools, Sapi and Chewore Reserves
respectively on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
B) Monitoring the state of conservation of cultural properties
20. The Director of the Division of Cultural Heritage introduced
the document on the monitoring of cultural properties prepared by
the Secretariat at the Bureau's request (document
CC-86/CONF.003/6). She pointed out that this document recalled the
background of this question and the discussions which the Bureau
and the Committee had already had on the subject since 1982; it
described in particular the system of data collection on natural
properties used at present by IUCN, the system of monitoring the
state of conservation of cultural properties which ICOMOS had
submitted to the Bureau at its 10th session and finally the
reporting systems instituted by the Unesco Conventions relating to
the cultural heritage. The document above all contained proposals
worked out in consultation with ICOMOS and designed to ensure the
monitoring of approximately forty cultural properties per year, in
the chronological order of their inscription. The main purpose of
this system, which would be based on questionnaires sent to States
Parties, would be to help the States concerned to identify the
conservation problems of the sites and the assistance that they may
need. The monitoring of such a number of sites would presuppose the
establishment of a formal system of data collection and an
important increase in the financial and man-power resources
allocated to the Secretariat and to ICOMOS, but other more flexible
solutions could also be envisaged.
21. The President of ICOMOS stressed the importance and urgency of
establishing a monitoring system which would correspond to the
spirit of the Convention, in order to ensure that the World
Heritage List does not become a simple enumeration of sites, the
true state of conservation of which would be unknown to the
Committee. He added that such a system would allow the systematic
collation of irrefutable information on the actual state of all the
cultural properties, while respecting the sovereignty of States. It
would often be very useful to send experts to the spot for this
purpose. The speaker also wondered about the possibility of a wider
use by States Parties of the procedure for inscription on the List
of World Heritage in Danger. He concluded by indicating that ICOMOS
was ready to provide its help in the implementation of a monitoring
system.
22. The Committee members who took the floor agreed upon the need
for a system of monitoring cultural properties, with several of
them stressing the need to delay no further the launching of this
activity, even though it may be necessary to make improvements in
the method used in the *[12] light of experience. Many of them
emphasized that the main objective of monitoring was in no way to
bring accusations against the States concerned, but on the contrary
to encourage and assist their efforts for the preservation of
sites, for example by pointing to a possible need for a request for
technical cooperation.
23. Several speakers indicated that rather than ensuring the
monitoring of a fixed number of properties each year, it would be
better to concentrate efforts on those which were threatened by the
most serious and pressing dangers. One speaker emphasized that, in
view of the present context of financial restrictions which Unesco
faced and the available resources, the systematic monitoring of
cultural properties seemed unnecessary and too expensive, and there
was a general expression of concern among members that the system
adopted should not be too rigid nor too expensive. It would be
preferable to give priority to the monitoring of sites about which
disturbing information had been received, as was the practice of
IUCN which only reported on sites the preservation of which raised
problems.
24. Another speaker, drawing attention to the general agreement on
the principle of monitoring, suggested constituting a working
group. She indicated that the system chosen should be devised
essentially with a view to assisting States in their efforts, in
particular through questionnaires which would enable them to bring
up to date the data on the state of conservation of properties and
which could contain criteria to help them evaluate the dangers
threatening these sites. The States, on which the prime
responsibility for monitoring would lie, should develop their own
capacity to enable them to fulfil this task.
25. A Committee member, underlining the positive aspects of the
document prepared by the Secretariat, stressed the need to have
periodic information, at least on the properties inscribed on the
List of World Heritage in Danger. Another speaker, recalling the
voluntary nature of States' participation in the implementation of
the Convention and in nominating properties for inscription, stated
that the monitoring system should not be considered as a policing
activity but as a means of furnishing the States with advice on the
ways of carrying out monitoring. One speaker indicated that he had
not been able to consult the authorities of his country on this
document, which had been received shortly before the meeting, and
that more time would be necessary to study it. This speaker
suggested that the Secretariat consult all the States Parties to
the Convention on the question of monitoring, which had numerous
legal and financial implications. This suggestion was supported by
other speakers.
26. Another Committee member also suggested that States Parties be
asked to update at least every five years the information
concerning the state of conservation of properties, and the
justification of their outstanding universal value, contained in
the nomination. In the absence of a reply within two years
following the deadline, inscription of the sites concerned on the
List of World Heritage in Danger or even their deletion from the
World Heritage List could be envisaged. Another speaker indicated
that no effort should be spared to avoid a situation in which the
exclusion procedure would have to be put into effect.
27. A speaker underlined the fact that the question of monitoring
was linked to promotional activities concerning the Convention,
because it was necessary for the public to feel directly concerned
by the preservation of world heritage sites.
28. The Director of the Division of Cultural Heritage pointed out
that whenever the Secretariat received alarming information
concerning the preservation of a site, it did its utmost, as far as
its means allowed, to verify the authenticity of the information
and it brought the information to the attention of the authorities
concerned. She cited in this connection three examples: Cairo where
the proposed construction of a bridge endangering Coptic churches
had been abandoned; Olinda, where information concerning the
construction of a bank in a protected area had proved to be
incorrect; and Auschwitz where work on converting one of the
buildings had been stopped. She emphasized that the Secretariat
could contribute to the collation of data on the properties and to
the organization of expert missions to the site, in agreement with
the States, but it was always confronted with a problem of under
staffing.
*[13]
29. Summarizing the debate and underlining the points on which
there could be general agreement, the Chairman noted that the
Committee members were for the most part in agreement on the need
for a system of monitoring cultural properties. Taking into account
the available resources, which did not allow the systematic
examination of the state of conservation of all the properties, an
order of priorities must be established, the monitoring of the most
threatened properties being the most urgent. The main
responsibility for monitoring lay with the States concerned but the
Committee and Unesco also had the responsibility of helping States
in this task. The monitoring system should not be inquisitorial,
but should help the States to identify the dangers threatening the
sites; it could also serve to determine the assistance which the
Committee could provide to help solve these problems. He emphasized
the fact that a future questionnaire sent to the States could
contain criteria to help the States collect and evaluate
information on the perils threatening the sites. He added that the
available resources should be allocated with a certain amount of
flexibility, taking into account the needs of the Secretariat, of
ICOMOS and IUCN. Finally it would be useful to consider the
experience of the data network organized by IUCN. As the Committee
did not wish to deter any longer a decision on this question, the
Chairman suggested that a working group be constituted.
30. The Committee agreed that a monitoring-cum-reporting system was
required as an integral part of the process of maintaining a World
Heritage List but noted that one State Party was not in a position
at this stage to fully concur with this view. It was further agreed
that the primary responsibility for monitoring the status of sites
inscribed on the List lay with the States Parties themselves. This
implies a procedure under which the State Party responsible for the
property is recognized as the primary source and recipient of
information concerning it. Since a variety of views were expressed
on the form the monitoring mechanism should take, it was decided
that the Chairman would set up a Working Group of the Bureau which
would examine procedures, including reporting ("questionnaires"),
periodicity of such reporting, resources, criteria for priority
setting, and other related issues, with a view to recommending a
system to the Bureau at its next meeting. The system envisaged
would be both flexible and effective and would enable the Committee
to keep itself informed of developments in the field on the one
hand and, on the other, be in a position to respond to requests for
technical or emergency assistance from States Parties when this is
called for. The Working Group will examine methodologies and models
developed by international non-governmental organisations in the
field of cultural and national heritage preservation as part of its
study.
X. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND THE
INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGNS FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE CULTURAL
HERITAGE
31. Mr. Ian Christie Clark (Canada), one of the four Rapporteurs
entrusted by the Special Committee of the Executive Board with an
in-depth study on International Campaigns for the Preservation and
Safeguarding of the Cultural Heritage of Mankind informed the
Committee of the findings of that study (document 23 C/INF.25). The
study described the success of the earlier campaigns but pointed
out that only very limited degrees of success had been achieved in
respect of the other campaigns due in part to the rapid growth in
their number. The speaker indicated that whereas it would be
logical that international campaigns be launched only for sites
included in the World Heritage List, this in fact was not the case,
since only seventeen of the twenty-nine campaigns concerned world
heritage sites. This could be explained by the separate development
of these two Unesco programmes and the different procedures by
which an international campaign was launched and a site was
included in the World Heritage List. The study recommended that the
concept which lies behind the international campaigns be revised,
and that priorities be set and realistic limitations placed on the
responsibilities of Unesco, the national governments concerned and
the international community. Of particular interest to the World
Heritage Committee was the recommendation that closer links be
established between international campaigns and the World Heritage
Convention in the following ways: firstly, that prior to requesting
an international campaign, a Member State which is not Party to the
World Heritage Convention should be encouraged to adhere to it so
that *[14] it is eligible to seek inclusion of the site or monument
concerned on the World Heritage List; secondly, that Member States
on whose behalf international campaigns have been undertaken but
which are not yet parties to the Convention should also adhere to
it and submit the site or monument in question for inclusion in the
World Heritage List.
32. After examining the in-depth study, the Committee welcomed the
conclusions and recommendations formulated therein, as endorsed by
the Executive Board at its 122nd session (decision 5.1.4) and, in
particular, the two recommendations calling for closer links
between the sites included in the World Heritage List and those
which were the subject of international campaigns, and which read
as follows:
"6.5.2 If the Member State is not a State Party to the 1972
World Heritage Convention, to take action so that it is eligible to
seek inclusion of the site(s) or monument(s) it wishes to safeguard
on the World Heritage List.
6.5.3 If an International Campaign has been undertaken on
behalf of a Member State not yet signatory to the World Heritage
Convention, that State should become a State Party and submit the
cultural property subject to a campaign to the World Heritage
Committee for inclusion on the World Heritage List."
The Committee requested the Secretariat to report to it at its next
session on progress achieved in implementing both recommendations.
XI. REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
33. The Secretariat presented document CC-86/CONF.003/4 which set
out four large-scale requests for technical co-operation which had
all been examined by the Bureau at its 10th session. The Committee
approved the four requests, as follows:
- Bulgaria Funds approved
Provision of a tacheometer with accessories
and two additional items for the photometer
already supplied, for the surveying of world
heritage sites $ 34.000
- Turkey: for the safeguarding of Istanbul
- training in wood and stone conservation $ 12.000
- creation of a laboratory for wood conservation $ 10.000
- provision of a photogrammetric camera $ 25.000
$ 47.000
- Yugoslavia:
Provision of equipment for the control of
microclimatic conditions and for the
conservation of paintings in the monuments of Ohrid $ 20.000
- ICCROM
Financial contribution for the organization of
the 7th International Course on the Technology
on Stone Conservation to be held in Venice from
28 April to 27 June 1987, to enable fellows from
developing countries to participate in the course $ 24.500
*[15]
34. The Committee noted that, at a meeting of the Bureau during its
session, consideration had been given to the procedure for the
approval of large-scale technical cooperation requests. Indeed,
according to paragraph 70 of the Operational Guidelines, requests
over $ 20.000 had to be received before a 1st March deadline in a
given year, to be reviewed by the Bureau and then by the Committee,
for approval under the budget of the following year. Such a
procedure was considered by certain States Parties to be too long
and cumbersome in relation to the amount of financial support in
question. In order to streamline the decision-making process, the
Committee approved the Bureau's recommendations on the following
points:
1. The ceiling for small-scale technical cooperation requests
which can be approved by the Chairman at any time of the year
should remain at $ 20.000 per project. The Chairman could not
approve requests submitted by his own country.
2. The Bureau should be authorized by the Committee to approve
technical cooperation requests amounting to a maximum of
$30.000.
3. The Bureau would not have the authorization to approve
requests amounting to $ 30.000 presented by States Parties
which were members of the Bureau: in such cases, it could only
make a recommendation and the request would be submitted to
the Committee for approval.
4. The Bureau should meet twice a year, once, as before, in
May-June of each year and a second time during the Committee
session.
5. The Bureau should function as the financial committee of the
World Heritage Committee having authority to approve requests
amounting to $ 30.000, to review large-scale requests and to
make recommendations to the Committee on the budget for the
following year.
6. Large-scale technical cooperation requests (that is those
exceeding $ 30.000) should be submitted to the Secretariat as
early as possible each year. Those received before 31 August
will be dealt with by the Committee the same year. Those
received after 31 August will be processed by the Secretariat
in the order in which they are received and will be considered
by the Committee the same year if it has been possible to
complete their processing in time.
35. The Committee requested the Secretariat to revise the
operational guidelines accordingly.
36. In accordance with this revised procedure, the Committee also
approved the following four request which had been kept in obeyance
either due to lack of funds under the 1986 budget or to receipt
after the deadline:
- Algeria Funds approved
Equipment for conservation measures in
Tassili N'Ajjer National Park $ 1.700
- Seychelles
Consultant services to advise on the
eradication of feral goats in Aldabra Atoll
and equipment $ 7.200
- Peru
Financial support for the implementation of
the management plan for
Huascaran National Park $ 30.100
Support for associated training activities
for park wardens $ 5.300 $ 35.400
*[16]
- Peru
Financial support for the implementation of
the management plan for Macchu
Piccu Historical Sanctuary. $ 26.500
Support for associated training
activities $ 8.000 $ 34.500
37. Given the serious situation of the Selous Game Reserve (United
Republic of Tanzania), as reported under the section of this report
on the conservation status of natural world heritage properties,
the Committee requested the Secretariat to inform the Tanzanian
authorities of its willingness to allocate financial support under
the 1987 budget to a project aimed at improving the protection of
this site.
XII. SITUATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND BUDGET FOR 1987
38. In introducing this item of the agenda, the Secretary recalled
that the Committee, at its last session, had requested the Chairman
and the Secretariat to send out a series of letters to States
Parties concerning their contributions to the World Heritage Fund,
inviting them in particular to pay these contributions at as early
a date as possible in each calendar year. The Chairman had also
been requested to write to the United States of America enquiring
about the amount of its contribution as well as to other States
Parties paying voluntary contributions asking them to consider the
possibility of withdrawing the declaration by which they had opted
to pay voluntary contributions. In reply the United States had
pledged $ 239.000 for 1986 which had since been received, and
Brazil, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany and Norway had
indicated that they intended to continue to pay voluntary
contributions. In this connection, the delegate of Brazil drew the
Committee's attention to the fact that, in response to the
Chairman's letter, Brazil had made a significant effort to increase
its contribution, which for 1986 amounted to the 1 % level of its
annual contribution to Unesco's regular budget.
39. The Committee noted that the Executive Board of Unesco, at its
126th session in September 1986, had taken up the question of the
withdrawal of the declaration on voluntary contributions. The
Executive Board had been of the opinion, however, that it was not
the type of contribution which was important but rather the fact
that all States Parties should pay in full the one per cent of
their contribution to the regular budget of Unesco. The Committee
noted with satisfaction the text of decision 5.4.3 adopted by the
Executive Board, and especially paragraphs 11 and 12 which read as
follows:
"The Executive Board,
...
11. Appeals to Member States, which have not become parties
to the World Heritage Convention, to examine the
possibility of becoming parties thereto, and
12. Appeals to all States Parties, whether or not they have
made the declaration foreseen in Article 16, paragraph 2,
to pay promptly and regularly to the World Heritage Fund
at least one per cent of their contribution to the
regular budget of Unesco, in order to increase the
resources which are needed to ensure the safeguarding of
World Heritage sites."
40. The Committee paid tribute to Mr. Gough Whitlam (Australia) and
Mr. Ian Christie Clark (Canada) for their personal commitment, in
their capacity as Members of the Executive Board, to furthering the
objectives of the Convention and noted that their efforts had
increased the awareness of all Member States of the existence of
the World Heritage Convention and had encouraged the prompt payment
of contributions.
*[17]
41. In considering the budget for 1987, the Committee noted that
the sum of approximately $ 2.7 million was available as cash in
hand. This sum was considerably higher than in previous years due,
in addition to the efforts noted above, to the fact that one State
Party had resumed its significant voluntary contributions to the
Fund. In addition there had been some savings on the 1986 budget,
in particular because the Secretariat had been insufficiently
staffed to develop international assistance projects. In this
connection, the Committee requested that in future working
documents on the World Heritage Fund a clearer statement and more
detailed information should be given on income and expenditure as
well as on expenditure foreseen (funds already obligated and funds
earmarked for approved project). Such information would be useful
to enable States Parties to gain a better understanding of the use
made of their contributions to the Fund and thus to provide any
justification of these contributions which might be necessary.
42. Given the more favorable budgetary situation, the Committee
decided to increase all budget lines, with particular increases for
technical cooperation and training, which are of direct benefit to
States Parties, and for ICOMOS and IUCN, whose advisory services
were particularly appreciated by the Committee and for temporary
assistance to the Secretariat. The Committee also decided to keep
approximately 15 % of the total amount available as a reserve to
help balance the budget in less favourable years; it was understood
that this reserve would remain intact in 1987. The Committee
adopted the budget for 1987 as follows:
APPROVED BUDGET FOR 1987
ACTIVITY Funds approved
$
Preparatory assistance and
regional studies 100,000
Technical cooperation 700,000
Training 500,000
Emergency assistance 230,000
Promotional activities, information, monitoring 142,000
Advisory services (IUCN 99,900)
(ICOMOS 170,100) 270,000
Temporary assistance to the Secretariat 250,000 *
______________
2.192,000
3% Contingency funds 67,760
______________
2.257,760
Reserve (16,4 % Total) 442,240
TOTAL 2.700,000
==================
* The Committee approved the establishment of the temporary
posts listed in Annex II with these funds
*[18]
XIII. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
43. The Committee's attention was drawn to document
CC-86/CONF.003/7 presenting up-to-date information on different
activities undertaken by different States Parties, private
organisations and the Secretariat.
44. In particular, the Committee took note of the study presented
in the annex of this document, prepared at the request of the
Bureau at its 10th session, presenting a promotion plan indicating
how States Parties themselves could promote the Convention, as well
as the means for cooperation between States Parties and the
Secretariat.
45. The Committee agreed with the conclusions of this study
concerning the need to decentralise promotional activities by
creating national associations as set out in Article 17 of the
Convention, and by making more use of the Unesco National
Commissions. The Committee suggested that the study be sent out to
all Unesco National Commissions in this connection. It was agreed
that a special effort should be made to develop material which was
representative of all regions and cultures.
46. The Committee was particularly in favour of each State Party
designating a coordinator for World Heritage promotional activities
and of the Secretariat sending out a questionnaire to obtain more
information on past, present and proposed activities to promote the
Convention. The Secretariat was requested to send this
questionnaire to the Unesco Permanent Delegations and to the Unesco
National Commissions for each State Party. Several members of the
Committee mentioned activities which had taken place in their
countries, for example the issue of special World Heritage stamps
by Brazil and Sri Lanka. In this connection, the Committee
expressed the wish to have more information on such activities.
Regional workshops to be held in Africa and Asia to promote the
Convention during 1987 were mentioned in this regard. The Committee
underscored the usefulness of preparing a certificate, signed by
the Director General of Unesco and the Chairman of the World
Heritage Committee to commemorate the inscription of sites on the
List, particularly for the Mayors of historic cities.
47. As concerns publications on the Convention and on the
properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, the Committee
suggested that States Parties should be consulted as far as
possible on the texts on their properties and should assist the
Secretariat and/or independent publishers in this regard.
48 The new, experimental World Heritage Diary prepared by INCAFO
was welcomed by the Committee, although several errors were noticed
which needed rectification. The Committee requested the Secretariat
to pursue a 1988 version, for which 10 % of the sales price would
go directly to the World Heritage Fund, and which would be prepared
in consultation with States Parties.
XIV. WAYS OF ENSURING A BETTER TURNOVER IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
49. The Committee noted the report on the discussion of this item
at the Bureau meeting, at which no consensus had been reached, with
some members holding that there should be no limit placed on the
number of terms of office of members of the Committee, while others
were of the opinion that there were good grounds to change the
present system (document CC-86/CONF.003/9).
50. One member suggested that the Committee consider recommending
to all States Parties at the next General Assembly that the
Assembly adopt a procedure whereby, prior to the election of States
to the Committee, the Chairman of the General Assembly would, in
the interest of equitable rotation, call on all those States
completing their term of office on the Committee to consider
waiting two years before standing for re-election for a further six
year term.
*[19]
51. Although aware of the need for rotation in the membership of
the Committee, other members considered that it was not proper for
the Committee to make a recommendation on this question to the
General Assembly, since States could not be prevented from
submitting their candidature in accordance with established
electoral procedures. As there was no clear consensus on this
matter, the Committee decided not to make any recommendation to the
General Assembly.
52. The Committee fully recognized the need to ensure an equitable
representation of the different regions and cultures of the world
in the composition of the Committee, as stipulated in Article 8 (2)
of the Convention.
XV. OTHER MATTERS
53. The United States observer was pleased with the importance the
Committee gave to the question of reporting; this activity should
contribute towards the effective preservation of the World Heritage
which was the main goal of the Convention. Moreover she informed
the Committee that the use of the World Heritage emblem and the
terms "World Heritage Convention" and "World Heritage Committee"
were henceforth legally restricted in the United States. She also
indicated that her country would be hosting the eighth General
Assembly of ICOMOS in Washington D.C., in October 1987, and was
contributing financially towards the organization of this
conference. She also pointed out that an exhibit on World Heritage
organized by the National Park Service would be shown at the
National Geographic Society's headquarters. Afterwards, it would
travel throughout the United States. In conclusion she recalled the
continuing interest of her Government in and its support of the
implementation of the Convention.
54. The representative of Brazil recalled that his country had
invited the Committee to hold its 10th session in Brasilia in the
event that its agenda would have included a study on the question
of guidelines concerning contemporary architecture and that it had
declared itself ready to take on the extra costs that this would
entail for the Secretariat. The Bureau had considered that it would
be premature to study this question at the 10th session of the
Committee and that it would be more appropriate to reconsider
Brazil's offer at a later date, when the Committee would undertake
study of this question. At that point in time Brazil would still be
happy to welcome the Committee to Brasilia, the speaker said,
renewing thus his country's invitation. In the name of the
Committee the President thanked the delegate of Brazil for this
generous offer.
55. The Committee decided to hold its 11th session at Unesco
Headquarters in Paris from 7 to 11 December 1987.
56. The Committee authorized the Bureau to draw up and submit on
its behalf a report on its activities to the 24th session of the
General Conference.
57. Mr. Michel Parent, President of ICOMOS, announced that he would
shortly be retiring, after a long experience of the Convention
acquired by participating in its drafting and then as Chairman of
the Committee and finally as Chairman of ICOMOS. Mr. Parent
expressed wishes for the future success of the Convention. By their
applause the participants paid tribute to him.
XVI. CLOSING OF THE SESSION
58. The Chairman thanked all those who had contributed to the
success of the meeting. On behalf of the participants, a member of
the Committee congratulated the Chairman for the tact and wisdom he
had shown in guiding the deliberations of the Committee. The
Chairman then announced the closing of the tenth session of the
World Heritage Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*[Annex I/1]
CC-86/CONF.003/ 10
Annex I/ Annexe I
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION
OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION DU
PATRIMOINE MONDIAL, CULTUREL ET NATUREL
World Heritage Committee/Comité du patrimoine mondial
Tenth Session/Dixième session
Unesco Headquarters, Paris, 24-28 November 1986
Siège de l'Unesco, 24-28 novembre 1986
List of Participants/Liste des participants
1. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE
ALGERIA/ALGERIE
Mme T. DJELLOULI
Premier Secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
Mr. M. BOURKE
First Assistant Secretary,
Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment
H.E. Mr. H.C. MOTT
Ambassador
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. D. GILLESPIE
Assistant Director (Northern Territory)
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service
Mr. D.M. MACINTYRE
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
BRAZIL/BRESIL
S. Exc. M. J. MONTELLO
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
M. L.F. SEIXAS CORREA
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
*[Annex I/2]
M. J.A. de PAIVA OLIVEIRA
Premier secrétaire d'Ambassade
Division de coopération intellectuelle du Ministère brésilien
des Relations extérieures
Mme L MAR TINS RIBEIRO de ANDRADE
Premier secrétaire d'Ambassade
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
BULGARIA/BULGARIE
Mme M. STANTCHEVA
Professeur adjoint à l'Université de Sofia
Dr. I. VLADIMIROV
Chef du Service des Organisations internationales
auprès du Ministère de la Culture
CANADA
Mr. J.D. COLLINSON
Assistant Deputy Minister
Environment Canada, Parks
H.E. Mr. I.C. CLARK
Ambassador
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
H. E. Mr. C. LEVENTIS
Ambassador
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. C. CASSIMATIS
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
GERMANY (Fed Rep. of)/ALLEMAGNE (Rép. féd.d')
Dr. H. CASPARY
Conservateur en chef des Monuments historiques
de Rhénanie-Palatinat
GREECE/GRECE
Dr. Y. TZEDAKIS
Directeur
Direction des Antiquités préhistoriques et classiques
Ministère de 1a Culture
Mme C. STENOU
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
*[Annex I/3]
Mme S. COSTOPOULOS
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
GUINEA/GUINEE
M. A. O. DIALLO
Conseiller
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
INDIA/INDE
H. E. Ms. A. GHOSE
Ambassador, Permanent Deleqate to Unesco
Mr. H.V. SHRINGLA
Third Secretary
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
JORDAN/JORDANIE
Dr. T. OBAIDAT
Cultural Counsellor
Embassy of Jordan
LEBANON/LIBAN
M. W. GHOSSOUB
Conseiller culturel
Délégation Permanente auprès de l'Unesco
LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA/JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE
Dr. A. SHAIBOUB
Directo - General
Department of Antiquities
MEXICO/MEXIQUE
S. Exc. M. L. VILLORO
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
Mme S. LOMBARDO de RUIZ
Directrice des Monuments historiques
Institut national d'Anthropologie et d'Histoire
Professeur J. A. MANRIQUE
Président du Comité mexicain de l'ICOMOS
*[Annex I/4]
Mme G. UGARTE de BERNARD
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Mr. S. TSCHUDI-MADSEN
Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments
SRI LANKA
H. E. Mr. A.W.P. GURUGE
Ambassador
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
TURKEY/TURQUIE
Mme U. IZMIRLIGIL
Directrice du Laboratoire central de
restauration et de conservation d'Istanbul
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA/REPUBLIQUE UNIE DE TANZANIE
Mr. J.A.T. MUWOWO
Minister Plenipotentiary
Deputy Permanent Delecate to Unesco
YEMEN (Arab Republic of)/YEMEN (Rép. arabe du)
Dr. A.S. SAYYAD
Délégué permanent adjoint
Chargé d'affaires a.i.
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
ZAIRE
Mr. N. AKWESI
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/
ORGANISATION PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)/
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES
M. M. PARENT
Président
M. L. PRESSOUYRE
Professeur à l'Université de Paris I
*[Annex I/5]
Mme D. LAPEYRE
Directrice du Secrétariat
Mme F. PORTELETTE
Documentaliste
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL
RESOURCES (IUCN)/UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA
NATURE ET DE SES RESSOURCES (UICN)
Dr. J. W. THORSELL
Executive Officer
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE
RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY (ICCROM)/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL
D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS
CULTURELS (ICCROM)
Dr. J. JOKILEHTO
Architect
Coordinator of Training in Architectural Conservation
III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS
A. OTHER STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION/
AUTRES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
ANTIGUA & BARBUDA/ANTIGUA ET BARBUDA
Ms. D. RICHMOND
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
ARGENTINA/ARGENTINE
Ms. S. M. PELAEZ AYERRA
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
BANGLADESH
H.E. Dr. A. MAJEED KHAN
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. A.K.M. JALALUDDIN
Minister, Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. M. HASAN
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
Mr. M. F. AMIN
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
*[Annex I/6]
BOLIVIA/BOLIVIE
M. J. APARICIO
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
CHILE/CHILI
M. J. MORA BRUGERE
Chargé d'affaires a.i.
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
CHINA/CHINE
Mr. X. JIA
Secretary-General
National Commission for Unesco
Mr. R. CAI
Deputy Director of Programme and Co-operation Division
National Commission for Unesco
COLOMBIA/COLOMBIE
Dr. C. JARAMILLO GUTIERREZ
Deuxtème Secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
COSTA RICA
Mme I. LEIVA-BILLAULT
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
Mme Y. RICKEBUSCH
Premier Secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
COTE D'IVOIRE
M. B. KADJA
Conseiller technique
M. E. MIEZAN EZO
Conseiller
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
ECUADOR/EQUA TEUR
M. M. CARBO
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
*[Annex I/7]
EGYPT (Arab Republic of)/EGYPTE (République arabe d')
S. Exc. M. M.F. EL-KHATIB
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
M. W.A.MAHMOUD
Conseiller à la Délégation auprès de l'Unesco
FRANCE
M. F. ENA UD
Inspecteur général des Monuments historiques
Ministère de la culture et de la communication
M. L. CHABASON
Chef du service de la recherche, des études et du
traitement de l'information
Ministère de l'Environnement
M. Y. MANVILLE
Troisième Secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
HOLY SEE/SAINT-SlEGE
Mgr. L. FRANA
Observateur permanent auprès de l'Unesco
HUNGARY/HONGRIE
M. L. DALANYI
Directeur
Division de la construction et du développement d'agglomération
Ministère de la construction et de l'urbanisme
M. J. PAPP
Divison des relations internationales
Ministère de la construction et de l'urbanisme
IRAN (Islamic Republic of)/IRAN (République islamique d')
M. R. FEIZ
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
M. A.A. ASCHARI
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
*[Annex I/8]
ITALY/ITALIE
Mme L. VLAD BORELLI
Ministère des biens culturels
Mme. M. PICCIALUTI CAPRIOLI
Archives d'Etat, Ministère des biens culturels
M. M. BONOCORE CACCIALUPI
Ministère des biens culturels
Professeur P. PASQUALINI
Ministère des Affaires étrangères
MALI
M. K. BOUNDY
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
MALTA/MALTE
Mgr. A. GAUCI
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. J. BARTOLO
Permanent Delegation to Unesco
MOROCCO/MAROC
M. D. DKHISSI
Chef de la Division de l'Inventaire du
patrimoine culturel
Ministère des Affaires culturelles
Mme N. SEDRATI
Premier secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
MOZAMBIQUE
Mr. J. CAPAO
Directeur de Département
Secrétaire d'Etat à la Culture
Mme A.E. SANTANA AFONSO
Attachée culturelle
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
*[Annex I/9]
NEPAL
H. E. Mr. D. R. UPRETY
Permanent Delegate to Unesco
Mr. N. S. THAPA
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
OMAN
Mr. A. AL-MOSSAWI
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
PAKISTAN
Mr. M.H. SHAUKAT
First Secretary
Embassy of Pakistan
PANAMA
M. E. NEWMAN
Délégué Permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
PERU/PEROU
S. Exc. M. J. R. RIBEYRO
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
M. C. RODRIGUEZ LARRAIN
Ministre Conseiller
Délégation auprès de l'Unesco
PHILIPPINES
Mrs. D. MACALINTAL
Deputy Permanent Delegate to Unesco
POLAND/POLOGNE
Professor O. CZERNER
President, Polish National Committee ICOMOS
PORTUGAL
M. L. CASTRO LOBO
Architecte
Institut portugais du patrimoine culturel
*[Annex I/10]
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
M. J. M. GONZALEZ-VALCARCEL
Vice-Président ICOMOS Espagne
M. C. BAZTAN LACASA
Architecte, Chef du Département des Monuments
Ministère de la Culture
Dr. J. M. MERINO DE CACERES
Architecte, Ministère de la Culture
M. J. SANCHEZ GARRIDO
Maire de Tolède
M. J. IGLESIAS
Maire de Caceres
SWEDEN/SUEDE
M. C. DANIELSSON
Deuxième Secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
S. Exc. M. C. HUMMEL
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
Mme A. BAUTY
Délégué permanent adjoint auprès de l'Unesco
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC/REPUBIQUE ARABE SYRIENNE
M. E. CHOUERI
Délégué permanent auprès de l'Unesco
TUNISIA/TUNISIE
Ms. S. ZAOUCHE
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
UGANDA/OUGANDA
Dr. J. SEMPEBWA
Counsellor, Permanent Delegation to Unesco
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNI
Mr. P.H. DENTON
Heritage Sponsorshio Division
Department of the Environment
*[Annex I/11]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Ms. S. RECCE
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
Department of the Interior
Ms. S. CLEARY
Foreign Affairs Officer
Office of Ecology and Natural Resources
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs
Department of State
Mr. R. COOK
International Park Affairs Division
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
Mr. John POPPELIERS
International Liaison Officer for Cultural Resources
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
YUGOSLAVIA/YOUGOSLAVIE
M. M. KOLARIC
Conseiller au Gouvemement
Mrs. M. CANAK-MEDIC
Architecte, Conseiller scientifique
Institut pour la protection des monuments
M. M. MEDIC
Peintre-restaurateur
Musée national de Belgrade
M. M. PUC
Conseiller, Conservation de la nature
Mr. A. DEBEVEC
Conseiller, Biens naturels
Organisation de Tourisme de Portoroz
M. T. VUGA
Président du Comité pour la protection de l'environnement
Mme S. STEFANOVIC
Délegation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
*[Annex I/12]
B. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/
ORGANISATIONS INTERGOUVERNEMENTALES
ARAB EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION/ORGANISATION
ARABE POUR L'EDUCATION, LA CULTURE ET LA SCIENCE (ALECSO)
M. F. AMMAR
Deuxième Secrétaire
Délégation permanente auprès de l'Unesco
COUNCIL OF EUROPE/CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE
Mme G. BRIANZONI
Chef du Bureau de Paris
C. INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION/
ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE NON GOUVERNEMENTALE
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MUSEUMS/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MUSEES
Mr. P. CARDON
Secretary-General
IV. UNESCO SECRETARIAT/SECRETARIAT DE L'UNESCO
Mr. H. LOPES
Assistant Director-General for Culture and Communication
Mr. B. von DROSTE
Director
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mrs. A. RAIDL
Director
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mr. D. de SAN
Chief, International Standards Division
Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs
Mrs. M. van VLIET
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mrs. J. ROBERTSON VERNHES
Division of Ecological Sciences
Mr. F.B. HUYGHE
Division of Cultural Heritage
Mr. N. ISHWARAN
Division of Ecological Sciences
Ms. P.C. BENEDICT
Division of Cultural Heritage
---------------------------------------------------------------
*[Annex II/1]
CC-86/CONF/003/10
Annex II
Temporary staff support approved by the World Heritage Committee
under the World Heritage Fund
Division of Cultural Heritage
1. 1 programme specialist (P-3) to assist in work
related to the implementation of the Convention,
particularly as regards the cultural heritage
component. US $ 58.000
2. 1 administrative assistant (GS-6) to maintain records
of all income and expenditure under the Fund, organize
the documentation and make all practical arrangements
for the sessions of the World Heritage Committee, its
Bureau and the General Assembly US $ 40.000
3. 1 secretary (GS-2/3) to assist the above-mentioned
staff and temporary secretarial staff to help during
peak-periods US $ 27.000
_____________________
US $ 125.000
Division of Ecological Sciences
1. 1 programme specialist (P-3) to assist in work
related to the implementation of the Convention,
particularly as concerns the natural heritage
component US $ 58.000
2. 1 programme specialist for promotional activities
concerning both the cultural and natural heritage
(12 man/months at P-2 or approximately 9 man/months
at P-3 level) US $ 47.500
3. 1 secretary to assist the above-mentioned staff US $ 19.500
______________________
US $ 125.000
______________________
TOTAL US $ 250.000
======================