Distribution limited SC-91/CONF.002/15
12 December 1991
Original : English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
FIFTEENTH SESSION
(Carthage, 9 - 13 December 1991)
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The fifteenth ordinary session of the World Heritage Committee was held
in Carthage, Tunisia, from 9-13 December 1991. It was attended by the
following States Parties: Brazil, China, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Germany,
Italy, Mexico, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Spain, Thailand, Tunisia and
the United States of America.
2. The following States Parties to the Convention who are not members of
the Committee were represented by observers: Algeria, Australia, Canada,
Finland, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, Iraq, Niger, Poland, Portugal, The Holy
See, Romania, Sweden and Yugoslavia.
3. Representatives of the International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity. The
complete list of participants is given in the Annex.
II. OPENING SESSION
4. The outgoing Chairperson of the Committee, Mrs. Christina Cameron,
opened the session by thanking the Tunisian authorities for their generous
invitation to host in Carthage the fifteenth session of the World Heritage
Committee and wished the Committee every success in its work.
5. The Minister of Culture, Professor Mongi Bousnina, in warmly welcoming
the Committee, expressed Tunisia's strong commitment towards realizing the
objectives of the *[2] World Heritage Convention. He stressed the importance
of the work already undertaken by the Convention, demonstrating how separate
sectors of culture and nature can work together in a synergistic way in the
protection of humankind's priceless cultural and natural possessions. He
continued by pointing out that Tunisia considers cultural heritage protection
as part of the task of preserving the national identity within a worldwide
context. Safeguarding of the natural heritage is also considered as a top
priority and primary responsibility of the Government. He was pleased to
inform the delegates that the President of Tunisia, His Excellency The
Honourable Mr. Zin El Abidine Ben Ali had recently set up a Ministry for the
Environment. The President of Tunisia had also taken a series of measures to
enhance the protection of cultural and natural heritage sites. The Minister
invited delegates to become acquainted with measures for protecting cultural
and natural properties in Tunisia. The Minister concluded his address by
wishing the Committee success in its work.
6. The representative of the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr. Henri Lopes,
Assistant-Director General for Culture, began his address by expressing
UNESCO's grave concern about the human tragedy caused in Yugoslavia by the
armed conflict. He expressed UNESCO's dismay about the destruction already
caused by this conflict in the Old Town of Dubrovnik and in the Plitvice Lake
National Park, both of which have to be safeguarded in conformity with the
stipulations of the World Heritage Convention.
7. On behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO, he thanked the Tunisian
Government and the people of Tunisia for hosting the fifteenth session of the
World Heritage Committee in Carthage. He highlighted the achievements of the
international campaign for the safeguarding of Carthage which was launched
twenty years ago by UNESCO. He attributed the success of this campaign to
the commitments made by Tunisia and also to the skill and knowledge of
eminent experts coming from ten Member Parties.
8. Mr. Lopes informed the Committee that Angola, Bahrain, Cambodia, El
Salvador, Ireland, Kenya, Saint Lucia and San Morino became States Parties to
the Convention during the last twelve months, bringing the total number of
States Parties to 123. He stressed the importance of evaluating the work
under the Convention which will be undertaken on the occasion of the
twentieth anniversary of the Convention in 1992 and drew attention to the
one-day workshop which will be organized as part of the Fourth World Park's
Congress in Caracas, Venezuela, in February 1992. Mr. Lopes also made
mention of the setting up of a network of World Heritage Cities as an outcome
of the International Colloquium on World Heritage Cities held at Quebec City,
Canada, in August 1991.
*[3]
9. Mr. Lopes indicated that the World Heritage Convention was taken into
account in the preparation of the UN Conference on Environment and
Development which will be held in Rio de Janeiro, in June 1992, particularly
in the drafting of the future legal instrument for the protection of
biological diversity and the formulation of the "Agenda 21". Finally, Mr.
Lopes informed the Committee of the recent development of safeguarding
efforts for the monuments of Angkor, Cambodia.
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
10. The Committee adopted the agenda as it had been set out in Document SC-
91/CONF.002/1.
IV. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-CHAIRPERSONS
11. Mr. Azedine Beschaouch (Tunisia) was elected Chairman of the Committee
by acclamation. Mr. Diaz Barrio (Mexico) was elected as the Rapporteur, and
the following members of the Committee were elected as Vice-Chairpersons:
Brazil, France, Senegal, Thailand and the United States of America.
V. REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT SINCE THE FOURTEENTH
SESSION
12. Mr. Bernd von Droste, Secretary of the Committee, congratulated the
Chairman, the Rapporteur and the Vice-Chairpersons on their election and
reported on the activities undertaken since the fourteenth session of the
Committee.
13. He began by drawing the attention of the Committee to three documents,
namely the Report of the Fifteenth session of the Bureau, the Report of the
World Heritage Committee to the 26th General Conference of UNESCO and the
Report of the 8th session of the General Assembly of the States Parties to
the World Heritage Convention which provide detailed information on the
progress achieved under the Convention since the fourteenth session. Mr. von
Droste also pointed out that the members of the Committee would find
additional information in the working and information documents that have
been made available to them. He therefore confined his report to major
challenges which the work under the Convention poses to all actors, including
the States Parties, the advisory bodies and the Secretariat.
14. Within this context Mr. von Droste drew the attention of the Committee
to the fact that the monitoring of the *[4] state of conservation of World
Heritage properties was now becoming a principal activity for ICOMOS, ICCROM,
IUCN and the Secretariat. Consequently, the World Heritage Committee would
have to devote more time than during previous sessions to this important
question. He emphasized that the evaluation of the Convention was not an end
in itself, but was aimed at elaborating a strategy which would help to
exploit more fully the potential of the Convention as an effective tool for
heritage conservation and international co-operation. He mentioned that
modest progress had been achieved with respect to global studies on a
selected number of thematic areas. He then underlined the importance of
continuing in-depth studies for the revision of cultural and natural heritage
criteria.
15. Mr. von Droste highlighted problems of the present procedure for
including properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee
should give itself the means to act effectively, particularly in the case of
threats to the cultural and natural heritage sites faced with armed
conflicts. He also stressed the need to redirect the granting of
international assistance to ensure an effective follow-up to recommendations
for corrective measures as the result of monitoring work carried out under
the Convention. Furthermore, he pointed out that at the request of the World
Heritage Committee, the Secretariat had embarked on the overall evaluation of
the World Heritage Convention, in all its aspects, with the help of experts
and through a series of consultations with main partners involved in the
daily work for implementation. An outline for the evaluation of twenty years
of work under the Convention would be presented to the Committee during its
current session. Mr. von Droste encouraged the States Parties to make their
contributions to the World Heritage Fund without delay so that financial
constraints do not restrict activities in 1992, when past activities will be
reviewed, future plans elaborated and exhibits and seminars organized to mark
the 20th anniversary of the Convention.
16. After assuring the Committee that more information pertaining to
specific actions taken by the Secretariat would be provided during
discussions on the various agenda items of the meeting, Mr. von Droste
concluded his report by wishing the Committee success in its work.
VI. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE XVTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU
17. Ms. Vlad Borelli (Italy), Rapporteur of the fourteenth session of the
Committee, presented the results of the fifteenth session of the Bureau held
in Paris from 17 to 21 June 1991. She drew the attention of the Committee to
the Report of the fifteenth session of the Bureau (Document SC- *[5]
91/CONF.002/2) and highlighted important elements from the different sections
of the Report. She informed the Committee of the recommendations of the
Bureau to suspend the use of questionnaires as a modality to monitor the
status of conservation of cultural heritage sites. She recalled that the
Bureau was satisfied with the co-operation established between the
Secretariat and UNDP and UNEP to monitor the status of conservation of
cultural World Heritage properties and that IUCN together with the
Secretariat was able to provide information on the status of conservation of
21 natural World Heritage sites. Ms. Vlad Borelli also pointed out to the
Committee that initiatives to revise the natural heritage criteria and
proposing a new criterion on cultural landscapes had been launched and were
expected to progress further during 1992 when the evaluation of the
implementation of the Convention would be completed.
VII. MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CULTURAL
PROPERTIES AND RELATED TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
18. The monitoring report presented by the Secretariat dealt with the
following sites: Xanthos-Letoon (Turkey), the City of Valletta (Malta),
Shibam (Yemen), National Historical Park - Citadel, Sans Souci, Ramiers
(Haiti), Kathmandu Valley (Nepal), Moenjodaro (Pakistan), and the Madara
Rider (Bulgaria). Monitoring visits had been made to seventeen sites by an
expert who was in charge of co-ordinating action for the preservation of 115
Mediterranean sites within the framework of the UNEP - Barcelona Convention.
These visits had yielded a wealth of information and documentation which
needed analysis and the establishment of a dialogue with the national
authorities before a report could be presented to the Committee. A summary
of the findings of this expert concerning two sites was included in the
Working Document SC-91/CONF.002/3. Reports on the state of conservation of
the other fifteen sites will be presented to the Bureau in June 1992. In
addition, the expert who was present at this session was ready to explain to
the Committee his approach and to respond to specific questions. An
additional monitoring report had been prepared by the Co-ordinator of the
UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project on Cultural Heritage and Development in Latin
America and the Caribbean, who was also present at this session.
19. The Committee was also informed of the type of continuous monitoring
which the Secretariat pursued with regard to projects which were the subject
of international campaigns or supported by UNDP. A recently published
brochure on the work carried out in Sana'a, as well as the report on the
mission to Bulgaria which was annexed to the Document SC-91/CONF.002/3,
showed that the most efficient *[6] monitoring could be done through
technical assistance missions. Unfortunately, the financial and personnel
resources of the Secretariat were far too small compared with the many World
Heritage sites to be monitored.
20. In the opinion of the Secretariat, a monitoring action should be
carried out in the form of a continuous dialogue with the State Party which
should begin even before the inscription of the site, in order to inform
local competent authorities (politicians and technicians) about the values to
be maintained and the principles and methods of conservation to be applied.
In particular, the implementation of the management plan requested at the
time of the proposal for inscription should be verified by means of a
monitoring exercise.
21. The representative of ICOMOS brought to the attention of the Committee
alarming news about the deterioration of certain parts of monuments of Khizi
Pogost (USSR). He stressed the fact that his organization was interested in
sending a mission on the spot to evaluate the state of conservation of the
site. With reference to the cultural centre in the process of being built
between the Tower of Belem and the Monastery of the Hieronymites (Portugal),
he underlined that the work was almost completed and that a comprehensive
file submitted by the government showed that the rules of the competition had
taken account of the fact that the site was classified as a World Heritage
property. Part of the existing building replaced industrial constructions
and this represented an improvement. This case proved that it was necessary
to determine a future strategy to guide architects in charge of the
development of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Portuguese
observer remarked that the project of integrating this cultural centre was
part of a plan for safeguarding of the zone with a view to reasserting the
value of the site. The Committee took note of the report of ICOMOS and, in
the light of this example, emphasized that States Parties should attach the
greatest attention to maintaining the values of World Heritage properties,
when elaborating development projects, new constructions or major
restorations. They should equally inform the Committee, through UNESCO's
Secretariat, of their intention to undertake or to authorize projects in an
area protected under the Convention before any irreversible decisions were
taken. The need for close collaboration between the Secretariat and the local
competent authorities was stressed during the debate. The Committee took
note that ICOMOS, in co-operation with ICCROM, was preparing a guide on the
management of sites for authorities responsible for World Heritage.
22. The Co-ordinator of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project on Cultural
Heritage and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean introduced the
method which had been used in *[7] the detailed analysis of six sites in the
region. The documents presented only reflect work already achieved within
the framework of a wider project concerning sixteen sites in all, the
evaluation of which will be carried out up until 1993 and will cost the World
Heritage Fund US$40,000.
23. The Committee took note of this report. While considering that the
method was interesting, it judged that it would not be necessarily applicable
to all regions.
24. The Co-ordinator of a network set up by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) for the protection of Mediterranean sites under the
Barcelona Convention introduced in his turn his working method on monitoring.
During visits to seventeen sites around the Mediterranean, he evaluated, in
collaboration with local experts, the different problems raised by the
conservation of the sites concerned. Following his visits he kept in touch
with the competent authorities with a view to assisting them in their task
with technical advice and documentation.
25. Regarding the management of sites, a member of the Committee questioned
the limits to the possibility of intervention by the Committee and the
Secretariat. The Secretariat explained that national authorities, whose
collaboration was obviously indispensable, were always informed.
26. The possibility of intervention by the private sector in activities of
safeguarding and development of World Heritage was raised. A delegate
considered that progress in this field remained far below desirable levels.
For instance, various difficulties encountered by a high visiting capacity of
the sites could be solved through co-operation with private associations.
27. Special attention was given by the Committee to the dangers threatening
the World Heritage sites during armed conflict. The Secretariat informed the
Committee of the situation of the historical City of Dubrovnik. It also
announced the decision of the Director-General to launch an international
campaign for the restoration of Dubrovnik.
28. Aware of the fact that it represents 123 States, including Yugoslavia,
which are signatories of the Convention, the Committee expressed deep concern
about the armed conflict, devastating a region that comprises several sites
inscribed on the World Heritage List, in particular the Old City of
Dubrovnik. It decided to urge the parties in conflict to do their best so
that a ceasefire which allows as soon as possible for the repair of the
damage already caused in the fighting area, in particular in Dubrovnik, in
response to the appeal by the Director-General of UNESCO for international
solidarity.
*[8]
29. Recalling that the repeated requests of UNESCO to observe the
obligations of the Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural
and Natural Heritage have so far not been heeded, and noting the state of
exceptional emergency caused by the armed conflict, the Committee decided, in
accordance with the provisions of Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Convention,
to inscribe Dubrovnik on the List of World Heritage in Danger and to
publicize this entry immediately.
30. Several delegates pointed out that the decision of the Committee should
not be interpreted as an act of accusation but as the affirmation that all
States Parties to the Convention are involved in this situation where a World
Heritage city was seriously damaged by an armed conflict. The observer from
Yugoslavia requested that the Committee should be cautious in this action,
and stressed that in view of the importance of the situation, it is advisable
to refer to all the sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, following the
request of Yugoslavia.
31. Two other observers drew the attention of the Committee to the
situation of the cultural heritage in Iraq. One of them requested UNESCO to
send a mission to Iraq in order to evaluate the restoration work required on
the sites damaged by war. The Secretariat informed the Committee that the
Director-General of UNESCO was ready to send an intersectoral mission to Iraq
as soon as he receives the agreement of the United Nations Security Council.
32. The Secretariat announced that following a Resolution of the General
Conference, a report would be prepared concerning the possibilities for
strengthening UNESCO's action in the protection and preservation of World
Heritage. This report, which will take into account the evaluation of the
implementation of the Convention, will be submitted to the Executive Board at
its 140th session.
33. While deciding to abandon the use of questionnaires which had not
yielded the results anticipated, the Committee requested the Secretariat to
carry on the monitoring of cultural heritage properties.
VIII. MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE NATURAL
PROPERTIES AND RELATED TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
34. The Committee was satisfied with the joint efforts of the Secretariat
and IUCN to provide information on the status of conservation of an
increasing number of natural and mixed World Heritage sites. The Committee
was informed of the co-operation between UNESCO, UNEP and the World *[9]
Tourism Organization (WTO) in organizing an international workshop on the
sustainable development of tourism in the World Heritage site of Mount
Huangshan, China, in October 1991, and of plans for extending this co-
operation in 1992-93 to develop guidelines for tourism development for
managers of World Heritage Sites.
35. The Committee examined documents SC-91/CONF.002/4 and SC-
91/CONF.002/4Add and noted reports on the status of conservation of 14
natural and mixed World Heritage properties. IUCN reported on the status of
conservation of 25 sites, including the sites described in the above-
mentioned documents.
Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)
When this site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1988, the
Committee requested IUCN to provide a report on the status of conservation in
1991. The Committee noted that IUCN had gathered some information but, as
requested by the representative of IUCN, deferred the submission of this
monitoring report until 1992, to accommodate the findings of a proposed field
visit to this site next year.
Iguazu National Park (Argentina) and Iguaçu National Park (Brazil)
The Committee noted that eight helicopters simultaneously overfly these
adjacent sites which cover the same waterfall area. Over 7,000 visitors had
registered complaints and local conservation groups are opposed to the use of
helicopters in the area because it contravenes legal regulations for air
traffic over protected areas. The Brazilian Delegate informed the Committee
that a working group had been established to study the matter with a view to
introducing more stringent regulatory measures for helicopter tourism. The
Committee requested the Secretariat to contact the authorities of Argentina
in order to request information on steps taken by them.
Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)
The Committee noted that the Bulgarian authorities were considering a major
expansion of this site to include the area of the Rhodope Mountains and
recognized the potential for establishing a transfrontier site with Greece
that could be one of the most outstanding sites of Europe. The Committee
encouraged the Bulgarian authorities to proceed with the extension of Pirin
National Park and submit a nomination for the extension of the site. The
Committee also requested the Secretariat to contact the Greek authorities to
obtain their views on the possibilities for establishing a transfrontier
site.
*[10]
Srebarna Biosphere Reserve (Bulgaria)
The Committee was concerned to note that the water quality and balance in
this small World Heritage site (600 ha) has deteriorated to such an extent
that the site is no longer ecologically viable; large colonies of water
birds, except for the Dalmation Pelican, are absent, and many of the
passerine species have emigrated or occur only in low numbers. The Committee
recognized that most problems were attributable to the slow drying of the
lake bed, exacerbated by upstream development projects, impacts of nearby pig
farms and a rise in the wild boar population. The Committee, while awaiting
the results of a joint Ramsar/World Heritage field mission to assess whether
the site still meets criterion (iv), recommended that the Secretariat request
the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment to nominate this site to the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
Dinosaur Provincial Park (Canada)
The Committee noted that IUCN agreed, in principle, to deleting 1,415 acres
of privately owned land comprising natural gas deposits from this site and
including 1,478 acres of higher geological value as compensation. The
Committee noted that the technology used to drill gas wells had low impacts
but pointed out that it would be concerned if the drilling extends to sites
within the World Heritage property. The Canadian Delegate informed the
Committee that the maps of the area clearly showed that the sites which will
be drilled are outside the Park boundaries. The Committee requested that IUCN
evaluate the maps recently submitted by Canada, showing the locations of the
drilling sites.
Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada)
The Committee recalled that logging was permitted within this site and that
as many as 3,200 of the Park's bison population were affected by brucellosis
and tuberculosis. The Committee was satisfied to note that forestry
regulations are now more strictly enforced by the Canadian Park Service
personnel and that negotiations are underway to terminate logging rights
before their official expiry in the year 2002. The Committee recognized that
the large size of a site is no longer a guarantee for the conservation of
this site and development activities in upstream areas of the Peace/Athabasca
Rivers threaten the integrity of this Park. The Committee noted that a river
basin assessment study was now underway with support from Canada's Green Plan
and the Alberta Provincial Government. The Committee urged the Canadian
authorities to make special efforts, both within the Park and throughout its
entire drainage basin, in order to retain and restore the site's integrity.
The Committee *[11] acknowledged that the conservation of Wood Buffalo
National Park is, in many ways, a test case for conservation of large remote
reserves, such as the World Heritage sites of Yellowstone (USA), Banc
D'Arguin (Mauritania) and Serengeti (Tanzania), and had the potential to
demonstrate lessons that will be applicable elsewhere.
Talamanca-La Amistad (Costa Rica/Panama)
The Committee was pleased to note that in accordance with its request the
authorities of Costa Rica and Panama had agreed to a single listing of this
site. The Committee was satisfied that the Costa Rican authorities_ had
agreed to the IUCN recommendation to delete three Indian reserves and add one
forest and wildlife refuge. In accordance with another IUCN recommendation,
the Committee urged the Costa Rican authorities to delete four additional
Indian reserves in the north-eastern Atlantic sector and provide to the
Secretariat a map showing the new boundaries of the Talamanca-La Amistad
Reserves of Costa Rica.
The Committee was deeply concerned that 59,000 ha of the La Amistad National
Park of Panama has been given to Texaco for oil exploitation without
consulting the Panamanian conservation authorities and in contravention to
the law creating the Park. The Committee instructed the Secretariat to
contact the Panamanian authorities and express its concern over the prospect
of oil exploration inside the Park and suggest that they nominate the site
for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee also
suggested that a high-level mission to Panama be undertaken on the occasion
of the World Park's Congress, to be held in Caracas, Venezuela, during
February 1992, in order to call the attention of the relevant authorities to
Panama's obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
The Committee was satisfied to note that the Secretariat, based upon the
information provided by IUCN, had sought clarification on the construction of
an eight-kilometre highway through this Park. The Committee was pleased to
note that the Sub-Secretariat of Forestry and Natural Resources in Ecuador
had been able to halt the construction of this road until environmental
impact studies are completed. The Committee complimented the Ecuadorean
authorities for taking timely action and requested the Secretariat to remind
them of the possibilities for obtaining technical assistance for the Park
from the World Heritage Fund
*[12]
Simien National Park (Ethiopia)
The Committee recalled that this Park was abandoned by its staff in 1985 due
to civil unrest in the area. The Committee was happy to note that the site
had once again become accessible. On the basis of a report submitted by the
Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization, the Committee was informed that
all field stations and other infrastructure of the Park had been destroyed.
The Committee recognized the need to begin reconstruction work and noted the
possibilities for involving local people in this regard. In the light of the
urgency to undertake conservation action, the Committee wished to study the
possibilities for setting aside a sum of US$ 50,000 from the 1992 budget for
the rehabilitation of Simien National Park.
Mt.Nimba Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire/Guinea)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its last session requested the
Guinean authorities to submit a new file stating the boundaries of the
property receiving adequate protection, and the long-term guarantees for that
protection. The Committee was glad to note that such a file had been
submitted by the Guinean authorities and that IUCN had undertaken a field
mission to evaluate the information provided in that file.
The Committee noted that the proposed iron-ore mining site was within the
boundaries of the Mt.Nimba Nature Reserve inscribed on the World Heritage
List in 1981. In the light of the evaluation presented by IUCN, the Committee
took cognizance of the fact that the new boundaries proposed by the Guinean
authorities, though intended to excise that part of the site where iron-ore
mining is expected to take place, will also reduce the Reserve's area by
about 30% and seriously endanger the integrity of the values for which
Mt.Nimba was originally granted World Heritage status. For instance, the
montane and moist forest areas of the Reserve would be reduced by 50% and the
area of montane grasslands would decreased by 30%. The Committee also
observed that the site did not have management plans and programmes for
ensuring long-term protection. Furthermore, the Committee was informed that
an independent environmental impact study of the iron-ore mining project had
not been carried out.
In considering the options available to it for ensuring the conservation of
this World Heritage property, the Committee was unwilling to accept that
option where the organization(s) financing the iron-ore mining project would
compensate for the reduction in the size of the area of the Reserve by
supporting projects which would strengthen the conservation of this site. The
Committee was of the view that the proposed reduction in the size of the
Reserve's *[13] area was in itself a major threat to the World Heritage
status of the site. The Committee found it likely that some of the features
which made this site worthy of World Heritage status were located within the
area proposed to be deleted.
The Committee recalled that additional habitats of Mt.Nimba within Côte
d'Ivoire were added to this site in 1982 and since then the World Heritage
site has been a transborder property of Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea. The
Committee was concerned that the Government of Côte d'Ivoire had not been
consulted in any of the negotiations related to the modification of the
boundaries of the site.
While recognizing the legitimate economic aspirations and needs of Guinea,
the Committee concluded that the Mt.Nimba Nature Reserve, inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 1981, was seriously at risk from a variety of threats,
primarily the proposed iron-ore mining project. Hence, the Committee
instructed the Secretariat to contact the Governments of Côte d'Ivoire and
Guinea and request them to nominate this site, in accordance with Article 11
paragraph 4 of the Convention, for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
The Committee requested the Secretariat to transmit these recommendations
together with the criteria and procedures (as outlined in paragraphs 59-71 of
the Operational Guidelines), for nominating the Mt.Nimba Nature Reserve to
the World Heritage in Danger List to the authorities in Côte d'Ivoire and
Guinea under the signature of the Director-General of UNESCO.
The Delegate of the United States of America recalled that, during its last
session, the Committee had requested him to consider the application of
Article 6 (3) of the Convention, which imposes obligations on States Parties
to the Convention with regard to cultural and natural heritage situated on
the territory of other States Parties to the Convention. He continued by
informing the Committee that his Government was not involved in the mining
project by direct activity or financing. Hence, the Delegate concluded that
even if the mining project were to proceed, the United States would not
breach its obligations as specified in Article 6 (3).
Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
The Committee noted that there had been a recent change in the national
agency responsible for the management of this site. The Vice-President of
Honduras requested the Committee at its last session to include this site in
the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee was informed that the new
management authority would submit to the Secretariat *[14] a request for
international assistance in order to enable the Committee to consider
including this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The Committee recalled that this site had been threatened by the invasion of
the Sanctuary by the people of the Bodo tribe in 1989. The Committee was
concerned that there had been no response from Indian authorities to its
recommendation, made in 1989 and 1990, to nominate this site to the List of
World Heritage in Danger. The Committee noted that a survey undertaken by WWF
of the surrounding villages might lead to a more co-operative approach to
management in the future and a programme for implementing corrective measures
has been suggested by members of IUCN's rhino specialist group. Members of
the Committee were unanimous in their view that this site was a prime
candidate for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Delegate
from Thailand was of the view that the Committee had the authority, under
Article 11, paragraph 4, to inculde this site in the List of World Heritage
in Danger without waiting for a formal request. The Committee however,
wished that the Secretariat reiterates the Committee's concern to the Indian
authorites and find ways and means to obtain response for submission to the
Bureau at its next session in mid-1992.
Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)
The Committee was pleased to note that the Irrigation Department and the
Nepal Planning Commission have formally dropped their plans for a US$30
million irrigation project to divert the Rapti River which would have
seriously threatened the integrity of this Park. A study undertaken by the
Government of Nepal and the Asian Development Bank, following the
intervention of the Committee, showed the project was environmentally
unacceptable and its economic benefits to be doubtful. The Committee
commended the Nepalese authorities for taking decisive action for the
conservation of this site.
Djoudj National Park (Senegal)
The Committee recalled that this site was taken off the List of World
Heritage in Danger in 1988, and since then had been the location of a
training course from 4-15 March 1991 on Wetland Management, jointly organized
by the National Parks Service of Senegal, IUCN's Wetland Programme and the
Netherlands Research Institute for Nature Management.
*[15]
Garajonay National Park (Spain)
The Committee was informed of a road construction project, funded by EEC as
part of a large-scale integrated development scheme for the Island of Gomera.
If completed, the road would have had serious impacts on the World Heritage
site. The Committee was informed that apparently this threat had now been
mitigated. Nevertheless, the Committee asked the Secretariat to write to the
Spanish authorities and the EEC emphasizing the need for non-interference
with the integrity of this or any other World Heritage site in the
implementation of such development schemes.
Selous Game Reserve (Tanzania)
The Committee was glad to be informed that a proposal to open a route through
this Park to drive cattle from the north to the south of the country had been
abandoned by the Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development.
If implemented, this project would have exposed the wildlife of Selous to
bacterial and viral infection from the cattle and resulted in additional
problems such as bush fires, dispersion of cattle, increased poaching and
vegetation changes. The Committee commended the Tanzanian authorities for
having dropped plans to open the route to avoid threats to the integrity of
the site.
Olympic National Park (United States of America)
The Delegate of the United States of America informed the Committee that on
22 July 1991, a Japanese fishing vessel and a Chinese freighter collided off
the Olympic Peninsula resulting in a spill of 70,000 gallons of oil. Coastal
areas impacted by the oil spill include those within the National Park. An
estimated 40-60% of the beaches were affected by the oil spill with short-
term effects seen in the loss of sea birds, sea otters, bald eagles and other
beach scavengers. These effects appear to have lessened and have been
documented through the emergency response mechanism which was established
following a similar, but more damaging oil spill in 1987. Long-term effects
of the spill are not precisely known and the Delegate assured the Committee
that he will advise the Committee as information becomes available and will
also share information on the emergency response mechanism.
Durmitor National Park (Yugoslavia)
The Committee was concerned about proposals for the construction of a hydro-
electric dam on the Tara River which *[16] would flood the Tara Canyon and
affect water quality of the River. A large asphalt plant upstream was
already causing pollution of the river. The Committee recommended that the
Yugoslavian authorities provide information on their plans to build a dam
along the Tara River and the status of the asphalt plant and a description of
their environmental impacts.
Plitvice Lake National Park (Yugoslavia)
The Committee expressed deep regret and concern regarding the effects of the
civil unrest in the country on the status of conservation of this site. The
Park has been abandoned by staff and there is no control of activities inside
the Park. The Committee was appreciative of the various appeals launched by
the Director-General of UNESCO for peace in the area and expressed the hope
that conditions will return to normal soon to permit a joint UNESCO/IUCN
mission to review damage and plan rehabilitation programmes.
Garamba National Park (Zaire)
The Committee was glad to learn that the rhino population in this Park had
increased to 31 and the local management capacity and budget have increased
substantially. Poaching has also been brought under control. The Minister
for Environment and Nature Protection of Zaire, by his letter of 26 February
1991, requested the removal of this site from the list of World Heritage in
Danger. Although the Bureau at its last session in June 1991 recommended the
removal of this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Committee
took note of the fact that in recent months civil order in the country had
deteriorated. The Committee was in agreement with IUCN's observation that
the rhino population was still small and continuous assistance and political
stability are essential for maintaining the success achieved in the last five
years. In view of the uncertainties associated with the recent civil unrest
in Zaire, the Committee decided to defer taking a decision on the removal of
this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger until its next session.
Kahuzi Biega National Park (Zaire)
The Committee was glad to note that the Government of Zaire and the German
Ministry for Co-operation (BMZ) have dropped plans to construct a road
through this Park. The Committee commended the Government of Zaire for its
decision and encouraged the BMZ to continue its technical co-operation to
strengthen protection of the Kahuzi Biega National Park.
*[17]
IX. GLOBAL STUDY
36. The Secretariat presented a brief report on the progress made on the
global study of cultural properties, thanks in particular to the continued
collaboration of two Greek experts who had once again been seconded to the
Secretariat for one month by the Ministry of Culture of their country. The
two experts outlined a general framework and prepared files with basic
documentation for the continuation of this work.
37. Two other consultants worked on a study of Slavic sites of the post-
Byzantine period and on a complementary study concerning Eastern Europe from
Antiquity to the Modern Age. German, French, Italian and Turkish authorities
volunteered their collaboration, as well as a working group on Art Nouveau
architecture. Furthermore, a contract will soon be concluded with an expert
on Buddhist art. Discussions were pursued with ICOMOS in order to determine
its contribution to the drafting of the general framework for the global
study (as recommended by the Bureau at its June 1991 meeting). ICOMOS will
directly report to the Committee in this respect.
38. The Committee was informed of the difficulties encountered by the
Secretariat in the preparation of the global study. Indeed, the tasks of the
Secretariat are disproportionate to its financial means and human resources;
one of the posts assigned to the Division of Physical Heritage has not yet
been filled due to budgetary constraints of the Organization.
39. One delegate emphasized that this study should not result in a rigid
list of the cultural values of World Heritage, especially at a time when the
very notion of heritage is undergoing rapid changes. This study should be
structured by a global reflection, an assessment of the past, and an
orientation towards the future. France will contribute a study towards this
collective reflection, which will be submitted to the Committee before its
next session. Representatives of Brazil and Italy announced a contribution
to the global study by experts of their country. A member of the Committee
referred to a remark of the Secretariat specifying that the global study
should not result in a sort of encyclopaedia of the history of world art, but
rather to a reference framework to facilitate the work of the Committee when
evaluating sites for inscription on the World Heritage List. Observing with
satisfaction that the contribution of Brazilian experts was the first non-
European offer, a member of the Committee underlined the importance of
collaboration between experts of all States Parties to carry out the global
study.
*[18]
40. Another member remarked that the global study had been discussed by the
Committee for quite a while. Time had come to give priority to the practical
aspects of the work, the need for which has been established for a long time.
It would be useful to gather a group of experts to get definite advice. A
further issue would then be to define precisely the tasks of the Secretariat
and ICOMOS in carrying out the work in relation to global studies.
41. Remarking that no budgetary provision had been foreseen for the global
study, an observer asked whether, on the whole, this work would be continued
by ICOMOS and, if so, under what conditions. After having expressed the
Committee's appreciation of the two Greek experts' valuable contribution to
the global study, the President explained that, exceptionally, budgetary
provision has been made for ICOMOS and IUCN to carry out this work in 1992.
X. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
42. The Committee noted with satisfaction the various promotional
activities undertaken in 1991 and presented in Document SC-91/CONF.002/6.
These activities related to the production and dissemination of information
material, support to national activities organized by States Parties to the
Convention, as well as participation in special events relating to cultural
and natural heritage. In particular, the Committee noted that due to co-
operation with States Parties, the production of information material in
additional languages had been possible, and that the production of new
supporting materials, such as illustrated sheets on World Heritage sites for
sale by correspondence, were being actively considered. The Committee was
also informed that in compliance with its recommendation, the question of the
commercial diffusion of video-cassettes co-produced by TRANSTEL Company and
UNESCO had been studied by the Secretariat and TRANSTEL, and possible
solutions had been identified to ensure this diffusion and to improve the
presentation of these films on TV networks.
43. The Committee also noted that, at the request of the Secretariat and
with the support of the World Heritage Fund, the first issue of the new
bulletin of the UNDP-UNESCO Regional Project for Cultural Heritage and
Development in Latin America and the Caribbean would be entirely devoted to
a presentation of all the World Heritage sites of the region. This
bulletin, mainly destined for decision-makers and donors, would provide up-
dated information on the sites on the eve of the twentieth anniversary of the
Convention. A draft version of this bulletin was distributed to the
Committee, which will be completed by all States of the region before its
publication in English, French and Spanish in June 1992.
*[19]
44. The Committee approved the proposals for 1992 presented by the
Secretariat: firstly, to fulfil its general informative mission, it is
foreseen to continue to produce, update and disseminate general information
material concerning the Convention and on World Heritage sites through
different means such as brochures, films, video-disks, publications, etc. For
publications, the Committee noted that private initiatives should be
encouraged as they are less costly and more flexible than co-edition with
UNESCO and the income could be directly granted to the World Heritage Fund.
Proposals for 1992 also concern the production of more specialized material
so as to contribute towards the efforts of the Committee to ensure better
monitoring of the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List. This material will be targetted on the one hand to
populations living in or near inscribed sites and to visitors to the sites,
and on the other to site managers.
45. As a first step, the elaboration of guidelines for the management of
tourism in World Heritage sites will be carried out from case studies and in
co-operation with the competent international organizations.
XI PREPARATION OF THE CELEBRATION OF THE TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
46. The Committee took note of the report of the Secretariat on the
progress made in the preparation for the commemoration in 1992 of the 20th
anniversary of the adoption of the Convention presented in Document SC-
91/CONF.002/7, consisting, on the one hand, of an evaluation of the
implementation of the Convention and the elaboration of a strategy for the
future, and on the other, of the organization of promotional events at UNESCO
Headquarters and elsewhere.
47. With regard to the evaluation, the basis of the work had been prepared
during 1991 and an outline submitted to the Committee. A first version of
the report would be sent to the members of the Committee during January 1992.
The Committee noted that this first version would be completed in the light
of national reports which should be received early next year. At the same
time, a draft strategy would be prepared by the Secretariat and presented to
the Bureau at its next session. Following discussions of the Bureau, it may
prove necessary to consult a small group of experts in order to assist the
Secretariat to finalize the text of the strategy which will be submitted to
the next session of the Committee for adoption.
*[20]
48. Throughout the session, the members of the Committee indicated that the
celebration of the 20th anniversary was the opportunity for an in-depth
reflection on the Convention which could even lead, according to one member
of the Committee, to the possible revision of its text, as noted in the
Resolution of UNESCO's General Conference of 6 November 1991 on this
question. According to this Committee member, the most important questions
to be studied concerned the restrictions that the Convention imposed on
interventions by the Committee, which could be compared to the right of
intervention often evoked for questions of human rights and more recently
environmental protection. In particular, the Committee was faced with this
problem when it wished to inscribe a property on the List of World Heritage
in Danger without waiting to receive a formal nomination and a request for
technical assistance from the State Party concerned. Such cases recurred
several times during the debates of the session of the Committee.
49. More generally, reflection should be given to the ethical dimension of
the Convention, particularly taking into account the increase of poverty and
the ignorance it engenders, both of which are destructive elements for
heritage, and to the universality of heritage and cultural diversity, in
order to seek a better balance within the World Heritage Committee, and in
the World Heritage List between different regions and cultures of the world.
In this respect, the need for a global study on cultural properties was
recalled as an important part of the overall reflection to be undertaken in
connection with the 20th anniversary.
50. With regard to natural heritage, a revision of criteria, including the
incorporation of a criterion for geological sites, should be envisaged,
particularly in the light of discussions which will take place during the
Fourth World Parks Congress, to be held in Caracas, Venezuela, in February
1992, during a one-day workshop organized on the World Heritage Convention.
The question of landscapes will also be raised and discussions on this
subject will contribute towards the elaboration of criteria for landscapes.
The possibility to bestow a World Heritage value to certain areas of
Antarctica which, according to IUCN, deserve to be inscribed on the World
Heritage List, should also be evoked taking into account the fact that the
Convention at present is not applicable to this continent because of problems
related to national sovereignity.
51. The Committee was also of the opinion that the twentieth anniversary
should be the occasion to recall to the States Parties their obligations
under the Convention, particularly the setting-up of national structures and
payment of their contributions to the World Heritage Fund, *[21] and to
encourage them to organize events during 1992 to make the Convention better
known. The Committee also wished to launch an appeal to major private
foundations for contributions to the World Heritage Fund and to study the
modalities of organizing a World Heritage Day.
52. Finally, the Committee noted that the events to be organized at UNESCO
Headquarters, opening with a Gala Evening on 10 or 11 July and terminating in
mid-October, will consist of a large exhibition with the participation of
many States Parties, and national days or weeks organized by States Parties
with the assistance of the Secretariat.
53. The events taking place elswhere should be implemented by the States
Parties themselves, with national or regional workshops or seminars. For its
part, the Secretariat will organize one seminar by region, partly financed by
UNESCO's Regular Programme budget and taking place in East Africa, Venice
(Italy), Indonesia, Quito and the Galapagos (Ecuador) and Fez (Morocco)
respectively. These seminars will be open to the press and the different
themes to be evoked will also contribute to the overall reflection on the
Convention.
XII. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
A. Technical co-operation
The Committee approved the following requests: US$
1. The Madara Rider (Bulgaria)
Purchase of equipment for drilling, 35,000
measurement and urgent cleaning of the
monument
2. Saint-Stephen Church in Nessebar (Bulgaria)
Restoration of mural paintings of Saint- 15,000
Stephen Church
3. Pyramid Plateau at Giza (Egypt)
Costs for three international experts 30,000
(an economist, an archaeologist and a
landscape designer) in the elaboration
of a Master Plan
*[22]
4. International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural
Property (ICCROM)
The Committee, in accordance with Article 25,000
23 of the Convention, approved this project
for supplying technical documentation and
equipment and materials
5. Machu Picchu Historic Sanctuary (Peru)
Contribution for the period April-December 40,000
1992 for the preparation of a Master Plan
6. Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)
Purchase of two all-terrain vehicles 45,000
Furthermore, the Committee recommended that the Secretariat request the
Senegalese authorities to provide details of schedules and technical
modalities for the implementation of measures to mitigate the
environmental impacts of the road construction project in this Park
7. Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)
Consultancy, equipment, design and 40,000
construction costs for a centre to improve
presentation of the Park to visitors
8. Garamba National Park (Zaire)
Purchase and shipment of three all-terrain 15,000
motor cycles for patrolling of the Park
9. Virunga National Park (Zaire)
Purchase of one motor-boat and of spare 40,000
parts for two boats already purchased and freight
charges.
The Committee deferred its decision on the following requests:
10. Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves (Costa Rica)
The Committee recalled that at its last session it approved US $ 50,000
for this site to be released on the condition that projects financed by
funds already approved are completed. The Committee noted the
implementation of those projects remained at the same level as reported
at its last session. Hence the *[23] Committee instructed the Bureau to
re-examine the situation at its next session before deciding to award
the US$ 50,000 approved by the Committee in 1990.
11. Hal Saflieni Hypogeum (Malta)
The Committee requested the State Party to submit to the next session
of the Bureau a technical report justifying the need for the
installation of an air-conditioner in the hypogeum of this site.
12. Simien National Park (Ethiopia)
Recognizing that reconstruction work in this Park, which was abandoned
by Park staff in 1985, could begin soon, the Committee decided to set
aside US$ 50,000 from the 1992 budget for the re-habilitation of the
Simien National Park. The Committee authorized the Chairman to use
these funds to support appropriate projects to be developed by the
Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization, in consultation with IUCN
and the Secretariat.
B. Training:
The Committee, in accordance with Article 23 of the Convention, provided
financial assistance to the following international or regional training
courses:
1. International Course on the Preservation
and the Restoration of Monuments and Historic
Sites (University of Bahia, Brazil) 60,000
The Committee recommended that the funds be used to support the
participation of specialists from Latin American and Caribbean States
Parties to the Convention and that States Parties which had not
received fellow-ships in the past be given preference during 1992. The
Committee also recommended the authorities organizing the course to
submit the list of trainees selected for the course for the approval of
the Secretariat.
2. Regional Training Seminar for Francophone 30,000
Africa on the Management of National Parks,
in 'W' National Park of Niger(ENGREF/France
and FSA/Niamey, Niger)
3. Mobile Regional Training Course for Protected 30,000
Area Managers from South-Central Asia (Wildlife
Institute of India (WII), Dehra Dun, India)
The Committee requested that the Secretariat obtain written approval of
the Ministry of Environment and Forests of India for the organization
of this course.
*[24]
The Committee welcomed the offer from the Delegation of USA to make
available the equivalent of US$ 30,000, in Indian Rupees, through the
Indo-US Sub-Commission on Science and Technology which is already
supporting similar training courses. The Committee recommended that
the Secretariat, in co-operation with the USA and Indian authorities,
take the necessary steps to use the offer made by the Delegation of USA
so that part or whole of the amount approved by the Committee for this
course could be saved to support other international assistance
projects.
XIII. SITUATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND BUDGET
54. The Committee examined document SC-91/CONF.002/9 presenting the status
of contributions to the World Heritage Fund for the years 1981-85, 1986-87,
1988-89 and 1990-1991. The Committee was pleased to note that several States
Parties such as Brazil, Bulgaria, France, Germany and the United States of
America had paid their contribution up to 1990-91 and welcomed the offer of
the United States of America to provide an additional US$ 100,000 as a
voluntary contribution for the same biennium. The Committee noted with
concern that several States Parties have not paid their mandatory
contributions to the Fund and urged them to do so as soon as possible in
order to minimize the financial constraints to the implementation of the
Convention.
55. The Committee adopted the budget for 1992 as indicated below.
US$
- Preparatory assistance and 175,000
monitoring
- Technical co-operation 575,000
- Training 475,000
- Emergency assistance 100,000
- Promotional activities 300,000
- Advisory services
ICOMOS 250,000
IUCN 195,000
- Temporary assistance to the 210,000
Secretariat
- Contingency funds 20,000
_____________
TOTAL 2,300,000
*[25]
XIV. REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
56. The Committee examined Document SC-91/CONF.002/10 and recommended that
the Secretariat in co-operation with the International Union for Geological
Sciences (IUGS), IUCN, and other experts proceed with the revision of the
natural heritage criteria to reflect separately geological, biological,
ecological and aesthetic phenomena and modify the requested conditions of
integrity accordingly. The Committee requested the Secretariat and IUCN to
co-operate in the revision of the natural heritage criteria and the
conditions of integrity in order to submit draft proposals for the
consideration of the Bureau in mid-1992.
57. The Committee decided to include in the Guidelines for the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention the additional points
proposed in Document SC-91/CONF.002/12.
58. As requested by the Committee, the Secretariat drew up a draft
criterion for cultural landscapes and presented it to the fifteenth session
of the Bureau. The Bureau found this draft criterion interesting and after
having suggested a few amendments, asked ICOMOS and the Secretariat to draw
up jointly an appropriate version taking into account these amendments. Two
meetings permitted an exchange of ideas in this respect. A meeting of a
working group on cultural landscapes, organized by United Kingdom's ICOMOS
Committee, was held in York last November and another meeting between ICOMOS
and the Secretariat was held at the beginning of December. These meetings
have suggested that the elaboration of such a criterion seemed premature. As
a consequence, the Secretariat entirely agreed with the observation contained
in the document presented by ICOMOS submitted to the fifteenth session of the
Committee.
59. The Committee asked the two non-governmental organizations to express
their points of view on the elaboration of a criterion concerning cultural
landscapes.
60. ICOMOS was not completely satisfied with the new version proposed by
the UNESCO Secretariat. They considered that first of all a definition of
this concept, as well as a philosophy of conservation specific to such a type
of site, should be elaborated. ICOMOS intended to pursue its work on this
issue in collaboration with the Secretariat.
61. The representative of IUCN recalled his views on the issue. The
addition of such a criterion to those determining inscription of World
Heritage cultural sites would affect in certain instances the natural sites
and, in his view not all States Parties were in agreement with this addition.
This would accentuate the already existing *[26] imbalance in favour of
cultural sites which at present comprise three-fourths of inscribed sites.
The disparity in geographical distribution of World Heritage sites would be
further widened leading to a greater over-representation of sites listed in
Europe. Nevertheless, he informed the Committee that this issue will be
discussed during the next World Parks Congress in February 1992.
62. A member of the Committee pointed out that the elaboration of a
definition requires a long-term effort as well as the creation of specific
conservation instruments (charters, recommendations and legislations).
63. Referring to certain hesitations on the part of IUCN towards the
elaboration of such a criterion, and to the reservations expressed by ICOMOS,
a member of the Committee suggested that the Committee might appeal to
another organization to solve this problem.
64. Another Committee member indicated that in establishing specific
criteria to cultural landscapes, the spirit of the Convention must be
faithfully respected (in particular Articles 1 and 2). Other members
expressed their interest in the definition of the criterion and said that it
must be elaborated as soon as possible, but after profound reflection
(particularly with regard to relations between environment and heritage
protection), and taking into account the criterion of universality that
distinguishes the spirit of the Convention.
65. The Committee decided that, taking into account in particular the Man
and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, the Secretariat (Division of Ecological
Sciences and Physical Heritage Division) should continue to work towards
finalizing the definition of the criteria specific to cultural landscapes in
collaboration with ICOMOS and IUCN and in association with other competent
partners in the field, such as the International Federation of Landscape
Architects (IFLA).
XV. NOMINATION OF PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND THE LIST OF
WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
66. The Committee examined 29 new proposals for inscription as well as a
proposal for an extension of a site already inscribed and decided to inscribe
22 properties on the World Heritage List and one property on the List of
World Heritage in Danger. The inscription of two properties was deferred;
inscription processes for two other properties were initiated and the
requested extension was approved.
67. The proposals for inscribing the Historical Centre of Boukhara and
Historical Monuments of Novgorod and its region *[27] were not considered by
the Committee because the Bureau decided to defer their examination.
A. Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identifi- State Party Criteria
cation having sub-
No. mitted the
nomination of
the property
in accordance
with the
Convention
Shark Bay, 578 Australia N(i)(ii)
Western Australia (iii)(iv)
The Committee urged the Australian authorities to expedite the implemention
of the management agreement between the State of Western Australia and the
Commonwealth of Australia and to accelerate efforts towards more effective
management of the area for conservation purposes. The Committee requested
IUCN to submit a report on the implementation of these recommendations in
1993.
Historic City 566 Bolivia C(iv)
of Sucre
Serra da Capivara 606 Brazil C(iii)
National Park
Old Rauma 582 Finland C(iv)(v)
Fortress of 583 Finland C(iv)
Suomenlinna
Paris, Banks of Seine 600 France C(i)(ii)
(iv)
Cathedral of Notre-Dame, 601 France C(i)(ii)
Saint-Remi Abbey (vi)
and Palace of Tau
of Reims
Abbey and Altenmunster 515 Rev Germany C(iii)(iv)
of Lorsch
Borobudur 592 Indonesia C(i)(ii)
Temple Compounds (vi)
*[28]
Komodo National Park 609 Indonesia N(iii)(iv)
The Committee requested the Indonesian authorities to complete the gazetting
process for this site and conduct research on marine areas in order to
incorporate marine concerns in the management of this site.
Prambanan 642 Indonesia C(i)(iv)
Temple Compounds
Ujung Kulon 608 Indonesia N(iii)(iv)
National Park
The Committee requested the Indonesian authorities to complete the gazetting
process and strengthen the conservation of marine values in the management of
the site.
Historic Centre 585 Mexico C(ii)(iv)
of Morelia (vi)
The Committee requested that the Mexican authorities provide assurances
regarding the criterion of authenticity concerning the monuments of this
historical centre in accordance with the principles of the Venice Charter.
Island of Mozambique 599 Mozambique C(iv)(vi)
Air and Ténéré 573 Niger N(ii)(iii)
Natural Reserves (iv)
The Committee commended and encouraged the Government of Niger, particularly
the "Direction de la Faune, Pêche et Pisciculture", in their efforts to
continue to protect and restore the area.
Danube Delta 588 Romania N(iii)(iv)
The Committee noted with satisfaction that the recommendations of the Bureau
had been taken into account, namely that the Romanian authorities have
redefined the boundaries of the property, started to elaborate a management
plan and set up a local authority for protection and management. The
Committee was informed by the Representative of Romania of the present state
of legal protection of the area, the implication of the adoption of the new
Constitution of Romania for the legal status of the property and further
efforts envisaged by the Government to enhance protection and restoration.
In the light of the assurances given, the Committee decided to inscribe this
property and requested the Secretariat and IUCN to provide a progress report
at its next session. Furthermore, the Committee also requested the
Secretariat: a) to contact the Ukrainian authorities in order that they
envisage the nomination of the Ukrainian part of this site for *[29]
inscription on the World Heritage List, so as to constitute a transborder
site; and b) to develop agreements for protection with the countries of the
Basin, notably within the framework of the UNESCO "Blue Danube" project.
Poblet Monastery 518 Rev Spain C(i)(iv)
Golden Temple 561 Sri Lanka C(i)(vi)
of Dambulla
Royal Domain of 559 Sweden C(iv)
Drottningholm
Historic City of 576 Thailand C(iii)
Ayuttaya and
associated historic
towns
Historic Town of 574 Thailand C(i)(iii)
Sukhothai and
associated historic
towns
Thungyai-Huai Kha 591 Thailand N(ii)(iii)
Khaeng Wildlife (iv)
Sanctuaries
The Committee encouraged the authorities of Thailand to accelerate the
implementation of management plans for the two Sanctuaries. The Committee
complimented Thailand for rejecting the proposal for the construction of the
Nam Choan Dam. The Committee observed that it would be concerned over any
proposal that might affect the integrity of adjacent forests in Myanmar. The
Committee noted that the Government of Myanmar may nominate these adjacent
forests for inscription on the World Heritage List when it becomes a State
Party to the Convention.
B.Properties for which inscription procedures have been initiated
Name of property Identification State Party
No.
Casbah of Algiers 565 Algeria
The Committee decided to initiate the procedure for the inscription of this
site on the World Heritage List and, to this effect, requested that a
conservation plan taking into account the proposals made by the archealogists
and historians responsible for the preservation of the Casbah of Algiers be
prepared.
*[30]
The Old Town of 564 Poland
Zamousc
The Committee decided to initiate the procedure for the inscription of this
site on the World Heritage List and, consequently requested the competent
Polish authorities to provide a plan clearly showing the boundaries of the
buffer zones.
C.Properties not inscribed on the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identification State Party
No.
Amphitheatre of 571 Albania
Durres
While recognizing the importance of this property as part of the cultural
heritage of Albania, the Committee considered that it did not meet the
criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List as defined for the
purposes of the application of the Convention.
Tarutao National 589 Thailand
Park
The Committee urged the authorities of Thailand to strengthen the management
of this area by using the marine biosphere reserve approach of UNESCO-MAB
which would be most appropriate for addressing marine resources conservation.
Warrior's Cemetary and 605 USSR
Monuments of Freedom
of Riga
While recognizing the importance of this property as part of the national
cultural heritage, the Committee considered that it did not meet the criteria
for inscription on the World Heritage List as defined for the purposes of the
application of the Convention.
*[31]
D.Deferred properties
Name of Property Identification State Party
No.
Petajavesi Church 584 Finland
The Committee deferred the inscription of this property until ICOMOS is able
to provide a more exhaustive study on the universal value of this monument.
Jasna Gora Monastery 563 Poland
The Committee deferred the inscription of this property until a more
convincing documentation concerning the artistic value of this site is
provided.
E.Extension of a property already inscribed on the World Heritage List
Name of Property Identification State Party Criteria
No.
Historic Centre of 500 bis Peru C(iv)
Lima
The Committee decided to inscribe the area protected by national legislation.
F. Inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Name of Property Identification State Party
No.
Old City of Dubrovnik 95 Yugoslavia
Noting the state of exceptional emergency caused by the armed conflict, the
Committee decided to inscribe the Old City of Dubrovnik on the List of World
Heritage in Danger, in accordance with Article 11, paragraph 4 of the
Convention.
XVII.OTHER BUSINESS
68. The Delegate of the United States referred to the proposals for
inscription on the World Heritage List of the two pre-hispanic "pueblos" (one
situated in United States of America and the other in Mexico), of which
examination had been deferred, and asked whether these proposals would be
*[32] submitted to the Committee in 1992. The Secretariat informed that only
the site in the United States of America would be examined in 1992 as the
Mexican authorities had not made known their wish to resubmit their site.
However, the Secretariat had informed the Mexican authorities of the steps
taken by the United States to resubmit their site. The Delegate of Mexico
expressed surprise at the lack of reaction on behalf of the authorities of
his country.
XIII. DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE BUREAU AND
COMMITTEE
69. The sixteenth session of the Bureau of the Committee will be held in
Paris from 6 to 10 July 1992.
70. The Committee accepted with thanks the generous offer of the United
States of America to host the sixteenth session of the World Heritage
Committee at Santa Fe, New Mexico, from 6-14 December 1992. This session
will be extended in order to permit discussion on the evaluation of the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention and its future strategy.
XIV. CLOSURE OF SESSION
71. On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman, Mr. Beschaouch, thanked the
Rapporteur, the Secretariat and the interpreters for their efficiency in
carrying out the work. Several delegates thanked the authorities of Tunisia
for hosting the fifteenth session of the World Heritage Committee in
Carthage. The Chairman then declared the session closed.