Distribution limited WHC-94/CONF.003/16
31 January 1995
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Eighteenth session
Phuket, Thailand
12-17 December 1994
REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Opening session, adoption of the agenda and 1-3
election of the new Bureau
Reports:
The Secretariat 4
The Rapporteur of the Committee 5
Constitution of Working Groups to examine 6
specific items on the Committee's agenda
Examination of UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan 6-9
(1996-2001) and World Heritage Conservation
Strengthening of the World Heritage Centre
in 1994 and its further development 9-13
Monitoring of the state of conservation of the 13-41
World Heritage cultural and natural properties
Progress Report on the preparation of a 41-44
Global Strategy for a representative
World Heritage List
Information on Tentative Lists and Nominations: 44-55
- Properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List
- Property inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger
Requests for International Assistance 56-61
The World Heritage Fund and Budget 61-63
Revision of the Operational Guidelines 64-68
Promotional activities 69-75
General Assembly 75
Date and place of the nineteenth session 75-76
and other business
Closing session 77
ANNEXES
I. List of participants
II. Agenda
III. Address by Mr A. Badran, Deputy Director-General a.i.
of UNESCO
IV. Address by Mr Preecha Musikul, Deputy Minister of
Science, Technology and Environment of the Royal Thai
Government
V. World Heritage Secretariat Report
*[1]
I. OPENING SESSION
I.1 The eighteenth ordinary session of the World
Heritage Committee was held in Phuket, Thailand, from 12 to
17 December 1994. It was attended by the following members
of the Committee: Brazil, China (People's Republic of),
Colombia, Cyprus, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Japan,
Lebanon, Mexico, Niger, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Senegal,
Spain, Thailand and the United States of America.
I.2 The following States Parties to the Convention
who are not members of the Committee were represented by
observers: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria,
Cambodia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador,
Finland, Holy See, India, Korea, Laos Democratic People's
Republic, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Myanmar, Norway, Pakistan,
Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and
Vietnam.
I.3 Representatives of the International Centre for
the Study of the Preservation and the Restauration of the
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 meeting was also attended by the Representatives of the
International Council of Museums (ICOM) and the
Organization of World Heritage Cities (OWHC). The complete
list of participants, including the representatives of
other nongovernmental organizations, is given in the Annex
I.
I.4 The outgoing Chairperson of the Committee, Ms
Olga Pizano, opened the session by thanking the authorities
of the Royal Thai Government, namely the Deputy Minister of
Science, Technology and Environment, Mr Preecha Musikul,
for inviting the Committee to convene its eighteenth
session in Phuket, Thailand. She then invited Mr Musikul to
address the Committee on behalf of the Royal Thai
Government.
I.5 The Deputy Minister of Science, Technology and
Environment, Mr Preecha Musikul welcomed the delegates and
other participants and thanked the Committee for accepting
the invitation of the Royal Thai Government to hold its
session in Phuket. Having underlined that the Royal Thai
Government cherishes the philosophy and the noble
objectives of the World Heritage Convention, and that it
was therefore actively involved in the Committee since
1989, he stressed his Government's conviction of the
effectiveness of the Committee as a mechanism established
by the Convention for international co-operation and
assistance designed to support States Parties to the
Convention in their efforts to protect and conserve world
heritage sites for the future of humankind. With the
valuable services and assistance provided by the IUCN,
*[2]
ICOMOS, ICCROM and the secretariat, he said, the World
Heritage Committee has been able to alleviate the magnitude
and the gravity of the dangers threatening, directly or
indirectly, many properties on the World Heritage List.
I.6 Congratulating the Committee for its success in
implementing its programmes and projects and its effective
use of the resources provided through the World Heritage
Fund, Mr Musikul announced that, over and above Thailand's
compulsory annual contribution, the Royal Thai Government
will be making a voluntary contribution in the amount of
three hundred thousand Bahts (i.e., US $ 15.000 ) to the
World Heritage Fund. The Chairperson thanked the Royal Thai
Government, on behalf of the World Heritage Committee, for
this generous contribution.
I.7 The Representative of the Director-General of
UNESCO, Mr Adnan Badran, Deputy Director-General, thanked
the Royal Thai Government for its gracious offer to host
this session, and expressed the Secretariat's gratitude to
Dr Adul Wichiencharoen, in particular, for the excellent
organization of the meeting. He then thanked the outgoing
Chairperson, Ms Olga Pizano, for her contribution to the
Committee as its Chairperson of these past twelve months.
I.8 Recalling that the Committee had asked at its
seventeenth session the Director-General of UNESCO to
increase the World Heritage Centre's capacities to service
the State Parties rapidly and effectively, Mr Badran was
pleased to inform the participants that the Director-
General took a number of steps, such as adding three high-
level professional posts (including an administrative
officer) which brings the actual total number of the
Centre's staff provided under Regular Programme to nine
professional posts and three general service. Furthermore,
he noted, UNESCO's total contribution to the Centre through
the Regular Programme budget adds up to some US $ 5.5
million per biennium when all costs, including indirect
costs and staff, are taken into account. Nonetheless, he
promised to help the Centre get additional staff,
particularly general service posts.
I.9 Another step in this direction may be the
Director-General's intention to give the Centre an
effective functional autonomy in regard to administrative
and financial aspects, through procedures based upon the
successful modalities already approved by the General
Conference in regard to the International Institute for
Educational Planning (IIEP) and the International Bureau of
Education (IBE), should the Committee endorse this and
recommend further action in this regard. Similarly, acting
upon the Committee's decision taken at the sixteenth
session (Santa Fe, 1992) to include among its strategic
goals the implementation of a professionally designed
marketing strategy to increase public awareness,
involvement and support, the Director-General commissioned
*[3]
a report, which the Committee is invited to examine at this
session. Consequently, the Director-General expects the
Committee's advice on a number of questions and proposals
raised in this report. A more detailed presentation of
these is given under item XV of this report, paras 2 to 9.
I.10 Mr Badran furthermore underlined the importance
of the Committee's views on a possible decentralization of
the World Heritage activities, the usefulness of the
emergency fund which was created by the Committee at its
seventeenth seession, and the progress made in the further
development of a methodology for systematic monitoring and
reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage
properties, which the Centre is working on in co-operation
with the Committee's advisory bodies: ICCROM, ICOMOS and
the IUCN. As regards monitoring, he reminded the Committee
that the Executive Board of UNESCO, at its recently held
session in October 1994, stated that "the monitoring of
sites on the World Heritage List should be undertaken in
accordance with the rules of the World Heritage Convention
and the Guidelines that should govern its implementation,
keeping in mind that Member States themselves will
undertake the monitoring of their World Heritage sites, in
consultation with UNESCO and other specialized
organizations." He then concluded his statement by
expressing the Director-General's satisfaction with the
innovative interregional project "Young People's
Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion"
initiated in the past year by the Centre and the Education
Sector, in cooperation with other units in the UNESCO
Secretariat, the Norwegian authorities, some thirty
National Commissions for UNESCO and various external public
and private sector partners, the main purpose of which is
to mobilize the enormous potential of schools, teachers'
associations, parents' organizations and local communities
for World Heritage awareness-building.
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II.1 The proposed agenda was adopted unanimously, without
modification. (See Annex II).
III. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-
CHAIRPERSONS
III.1 Dr Adul Wichiencharoen (Thailand) was elected by
acclamation as Chairperson of the Committee. Mr Zhang
Chongli (China) was elected Rapporteur, also by
acclamation, and the following members of the Committee
were elected as Vice-Chairpersons: Colombia, Germany,
Italy, Oman and Senegal.
*[4]
IV. REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT
SINCE THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE
IV.1 Mr Bernd von Droste, Director of the World
Heritage Centre and Secretary of the Committee, reported on
the activities undertaken since the seventeenth session of
the Committee. Referring to information document WHC-
94/CONF.003/INF.5, he focused his presentation on outlining
only some of the document's most salient parts. The first
of this deals with the Centre's close co-operation with
other partners, notably the advisory bodies (ICCROM, ICOMOS
and IUCN), the secretariats of other international
conventions, such as the "The Hague Convention", the
"Biodiversity Convention", etc., as well as cooperation
with other units in the UNESCO Secretariat. Speaking of
this, he also welcomed the presence, for the first time, of
the representative of the recently established Organization
of World Heritage Cities with which the Centre has been
fruitfully collaborating in the past year.
IV.2 He then reviewed briefly those areas in which the
Centre succeeded in breaking new ground in the past twelve
months, namely: work on the global strategy for the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention; monitoring
the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the
World Heritage List; tentative lists, nominations and
international assistance, including training, technical co-
operation and emergency assistance; awareness-building
activities, particularly those addressed to young people
and involving the active participation of youth through
schools and extra-curricula projects; and the exploration
of the private sector's fund-raising possibilities for
World Heritage.
IV.3 Before concluding, Mr von Droste drew the
Committee's attention to the staffing of the World Heritage
Centre, its financial resources, possible future functional
autonomy and possible decentralization of its activities.
Regarding the first, he thanked the Governments of Canada
and the United States of America respectively for having
provided a Fund-in-Trust under which the post of the senior
natural heritage specialist was financed in the past year.
He also thanked the Government of Italy for having seconded
one architect whose term, however, ended in August 1994,
the Government of Sweden for having seconded for three
months a senior cultural heritage specialist, and the
Government of Germany for providing an Associate Expert for
cultural heritage working at the UNESCO Office in Bangkok.
While this certainly reinforced the professional capacities
of the Centre, its lack of general service staff remains an
acute problem.
IV.4 Speaking about the Centre's envisaged functional
autonomy, Mr von Droste informed the Committee that, in
response to the Director-General's wish, the Centre has
studied arrangements concerning its financial autonomy,
*[5]
taking into account the existence of the World Heritage
Fund. Thus, he said, the General Conference could decide
that a financial allocation under the Regular Programme be
paid into the World Heritage Fund, which would provide for
full transparency of the Centre's budget and streamline its
administrative procedures. Such a special account would be
administered by the Director of the World Heritage Centre
under the authority of the Director-General of UNESCO, and
be based on the Budget adopted by the World Heritage
Committee. In this regard, he reminded the participants
that a draft text of the proposed new financial regulations
for the World Heritage Fund had been submitted to the
Committee for comments in document WHC-94/CONF.003/10.
V. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE SESSIONS HELD IN 1994
BY THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
V.1 Mr ZHANG Chongli (China), who accepted to be
Rapporteur at the eighteenth extraordinary session of the
Bureau, held in Phuket on 9 and 10 December 1994, to
replace the former Rapporteur, Mr D. Jose Guirao Cabrera
(Spain), elected at the seventeenth session of the
Committee, in Cartagena, Colombia in December 1993,
presented the report of the session which the Bureau held
in Phuket, on 9 and 10 December 1994.
V.2 Referring to the December 1994 session of the Bureau
(Phuket), Mr Zhang informed the Committee that the Bureau
had examined a great number of nominations of cultural and
natural properties for inscription on the World Heritage
List which had been referred back to States Parties or
deferred at previous sessions of the Committee and the
Bureau. As regards natural heritage, the Bureau recommended
the inscription of eight properties and the approval of two
extensions, while one nomination did not qualify for
inscription. For cultural heritage, the Bureau recommended
the inscription of twenty-two cultural properties, and the
approval of three extensions, while for two nominated
properties it felt that these did not meet the World
Heritage criteria.
V.3 As regards monitoring of the state of
conservation of World Heritage properties, the Rapporteur
reminded the Committee that the Bureau examined at its July
1994 session the state of conservation reports on forty
World Heritage sites, while forty-four reports were to be
presented at the Phuket session of the Committee. In order
to facilitate the work of the Committee, the Bureau had
considered it opportune to examine these reports and to
propose to the Committee for further examination only those
reports which required special attention and decisions.
Finally, speaking of international assistance, he informed
the Committee that the Bureau examined altogether eighteen
requests for training, out of which seven concerned natural
and the rest cultural heritage. Likewise, the Bureau
*[6]
examined fourteen requests for technical cooperation, four
of these for natural and ten for cultural heritage. Mr
Zhang concluded by pointing out that a detailed information
on the above was available in the report of the outgoing
Bureau, and that the requests above the ceiling of US $
30,000 would be examined by Working Group 1 (on Budget &
the World Heritage Fund) and a final decision would be
taken by the Committee at its session later in the week.
VI. CONSTITUTION OF WORKING GROUPS TO EXAMINE
SPECIFIC ITEMS ON THE COMMITTEE'S AGENDA
VI.1 In order to facilitate and speed up the work of the
Committee, the Chairperson proposed that two work groups be
constituted, one on the World Heritage Fund, the 1995
budget and the further development of the World Heritage
Centre, and the other group on the revision of Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention. Upon
the suggestion of the Delegate of France, it was agreed
that each delegation may participate in the work of both
groups if it so wishes. The Committee then approved the
Delegate of the United States of America, Mr Robert Milne,
as Chairperson of the first work group, and Ms Olga Pizano,
Delegate of Colombia, as Chairperson of the second work
group. The reports of the two work groups would be
discussed by the Committee towards the end of the session.
VII. EXAMINATION OF UNESCO's MEDIUM-TERM PLAN (1996-
2001) AND WORLD HERITAGE CONSERVATION
VII.1 The Director of the Centre recalled that this
document, established in the framework of the preparation
of UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan (1996-2001) and which will be
submitted to the General Conference in 1995, was warmly
received during the eighteenth sesion of the Bureau in July
1994. It should now be examined by the Committee for their
comments and reactions.
VII.2 This document presents to Committee members the
different points (completion, representivity and
credibility of the List/monitoring/international
assistance/project policy/promotion), as well as its two
areas of action: broadening of intellectual reflection
(content and widening of the notion of cultural
heritage/symbolic and ethnic heritage values/new insights
into nature and humankind) and an approach both
decentralized and federative.
VII.3 The Delegate of Germany thanked the Centre for
this important and well-formulated document, which provided
guidelines for future work. In his view it contained five
particularly important points: firstly the reciprocal and
closely associated relationships between nature and culture
and their equilibrium, the highlighting of several
*[7]
questions and fundamental concepts which require new work
mechanisms/infrastructures for the Convention, new
perspectives on non-monumental cultural heritage which
raise essential questions and implications which are very
important to discuss in the framework of the Convention,
monitoring of the state of conservation - one of the major
tasks - which, carried out in a decentralized manner, could
constitute a very efficient tool to achieve a better
equilibrium between the regions.
All this calls on the one hand for new work infrastructures
and in particular for scientific meetings and specific work
groups, and on the other a much more important appreciation
of the need to improve the present representivity of the
List and international cooperation with regard to the types
of danger far more frequently experienced now than
previously, such as, amongst others, civil wars, armed
conflict and poverty.
The above merits inclusion into the Guidelines and this
reflection should be integrated in the work of Work Group
2.
VII.4 The Delegate of France also congratulated the
World Heritage Centre for the excellent document, the
philosophy of which exactly corresponded to his views, in
particular the excellent paragraphs on the promotion of the
Conventions's values in the field of education, the
convergence of knowledge, the policy of sustainable
development and the culture of peace.
A better equilibrium between nature and culture and
between the regions should be achieved, whilst being very
careful not to create, without realizing it, kinds of
geopolitical or geo-economic balances which would only be
easy solutions or even false solutions.
In conclusion, he congratulated the authors of the document
of which the philosophy was excellent but requested that
attention be paid to the way in which it was applied.
VII.5 The Delegate of Senegal also addressed his warm
congratulations to the Centre for this well-conceived work
which took into account his preoccupations and which should
guide the work of the Committee.
He strongly endorsed the Medium-Term Plan and requested
that attention be given to its implementation to ensure
that equally excellent results could be achieved.
VII.6 The Delegate of Thailand requested that, in view
of its interest, the document be utilized as one of the
working documents for Working Group 2.
*[8]
VII.7 The Delegate of Spain also thanked the Centre for
the very interesting work and stated her appreciation of
the consideration given to the ethical values of heritage
which we have inherited and which we have to preserve and
transfer to future generations.
VII.8 The Representative of ICOMOS expressed great
intellectual satisfaction after reading this strategic
document which presented long-term perspectives for the
preservation of heritage and for that of a federative
character. This document would be distributed by ICOMOS to
its National Committees by whom it will certainly be warmly
received.
Four points, which figure in the document, seemed to him to
merit further development:
1) risks incurred by the heritage (particularly
armed conflicts) and their prevention;
2) regional cooperation, with the need to develop
new steps based on the specific scientific
problems common to certain areas or regions;
3) the importance of the intellectual discussion on
the place of cultural heritage in the society of
today, the importance of going beyond a purely
administrative conception of the Convention and
achieving a scientific, doctrinal and conceptual
perspective, as has been done this year on
several occasions (expert meetings on a Global
Strategy (June), Authenticity, Canals, Cultural
Routes), this is a priority for ICOMOS;
4) use the tools and techniques of the 21st century
for inventories, database creation and
management, communication, etc. (e.g. Internet).
He endorsed this action and requested UNESCO and the Centre
to play the role of coordinators in this matter.
VII.9 The Director of the Centre replied to the
intervention of the German Delegation and indicated that,
amongst others, the on-going reflection on geological sites
and fossils will contribute to rectifying the imbalance
between nature and culture. Links should also be
strengthened with the Biodiversity Convention and the role
of culture in the maintaining of this diversity and
sustainability of ecological systems should be further
developed. He emphasized his agreement with ICOMOS with
regard to the importance of modern communication techniques
and called upon States Parties to undertake the necessary
action to link up site managers to networks such as
Internet.
*[9]
VII.10 The Representative of IUCN was of the view that
their links with the Biodiversity Convention should also be
strengthened and expressed his agreement with ICOMOS on the
importance of specific regional interests. IUCN has
already developed a partnership with regional
organizations, particularly in the Pacific. He was also in
agreement with the cultural implications of sustainable
development and biodiversity conservation.
VII.11 In conclusion, the Chairperson reiterated the
very important questions emphasized by the Delegate of
Germany such as non-monumental cultures, the imbalance
between regions and the imbalance between nature and
culture. He proposed that the Document be used for
discussions by Work Group 2, which could also reflect on
the links to be established between the World Heritage
Convention and The Hague Convention, to strengthen the
protection of World Heritage properties.
VIII. STRENGTHENING OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE IN
1994 AND ITS FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
VIII.1 This item was discussed first by the Work Group
1, and then by the Committee on the basis of the proposals
made by the Work Group. Some of its points were already
raised, however, in the presentation by the Director-
General's Special Adviser when presenting his
recommendations on fund-raising and marketing (summarized
in Section XV of this report).
VIII.2 Although the shortage of time did not allow a
real debate on this item, a number of speakers in Work
Group 1 referred to work Document WHC-94/CONF.003/5. The
Delegate of Italy reiterated his Delegation's statement,
previously expressed at the plenary, that their legal
experts had examined carefully the proposals contained in
this Document and found them unacceptable. Recalling that
the Centre had been established only two years ago and that
its competences were regulated by Articles 14, 15 and 18 of
the Convention, he reminded that the Centre was meant to be
simply a Secretariat for coordination, monitoring of the
Convention's implementation, information and cooperation
with the States Parties in order to assure follow-up
actions. The proposal put forward in the above-mentioned
document, however, seems to lead on the contrary to a full
autonomy of the Centre by giving it functional and
administrative autonomy. The Italian Delegation is opposed
to this for philosophical/political, juridical and
administrative reasons. As regards the
philosophical/political concerns, he said, all actions of
UNESCO need to be united in order to achieve a major
impact, and to allow better linkage among the great themes
it is committed to, including the protection of cultural
and natural heritage. To detach the Centre from UNESCO
would weaken it precisely at a time when UNESCO's mandate
*[10]
and its message of peace, fraternity and mutual
understanding needs to be strengthened in a world which is
going through a difficult phase of transition, the
breakdown of the previous sense of balance, and the
precarious way to a new international order. Explaining the
juridical implications, the Delegate of Italy reminded that
according to Articles 3, 4 and 14 of the Convention, the
Committee should express its advice on this matter.
Furthermore, the examples given in the above-mentioned
document, i.e., the institutional set-up of the
International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP) and
the International Bureau for Education (IBE), do not seem
appropriate, as these have been established within the
General Conference of UNESCO, which means that all Member
States of UNESCO are included, and not just some, as is the
case with the Centre. Moreover, the internal structure is
quite different: the IIEP and IBE have each an
administration council which, however, does not exist in
the case of the Centre, as this is directly under the
Director-General of UNESCO and is, as such, a simple
Secretariat. Regarding the administrative aspects, the
document compares the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission (IOC) to the Centre, forgetting that this
Commission deals with oceans, which are beyond the States'
sovereignty, while the Centre is responsible for the
protection of cultural and natural heritage which is a
matter of the States' sovereignty. In conclusion, he
reiterated that the Centre belongs to the UNESCO
Secretariat and serves as the Secretariat of the Committee.
The Centre was created by the Director-General in order to
facilitate better implementation of the Convention. In
Cartagena, the Committee expressed its wish to have a
stronger Centre, and nothing more than that. On that
occasion the Committee stated that it would achieve better
its goals by relating its activities to those stemming from
other legal instruments and other UNESCO competent
services. The Centre should therefore continue to: (i)
coordinate the actions decided by the Committee with other
related actions in UNESCO and other organizations, and (ii)
ensure within this framework the services of the
Secretariat of the Committee and of the General Assembly of
the States Parties.
VIII.3 The Delegate of China stated that his country was
in favour of a strengthened World Heritage Centre, and was
therefore pleased with the Director-General's intention of
giving functional autonomy to the Centre, and giving it
support through a 'financial allocation', as expressed at
the 145th session of the Executive Board. He felt that
there need be no fear that the Centre may disassociate
itself from UNESCO, since it would remain an integral part
of UNESCO just like the case of IIEP and IBE.
VIII.4 While expressing his regret that such an
important item was discussed only in the Work Group, and
having endorsed the statement made by the Delegate of
*[11]
Italy, the Delegate of France said that his country is also
in favour of a strong World Heritage Centre, but that this
should by no means be understood as creating a unit which
might lead to a separation from UNESCO, or to a
modification in the terms of the 1972 Convention which
foresaw the provision by UNESCO of a Secretariat to the
World Heritage Committee. The evolution of the Centre
should be administrative and structural within the
Organization. Projects such as the Centre's current
project on World Heritage education, which is carried out
in collaboration with other units, is an example of
intersectoral activities which should be encouraged.
However, a private foundation cannot be created in the
shadow of a Convention between States Parties, which is
what appeared to be envisaged.
VIII.5 The Delegate of Germany also spoke in favour of
a strong Centre, underlining however that the spirit and
letter of the Convention must be fully respected.
Expressing his view that the statements made by Mr de Haes
and Mr Badran on this matter gave conflicting messages on
what the Centre's autonomy would imply, he reminded that
the Committee cannot decide by itself on issues which may
perhaps entail modifications of the Convention.
VIII.6 The Delegate of Japan expressed his support for
an increased 'functional effectiveness' of the Centre, but
felt that the Committee needed more information in order
to decide about a future 'functional autonomy' of the
Centre. He also wished to know how the Centre would
cooperate in the future with other units within UNESCO
should autonomy be granted, and what the UNESCO Legal
Adviser's view on this were. Finally, he suggested that a
detailed study on this matter be prepared for the
Committee.
VIII.7 The proposal made by the Delegate of Japan was
endorsed by the Delegate of Spain, stressing the comments
made previously by the Delegates of France and Italy
concerning the legal and institutional aspects of
functional autonomy.
VIII.8 Replying to the debate, the Director of the World
Heritage Centre reassured the speakers that the Director-
General laid great stress on coordinating the Centre's
activities with those of other units in the Organization.
He reminded that the Director-General had created to that
effect a Steering Committee, chaired by the Assistant
Director-General for Culture in the absence of the
Director-General, the purpose of which is to provide
guidance to the Centre and other units in matters of
heritage protection. The Centre is under the authority of
the Director-General and its staff is appointed by him in
conformity with Article 14 of the Convention. Should there
be any changes, these can be carried out only in strict
respect of the Convention. He confirmed readiness to
*[12]
prepare an indepth study on the question and proposed to
contact the Representatives of, for example, Italy, France,
China and the United States of America, in order to see how
the Centre's functioning could be improved. He also
suggested that the Centre prepare a detailed document which
would express the different views expressed by the States
Parties. Finally, Mr von Droste reiterated that the Centre
has been created within UNESCO to coordinate World Heritage
activities, and that some progress has been achieved in
this sense. What is now important is that the General
Conference at its 28th session approves a staffing table
for the World Heritage Centre which would make it
unnecessary to use the World Heritage Fund for supporting
staff positions.
VIII.9 Following this statement, the Chairman of the
Work Group, Mr Rob Milne, proposed that the Group express
its appreciation to the Director-General for having
strengthened the staff of the Centre in response to the
Committee's request expressed last year at the session in
Cartagena.
VIII.10 The Committee addressed this item in plenary when
discussing the proposals made by Work Group 1. The Italian
Delegation, endorsed by many other delegations, underlined
that it was favourable to the stregthening of the Centre,
provided that it is kept in mind that its autonomy is
already defined by the World Heritage Convention, which
expresses the sovereign will of the States Parties.
Arguments of legal, administrative and philosophical nature
can be made against the proposal for the Centre's future as
defined, among others by items 8 and 15 of the Agenda.
However, given the time constraints, the Delegation of
Italy expressed in plenary only the juridical (legal)
aspects. In order to define the status of the Centre and
the Secretariat one has to consider the following elements:
creation, composition and functions. The Delegate of Italy
then stated the following:
- "Foremost, Article 14 of the Convention affirms that
the Committee is assisted by a Secretariat appointed
by the Director-General of UNESCO;
- Secondly, the Centre, created at a later stage by the
Director-General in order to assure the functions of
the Secretariat to the Committee, has been made up of
staff coming from two UNESCO sectors (Science and
Culture) which are already entrusted the
responsibility of the Convention's implementation;
- Finally, the same Committee has entrusted its
Secretariat, through the World Heritage Centre, to
ensure the coordination and information between the
Committee and other UNESCO conventions concerned with
the conservation of cultural and natural heritage.
*[13]
The above-stated three elements reveal that the Centre
is an integral part of the organization and of the
Secretariat of UNESCO, and that any change of its legal
status requires a new manifestation of the States Parties'
will, which must be embodied in a new international
agreement for the revision of the Convention.
A decision by the Committee therefore cannot be
regarded as sufficient."
IX. MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES
IX.1 The Committee examined the working documents that had
been prepared for this agenda item by the Secretariat, the
advisory bodies IUCN and ICOMOS, and by the UNDP/UNESCO
Regional Project for the Cultural, Urban and Environmental
Heritage for Latin America and the Caribbean.
SYSTEMATIC MONITORING AND REPORTING
IX.2 In introducing this item the Secretariat recalled
that Article 3 of the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention stipulates
that one of the essential functions of the World Heritage
Committee is to "monitor the state of conservation of
properties inscribed on the World Heritage List." However,
provisions had been made only for regular monitoring of the
sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and
where sites were threatened. At the request of the
Committee, therefore, the Secretariat and the advisory
bodies, in consultation with the States Parties and
individual experts, proceeded to develop a concept and
framework of systematic monitoring and reporting.
IX.3 It was recalled that the initial discussions were held
at the Committee's seventeenth session in December 1993 and
that further proposals were endorsed by the Bureau at its
eighteenth session in July 1994. On that occasion, the
Bureau requested the Secretariat to prepare a draft text on
monitoring for inclusion in the Operational Guidelines.
IX.4 The Secretariat presented the Committee, in Working
Documents WHC-94/CONF.003/6 and 003/9Rev., a detailed
description of the proposed systematic monitoring
methodology. The draft text on monitoring for the
Operational Guidelines was presented under the
corresponding agenda item (see Section XIV of this report).
IX.5 The Committee commended the Secretariat for the
progress made in defining the framework for the
implementation of this important function of the Committee.
It emphasized that one of the principal aims of monitoring
was to assess if the values, on the basis of which the site
was inscribed on the World Heritage List, have remained
*[14]
intact. It also stressed that a monitoring methodology
should be flexible and adaptable to regional and national
characteristics, as well as to the natural and cultural
specificities of the sites. Furthermore, it expressed the
need to involve external advice in the periodic reporting
through the non-governmental advisory bodies and/or the
existing decentralized UNESCO structures. The Delegate of
Italy insisted on clarifying that "writing of Reports with
the participation of experts should be finalized in order
to ensure better the monitoring in the management of
properties". The Delegate of Italy also drew attention to
the positive experiences in his country in involving the
authorities from different levels and sectors as well as
the civic community in the conservation and management of
the sites.
IX.6 The Observer of India informed the Committee of his
Government's position that according to the World Heritage
Convention's explicit stipulation it is the State Party
which decides what measures are to be taken to ensure the
preservation and protection of the World Heritage sites on
its territory, and that monitoring procedures should not
affect the decision-making prerogative of the States
Parties. He also emphasized that any involvement of
outside agencies in the monitoring process could be done
only on the specific request and consent of the State Party
concerned.
IX.7 The Representative of ICOMOS introduced this
organization's experiences in monitoring and offered its
assistance in monitoring, World Heritage information
management and the identification of needs for preventive
action and its implementation. He drew particular attention
to the need to develop guidelines for site specific
monitoring and the identification of the World Heritage
values of each site. He stressed that in his opinion the
key to meaningful monitoring is the understanding of what
impact time and circumstances have had upon these values.
IX.8 The Representative of IUCN stressed that his
organization had been monitoring World Heritage natural
sites since 1983 and that, following the Operational
Guidelines (para. 57), this is one of the functions
attributed to it by the Committee.
IX.9 Following the discussion, the Committee adopted the
proposals presented in Document WHC-94/CONF.003/6, Section
A, as the general framework for monitoring and reporting.
The Committee also adopted a text on monitoring and
reporting to be included in the Operational Guidelines. The
adopted text is included in Section XIV of this report.
IX.10 In order to implement its decisions regarding
systematic monitoring, the Committee invited the
Secretariat to undertake the following actions:
*[15]
(a) Prepare a revised nomination format for
presentation to the nineteenth sessions of the
Bureau and the Committee, so as to provide
adequate baseline information at the time of
inscription of properties on the World Heritage
List.
(b) Organize in early 1995, with the participation of
the advisory bodies and other relevant
institutions, a meeting of experts on World
Heritage information management, in order to
develop guidelines for the establishment of a
World Heritage Data Base.
(c) Inform the States Parties of the decisions of the
Committee, invite them to put monitoring
structures in place and to report on the state of
conservation of the property to the Committee on
a 5-year basis.
(d) Prepare workplans for and implement regional
programmes to provide advice and assistance to
the States Parties in setting up adequate
monitoring and management systems, to promote the
preparation of 5-year state of conservation
reports, to handle and analyse these reports and
to present 5-year Regional State of the World
Heritage Reports to the World Heritage Committee.
(e) Incorporate monitoring as a management tool in
World Heritage training courses and other
activities.
(f) Report to the nineteenth session of the Bureau on
the implementation of the decisions of the
Committee and on the application of the new
monitoring and reporting procedures.
IX.11 Following the recommendations of Work Group 2,
the Committee also invited the Secretariat in collaboration
with the advisory bodies, to:
(a) present to the nineteenth session of the Bureau a
workplan for the implementation of regional monitoring
programmes so that States Parties will have sufficient
time to prepare the state of conservation reports;
(b) develop a format for monitoring reporting as an aid to
the States Parties and to facilitate the processing of
the reports and the information contained in them
through a computerized data base.
*[16]
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MONITORING INITIATIVES
IX.12 As regards systematic monitoring and reporting,
the Committee drew heavily on the positive experiences
provided by different monitoring models that had been
applied during the past years on an experimental basis. The
Committee took note of monitoring reports prepared by
States Parties (e.g. Mexico), non-governmental
organizations at the invitation of the States Parties
concerned (ICOMOS's involvement in monitoring of World
Heritage sites in the United Kingdom, Norway and Sri Lanka)
and through existing United Nations structures such as the
UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project for the Cultural, Urban and
Environmental Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The Committee concluded that all of these models had
resulted in credible monitoring reports and that the
framework for systematic monitoring should allow for these
models to be applied, depending on the wishes of the States
Parties and the particular conditions of the countries and
the regions.
Latin America and the Caribbean
IX.13 The Director of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project,
recalling that in 1991 the Committee commissioned the
project to undertake a pilot monitoring programme in Latin
America and the Caribbean and that since 1991 site specific
monitoring reports had been presented at the annual
sessions of the Committee, presented to the Committee the
final report of this monitoring programme.
IX.14 This synthesis report, entitled 'Systematic
Monitoring Exercise, World Heritage Sites Latin America,
the Caribbean and Mozambique: Findings and International
Perspectives' contains an assessment of the implementation
of the Convention in the region and describes in detail the
methodology and modalities applied in undertaking the
monitoring programme. It also provides an analysis of the
trends and threats relevant to the conservation of historic
sites in the region, seven essays on specific case studies
that illustrates different types of World Heritage sites,
as well as individual synthesis reports of thirty-one
properties.
IX.15 The Director presented to the Committee the
recommendations on policies and guidelines for future
action which emmanated from the monitoring programme. He
confirmed that on-site monitoring arrangements are
indispensable as well as sound baseline information on each
of the sites, if credible reporting is to take place on a
periodic basis. In this sense monitoring should be seen as
a management tool, whereas the reporting should be the
basis of decision-making by the Committee and its Bureau
regarding requests for technical cooperation, regional
policies and action plans. He strongly advocated a regional
*[17]
approach to monitoring through the existing UNESCO
structures to facilitate regional cooperation and
networking.
IX.16 The Committee and the advisory bodies unanimously
commended the Regional Project's Director for the holistic
and at the same time practical approach to monitoring and
for the excellent presentation of its results in the
synthesis report.
Mexico
IX.17 As requested by the Bureau at its eighteenth
session, ICOMOS reviewed the report prepared by the
Government of Mexico on the state of conservation of ten
cultural World Heritage sites in Mexico. ICOMOS informed
the Committee that it is very impressed by the high
standard of these reports. They are objective and do not
seek to disguise problems where these exist. The format
adopted corresponds very closely with that proposed for the
systematic monitoring programme.
ICOMOS' involvement in monitoring in Europe and Asia
IX.18 ICOMOS informed the Committee of several
initiatives in Europe and Asia where ICOMOS was invited by
the State Party concerned to collaborate in the monitoring
of the World Heritage sites on their territories. Such
monitoring had been undertaken in 1994 in Norway, the
United Kingdom and in the Asian region.
IX.19 The chief characteristics of the approach used in
monitoring in Sri Lanka were its preparation through a
survey of conservation issues and concerns in Asia with the
aim to provide a broad framework within which to examine
issues specific to Sri Lanka, followed by the mission of a
monitoring team. This team included three external experts,
three Sri Lankan experts and a team concerned with
documentation issues. A series of seminars on conservation
and World Heritage was also included in the mission
programme.
REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
INTRODUCTION
IX.20 The Committee recalled that the World Heritage
Committee at its seventeenth session and the Bureau at its
eighteenth session examined reports on the state of
conservation of seven natural and six cultural properties
inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and on
seventeen natural and fifty-nine cultural properties on the
World Heritage List.
*[18]
IX.21 The Committee commended the States Parties which
had responded to its recommendations or observations and
urged the States Parties which had not done this, to do so.
In this context, the Committee emphasized that, according
to the Operational Guidelines, one of the essential
functions of the Committee is to monitor the state of
conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage
List and that a continuous communication between the
Committee and the States Parties regarding the state of
conservation of the World Heritage sites is indispensable
in this respect.
IX.22 The Committee examined the state of conservation
reports prepared by the secretariat and the advisory bodies
and concluded the following:
NATURAL HERITAGE
Natural Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
The Committee was informed that the Secretariat is
continuously in contact with the Bulgarian authorities,
which presented a report on their restoration efforts at
the last session of the Bureau and have recently updated
this report.
The Committee confirmed the decision of the Bureau at its
eighteenth session that a detailed report on conservation
measures should be presented to the nineteenth session of
the Bureau in 1995. The Committee decided to retain this
site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)
The site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger in 1992. Missions to the site were carried out in
1992 and 1993. Given the fact that there had been a recent
outbreak in fighting in the Bihac region, the situation
remains critical. The Committee decided, therefore, that
another fact-finding mission to this area, particularly to
the Korkaova Uvala Virgin forest should take place. The
Committee decided to retain the site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
The site was inscribed in 1983 and added to the List of
World Heritage in Danger in 1992 due to threats from
poachers, boundary encroachment and unplanned road
construction. The situation at the site was discussed
between a representative of the President of Ecuador and
World Heritage Centre staff and the Committee's continuous
*[19]
concerns were brought to the attention of the Government of
Ecuador.
The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger and that another fact-finding
mission should be carried out.
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire)
The site was included on the List of World Heritage in
Danger in 1992 because of a proposed iron-ore mining
project and threats due to the arrival of a large number of
refugees. An expert mission was undertaken in 1993 and
proposals to revise the boundaries of the site were
endorsed by the seventeenth session of the Committee in
1993. An international assistance project under the World
Heritage Fund was carried out in 1994. The Committee was
informed that the French Ministry of Cooperation and the
Ministry of the Environment in cooperation with IUCN France
is carrying out a study and review of the site with regard
to potential future investment. A report on this project is
expected in due course.
The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger and requested that the Bureau at
its nineteenth session be informed of the results of the
French mission.
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
At its eighteenth session, the World Heritage Bureau took
note of the response by the Indian Government concerning
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary which was inscribed on the List of
World Heritage In Danger in 1992.
The Committee was informed that the Secretariat received a
report on the conditions of the site from WWF-India. The
report emphasises the critical situation in the area.
Furthermore, the Government of India has indicated its
interest in a joint mission to the site by World Heritage
Centre staff and local NGOs.
The Committee commended the Indian authorities on this
initiative and recommended that this mission be undertaken
when conditions in the area are sufficiently stable. The
Committee decided to retain Manas Wildlife Sanctuary on the
List of World Heritage in Danger.
Aïr-Ténéré Natural Nature Reserves (Niger)
The Committee was informed that the wildlife in this
site has been decimated due to the consequences of the
conflict between the Resistance Army of the Tuaregs and
Government forces. Hence, the Committee was encouraged to
*[20]
note that the warring parties had signed a peace accord on
9 October 1994. The implementation of this accord by the
new Government is however an essential prerequisite for the
conservation of this site. The Committee requested the
Centre to write to the new Government, recalling Niger's
international obligations under the Convention to safeguard
the Aïr and Ténéré Reserves and encourage them to implement
the peace accord. The Committee also wished that the Centre
inform the Niger authorities that the continuous
implementation of the peace accord will permit an
assessment of the current status of wildlife populations
and the resumption of the IUCN/WWF Project, funded by
Denmark and Switzerland.
Everglades National Park (United States of America)
The site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger in 1993 due to an increasing number of threats since
the date of its inscription on the List in 1979. The State
and Federal Governments and the Agricultural Industry are
providing significant financial support for the management
of the site and for its long-term restoration in the order
of hundreds of millions of dollars. The American
authorities had prepared a report for the eighteenth
session of the Committee.
The Committee decided to retain the site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
Virunga National Park (Zaire): The Committee recalled that
at its last session it was deeply concerned about the civil
unrest in Zaire which led to donors (EEC and USAID)
suspending their support to this site. Many Park staff had
not been remunerated for almost a year. Despite the fact
the Bureau granted emergency assistance of US$ 20,000 to
meet costs of field operations, poaching of wildlife has
continued and the capability of staff to patrol the 650 km
long boundary of the Park remains far below desirable
levels. Human population in the fishing village near Lake
Idi Amin has grown several fold and poses a serious threat
to the integrity of the Park. Since July 1994, the threats
to the Park have exacerbated several fold by the influx of
almost 1 million refugees, fleeing the war in Rwanda,
adjacent to the southern parts of the Park. The fuelwood
demand of the refugees camped inside the Park, estimated at
600 metric tons/day, is leading to widespread depletion of
forests in the lowlands; the Mountain Gorilla and its
habitats at higher elevations, fortunately, have not been
impacted so far.
The Committee was informed by the Representative of IUCN
that the Director of the Zairois Institute for the
Conservation of Nature has verbally indicated his agreement
to IUCN's suggestion of placing this site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger. Accordingly, the Committee
*[21]
included Virunga National Park on the List of World
Heritage in Danger. The Committee recognized that a major
effort over the next decade will be needed to rehabilitate
and strengthen management of Virunga and obtain local
support for its conservation. Furthermore, the Committee
requested the Centre to communicate its decision to UNHCR
and other agencies involved in the management of refugee
camps in and around Virunga and express its concern over
depletion of forest resources in the Park, stressing that
utmost care be taken to avoid establishment of refugee
camps in or near national parks. The Committee also asked
the Centre to inform the Government of Zaire of its
willingness to co-operate with IUCN as well as WWF, World
Bank, UNDP, UNHCR and GTZ and provide technical cooperation
and training assistance to address threats to the integrity
of Virunga.
Natural Properties on the World Heritage List
Great Barrier Reef National Park (Australia)
The Committee was informed that the Minister of
Environment, Australia, has temporarily halted a 1500-bed,
resort development project immediately adjacent to the
boundary of this site to allow for a study of potential
impacts on the World Heritage site. The Committee requested
the Centre to write to the Minister of Environment,
Australia, expressing support for his efforts to protect
this site from the impacts of the proposed large scale
tourism development project.
Shark Bay (Australia)
The Committee recalled that at the time of inscription of
this site it requested IUCN to report back on the progress
with respect to (1) implementation of the
Commonwealth/State management agreement and (2) efforts to
achieve more effective conservation of the site.
As the Government of Australia had assured that the October
1990 agreement was to provide the management framework for
this site, the Committee was concerned that most of the
provisions of the agreement have not been operationalised.
Therefore, the Centre wrote to the Australian authorities
requesting positive and concrete action, and was informed
by the national authorities that a copy of the new
agreement would be available by early December. A report
from the Australian authorities is anticipated shortly.
Willandra Lakes Region (Australia)
The Committee was informed of IUCN's field evaluation
report on the state of conservation of this property. It
requested the Australian authorities to review the
*[22]
boundaries of the site and to continue their recent
progress in improving the management of the site.
Mount Athos (Greece)
A report prepared by WWF and Ecumenical Patriachate of
Constantinople (EPC) has pointed out that the ecology of
this site is being impacted by overgrazing, chemical
pollution and forestry activities. In early December the
World Heritage Centre received a letter from the Greek
authorities outlining the measures which are being
implemented to address these concerns. The Committee
requested that a field review together with the appropriate
Greek authorities be carried out to evaluate these
conflicting reports.
Keoladeo National Park (India)
The Committee recalled that this site was inscribed on the
World Heritage List because of its importance as a
wintering ground for the Siberian crane. At the time of
inscription in 1985, there were 41 cranes which wintered in
Keoladeo National Park. The Committee was informed that in
1994, no Siberian cranes wintered in Keolodeo; it was
thought that due to hunting along their migratory routes in
Afghanistan and Pakistan the population which used Keoladeo
for wintering appears to have been extirpated. The
Committee therefore requested that the Centre write to the
Indian authorities expressing its concern and requesting
that the status of the Siberian crane population be
monitored for another year. The Committee noted that in the
event that there are no signs of the return of the species
to Keoladeo in 1995, then it might consider the prospect of
delisting this site. In that case the Committee would
request IUCN to make a detailed presentation on the subject
at its next session.
Banc d'Arguin National Park (Mauritania)
The Committee recalled that IUCN reported to the Bureau at
its eighteenth session on a planned capture operation of
six monk seals from the sea population of the park.
Subsequently, the Centre was informed by the French
Ministry for the Environment that the experiment was
carefully planned and coordinated with IUCN's Species
Survival Commission and that the capture operation and
breeding experiment is under the direction of the "Comité
scientifique international pour le suivi du programme
francais de sauvegarde du phoque moine". The Committee
took note of the above information.
*[23]
Te Wahipounamu (New Zealand)
In July 1994 the Bureau was advised of threats to the
integrity of this site arising from cattle grazing in some
parts of the Park and the impact of potential logging
operations in Maori-owned coastal forests immediately
adjacent to the Park. As requested by the Bureau, the New
Zealand authorities have submitted a report outlining
measures being implemented for mitigating these threats.
IUCN has expressed satisfaction with these measures and no
further action is required at the present time.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) (Tanzania)
The Committee recalled that at its last session it
expressed serious concerns over the Tanzanian Government's
new policy to open NCA to agriculture. The Committee was
informed that, though cultivation is continuing to spread,
there appears to be some control preventing its random
expansion. Nevertheless, the Committee remained concerned
that the expansion of agriculture is taking away
traditional pastoral lands of the Masai who, as a last
resort to ensure their own food security, are being forced
to clear lands for subsistence agriculture. The NCA is the
most profitable of all Tanzanian State enterprises earning
approximately US$ 4.5 million annually, of which the local
people receive only a marginal share at present.
Despite the concerns outlined above, the Committee was
satisfied to note that the NCA management and NCA Board are
actively seeking solutions to the issues and are
cooperating with IUCN in preparing a management plan. The
Committee requested the Centre to write to the Tanzanian
authorities, reminding them of the international
significance of, and the interest in NCA and encourage them
to take urgent measures, e.g. sharing tourism revenues,
which will ensure the conservation of natural resources and
the welfare of the Masai and minimize the need for
cultivating land within the vicinity of NCA. The Committee
requested IUCN to prepare, in cooperation with its Regional
Office in Nairobi, a follow-up report on the state of
conservation of NCA for its next session in 1995.
Serengeti National Park (Tanzania)
The Committee noted that the state of conservation of this
site has not been assessed since its inscription in 1981
and was pleased to note several improvements to the site
effected by the Tanzanian National Park Authority (TANAPA);
e.g. a management plan has been prepared and is now under
implementation; work on a new and creative visitor-
education centre is nearing completion; roads and other
infrastructure have been upgraded; and long-term wildlife
census, research and monitoring projects continue to
*[24]
operate. However, the Committee recognized that several
threats to Serengeti's integrity prevail; subsistence
poaching has reached commercial levels resulting from a
growing demand for meat and leading to significant
reductions in wildlife populations. The rapidly growing
human population (1.2 million at present) resident near the
western boundary of the Park and adjacent buffer zone pose
an ever-increasing demand for wildlife resources of
Serengeti and expose wildlife to risk of transmission of
disease from domestic stock and dogs. Poorly designed ad-
hoc tourism development projects, introduced into Serengeti
without consultation with the TANAPA, should be
discouraged. Coordination with the trans-border Masai Mara
Reserve in Kenya needs to be strengthened.
The Committee requested that the Centre write to the
Tanzanian National Park Authorities (TANAPA) commending
them for the improvements that they have implemented for
the management of Serengeti. At the same time the Committee
suggested that TANAPA be alerted to threats to the
integrity of Serengeti due to growing human population near
Serengeti's borders, increased demand and poaching for meat
and ad-hoc tourism development projects. The Committee also
suggested that the Centre contact the Kenyan authorites and
request them to consider nominating the Masai Mara Reserve
as an extension of the Serengeti World Heritage site.
Redwood National Park (United States of America)
The Committee was informed of a proposal of the California
Department of Transportation (CDT) regarding a road re-
alignment of the US Highway 101 in Del Norte County which
will result in the removal of about 200 trees in this World
Heritage site. Although CDT has prepared an environmental
impact statement (EIS), the Committee was informed that the
EIS made no mention of the World Heritage status of the
area. The Committee therefore requested the Centre to write
to the American authorities and suggest that the CDT
recognize the international significance of this site and
hence the special consideration it should receive vis-à-vis
potential impacts of the road re-alignment project. The
Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to report on this
matter at the next session of the Bureau.
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia and Zimbabwe)
The World Heritage Centre was informed by letter of 5
August 1994 from the National Heritage Conservation
Commission of Zambia that the proposal to build the Batoka
Dam was dropped. The Batoka Gorge Hydro Electric Scheme
would have had a major environmental impact on the World
Heritage site and would have flooded the Batoka Gorge of
the Zambezi River, a two million year old unique geological
and geomorphological formation.
*[25]
The Committee commended the Government of Zambia on the
decisions taken to ensure the integrity of this World
Heritage site.
Mana Pools, Sapi and Chewore Reserves (Zimbabwe)
The Committee regretted that with the relocation of the ten
remaining rhinos from this Park to an intensive protection
zone, this World Heritage site has lost one of its
"flagship" species. The Committee urged the Centre that in
order to protect populations of similar species in other
World Heritage sites, it should expand its cooperation with
IUCN's Species Survival Commission and the Secretariat of
the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species
(CITES).
NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE (MIXED SITES)
Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
The Committee was informed on proposed helicopter flights
from Cusco to the village of Aguas Calientes, which is only
two kilometers from the ruins of Machu Picchu,
authorization of which would be subject to the approval of
an environmental impact study by the National Institute for
Natural Resources (INRENA). IUCN informed that it was
finalizing the examination of the impact study and that it
will transmit its recommendations to the Secretariat as
soon as these are available.
The Committee requested that the Bureau at its forthcoming
nineteenth session be informed of the outcome of IUCN's
observations.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Palace of Abomey (Benin)
The Committee commended the Government of Benin and ICCROM
for the activities undertaken since 1992 in training in
preventive conservation and for the project for the
conservation and enhancement of the Royal Palaces of Abomey
which is foreseen for 1994-1996 in collaboration with
ICCROM and the Government of Italy. The Committee decided
to retaine this site on the List of World Heritage in
Danger and requested the Secretariat to ensure that a
monitoring mission be undertaken to Abomey to evaluate the
state of conservation of the eleven palaces that have not
yet been subject to restoration and to report on it to the
Bureau at its nineteenth session.
*[26]
Angkor (Cambodia)
The Committee noted that at its eighteenth session, the
Bureau expressed satisfaction with the progress
accomplished by the Royal Cambodian Government in response
to the requests formulated by the Committee at its
sixteenth session, when Angkor was inscribed on the World
Heritage List and List of World Heritage in Danger.
At the invitation of UNESCO and at the request of the
Chairperson of the Committee, the Minister of State of the
Kingdom of Cambodia, H.E. Mr Vann Molyvann, made a
presentation to Committee members, highlighting the main
tasks undertaken by the Royal Government to ensure the
safeguarding of Angkor (401 sq.km.) and the development of
its historical, archaelogical and anthropological heritage,
in the region of Siem Reap (10,000 sq.km).
In particular, he emphasized, the implementation of the
recommendations made in the framework of the UNESCO-
implemented project "Zoning and the Environmental
Management Plan for Angkor (ZEMP)", and which defined five
categories of protected zones:
i) monumental sites
ii) protected archaeological reserves
iii) protected cultural landscapes
iv) areas of archaeological, anthropological and
historical interest;
v) perimeter for socio-economic and cultural
development of the region of Siem-Reap.
The Minister of State also recalled that legislation
concerning the protection of cultural properties had been
prepared and that proposals had been submitted to the Royal
Government concerning the official establishment of a
management organism for Angkor (the so-called APSARA
Agency). Subsequently, he reviewed all actions undertaken
by donor countries in the framework of the programmes
implemented under the aegis of the International
Coordinating Committee for the Safeguard and the
Development of the Historic Site of Angkor (ICC), created
by the Intergovernmental Conference of Tokyo in October
1993 and co-chaired by France and Japan. Finally, after
having warmly thanked UNESCO and its Director-General, the
members of the ICC and their co-chairs, he addressed an
appeal to States Parties to the 1972 Convention concerning
the Protection of the World Heritage, requesting strong and
massive support to the Kingdom of Cambodia in its fights
against illicit traffic of cultural heritage.
Following this presentation, for which the Chairperson
warmly thanked the Representative of the Royal Government
of Cambodia, the Committee took note of the Report of
Activities for 1994 established by the ICC Secretariat and
presented by Mr A. Beschaouch.
*[27]
Action by the Committee: The Committee adopted the
following Declaration: Having taken note of the huge
efforts undertaken by the Cambodian authorities despite the
difficult conditions prevailing in the country, the
Committee congratulated the the Royal Goverment of Cambodia
for so far responding to the recommendations of the
sixteenth session of the Committee. On the one hand, the
Committee congratulated the International Coordinating
Committee for Angkor, co-chaired by France and Japan, and
on the other, UNESCO, which provides the Secretariat for
this Committee, for the successful mobilization of a vast
network of international aid for the safguarding action and
for devising the conceptual framework linking
archaeological conservation as an integral process in the
promotion of sustainable development of the Angkor-Siem
Reap region, as exemplified by the UNESCO-implemented
project "Zoning and Environmental Management Plan for
Angkor (ZEMP)".
The Committee urged the Royal Government of Cambodia and
its National Assembly to vote without delay the legislation
concerning the protection of cultural properties. The
Committee also requested the Royal Government of Cambodia
to approve the creation of a management organism to enforce
the application of the national legislation and regulations
concerning the protection of Angkor in view of its status
as a World Heritage property. The above-mentioned
legislative texts and the statuts of the management
organism for Angkor will be presented to the nineteenth
session of the Committee for information purposes, together
with cartographic data indicating the permanent boundaries
of the Angkor World Heritage area and its buffer zone.
Dubrovnik (Croatia)
The Committee was informed that the restoration of what is
called the fifth facade of the city -the roofs- was almost
completed and that there remained but a few insulae
awaiting repairs, and that important progress had been made
in the restoration of several of the most important
monuments of the city.
The Committee commended the Government of Croatia and
UNESCO on the progress made in the conservation and
restoration of Dubrovnik. It noted, however, that after the
priority needs had been taken care of, other works such as
the restoration of nine destroyed palaces and details of
Franciscan and Dominican cloisters needed to be undertaken.
The Committee decided, therefore, to retain this site on
the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Timbuktu (Mali)
The Committee was informed that the Government of Mali had
fully endorsed the recommendations of a UNESCO mission that
*[28]
was undertaken in early 1994 and which recommended a method
of intervention involving the local population which, since
the construction of the mosques, had been responsible for
their upkeep, thus perpetuating a living religious cultural
tradition. The Committee also endorsed this proposal and
decided that it would support its implementation, if and
when requested by the State Party. The Committee decided to
retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Bahla Fort (Oman)
The Committee recalled that it was informed during its
seventeenth session, that intensive restoration works were
being undertaken at this site and that it appeared probable
that the nature of the material used for the restoration
work, the rapidity with which the work was being carried
out and the methods used could raise a certain number of
questions with regard to conserving the authenticity of the
monument. The Committee was informed that the Director of
the World Heritage Centre, at the invitation of the
Government of Oman, undertook a mission to Oman in March
1994 during which he was able to examine the progress of
restoration work underway. Following this mission it was
agreed with the national authorities that an expert mission
would take place from 10 to 19 December 1994.
The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger and requested that the results of
this mission be presented to the nineteenth session of the
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 1995.
Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)
The Committee welcomed the initiative of the Government of
Peru to organise in October 1995, in collaboration with
ICCROM and CRATerre, a regional course on the conservation
of adobe, parallel to which the participants and
international experts would also evaluate the past
conservation practices and experiences in Chan Chan and
define new conservation policies for this site. The
Committee requested the authorities to submit the results
of the course and the assessment of the conservation
policies and practices to the Secretariat so that
recommendations for future actions can be presented at the
next session of the Committee. It decided that this site be
retained on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Wieliczka Salt Mine (Poland)
The Committee took note of the long-term conservation
strategy that had been developed for this site, which
included a project for ventilation and dehumidification.
The Committee encouraged the Polish authorities to
*[29]
implement this long-term conservation strategy and
requested to be kept informed of its implementation. It
decided that this site be retained on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
Cultural Properties on the World Heritage List
Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria)
The Observer of Algeria presented the annual report for
1994 entitled "The Results of the Interventions for the
Safeguard of the Kasbah of Algiers" which was addressed to
UNESCO in conformity with the request of the Committee at
the time of the site's inception. She announced that a
request for international assistance in order to ensure the
training of architects for the safeguard of the site will
shortly be addressed to the World Heritage Centre.
Serra da Capivara (Brazil)
The UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project presented a report on this
complex site that contains 380 sites of historical interest
and where the greatest threats come from fire and poaching.
Tourism, although in the increase, had not had a negative
impact on the site yet. A zoning plan was being introduced
which defined the degree of access to five different types
of area with various levels of access.
The monitoring mission recommended that:
- the zoning plan should be extended so as to cover the
whole area of the park and that buffer zones be established
to limit the threats form fires;
- barriers be constructed at the more accessible sites to
prevent visitors from damaging them and that interpretation
panels should also be installed.
Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid Fields from Giza
to Dahshur (Egypt)
The Committee studied the report of the Secretariat and the
information communicated by the Supreme Council of
Antiquities on the situation at the World Heritage site of
Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid Fields from Giza
to Dahshur concerning the following:
a) the ongoing construction of a highway cutting in
two the site of the World Heritage site at Zawyat
al-Eryan, at about 2 kms south of the Sphynx;
b) the ongoing construction of about 3,000 lodgings
in the buffer zone at Kafr el Gabal and of houses
on the site itself;
*[30]
c) the numerous and new encroachments of the
military camps on the listed site, notably at
Zawyat al-Eryan, Shabramant and Dahshur, as well
as pollution caused by an army factory at
Dahshur;
d) the construction of a tarmac road within the site
allowing access to the two large refuse dumps,
newly created, in the site.
Thereupon the Committee expressed its strong concern to the
Egyptian national authorities with regard to all of these
developments which gravely threaten the integrity of the
World Heritage site, its known and unknown archaeological
treasures, and cause irreparable damage if not halted.
Consequently, the Committee requested the Egyptian
authorities to take the necessary measures to immediately
halt these different activities and to repair the damage
already caused without delay. It also requested the
authorities to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 May
1995 a detailed report on the safeguarding activities
undertaken at the site, which will be presented to the
nineteenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee for examination and decision as to whether or not
to recommend placing this site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
It fully endorsed the Director-General's decision to thank
President Moubarak of Egypt for his intervention to halt
the work presently in progress. It also endorsed the
Director-General's request that the President continues to
be attentive to this matter and take action in order that
an alternative route be traced beyond the boundaries of the
World Heritage site and that the property be restored to
its former state.
Medieval City of Rhodes (Greece)
The Committee requested the Greek authorities for precise
information on the legal protection of the Medieval City as
well as to define a legal framework for the main principles
guiding the restoration of the buildings of the Medieval
City of Rhodes.
Quirigua (Guatemala)
The Committee took note of a report presented by the
UNDP/UNESCO Project which stated that the state of
conservation of the site is very good, but that it had been
demonstrated that the architecture and sculptures are
subject to continuous, low-level erosion. In the mid-
eighties thatch-roofed huts were built over the site's
sculptures to protect them from rainfall. These do not,
*[31]
however, protect the sculptures from wind-blown rainfall.
Furthermore, it was noted that the storage areas for
excavated objects do not meet minimal conservation
standards.
It was recommended:
- that the size of the thatched roofs be increased so as
to provide better protection to the sculptures;
- to examine the possibility of removing the sculptures
to a site museum and to replace them by copies. A
technical mission should be undertaken from Quirigua
to Copan, Honduras to consult with the Copan personnel
who recently successfully completed a similar effort;
- that the conditions of the storage areas be improved.
Florence (Italy)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee at its seventeenth session in 1993 was
informed of the severe damage caused by a car-bomb in the
historical centre of Florence in May 1993. The Delegate of
Italy informed the Committee of the actions the Government
of Italy had taken after the bombing. He confirmed that the
restoration works would be entirely concluded by mid-1995.
An analysis of the damages to the historical structures and
the art objects had provided important information on the
effectiveness of certain protection measures and new
instructions were to be issued to prevent the repetition of
such events or to limit damage.
Petra (Jordan)
The Committee was informed of the findings of the UNESCO
mission which took place in April 1994, concerning:
- impact of new hotels under construction in the
vicinity of the World Heritage site of Petra
- insufficiency or non-existence of sewage disposal
facilities
- uncontrolled development of villages in the vicinity
of the site
- proliferation of shops
- insufficient conservation of antiquities, and
- other encroachments upon the integrity of the site.
It was informed that the report has already been submitted
to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee during its
eighteenth session in July 1994 and that the Bureau had
already expressed its serious concern to the Jordanian
authorities regarding the preservation of the integrity of
the site (transmitted by the World Heritage Centre by
letter of 18 July 1994) and had approved a request for the
organization on site of a technical meeting associating the
*[32]
national authorities, national and international agencies
concerned, and the two UNESCO coordinators for the
Management Plan in order to accelerate the effective
implementation of the Petra National Management Plan.
The Committee was informed that this technical meeting was
held in Petra in October 1994 and that it had not resulted
in any concrete decisions ensuring the preservation of the
site, although the situation at the site had further
deteriorated, notably by beginning to build two new hotels
near the entrance of the site and the granting of building
permits for several others.
The Committee therefore expressed to the Jordanian
authorities its serious concern with regard to the
degradation of the site.
It requested them to urgently undertake the following:
1) by measure of conservation, the prohibition to
build any new hotel in the vicinity of the site;
2) the official creation of the Petra National Park
and the implementation of the Petra National Park
Management Plan established by UNESCO experts
upon request from the national authorities of
Jordan, which defines a precise perimeter for the
Park, and including the creation of eight
protected zones, the creation of a buffer zone in
order to control the development of building
construction, and establishment of a management
authority; and
3) to adddress the World Heritage Centre before 1
May 1995 a detailed report on the measures that
have been undertaken to be submitted to the
nineteenth session on the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee.
Megalithic Temples (Malta)
The Committee was informed by the Secretariat on the state
of conservation of the Megalithic Temples of Malta and the
very serious problems concerning the insufficient
surveillance, particularly in Mnajdra, Hagar Qim, Ta'Hagrat
and Skorba; the collapse of one of the walls of the Temple
of Mnajdra as a result of the 1994 April storms; the
exploitation of vast stone quarries in the immediate
vicinity of the monument and the serious dangers which this
activity imposes permanently upon the conservation of the
Temple and its environment, the very serious risks of
collapse of one part of the Ggantija Temple.
The Committee expressed to the national authorities of
Malta its very deep concerns and insisted that these
*[33]
serious problems be dealt with at governmental level and
that all necessary technical, budgetary, manpower and legal
means be immediately placed at the disposal of the national
authorities which have been entrusted with the conservation
in order to:
a) restore the Temple of Mnajdra according to the
recommendations of the Scientific Committee of the
Museums Department, and take the necessary steps,
especially regarding drainage, so that this type of
accident does not reoccur;
b) halt the exploitation of the quarries adjoining the
site without delay;
c) finish installing the Archaeological Park of Mnajdra
and Hagar Qim by providing a sufficent number of well-
qualified personnel;
d) undertake the necessary work on the Ggantija site to
avoid all risk of collapse, in accordance with the
project established by the Univesity of Florence;
e) provide the archaeological sites inscribed on the List
with sufficient guards to ensure effective
surveillance of the sites.
The Committee requested the Maltese authorities to prepare
a detailed report before 1 April 1995 on the progress made
regarding all of the points on conservation and management
of the site.
Hal Saflieni Hypogeum (Malta)
The Committee was informed by the Secretariat that the
Hypogeum of Hal Saflieni has now been closed for three
years and the air-conditioning works, partly financed by
the World Heritage Fund, which should have begun two years
ago, have not yet started. This situation is caused by the
permanent trickling of water inside the monument as a
result of the decayed sewage and water supply pipes layed
under the streets adjoining the site. This constant
dripping of water encourages the proliferation of micro-
organisms and of calcium carbonate deposits on the walls
which threaten to irreparable damage to the mural
paintings. The Committee expressed to the national
authorities of Malta its serious concerns and insisted that
these problems be treated at government level and that all
necessary technical, budgetary, manpower and legal means be
immediately placed at the disposal of the national
authorities entrusted with conservation in order to:
a) proceed with the necessary repairs to the sewage pipe
system to ensure that the Hypogeum is made impervious;
*[34]
b) continue and finish enhancing the site, especially the
work partially financed by the World Heritage Fund so
that the Hypogium can finally be reopened to the
public under conditions which will ensure its
conservation.
The Committee requested the authorities of Malta to submit
a detailed report before 1 April 1995 on the progress made
in the conservation and management of the site.
City of Valetta (Malta)
The Committee was informed that in the framework of UNDP's
Action Plan for the Mediterranean, the Programme
Coordinator for "100 Historical Sites of the Mediterranean"
carried out a mission to Malta at the request of the World
Heritage Centre. The Committee took note of the report and
endorsed the mission's recommendations that, faced with the
accelerated degradation affecting the historical buildings
of Valetta, the authorities of Malta should take
appropriate urgent measures so that:
- the team of the Valetta Rehabilitation Project
acquires legal recognition and may call upon a
Works Division for the maintenance and
restoration of the historical buildings of
Valetta;
- the Bill on the protection of Valetta can be
finalized as soon as possible in an appropriate
form, in keeping with the obligations for
inscription on the World Heritage List;
- a regulation on the signs, billboards and
commercial storefronts can be better formulated
and applied by the competent authorities, in
order to preserve the characteristics of the
historical buildings of Valetta.
Puebla (Mexico)
The Committee recalled that a rehabilitation plan for a
part of the World Heritage site of Puebla, the Rio de San
Francisco area, was briefly discussed at its seventeenth
session and that more detailed information was provided at
the eighteenth session of the Bureau on the basis of a
report from the Mexican National Institute of Anthropology
and History (INAH) and the report of a UNESCO expert in
urban rehabilitation and conservation who visited Puebla in
June 1994.
The Committee was informed that following the eighteenth
session of the Bureau and on the request of the Government
of Mexico, the same expert had undertaken a series of
*[35]
missions to Puebla to advise the authorities in the
preparation of the urban development plan for the Rio de
San Francisco area. The Committee commended the authorities
of Mexico, the State of Puebla and the Municipality of
Puebla on their positive response to the expert's advice,
and invited them to report on a regular basis to the
Secretariat on the further development of this project.
Island of Mozambique (Mozambique)
The Committee took note of a report presented by the
UNDP/UNESCO Project on the state of conservation of the
Island of Mozambique. It was reported that the stone city
on the island was in a precarious state of conservation, a
situation that was heavily aggravated by the cyclone Nadia
which occured in March 1994. The predominantly privately
owned houses in the macuti city were better maintained.
With the process of pacification and the possibilities of
a sound economic development of the region, the monitoring
mission recommended that:
- the recuperation of the island be undertaken within the
framework of an integral development project;
- UNESCO coordinates bilateral and inter/multilateral
cooperation for the island, particluarly in the field of
training;
- a mission be fielded of a funding specialist and a
conservation architect to oversee restoration.
Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
The Secretariat recalled the concern raised over the state
of conservation of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site
and the debate during the seventeenth session of the
Committee in December 1993 and the Bureau at its eighteenth
session in July 1994 on the possible inscription of the
site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and the
delisting of certain parts of the site damaged by
uncontrolled development. The 16-point recommendation of
the UNESCO/ICOMOS Review Mission of November 1993 and the
pledge made by the Representative of His Majesty's
Government at the seventeeth session of the Committee to
follow-up on these recommendations were also recalled.
The Committee was presented with a monitoring report
prepared by the Department of Archaeology on progress made
in the follow-up activities. In the absence of the Nepali
Representative, the Secretariat summarized the main points
of this report.
Actions reported include:
adoption of revised byelaws which came into effect in
February 1994 requiring prior permit for any
demolition within the core area of the city;
*[36]
submission to Parliament of the proposed Fifth
Amendment of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act
strengthening the enforcement mechanism of design and
development control within the World Heritage
protected zones which could not be passed due to the
dissolution of the Parliament;
approval by the Government of the redefined boundary
of Swayambunath and publication of this in the Nepal
Gazette;
completion of a map of the revised boundary of Patan
Darbar Square checked on the ground, house-by-house,
and agreed upon with the Municipality and other
relevant bodies which is to be gazetted in the near
future;
completion of maps of the revised boundaries of the
five other monument zones as recommended by the
UNESCO/ICOMOS mission which will soon be verified
through ground survey;
completion of the inventories of public and religious
monuments in Patan Darbar Square, Pashupati and
Bauddhanath;
publication of information pamphlets on the seven
World Heritage monument zones containing general
information on conservation norms, particularly the
ban since July 1994 of the use of cement mortar in the
repair of monuments;
initiation of computerized documentation and manual
recording of monuments zones;
removal of commercial advertisement panels from the
monument zones and the museum building of
Swayambunath.
The Secretariat also reported on the Nepal/UNESCO/ICOMOS
strategy meeting held in mid-November 1994 immediately
following the Kathmandu Valley International Campaign
Review Meeting and drew the attention of the Committee to
the action plan to be coordinated by an inter-ministerial
task force which the representatives of the various
ministries to the strategy meeting agreed to establish.
This action plan contained in the monitoring report
includes, inter alia, the development and publication of
guidelines on building and conservation practice with
graphic illustrations and establishment of a development
control unit in the Department of Archaeology to work
closely with the municipalities and town development
committees.
The Committee, having noted the efforts being made by the
Nepali authorities to rectify the damage caused to the
*[37]
Kathmandu Valley, requests UNESCO to support the Government
of Nepal in strengthening the mechanism of coordination of
all international conservation activities, whether
bilateral or multilateral, especially with regard to the
method of conservation to be applied. The Committee also
calls upon the Government of Nepal to take into
consideration, the recommendations made by the joint
UNESCO/ICOMOS mission of November 1993 in ensuring the
protection of the World Heritage Site from uncontrolled
development, especially by adopting a more stringent policy
in the granting of demolition and construction permits and
other landuse authorization in both the core area and the
buffer zone. Recognizing the limited national resources in
carrying out the variety of required activities, the
Committee requests UNESCO to assist the Nepali authorities
in preparing a package of projects to seek international
donor support including the documentation of the World
Heritage Site, to be undertaken as a priority. In this
connection, the Committee discussed the advantages of the
Kathmandu Valley being put on the List of World Heritage in
Danger to draw the priority attention of the international
community and urged the Government of Nepal to reconsider
this option.
Historical Centre of Lima (Peru)
The Committee took note of a report presented by the
UNDP/UNESCO Project in which it was stated that the overall
infrastructure presents a notorious state of degradation,
although the monuments and landmarks, e.g. the Convent of
San Francisco, are well maintained.
The monitoring mission recommended that:
- an integrated programme of rehabilitation and
conservation for the historical centre should be set up, in
which projects should be included for the readaptive use of
historical structures, housing and infrastructure;
- the technical assistance that was made available by the
Committee in 1993 be used to organise an interdisciplinary
workshop to design with the local authorities programmes of
integral conservation and funding mechanisms.
Rio Abiseo (Peru)
The UNDP/UNESCO Project reported that the most serious
threats to this mixed site are large-scale deforestation in
the western zone of the park and traditional burning of
fields for grazing in the higher areas. A limited number of
park guards control the park in the south from outside the
area. There is no regular vigilance and inspection and
valuable archaeological objects are deteriorating and
disappearing.
*[38]
The monitoring mission recommended the following:
. a coherent development plan for the Park, aiming at
conserving both its natural and cultural resources, should
be maintained;
. measures should be taken urgently to
stabilize/reinforce the archaeological remains, which are
deteriorating rapidly;
. it should be determined which security measures are
needed to protect each of the archaeological sites;
. a project should be implemented to avoid deforestation
together with the local communities;
. the remote nature of the site should have to be taken
into account to establish practical step-by-step
conservation activities.
Kremlin and Red Square (Russian Federation)
The Committee was informed that the Ambassador and
Permanent Delegate of the Russian Federation to UNESCO
informed the Director-General of UNESCO of a project
concerning the possible erection of a monument in honour of
Marshal G. Zoukhov on the Red Square. The Director-
General, in a letter to the mayor of Moscow dated 2
December 1994, underlined that the responsibility for
protecting a cultural property lies with the State Party
concerned, which should conserve it and avoid taking any
measures that would damage it. The Director-General
suggested in his letter that another appropriate location
be sought for the monument and requested that UNESCO be
consulted prior to undertaking any proposed work on the Red
Square and the Kremlin. The Committee fully endorsed this
position and requested to be kept informed on any
development in this World Heritage site.
Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation)
It was recalled that since 1991 ICOMOS had presented to the
Committee and the Bureau reports on its involvement in the
monitoring of this site and on the efforts to conserve and
restore its monuments. ICOMOS reported that the legal
protection of the monument and the buffer zone had been
considerably improved and that a conservation professional
had been assigned. The workplan for 1994 had been completed
and included:
- the installation of a system of lightning protection
as part of a major reworking of fire protection and
security at the site;
*[39]
- studies of wood deterioration conditions;
- measurement of deformations by hand and
photogrammetric techniques;
- analysis of defects to the iconostasis.
Completion of the structural analysis is scheduled for
the end of January 1995.
A short and a long-term budget and workplans had been
established and ICOMOS involvement was foreseen for its
implementation. In view of the financial constraints in the
Russian Federation, ICOMOS recommended the following:
- high priority be given to undertaking with the Russian
and other national authorities, a full discussion of
feasible alternative strategies for continued support and
activity in conjunction with the already planned March 1995
concept selection meeting;
- on-going monitoring activity be continued; and
- other funding sources be identified and coordinated with
the approved conservation plan and priority site needs.
The Committee endorsed these recommendations and requested
ICOMOS in consultation with the Secretariat to implement
them.
Burgos Cathedral (Spain)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its eighteenth
session congratulated the various Spanish organizations
involved in the actions taken for the conservation of
Burgos Cathedral and that it, at the same time, expressed
a desire to see those components of the total project which
were still under negotiation put into effect with the
minimum delay.
The Committee noted that in August 1994, a statue fell off
the façade of the cathedral and requested ICOMOS to
continue to monitor the state of conservation of the
cathedral and to report its findings to the nineteenth
session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.
Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)
The Committee was informed that problems with the project's
financing had caused some delays in the restoration of the
mosaics and that UNESCO's experts present on the site had
expressed their regret to the authorities responsible for
the work that, in spite of their recommendations, the
metallic covering of the Haghia Sophia was executed with a
material which was too thin and therefore fragile.
*[40]
Furthermore, it was informed that, according to the UNESCO
experts on site, reconstruction of long portions of the
Roman and Byzantine walls was being undertaken using new
stones without taking account of the advice of
archaeologists and art historians.
The Committee recommended to the Turkish authorities to
take the necessary steps to speed up the transfer of funds
approved under the World Heritage Fund for the restoration
of the mosaics in the Haghia Sophia to those responsible
for its conservation.
The Committee also requested that the Turkish authorities
immediately stop the reconstruction of the Roman and
Byzantine walls, and that they undertake their restoration,
in accordance with principles accepted by the international
community, and in collaboration with the Turkish
antiquities services.
Xanthos-Letoon (Turkey)
In the framework of the UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan, the
Coordinator of the Programme "100 Historical Sites of the
Mediterranean" carried out a mission to Turkey at the
request of the World Heritage Centre.
Having taken note of the extensive and detailed report,
which the Committee requested to be made available to the
Turkish authorities, the Committee recommended the Turkish
authorities:
- to transmit to the World Heritage Centre the
Protection Plan for the Development of the
Patra/Xanthos/Letoon site, which should have been
ready in 1992;
- to implement the measures for the diversion of
traffic on the roads crossing the sites of
Xanthos and Letoon;
- to review the construction of the superstructure
of the television relay installed at the summit
of the Xanthos Acropolis.
Pueblo de Taos (United States of America)
The Committee was informed by the Delegate of the United
States on the actions taken by the Taos Pueblo and the US
National Park Service to ensure the conservation and the
integrity of the site and that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be undertaken by the Federal Aviation
Administration. The Committee reiterated its concerns
about the airport extension plans and invited the
authorities of the United States of America to pay
*[41]
particular attention to the World Heritage values and
living traditions of Pueblo de Taos when preparing the
Environmental Impact Statement, and to report on this to
the Committee at its nineteenth session.
The Complex of Hue Monuments (Vietnam)
The Observer of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam informed
the Committee of the various measures undertaken in order
to conserve and enhance the site since its inscription on
the World Heritage List in 1993, and expressed the
gratitude of the Government of Vietnam to UNESCO for its
constant assistance.
He assured the Committee of the vigilance of the national
and local authorities of Vietnam for the preservation of
the integrity of the site and gave detailed assurance that
no new road would be constructed in the vicinity of the
site along the River of Perfumes.
IX.23 Following the examination of the state of
conservation reports, the Committee adopted the following
proposals for the monitoring and reporting on the state of
conservation of individual World Heritage properties in
1995 and invited the Secretariat to ensure their
implementation:
- The highest priority will be given to the monitoring
of and reporting on sites on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
- The Secretariat will again report to the Bureau at its
nineteenth session in 1995 on the state of
conservation of all sites on the List of World
Heritage in Danger with an assessment of the
appropriateness of their continued inclusion in this
List.
- The Secretariat, in collaboration with the advisory
bodies, will continue to undertake reactive monitoring
whenever deemed necessary.
X. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PREPARATION OF A GLOBAL
STRATEGY FOR A REPRESENTATIVE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
X.1 At its seventeenth session in Cartagena, the
Committee requested the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to
continue their efforts in preparing a conceptual framework
for "a global study, in order to advance in defining a
concept and a methodology which could be widely accepted by
the scientific community.
*[42]
X.2 Consequently, the Centre and ICOMOS organized jointly
at UNESCO, from 20 to 22 June 1994, a first meeting of
experts representing different regions of the world and
different disciplines concerned (specialists in cultural
heritage, anthropologists, art and architecture historians,
archaeologists, etc.) with the objective of reviewing the
issues and considering all the different approaches, and
especially all the work and contributions made to date, in
an attempt to define a conceptual framework, a methodology
and common goals.
X.3 The Vice-President of ICOMOS, Ms Joan Domicelj,
presented to the Bureau at its eighteenth session the
report of this meeting of experts, as well as a major
outline of its recommendations to the Committee, in order
to implement a Global strategy to ameliorate the
representativity of the List. These recommendations have
been included "in extenso" in document WHC-
94/CONF.003/INF.6.
X.4 Having taken note of the Secretariat's report
concerning the proposals made by the experts, and its
presentation of different thematic meetings which took
place in 1994 on Heritage Canals (Canada), Routes as a Part
of our Cultural Heritage (Spain) and Authenticity (Japan),
the Committee adopted the following three proposals
concerning work to be undertaken in 1995:
1) the revision of certain criteria for the
inscription of cultural properties on the World Heritage
List, based on Recommendation 7 proposed by the experts
(see Section XIV of the Report).
2) the participation of one member of the World
Heritage Centre or of ICOMOS at future regional or thematic
meetings, in order to present to them the substance of the
Global Strategy, place the discussions in the wider
framework of current scientific thought concerning the
concept of cultural heritage, and to identify potential
partners for future regional meetings of a specific nature;
3) the allocation of an amount of US $ 40.000 for
the organization, in cooperation with ICOMOS, and on a
regional basis, of a first scientific meeting in Africa
with States Parties and those that are not yet party to the
Convention, which would deal with African cultural heritage
and the Convention. The Committee agreed to allocate also
US $ 5.000 for the preparation of this meeting. This
meeting will deal with various types of cultural properties
which presently are not represented on the List or
inadequately so. The Committee also allocated an amount of
US $ 30.000 for the organization, in collaboration with the
National Commission of Philippines, ICOMOS, IUCN/ENPPA and
UNESCO Regional Offices, a regional meeting on cultural
landscapes of rice terraces of Asia and the Pacific.
*[43]
X.5 The representative of ICOMOS stated that its
cooperation with the Centre was excellent, particularly as
regards the meeting of experts held in June 1994. He
expressed his wish that the implementation of the Global
Strategy would be done jointly in 1995 by the two
institutions, as this action is for ICOMOS a part of a
global scientific programme which includes other themes for
reflection.
X.6 At the suggestion of the German Delegation, the
Committee adopted the following text as the basis for
future deliberations by the Committee on the Global
Strategy:
"As a follow-up of the decisions of the Committee during
the previous years, several initiatives were launched to
improve the implementation of the Convention with regard to
cultural properties. One of these initiatives was a
working group on the Global Strategy, taking place in Paris
in July 1994 (see working document CONF.003.INF.6.) For
the cultural sites this document stresses imbalances on the
List between regions of the world, types of monuments and
period but this is not reflected for the natural sites in
this working document. To reduce these imbalances for
natural properties as well, the following measures would
seem to be adequate:
1) expansion of Documents CONF.003/INF.6 and CONF. 003/6
to include an equal emphasis on natural properties;
2) adjustment of the formal and scientific criteria for
the evaluation of nominated cultural and natural sites
respectively, taking into consideration also the cultural
landscape approach;
3) giving priority to thematic studies on the main types
of ecosystems and developing strategies to implement the
results without delay;
4) reconsideration of the procedure for the assessment of
nominated natural sites with special respect to the term
"integrity."
To facilitate this, a specialists' meeting should be
organized in the first half of 1995."
X.7 The Chair asked the opinion of the Director of
the Centre if it would be possible to organize such a
expert meeting. The Director responded by warmly welcoming
this suggestion and noted that if the Centre had a budget
of USD 20,000 put at its disposal, it could organize such
a meeting. The Director also called to the Committee's
attention the relevance of such a study to Mixed Sites.
*[44]
X.8 The Delegate of France, explained that in order
to understand the concern expressed in the document
prepared by the German Delegation and which met with the
approval of the French Delegation, it must be recalled that
the imbalance noted is partly due to the decisions taken
during the sixteenth session of the Committee at Santa Fe:
- deletion of criterion (ii) for cultural properties
(interaction between man and nature) ;
- modification of cultural criteria to allow the
inscription of cultural landscapes, the recognition of
which had been strongly endorsed by France.
He indicated that the "natural" part of cultural landscapes
was not sufficiently taken into account and that it would
be appropriate to place more emphasis on paragraph 38 of
the Guidelines. He suggested that in the future ICOMOS and
IUCN proceed with a joint evaluation of properties proposed
for inscription as cultural landscapes.
X.9 Several other delegates, including those from the
United States of America, Japan, Italy and Niger expressed
their support for the German proposal for a expert working
group on natural and mixed sites. The United States
Delegate remarked on the importance of establishing
computerized data bases for sites. The Delegate from Niger
expressed his hope that, eventually, separate criteria for
Natural and Cultural Sites could be eliminated in favour of
an unified set of criteria applicable for all types of
World Heritage Sites.
X.10 Because of time constraints items D, E and F of this
agenda item could not be considered by the eighteenth
session of the Committee and were postponed for
consideration by the nineteenths session of the Bureau.
XI. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF
NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO
THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND LIST OF WORLD
HERITAGE IN DANGER
XI.1 The Secretariat informed the Committee that all
cultural properties nominated for inscription were included
in the tentative lists of the respective countries. The
Committee took note of information document WHC-
94/CONF.003.INF.7 in respect to tentative lists.
NATURAL HERITAGE
XI.2 The Committee inscribed eight properties on the
World Heritage List, including two sites referred or
deferred by the Committee in previous years. The Committee
*[45]
also approved extensions of two World Heritage sites and
deferred one proposal for extension of a property. The
Committee did not inscribe one nominated property.
Properties which the Committee inscribed on the World
Heritage List
Name of Identification State Party Criteria
Property Number having submitted
the nomination (in
accordance with
Article 11 of the
Convention)
Australian 698 Australia N (i)(ii)
Fossil Mammal
Sites
(Riversleigh/Naracoorte)
The Bureau had recommended the inscription of the site as
Riversleigh/Naracoorte Fossil site, excluding the site of
Murgon until its significance can be more convincingly
demonstrated. The Committee noted that Riversleigh provides
outstanding examples of middle to late Tertiary mammal
assemblages and one of the world's richest Oligo-Miocene
mammal records in a continent whose mammalian history has
been most isolated and distinctive, whereas Naracoorte
preserves an outstanding variety of terrestrial vertebrates
and illustrates faunal change spanning two ice ages.
Moreover, the Committee underlined that the inscription of
the fossil sites is a new challenge, as there are only very
few sites with fossil values on the List and that this
inscription is a major precedent for the work of the
Committee.
As suggested by the Australian authorities, the Committee
decided that this site shall be inscribed on the World
Heritage List as Australian Fossil Mammal Sites
(Riversleigh, Naracoorte).
Los Katios 711 Colombia N(ii)(iv)
National Park
The Committee inscribed this site, which adjoins Darien
World Heritage site in Panama, and represents a rich biota
comprising elements of both the North and the South America
and is a centre of endemism for flora and fauna. The
Committee commended both the Colombian and the Panamanian
Governments for the bilateral cooperative management
agreement and recommended that the two States Parties
consider the inscription of the transfrontier site as a
single entry on the List.
*[46]
Arabian Oryx 654 Oman N(iv)
Sanctuary
The Committee recalled that the nomination of Arabian Oryx
Sanctuary (then referred to as Jiddat-al-Harasis) was
originally submitted in August 1992 and deferred for
clarification of the legal structures, boundaries and
management plan. It noted that the area was renowned for
the success of the re-introduction of the White Oryx
Project and acknowledged that the Royal Decree No. 4/94 of
January 1994 concerning the legal responsibilities for the
management of the area was a partial response to an earlier
request of the Bureau for further strengthening the
conservation of the site. The Decree, however, requires
the issuance of appropriate byelaws and directives.
The Committee took note of Ambassador Musa Bin Jaafar Bin
Hassan's letter of 21 November 1994 which included a
preliminary response to the Bureau request for a Management
Plan. The framework of the Plan submitted was considered
to be technically sound and hence the Management Plan
should provide clarification of the boundaries, as well as
a zoning plan and improved management regime of the site.
The Committee was informed that due to the late arrival of
the letter and the framework plan, IUCN was unable to apply
its full evaluation process to the nomination but noted
that in the evaluation of the 1992 nomination IUCN had said
that the site had potential for World Heritage listing. The
Committee was satisfied with the new information provided
and the political will of the Omani Government to implement
a management regime and inscribed this site on the World
Heritage List under criterion (iv) which focuses on the
conservation of the site's biodiversity, including the
Arabian Oryx, the Houbara Bustard and other threatened
wildlife species inhabiting the Sanctuary. The map
representing the "essential values" of the Sanctuary
prepared for the original nomination, was accepted by the
Delegate of Oman in consultation with IUCN and a
representative of the World Heritage Centre, as the basis
for the inscription.
The Committee recommended that:
1) the Omani authorities continue to strengthen the
management of the site by passing the byelaws and
directives called for by the decree and appoint
additional field staff to implement the
management regime;
2) the consultant who will prepare the management
plan should clearly define the World Heritage
values in accordance with the Operational
Guidelines and should define the exact boundaries
of the area, including a zoning plan which
excludes any land uses that may be in conflict
with World Heritage values;
*[47]
3) the consultant should make clear recommendations
on the applicability of criterion (iii), by 1
April 1995;
4) that the IUCN should present at the nineteenth
session of the Bureau an evaluation of the
revised boundaries and additional World Heritage
criteria (if applicable), based on the
consultant's report and whatever further
information it required;
5) that the Bureau should review at its nineteenth
session the revised boundaries and additional
criteria in accordance with its normal
procedures.
Donaña National 685 Spain N(ii)(iii)
Park (iv)
The Committee inscribed this site as an exceptional example
of a large Mediterranean wetland with diverse habitats such
as marshes, forests, pristine beaches, dunes and lagoons,
which supports high faunal diversity, particularly large
numbers of migratory birds of the palearctic region.
The Committee complemented the Spanish authorities on
measures taken to improve protection of the site during the
past two years and their efforts to maintain the integrity
of the site. The Committee, however, alerted the Spanish
authorities to continuing threats to the integrity of the
site arising from hydrological projects and encouraged them
in their on-going efforts to restore disturbed parts of the
Park. The Committee requested that the Spanish authorities
submit a report on the site, particularly highlighting the
results of the project to regulate water supply by 1998.
Bwindi 682 Uganda N(iii)(iv)
Impenetrable
National Park
The Committee inscribed this site which has one of the
richest faunal communities in East Africa, including almost
half the population of the world's mountain gorillas, and
one of Africa's most important forests for butterflies and
bird diversity. The Committee commended the Government of
Uganda as well as the international donors for their
efforts in generating resources necessary for the
establishment of an effective management regime.
*[48]
Rwenzori 684 Uganda N(iii)(iv)
Mountains
National Park
The Committee inscribed this site, also known as "Mountains
of the Moon", for its aesthetic and scenic values and for
its significance as the habitat for an exceptional variety
of species, spanning the extraordinary altitudal range of
the Park.
Canaima National 701 Venezuela N(i)(ii)
Park (iii(iv)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its last session
held in June 1994, had requested the Venezuelan
authorities to revise the boundaries of the nominated area
in accordance with the recommendations of IUCN, i.e. to
exclude the savannah area which did not meet World Heritage
criteria. The Committee was informed that, although there
was no formal written response from the Venezuelan Park
authorities with respect to the Bureau's recommendation, a
senior staff member had verbally indicated that it would be
difficult to consider revising the boundaries of this site.
The Committee noted that a population of about 10,000 was
resident in the savannah (nearly 1 million ha of the 3
million ha area of the Park) and have not been consulted
regarding the nomination of the area. Nevertheless, the
Committee was satisfied that the area met all four natural
World Heritage criteria and decided to inscribe the site on
the World Heritage List. However, the Committee requested
the Centre and IUCN to cooperate with the State Party to
initiate a process to review the boundaries of the site,
taking into consideration the interests of the local people
and the need to focus the nomination on the tepui portion
(approximately 2 million ha) of the Park.
Ha Long Bay 672 Vietnam N(iii)
The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its last session
referred the consideration of this nomination pending the
establishment of a legal framework, a revision of the
boundaries of the proposed site and the initiation of a
managment programme. The Committee was satisfied to note
that the Vietnamese authorities have revised the boundaries
to nominate a smaller site which met natural heritage
criterion (iii), introduced a reasonably satisfactory
legislation and provided a boat and appointed a minimum
number of staff to patrol the area.
*[49]
The Committee therefore inscribed the site on the World
Heritage List and recommended that the Vietnamese
authorities cooperate with IUCN to:
a) review and further strengthen the legislation and
its applicability to the protection of the site;
b) initiate processes to prepare a management plan,
which will define, amongst others, objectives and a zoning
scheme;
c) implement management activities such as purchase of
basic equipment and appointing more staff to strengthen
management of the site and,
d) conduct surveys to monitor the growing number of
tourists visiting the area and plan regulatory measures.
Extensions to natural World Heritage Properties approved by
the Committee
Central Eastern 368bis Australia N(i)(ii)(iv)
Rainforest Reserves
(Australia)
(extension of the
Australian East Coast
Temperate & Sub-
tropical Rainforest
Park)
The Committee inscribed the extension proposed to this
site by the Australian authorities, noting that the
extension increased the size of the World Heritage site by
35%. The Committee commended the Australian Government for
acting on the recommendation of the Committee made in 1986
and agreeing to adopt the name "Central Eastern Rainforest
Reserves (Australia) for the enlarged property. The
Committee requested the Australian authorities to complete
the management plans of individual sites, particularly
those within Queensland.
Tatshenshini- 72bis/rev. Canada/USA N(ii)(iii)
Alsek Provincial (iv)
Wilderness Park
(extension of the
Glacier Bay/Wrangell/
St. Elias/Kluane site)
The Committee inscribed this site as an extension to the
Glacier Bay/Wrangell/St. Elias/Kluane World Heritage site.
The Committee commended the Government of British
Columbia/Canada on the action taken to protect the area and
it complimented the government agencies involved in moving
*[50]
towards the establishment of an International Advisory
Council. The Committee noted that the World Heritage
designation of this area does not prejudice the titles and
rights to land used by the Champagne-Aishihik First
Nations. The Committee suggested that the two States
Parties may consider proposing a new and shorter title,
e.g. "St. Elias Mountain Parks" to the site.
Property which the Committee did not inscribe on the World
Heritage List
Murchison Falls 683 Uganda
National Park
The Committee recognized Murchison Falls as an important
natural phenomena and as a habitat of elephants, giraffes
and Nile crocodile, though populations of these species
have been seriously reduced due to civil disturbances of
the past decade. However, the Committee decided not to
inscribe this site on the List because it considered its
international significance to be secondary in comparison to
similar sites in the region. The Committee, nevertheless,
commended and encouraged the Government of Uganda and the
GTZ for their efforts to restore the site and suggested
that the Ugandan Government may consider recognition of
this site as a core of a biosphere reserve.
Extension to a natural World Heritage site deferred by the
Committee
Galapagos Marine 1bis Ecuador
Reserve
(extension of the
Galapagos Islands)
The Committee recognized that the Marine Reserve met
natural heritage criteria. However, in accordance with the
recommendation of IUCN and the wish of the Observer of
Ecuador, it deferred the inclusion of the Galapagos Marine
Reserve as an extension of World Heritage site of
Galapagos. The Committee commended the Ecuadorean
authorities for their efforts to enlarge the World Heritage
property to include marine habitats extending to 15
nautical miles from the islands. It also noted the proposal
of the Ecuadorean authorities to extend marine habitats up
to 40 nautical miles. But the Committee was seriously
concerned that the proposed Marine Reserve and the
Galapagos Islands faced the following threats to their
integrity:
- overfishing and illegal fishing of a wide range
of species;
- human pressures from the local population
(growing at an estimated rate of 8.5% per year,
mainly due to immigration) and tourism on both
terrestrial and marine resources;
*[51]
- inadequate management capacity and
infrastructure;
- adverse impacts of introduced animals and plants;
These threats call for mitigative action vis-à-vis:
- augmenting management capacity;
- encouraging institutional cooperation;
- stepping up law enforcement, and
- conducting research on sustainability of resource
use in the Marine Reserve.
The Committee noted the commitment of the Ecuadorean
Government which, in cooperation with IUCN, the Centre and
a number of international conservation organizations, is
considering several measures to ensure protection of the
Marine Reserve and the Galapagos Islands. Furthermore, the
Committee was informed that the Ecuadorean Government was
considering a donors' conference in early 1995 to propose
a series of actions to mitigate the prevailing threats to
the integrity of the Marine Reserve and the Islands, as
well as a financial plan for the implementation of those
actions. Hence, the Committee requested IUCN and the
Centre to report back to the Bureau at its nineteenth
session on progress made to strengthen the conservation of
the Marine Reserve and the Islands.
Property inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
by the Committee
Virunga National Park (Zaire)
During its examination of monitoring reports, the Committee
noted the serious threats to Virunga National Park arising
from the Rwandan refugee immigration. Accordingly, the
Committee agreed to place Virunga National Park on the List
of World Heritage in Danger.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
XI.3 The Committee examined twenty-four nominations of
cultural properties for inscription on the World Heritage
List and three requests for extensions of already inscribed
properties. The Committee decided to inscribe twenty-two of
the nominated properties and approved the three extensions.
Two properties did not, in the view of the Committee, meet
the criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List.
XI.4 The Committee recalled that it decided at its
seventeenth session in December 1993, that the inscription
of Boukhara (Uzbekistan) (602rev) would only take effect if
and when the tentative list of Uzbekistan is presented. The
Secretariat informed the Committee that this tentative
list, dated 10 October 1994, had been received. The
Committee confirmed the inscription of Boukhara on the
World Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi).
*[52]
Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
Name of Identifi- State Party Criteria
Property cation having submitted
No. the nomination
in accordance
with Article 11
of the
Convention
Uluru-Kata Tjuta 447Rev Australia N(ii)(iii)
National Park C(v)(vi)
(renomination of
Uluru National
Park under cultural
criteria)
The Temple of 704 China C(i)(iv)
Confucius, the (vi)
Cemetery of
Confucius, and
the Kong Family
Mansion in Qufu
The ancient 705 China C(i)(ii)
building complex (vi)
in the Wudang
Mountains
The Mountain 703 China C(ii)(iv)
Resort and its
Outlying Temples,
Chengde
The Potala 707 China C(i)(iv)(vi)
Palace, Lhasa
ICOMOS commended the quality of the conservation and
restoration works undertaken at the Palace by the Chinese
authorities in charge of its conservation.
The Committee in approving the inscription of this site on
the World Heritage List requested the Chinese authorities
to envisage the possibility in the future of extending the
site to include the historic village of Shöl, the Temple of
Jokhang as well as the Chakpori Hill. The Delegate of China
assured the Committee that the authorities will certainly
take into account the recommendations made by the Committee
regarding the extension.
*[53]
The Pilgrimage 690 Czech Republic C(iv)
Church of St.
John of Nepomuk
at Zelena Hora
Jelling Mounds, 697 Denmark C(iii)
Runic Stones and
Church
Petäjävesi Old 584 Finland C(iv)
Church
Discussions on whether the qualifications of the property
should be considered on the basis of material or regional
location ensued following a remark by one of the delegates
that the comparative study of wooden churches carried out
should have covered areas beyond Northern Europe. A
consensus was reached to inscribe this property as
representative of the wooden church architectural tradition
of the North European region; it was not considered
appropriate to compare it with wooden church traditions
elsewhere in the world.
The City-Museum 708 Georgia C(iii)(iv)
Reserve of
Mtskheta
The Committee, in inscribing this property on the World
Heritage List, suggested to the State Party to change the
name to "Historic Churches of Mtskheta".
Bagrati Cathedral 710 Georgia C(iv)
and Gelati Monastery
The Committee inscribed this property on the World Heritage
List and requested the ICOMOS mission evaluation report to
be transmitted to the State Party.
The Collegiate 535rev Germany C(iv)
Church, Castle,
and Old Town of
Quedlinburg
In inscribing the town on the World Heritage List, the
Committee commended the German authorities on the
conservation programme undertaken over the last years and
encouraged them to continue with its implementation.
Völklingen 687 Germany C(ii)(iv)
Ironworks
*[54]
Vicenza, City of 712 Italy C(i)(ii)
Palladio
The Committee requested the very detailed ICOMOS/ICCROM
evaluation report to be submitted to the Italian
authorities. With the consent of the Delegate of Italy, the
Committee decided to inscribe this city under the following
name: "Vicenza, City of Palladio".
Historic Monu- 688 Japan C(ii)(iv)
ments of Ancient
Kyoto (Kyoto,
Uji and Otsu Cities)
Vilnius Historic 541 Lithuania C(ii)(iv)
Centre
The City of 699 Luxemburg C(iv)
Luxemburg: its
old quarters and
fortifications
The earliest 16th 702 Mexico C(ii)(iv)
Century Monasteries
on the slopes of
Popocatepetl
The Lines and 700 Peru C(i)(iii)
Geoglyphs of (iv)
Nasca and
Pampas de Jumana
The Church of 634rev. Russian C(ii)
the Ascension, Federation
Kolomenskoye
The Rock Carvings 557rev. Sweden C(i)(iii)
in Tanum (iv)
Skogskyrkogärden 588Rev. *[sic; should be 558Rev.]
Sweden C(ii)(iv)
The Committee, in debating the universal value of this
property, concluded that the merits of Skogskyrkogården lay
in its qualities as an early-20th century landscape and
architectural design adapted to a cemetery. The Committee
in inscribing this site stressed the importance of
explaining to the public the criteria for which it was
accepted as a World Heritage cultural property.
City of Safranbolu 614 Turkey C(ii)(iv)(v)
*[55]
Extensions approved by the Committee
Old City of 95 Croatia C(i)(iii)(iv)
Dubrovnik
(extension)
The Historic 331bis *[sic; should be 313bis]
Centre Spain C(i)(ii)(iii)
of Cordoba (iv)
(extension
of the Mosque of
Cordoba)
The Committee approved the extension of the existing World
Heritage site of the Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba to include
its surroundings and endorsed the suggestion made by the
Delegate of Spain to adopt the name "The Historic Centre of
Cordoba".
Alhambra, Generalife 314bis Spain C(i)(iii)
and Albayzin, Granada (iv)
(extension of the
Alhambra and the
Generalife, Granada,
to include the
Albayzin quarter)
The Committee approved the proposed extension and endorsed
the suggestion made by the Delegate of Spain to adopt the
following name: "Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzin,
Granada".
Properties which the Committee did not inscribe on the
World Heritage List
The Monastery 691 Czech Republic
Church of the
Ascension of the
Virgin Mary at
Kladruby
The Cathedral of 681 Slovak Republic
St. Elizabeth,
the Chapel of St.
Michael and Urban's
Tower, Kosice
*[56]
XII. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
TECHNICAL COOPERATION
Natural Heritage
XII.1 The Committee took note that the Bureau, at its
eighteenth session held on 9-10 December 1994:
approved a sum of US$ 19,000 for Srebarna Nature
Reserve (Bulgaria) for the purchase and installation
of equipment for the measurement and monitoring of
water-levels and water quality in the Srebarna
Wetlands; and
requested the Tanzanian authorities to reformulate
their request for US$ 30,000 for developing a system
of trails in the Kilimanjaro National Park (Tanzania),
taking into consideration more urgent conservation
priorities for the management of the Park which have
been set by the new Management Plan.
XII.2 The Committee approved the following requests for
natural heritage sites of Indonesia:
Ujung Kulon National Park
Buffer zone development activities US$40,000
benefitting local people with agreement
from the local people for cessation of
resource extraction in the Park.
Komodo National Park
Purchase of a boat and a GIS-GPS system. The US$40,000
cost of the GIS-GPS system is to be kept below
US$ 19,000 through competitive bidding.
Cutural Heritage
XII.3 The Committee noted that the Bureau in examining
the ten technical cooperation requests for cultural
properties, two submitted by ICCROM and eight by States
Parties, gave priority to activities for properties on the
List of World Heritage in Danger and to those having a
catalytic affect rather than for the funding of specific
restoration works, in accordance with previous decisions
taken by the Committee .
Requests approved by the Bureau:
1. The Historic Town of Ouro Preto (Brazil) - US$20,000
The Bureau approved US$20,000 out of the total amount
of US$50,000, subject to obtaining assurance that the
*[57]
balance of US$30,000 for the construction of five
houses for the relocation of the affected inhabitants
is funded by other sources.
2. ICCROM Technical Assistance - US$25,000
The Bureau approved this financial support to the
ICCROM Technical Assistance Programme to supply
institutions of State Parties, free of charge, with
basic documentation, scientific and didactic equipment
and conservation products.
3. Printing of Management Guidelines for World Cultural
Heritage Sites, by B.M. Feilden and J. Jokilehto -
US$6,900
The Bureau approved this request to support the
printing cost of the French-language edition of this
publication if other sources, notably of the
Francophone community cannot be identified.
Requests approved by the Committee:
The Committee approved the following requests on the basis
of the recommendations of the Bureau:
1. Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia) - US$50,000
The Committee approved the full requested amount of
US$ 50,000 for, inter alia, the purchase of equipment
for the documentation centre; expertise for the
development of a tourism development plan; promotional
and educational material and activities on World
Heritage in Dubrovnik.
2. Wieliczka Salt Mine (Poland) - US$100,000
The Committee approved this request for US$100,000 to
purchase the dehumidifying equipment required for the
preservation of the salt sculptures of this World
Heritage Site in Danger.
3. Kathmandu Valley (Nepal) - US$52,000
The Committee approved the requested US$ 52,000 for
the deployment of a UNESCO international technical
advisor for 6 months in view of the serious and urgent
need for strengthen measures to redress the present
state of conservation of the Kathmandu Valley.
4. The Complex of the Hue Monuments (Vietnam)
(Upgrading of the Hue Conservation Laboratory) -
US$108,000
*[58]
The Committee approved the amount of US$108,000 to
meet the cost of laboratory equipment purchase (US$
72,700) and related short-term training to enable the
Hue authorities to have the basic facilities to
overcome the present obstacles to conservation. The
World Heritage Centre should, however, be consulted on
the list of equipment, and approve the detailed
specification and cost estimate; as well as the
selection of the international experts.
5. Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)
(Restoration of the mosaics of Hagia-Sophia) -
US$80,000
The Committee approved an amount of $80,000 to
complete the final phase of this restoration project.
Requests not approved by the Committee:
1. Ngorongoro Conservation Area (United Republic of
Tanzania)
(International Conference on Ngorongoro, in Bellagio,
Italy)
The Committee endorsed the Bureau's view not to
approve this request although the value of the
proposed international conference in Italy for the
Tanzanian conservators is recognized, and in view of
the fact that other funding sources are available for
this Conference at the Rockefeller Foundation in
Italy.
2. Palmyra (Syrian Arab Republic)
The Committee did not approve this request for
US$90,000 but suggested that the Syrian authorities
submit an alternative request to prepare a global and
coherent conservation programme for this site in
accordance with the recommendations of the UNESCO
expert mission which took place in December 1993.
TRAINING
Natural Heritage
XII.4 The Committee noted that the Bureau, at its
eighteenth session on 9-10 December 1994, considered eight
requests for amounts not exceeding US$ 30,000 and approved
the following seven:
1) 17th International Training Course US$30,000
for Protected Area Managers of Latin
America, CATIE, Costa Rica
*[59]
2) Regional Training Course for Protected US$30,000
Area Managers of Arab States, Egypt
3) Support to participants from Francophone US$19,000
Africa to attend a Training Course on Protected
Areas, organized by ENGREF, France, in Côte d'Ivoire
4) Regional Training Course for Protected Area US$20,000
Managers of West Africa, organized by School of
Wildlife Specialists, Garoua, Cameroon (an
additional US$ 5,000 for supporting the
publication of the proceedings of the training
seminar should be sought from other sources)
5) Fellowships to African World Heritage site
and protected area managers at Regional Training
Institutes:
School of Wildlife Specialists, Garoua US$22,000
Cameroon
Mweka College of African Wildlife US$20,000
Management, Arusha, Tanzania
6) Preparation of a strategy for training US$30,000
natural heritage site managers; a workshop
is to be organized in cooperation with the
United States National Park Service in
September 1995. The Bureau urged the Centre
to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the
training supported by the World Heritage Fund
in the past and to use the results of the
assessment in the elaboration of the strategy
XII.5 The Committee also noted that the Bureau did not
approve the sum of US$ 20,000 requested by the organizers
of a training seminar on protected area management in
Europe and had urged the organizers to raise funds needed
through alternative sources in Europe.
Cultural Heritage
XII.6 The Committee noted that the Bureau at its
eighteenth session in December 1994, examined eleven
requests for training activities related to cultural
properties of which five were submitted by ICCROM and six
by State Parties to the total amount exceeding US$ one
million. The Bureau reported to the Committee that in view
of budgetary constraints it gave priority to requests
submitted by developing countries for activities benefiting
site managers of World Heritage cultural properties.
Funding of courses held in situ which take into account
local training needs were given priority consideration over
"regular contribution to annual courses" organised at the
headquarters of training institutes.
*[60]
XII.7 The Committee took note of the following
decisions of the Bureau for training requests under the
amount of US$30,000:
Requests approved by the Bureau:
1. Sub-Regional Conservation Workshop on Western European
Medieval Wall Paintings, 1 July - 10 September 1995,
Sighisoara, Romania - US$28,000.
2. Scientific Principles of Conservation Regional Course
for Latin America, June-July 1995, Belo Horizonte,
Brazil - US$30,000.
3. Training of Technical Personnel, Cap Vert - US$25,000.
4. Training for the Region of Latin America in
Conservation of the Adobe World Heritage, October
1995, Chan Chan, Peru - US$20,000.
Requests not approved by the Bureau:
1. International Architectural Conservation Course ARC 95
(18 January - 26 May 1995, Rome, Italy)- US$25,000:
was not approved by the Bureau in view of other
priorities and due to the availability of other
funding sources for this regular course.
2. Regional Training Courses in Architectural and Urban
Heritage Conservation, 5 September 1994 to 30 June
1995, Bratislava, Slovak Republic - US$19,030:
This request was not approved at this time due to
budgetary constraints and other requests of higher
priorities.
Requests approved by the Committee:
The Committee endorsed the recommendation by the Bureau to
approve the following requests:
1. ICCROM/CRATerre (International Centre for Earthen
Constructions): Training for a professional team; and
craftsmen-technician team for the restoration and
maintenance of the Palace of Abomey, Benin - US$
33,000 approved out of the initial request of
US$44,000.
2. Regional Training Course of Maghreb Architects for the
Conservation and Protection of Cultural Monuments and
Sites (1995 and 1996, Tunisia) - US$50,000
*[61]
3. Regional Meeting of Directors of Cultural Offices in
Latin America and the Caribbean (April 1995,
Cartagena, Colombia)
The Committee approved the requested amount of
US$45,000 to be funded under the budgetary provisions
of technical co-operation or other budget lines.
Requests not approved by the Committee:
On the recommendations of the Bureau, the following
requests were not approved by the Committee for reasons
indicated below:
1. International Course on the Technology of Stone
Conservation, ICCROM, 30 March - 14 June 1995, Venice,
Italy.
Despite recognition of the importance of this course
and the support given to it in previous years, this
US$51,000 request from ICCROM was not approved in view
of the fact that other funding sources were available
for the organization of this regular course.
2. Training Programme in the Conservation of
Architecture, Painting, Wood, Stone and Antique
Objects for the Preservation of the Hue World Heritage
Site (1995, dates not specified), Vietnam.
The Committee endorsed the recommendation of the
Bureau not to approve this request for US$40,790 in
view of the approval under Technical Cooperation of
US$ 108,000 for the purchase of conservation
laboratory equipment and related training in Hue which
was deemed to be of higher priority.
XIII. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND, AND
APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 1995 AND PRESENTATION
OF A PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR 1996
XIII.1 The Committee approved the report of the Working
Group on the World Heritage Fund, budget and development of
the Centre. Revisions to the budget format were prepared
and, following considerable discussions, a budget of US$
2,935,000 was approved for 1995, and an indicative budget
of US$ 2,885,000 for 1996 was noted.
XIII.2 The Committee recommended that the Secretariat
should continue to strengthen its efforts towards a more
transparent budget. The budget document should clearly
reflect increases or decreases in line items with a
rationale for the action taken.
*[62]
XIII.3 On more specific items, the Committee decided the
following:
a) the Committee recommended that the Emergency Fund be
replenished and that the States Parties should be
encouraged to make special contributions to that Fund;
b) the Committee recommended that the technical
assistance budget should respect the division of funds in
the order of at least one-third for natural heritage and
two-third for cultural heritage. With respect to training
the budget should be divided evenly between the two
sectors;
c) the Committee, as in 1994, retained a sum of US$
40,000 for monitoring activities of ICOMOS during 1995.
d) the Committee did not approve any funds for the
Organization of the World Heritage Cities;
e) with respect to the promotion budget the Committee did
not approve any funds to meet costs for the protection of
the logo. The Committee, however, approved a sum not
exceeding US$ 45,000 for the organization of an exhibit
entitled "From Abou Simbel to Angkor" within the framework
of the 50th anniversary of UNESCO;
f) the Committee stressed that the Bureau must fully
observe the Operational Guidelines with respect to all
budgetary matters. In this regard the Committee requested
that possible revisions to the Guidelines be submitted to
the next session of the Bureau;
g) The Committee approved a sum of US$ 360,000 for
assistance to the Centre, including the expenses of a P-5
position for natural heritage for one transitional year
(1995).
XIII.4 The Committee approved the budget for 1995 and
noted the indicative budget for 1996 as follows:
Items 1995 1996
Approved Indicative
1. Preparatory assistance 150,000 150,000
2. Global Strategy 70,000 70,000
3. Basic support
(Information systems)
a. World Heritage Centre 15,000
b. WCMC 22,000
Total (Basic support) 37,000 37,000
*[63]
4. Monitoring
a. Meetings 50,000
b. Programme implementation
Latin America-Carribean 50,000
Africa 50,000
Asia Pacific 60,000
Arab Region 30,000
c. ICOMOS 40,000
d. IUCN 28,000
Total (Monitoring) 308,000 308,000
5. Technical cooperation 750,000 850,000
6. Training
a. ICCROM 91,000
b. IUCN 35,000
c. Others 326,000
Total (Training) 452,000 452,000
7. Promotion and Education 268,000 278,000
8. Attendence of experts in
statutory World Heritage
meetings 40,000 40,000
9. Assistance to the Centre 360,000 200,000
10. Advisory services
a. ICOMOS 310,000
b. IUCN 190,000
Total (Advisory services) 500,000 500,000
Total Budget 2,935,000 2,885,000
Emergency Reserve 581,000
XIII.5 The Committee noted that projects with respect to
Global Strategies will be carried out in cooperation with
ICOMOS.
XIII.6 The Observer from the Republic of Korea informed
the Committee that his Government decided to make a
voluntary contribution for 1995 of US$ 20,000 earmarked for
advancing the notion of cultural landscapes and the
application of modern informatics technology for World
Heritage preservation.
*[64]
XIV. REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
XIV.1 Work Group 2 examined working document WHC-
94/CONF.003/9Rev., particularly the proposed revisions of
the Operational Guidelines regarding the 'criteria for the
inclusion of cultural properties in the World Heritage
List', 'monitoring and reporting' and the 'timetable for
the processing of nominations'.
XIV.2 The Committee decided that the following
proposals, that had not been examined by the Work Group,
should be brought forward to the nineteenth session of the
Bureau in July 1995: 'deadline for presentation of requests
for technical assistance', 'establishment of the World
Heritage List' (role of the advisory bodies) and
'international assistance' (rules for approval of requests
for preparatory, technical and training assistance).
CRITERIA FOR THE INCLUSION OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES IN THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST
XIV.3 The Committee, having taken note of the
recommendations made by the Work Group and discussed the
proposal of the Delegate of Senegal, who, in order to
encourage a less restrictive use of criterion (vi)
proposed to replace, in this paragraph, "universal" by
"regional", adopted the following text of the Operational
Guidelines:
"Para. 24. A monument, group of buildings or site - as
defined above -which is nominated for inclusion in the
World Heritage List will be considered to be of outstanding
universal value for the purpose of the Convention when the
Committee finds that it meets one or more of the following
criteria and the test of authenticity. Each property
nominated should therefore:
(a) (i) represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;
or
[replace in the French version de l'homme by
humain and, in the English version, delete a
unique artistic achievement so that it
corresponds with the French, and delete the and
insert human];
(ii) exhibit an important interchange of human values,
over a span of time or within a cultural area of
the world, on developments in architecture,
monumental arts or town-planning and landscape
design; or
[replace have exerted great influence by exhibit
an important interchange of human values so as to
reflect better the interaction of cultures,
instead of the present formulation, which
*[65]
suggests that cultural influences occur in one
direction only];
(iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony
to a cultural tradition or to a civilization
which is living or which has disappeared; or
[reverse the order of a civilization and cultural
tradition, add to a and which is living,to
include living cultures]
(iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building
or architectural ensemble or landscape which
illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human
history; or
(v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human
settlement or land-use which is representative of
a culture (or cultures), especially when it has
become vulnerable under the impact of
irreversible change; or
(vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or
living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs,
with artistic and literary works of outstanding
universal significance (the Committee considers
that this criterion should justify inclusion in
the List only in exceptional circumstances or in
conjunction with other criteria cultural or
natural);
[add cultural or natural in order to encourage a
more open interpretation of this criterion]
and
(b) (i) meet the test of authenticity in design,
material, workmanship or setting and in the case
of cultural landscapes their distinctive
character and components (the Committee stressed
that reconstruction is only acceptable if it is
carried out on the basis of complete and detailed
documentation on the original and to no extent on
conjecture).
(ii) have adequate legal and/or traditional protection
and management mechanisms to ensure the
conservation of the nominated cultural property
or cultural landscapes. The existence of
protective legislation at the national,
provincial or municipal level or well-established
traditional protection and/or adequate management
mechanisms is therefore essential and must be
stated clearly on the nomination form. Assurances
of the effective implementation of these laws
*[66]
and/or management mechanisms are also expected.
Furthermore, in order to preserve the integrity
of cultural sites, particularly those open to
large numbers of visitors, the State Party
concerned should be able to provide evidence of
suitable administrative arrangements to cover the
management of the property, its conservation and
its accessibility to the public.
XIV.4 Following the proposal of the Delegate of Japan,
the Committee requested the Secretariat to undertake a
study on the modifications which should be made to
criterion (b)(i) of paragraph 24 to take into account the
conclusions of the Nara meeting on Authenticity.
XIV.5 Criterion (b)(ii) of paragraph 24 remains
unchanged for the time being but coherence of its wording
will be studied by the Secretariat and proposals for its
revision will be presented, if deemed necessary, to the
nineteenth session of the Bureau.
MONITORING AND REPORTING
XIV.6 The Committee, recalling the decisions it had
taken already on the principles and framework for
systematic monitoring (see Section IX) and having taken
note of the recommendations of the Work Group, adopted the
following text for inclusion in the Operational Guidelines
as a new Chapter II:
II. MONITORING THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES
INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
xx. One of the essential functions of the Committee is to
monitor the state of conservation of properties inscribed
on the World Heritage List and to take action thereupon. In
the following, a distinction will be made between
systematic and reactive monitoring.
a) Systematic monitoring and reporting
xx Systematic monitoring and reporting is the continuous
process of observing the conditions of World Heritage sites
with periodic reporting on its state of conservation.
The objectives of systematic monitoring and reporting
are:
World Heritage site: Improved site management,
advanced planning, reduction of emergency and ad-hoc
interventions, and reduction of costs through
preventive conservation.
State Party: Improved World Heritage policies,
advanced planning, improved site management and
preventive conservation.
*[67]
Region: Regional cooperation, regional World Heritage
policies and activities better targeted to the
specific needs of the region.
Committee/Secretariat: Better understanding of the
conditions of the sites and of the needs on the site,
national and regional levels. Improved policy and
decision making.
xx It is the prime responsibility of the States Parties
to put in place on-site monitoring arrangements as an
integral component of day-to-day conservation and
management of the sites. States Parties should do so in
close collaboration with the site managers or the agency
with management authority. It is necessary that every year
the conditions of the site be recorded by the site manager
or the agency with management authority.
xx The States Parties are invited to submit to the World
Heritage Committee through the World Heritage Centre, every
five years, a scientific report on the state of
conservation of the World Heritage sites on their
territories. To this end, the States Parties may request
expert advice from the Secretariat or the advisory bodies.
The Secretariat may also commission expert advice with the
agreement of the States Parties.
xx To facilitate the work of the Committee and its
Secretariat and to achieve greater regionalization and
decentralization of World Heritage work, these reports will
be examined separately by region as determined by the
Committee. The World Heritage Centre will synthesize the
national reports by regions. In doing so, full use will be
made of the available expertise of the advisory bodies and
other organizations.
xx The Committee will decide for which regions state of
conservation reports should be presented to its forthcoming
sessions. The States Parties concerned will be informed at
least one year in advance so as to give them sufficient
time to prepare the state of conservation reports.
xx The Secretariat will take the necessary measures for
adequate World Heritage information collection and
management, making full use, to the extent possible, of the
information/documentation services of the advisory bodies
and others.
b) Reactive monitoring
xx Reactive monitoring is the reporting by the World
Heritage Centre, other sectors of UNESCO and the advisory
bodies to the Bureau and the Committee on the state of
conservation of specific World Heritage sites that are
under threat. To this end, the States Parties shall submit
to the Committee through the World Heritage Centre,
*[68]
specific reports and impact studies each time exceptional
circumstances occur or work is undertaken which may have an
effect on the state of conservation of the site. Reactive
monitoring is foreseen in the procedures for the eventual
deletion of properties from the World Heritage List as set
out in paras. 50-58. It is also foreseen in reference to
properties inscribed, or to be inscribed, on the List of
World Heritage in Danger as set out in paras. 75-82.
XIV.7 The Committee also decided to revise paragraph 57
as follows:
57. In this connection, the Committee recommends that
States Parties co-operate with the advisory bodies which
have been asked by the Committee to carry out monitoring
and reporting on its behalf on the progress of work
undertaken for the preservation of properties inscribed on
the World Heritage List.
TIMETABLE FOR THE PROCESSING OF NOMINATIONS
XIV.8 The Committee took note of the positive
recommendation made by Work Group 2 to revise paragraph 66
and approved the following timetable for processing of
nominations:
1 July:
Deadline for receipt by the Secretariat of nominations
to be considered by the Committee the following year.
15 September:
The Secretariat:
(1) registers each nomination and thoroughly verifies
its contents and accompanying documentation. In
the case of incomplete nominations, the
Secretariat must immediately request the missing
information from the States Parties.
(2) Transmit nominations, provided they are complete,
to the appropriate international non-governmental
organization (ICOMOS, IUCN or both), which:
immediately examines each nomination to
ascertain those cases in which additional
information is required and takes the
necessary steps, in co-operation with the
Secretariat, to obtain the complementary
data, and
(...)
*[69]
July-November
The report of the Bureau is transmitted by the
Secretariat as soon as possible to all States Parties
members of the Committee, as well as to all States
Parties concerned. The Secretariat endeavours to
obtain from the States Parties concerned the
additional information requested on the properties
under category (c) above and transmits this
information to ICOMOS, IUCN and the States members of
the Committee. If the requested information is not
obtained by 1 October, the nomination will not be
eligible for review by the Committee at its regular
session in the same year.
XIV.9 The Committee decided that this revision of the
timetable would only be effective as of 1 July 1996 and
that ample diffusion should be given of its revision.
XV. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A PLAN
FOR MARKETING AND FUND-RAISING
XV.1 This item was presented in two parts, at the
beginning and towards the end of the session. The first
part, introduced by the Director-General's Special Adviser,
focused on marketing and fund-raising, while the second
part, introduced by the Secretariat, reported on the World
Heritage information and education activities undertaken in
the past twelve months as well as current and future
projects.
Fund-raising and Marketing
XV.2 The item on marketing and fund-raising was
presented by Mr Charles de Haes, Special Adviser to the
Director-General of UNESCO in response to the request by
the World Heritage Committee at its sixteenth session, for
a professionally designed strategy to increase public
awareness, involvement and support (Proceedings of Santa Fe
session, Goal 5, Strategic Goals and Objectives).
XV.3 Having focused his study, commissioned by the
Director-General, on the aspect of enhancing the potential
of fundraising from the private sector and through such
activities, public-awareness building, Mr de Haes referred
to the eight recommendations contained in his report
entitled "Strategic Recommendations for Promotion &
Fundraising for World Heritage" (WHC-94/CONF.003/11 Add).
XV.4 Emphasizing the need to create a "World Heritage
concept" that reflects the value of all World Heritage
properties, rather than of individual sites, the adaptation
of the existing World Heritage logo or the adoption of a
new, more emotive one was recommended as an essential
marketing tool. The registration of this logo as a
*[70]
trademark in major markets for relevant product categories
was deemed necessary to enable the commercial licensing of
the logo. The question, therefore, of the legal entity of
the owner of this logo was raised as a major point in Mr de
Haes' oral presentation to the Committee.
XV.5 Mr de Haes stated that in his opinion, the legal
entity should be the World Heritage Committee itself,
rather than UNESCO, which to date has controlled its use.
UNESCO, having a much wider global mission far beyond the
scope of World Heritage protection and preservation, Mr de
Haes felt that the 'image' of World Heritage needed to be
distinct from that of UNESCO, which already enjoys an
international stature as one of the United Nations
agencies, for which a widely recognized logo already
exists.
XV.6 On the day-to-day management of the logo
licensing and the related fundraising activities, Mr de
Haes presented the options of: (a) the World Heritage
Centre, as the Secretariat of the Committee, being
entrusted by the Committee with this function; or, (b)
commissioning an outside entity on the basis of profit-
sharing of up to 30% on the funds raised from the private
sector.
XV.7 In pursuing marketing activities through whatever
institutional framework the Committee may wish to adopt, Mr
de Haes, stressed the need to clarify the ill-defined
functional responsibilities of the numerous organizational
units within UNESCO which are actually implementing World
Heritage-related activities, whether they be conservation,
promotional, public information or fundraising. Efficiency,
effectiveness and above all, financial transparency being
fundamental in creating public trust, Mr de Haes emphasized
the paramount importance of the Committee and the Director-
General of UNESCO ensuring that the main executing agent of
World Heritage activities be rendered more effective. In
this connection, he hoped that UNESCO and the States
Parties of the Convention will provide the World Heritage
Centre with the means to finance its staff costs from the
regular budget of UNESCO so that all funds raised from the
public can be devoted to operational activities with direct
benefit to World Heritage conservation.
XV.8 In presenting the slides of the existing logo, an
amended version thereof and a possible new logo, Mr de Haes
stated the need for the logo to be easily identifiable,
commercially marketable and above all, appealing to the
younger generation which, as the future guardians of World
Heritage properties, must be the main target of the public
awareness activities related to fundraising. Slides of
various examples of the logo use, in on-site plaques, sign-
boards, publications, letter-heads, T-shirts, caps, etc
were shown to the Committee.
*[71]
XV.9 Concluding his oral presentation, Mr de Haes
stated that the budgetary appropriation of US$50,000
foreseen for the marketing activities, notably to finance
the registration of the existing or new World Heritage logo
as a trademark would enable, as a first step, the logo
protection in several of the major target fundraising
countries which would be desirable in addition to the
protection of the logo obtainable under the Paris
Convention. Mr de Haes also informed the Committee that
guidelines on the use of the World Heritage logo and its
associated use with the UNESCO logo were currently under
preparation at the request of and financed by the Director-
General.
XV.10 The Delegate of France took the floor to express
his appreciation for the inclusion of the UNESCO initials
within the World Heritage logo to symbolize the fact that
World Heritage protection has been one of the pillars of
UNESCO activities. He stated that if the World Heritage
Committee and its logo were not well-known to the public,
UNESCO and its logo are universally known. He felt that
rather than disassociating the image of World Heritage from
that of UNESCO in the process of promoting the World
Heritage concept through the logo, as one of the means,
there should be a move towards "integration". Any future
activities on the logo registration and marketing of the
logo should be cancelled, as agreed in Working Group 1, and
as adopted by the Committee during its debate on the
budget.
XV.11 The Delegate of Germany while welcoming the work
carried out in devising measures to enhance fundraising and
public awareness-building questioned the potentials of
private sector fundraising for World Heritage in view of
the proliferation of charity organizations now engaged in
raising funds from industries and other business sectors.
Especially in view of the many non-governmental and
national bodies dependent on private sector funds, he
questioned the virtues of the Committee's engagement in
such activities which would be regarded as a competition.
XV.12 The virtues of changing the World Heritage logo
and "commercialization" of World Heritage through
marketing, were questioned by the Delegates of Italy and
Lebanon, especially in view of its implications to the
fundamental role of the Committee and the World Heritage
Centre vis-à-vis the Convention. In particular, the Italian
Delegation opposed the adoption of a new logo. It
considered the study submitted to the Committee
insufficient and therefore of no utility for an eventual
future decision in this connection. The consequences on
the Convention itself of any attempt towards the
"privatization" of World Heritage work should be carefully
considered. On the separation of identity between UNESCO
and the World Heritage Committee, the Italian Delegate
stressed the need to promote further linkage between the
*[72]
World Heritage concept and other UNESCO activities for
peace and development.
XV.13 The Delegate of Brazil, while congratulating Mr
de Haes for his interesting report, stated, inter alia,
that the World Heritage logo should not be seen as a
trademark but rather as a symbolic representation of the
philosophy and high values consacrated in the World
Heritage Convention.
XV.14 The Delegate of the United States of America
thanked the Director-General of UNESCO for responding to
the Committee's request to study fundraising potentials,
stating the vital need to widen the source of additional
funds to meet the increasing financial requirements for
World Heritage conservation.
XV.15 The Representative of ICOMOS, as one of the
advisory bodies to the Committee, thanked Mr de Haes for
sharing his most valuable experience in marketing and for
the interesting report. He mentioned however, that the
document made no specific proposals on actual fundraising
activities, nor to the successful safeguarding campaigns
launched by UNESCO in the past, which led to the awareness
by the international community to adopt the World Heritage
Convention. Continued linkage with UNESCO, given the
interdisciplinarity of World Heritage with all aspects of
culture, social science, education and communication, is an
essential part of the World Heritage concept that needs to
be further promoted.
XV.16 Representing the Assistant Director-General for
Culture, Ms Lourdes Arizpe, Mr. Azedine Beschaouch, first
of all remarked that there was no justification for the
linking, in Mr Charles de Haes' report, of the autonomy of
the UNESCO World Heritage Centre with the
"commercialization" of World Heritage products. But,
essentially, his remarks concerned the following points:
1. The Committee and the Secretariat have, for very many
years, continually encouraged the States Parties to promote
the World Heritage emblem and to implement on-site action
likely to further development at the local level. It would
therefore seem illogical to accuse the States of abusive
use of the logo and to reproach their commercialization,
within their frontiers, of products linked to their sites
inscribed on the List. A new practice may be called for,
but it would require wise judgement and a thorough
knowledge of the history of the Convention and a true
consultation with the States Parties.
2. To entrust the "commercialization" of products linked
to World Heritage sites to a private foundation, without
taking prior precaution to reflect upon the ethical and
juridical consequences of this innovation, nor taking into
*[73]
consideration the "national" sensitivities, would truly
constitute an abomination.
It is necessary to undertake such a study with a new
approach and to renounce the à priori which has so far
accompanied the whole exercise: "the foundation is a
necessity and this cannot be discussed".
3. The allocation of extrabudgetary funds, gifts and
donations, and the expected resources from the eventual
"commercialization" exclusively to the sites inscribed on
the World Heritage List could have serious repercussions.
To neglect the non-inscribed sites is contrary to the text
and spirit of the 1972 Convention. But above all, this
risks to create a two-tier heritage: a privileged World
Heritage on the one hand, and on the other, national
treasures of remarkable value which, in the long-term,
would be given lesser consideration due to lack of funds
and promotion.
XV.17 Mr de Haes, in responding to the various
observations assured the Committee that the idea was not to
take World Heritage away from UNESCO nor to abandon
idealism for "commercialism". To give the World Heritage
a strong identity, distinct from that of UNESCO, does not
imply disassociation from UNESCO; to the contrary, the two
can and should be mutually supportive. If, however, the
objective is to raise funds from the private sector and to
build public awareness and support, as he understood his
assignment to be, "marketing" the "concept" of World
Heritage entails commercialization and benefits for the
sponsoring company. In response to the question of
competition, Mr de Haes replied that there is a limit to
funds for charity, and competition is increasingly strong,
hence evident that those organizations which can best
market their cause will obtain the funds.
XV.18 Mr Badran, as the Representative of the Director-
General thanked Mr de Haes for his excellent and thought-
provoking presentation and report as well as the logo
designs. Noting the strong links between UNESCO and the
World Heritage, which he felt was forcefully demonstrated
in Mr de Haes' treatment of the associated logo use
suggestions stated that this important issue of marketing
and fundraising needed to be discussed in greater details
by the Committee. He requested the Committee to come up
with specific decisions on the logo and on the future
course of activities for fundraising. On the internal
organization of functions within UNESCO raised by Mr de
Haes, Mr Badran assured the Committee that this is being
addressed by the Director-General who, as the first step
has already decided on the functional autonomy of the World
Heritage Centre and the delegation of authority to the
Director of the Centre. As well, he mentioned the
Director-General's readiness to absorb progressively the
*[74]
Centre's staff costs, especially for the General Service
staff, in future biennial allocations.
XV.19 The question of the logo was further touched upon
in Work Group 1, which prepared recommendations to the
Committee concerning the World Heritage Fund, the 1995
Budget and the future development of the World Heritage
Centre. When dealing with budget line 7 (Promotion and
Education) of Annex V, doc. WHC-94/CONF.003/10 and the
annex to doc. WHC-94/CONF.003/11, the Work Group decided to
delete US $ 50.000 foreseen for the protection of the World
Heritage Logo, and to reallocate these funds under other
budget lines. The Committee endorsed this by accepting the
overall 1995 budget proposal, as submitted by Work Group 1.
Information and education
XV.20 Introducing the second part of this item, i.e.,
the World Heritage information and education activities,
the Secretariat referred to parts A and B of work document
WHC-94/CONF.003/11 and the accompanying document WHC-
94/CONF.003/INF.11 which outlines UNESCO's interregional
project "Young People's Participation in World Heritage
Promotion and Preservation". The presentation focused on
two major sets of activities undertaken in the past year by
the Centre in cooperation with various units within and
outside UNESCO, notably, OPI, CLT, DIT, ED, SC/ENV, ICOMOS
and the Organization of World Heritage Cities. The first
set includes work on the development of an appropriate
World Heritage database and its linking up with other
relevant databanks and networks, such as INTERNET, an area
in which the World Heritage Centre has begun to develop
systematic cooperation, particularly with ICOMOS and the
OWHC (for specific data on cities). This further includes
preparation of information for the general public (brief
descriptions of all World Heritage sites), co-production of
films on specific WH properties, such as the film co-
produced with FR2 on Timbuktu, one of the sites on the List
of World Heritage in Danger, which was shown in more than
15 countries. Special attention is given under this heading
to the preparation of major photo exhibits of World
Heritage properties, such as the exhibits presented jointly
with CLT at the United Nations in New York, or the planned
exhibit "From Abou Simbel to Angkor" to mark the 50th
anniversary of UNESCO, and the photo-exhibit of some one
hundred cities with World Heritage sites, which is to be
presented next summer in Bergen, Norway, at the Second
General Assembly of the World Heritage Cities as well as in
Paris, New York, Geneva and other places. Such exhibits
have proven to be popular and are very much in demand by
the States Parties.
XV.21 The second set of activities undertaken by the
Centre in collaboration with different partners, in the
*[75]
first place the Education Sector and its Associated Schools
Project, various National Commissions for UNESCO, ICOMOS,
the IUCN and OWHC, aims at introducing World Heritage
awareness-building through schools and extra-curricula
programmes. Drawing upon the potential offered by the
networks of secondary schools, teachers' and parents'
associations, local communities (mostly through municipal
administrations of cities having World Heritage properties)
and other similar entities, the interregional project
"Young People's Participation in World Heritage Promotion
and Preservation" acts as a catalyst of the growing
interest for World Heritage that has been identified in at
least some thirty countries which participate in this
project. One of the project's highlights will thus be the
first "World Heritage Youth Forum", which will be hosted by
the Norwegian authorities in the City of Bergen, from 26 to
28 June 1995, as part of the Second General Assembly of the
World Heritage Cities. Its results are to be presented at
the 28th General Conference of UNESCO (October 1995) and to
be integrated into UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan 1996-2001.
Thanking the Norwegian authorities for all the support they
are giving to this project, the representative of the
Secretariat thanked also the Government of Sweden for
accepting to provide the World Heritage Centre in 1995 with
an associate expert who will be working on information and
education projects. Finally, it was underlined that this
project has attracted a major private sponsor, the Rhone-
Poulenc Corporation, whose financial assistance has made it
possible to enlarge the number of participating countries
in the project and to finance the presence in Bergen of the
representatives of the participating schools from some
thirty countries from all regions of the world.
XV.22 In the ensuing debate, the Chairman congratulated
the Secretariat for its achievements in this area and
informed the participants of the International Youth
Seminar for the Conservation of Cultural and Natural
Heritage which was organized by the Thai National
Commission for UNESCO and the Ministry of Education from 14
to 20 November 1994 in Bangkok and Sukhotai. The Delegate
of France also congratulated the Secretariat for its work
on consolidating a World Heritage database and its
commitment to develop appropriate pedagogic approaches and
material for World Heritage awareness-building. She
welcomed the Centre's cooperation with private sponsors
such as Rhone-Poulenc, Ford Foundation, Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co, etc. which, in their opinion, shows that
UNESCO is by itself able to attract important partners from
the private sector for at least some of its programmes. The
Representative of the IUCN informed briefly the Committee
of IUCN's promotion and education work, and reminded that
the World Monitoring Conservation Centre had an immense
databank which should be kept in mind. Finally, the
representative of the Secretariat, endorsed by the Delegate
of Spain and the Chairman, stressed the importance of
organizing even better in the future the exchange of
*[76]
information among WH sites and the Centre, which would be
reflected in The World Heritage Newsletter. The newsletter
enjoys a growing popularity and, although it has already
opened up to information coming from the advisory bodies,
its content could be enriched further by regular inputs
from the State Parties and the sites.
XVI. ORGANIZATION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES
IN 1995
XVI.1 The Committee took note of document WHC-94/CONF-
003/14 which reported on the deliberations of the
eighteenth session of the Bureau with regard to a proposal
for the modification of paragraphs 8 and 12 of Rule 13 of
the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly.
XVI.2 The Delegations of Italy and France presented the
following proposal for an amendment to the Rules of
Procedure:
"The proposal of the Bureau to simplify the procedures of
the election of the Committee is certainly to be supported.
However, we believe that a shift from the absolute majority
to a simple majority after only two ballots may be an
obstacle to the aim of obtaining the necessary consensus.
Therefore, it is proposed to shift to the simple majority
after four ballots and that the proposed amendments to the
Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly (Arts. 13.8,
13.9 and 13.10) be modified in this way."
This proposed amendment was endorsed by the Committee.
XVI.3 It was noted from the Chair that the Rules of
Procedure of the General Assembly could be changed only by
the General Assembly itself. Therefore the Committee's
proposal would be presented to the General Assembly for its
consideration.
XVII. DATE AND PLACE OF THE NINETEENTH SESSION OF THE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
XVII.1 The Committee decided that the nineteenth session
of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee would be held
at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 26 June - 1 July 1995,
pending confirmation of the availability of UNESCO
conference facilities for those dates. (Please see NOTE at
the bottom of this page.) 1
_________________________
1NOTE: Upon further consultation of the
Chairman and the Bureau members, it was
agreed that the nineteenth
session would be from 3 to 8 July 1995
in Paris.
*[77]
XVII.2 The Committee took note of the fact that the
UNIDROIT conference on cultural property would take place
in Rome from 5 to 23 June 1995.
XVII.3 The Provisional Agenda for the nineteenth session
of the Bureau as outlined in Document WHC-94/CONF.003.12
was adopted with the addition of the following items from
the agenda of the eighteenth session of the Committee which
time did not permit to be considered:
-- Revision of the Operational Guidelines
- Deadline for Presentation of Requests for
Technical Assistance for Consideration by the
Bureau;
- Establishment of the World Heritage List (Role of
the Advisory Bodies in the Evaluation of
Nominations);
- International Assistance (Approval of Requests
for Preparatory, Technical and Training
Assistance);
and with the addition of the following new agenda items:
-- Report by the World Heritage Committee to the 28th
General Conference of UNESCO;
-- Report on the Madrid expert meeting on Routes as
Cultural Heritage 24-25 November 1994);
-- Report on the Ottawa expert meeting on Heritage Canals
(15-19 September 1994);
-- Report on the forthcoming expert meeting proposed by
the Delegation of Germany on the procedure for
assessment of nominated natural sites with special
reference to "integrity."
XVII.4 The Secretariat noted that reports on the three
above-mentioned expert meetings could be included in Agenda
item 7: "Progress report on the implementation of the
Global Strategy."
XVIII. DATE AND PLACE OF THE NINETEENTH SESSION OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (DECEMBER 1995)
XVIII.1 The Delegate of Germany transmitted the
invitation of the German Government to host the nineteenth
session of the Committee in Berlin from 4 to 9 December
1995. The Committee session will be preceded by a meeting
of the Bureau to take place, also in Berlin, on 1 and 2
December 1995.
XVIII.2 The Chairman thanked the Delegate of Germany for
his Government's kind invitation which was warmly acclaimed
by all delegates.
*[78]
XIX. OTHER BUSINESS
XIX.1 There was no other business.
XX. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE AND
CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
XX.1 The Committee adopted the Report with a number of
amendments, most of them submitted in written form by the
Delegates and Observers, which have been taken into
consideration when preparing the final version of the
Report.
XX.2 The Delegate of France, speaking on behalf of the
participants, thanked the Chairman, Dr Adul Wichiencharoen,
for his efficient and wise chairing of the meeting and the
Royal Thai Government for hosting so graciously the
meeting. This was endorsed by the Delegate of Italy who,
moreover, thanked also the Secretariat for its
"understanding and remarkable efficiency".
XX.3 The Director of the World Heritage Centre, on
behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO, thanked the
Committee, its Chairman and the Rapporteur for a report
which was longer than any in the past, but which at the
same time was of good quality. He also thanked the
representatives of the advisory bodies for their constant
cooperation and the Royal Thai Government for the excellent
and most generous collaboration in the preparation of the
meeting.
XX.4 The Chairman, Dr Adul Wichiencharoen, thanked
everyone for the kind words addressed to the Royal Thai
Government and to him, personally, and reminded the
participants, in his closing remarks, of the irreplaceable
virtue of international cooperation as manifested in the
work of the World Heritage Committee. He thereupon
declared the closure of the eighteenth session of the
Committee.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ANNEX I
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU
COMITE
BRAZIL/BRESIL
Mr Antonio Luis DIAS de ANDRADE
Institut du Patrimoine historique et artistique
national
Mrs Maria Dolores PENNA DE ALMEIDA CUNHA
Second Secretary of the Embassy
Division of Intellectural Cooperation
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
CHINA/CHINE
Mr ZHANG Chongli
Deputy Secretary-General
Chinese National Commission for UNESCO
BEIJING 100 816
Mr GUO Zhan
Director, Division No.1
State Bureau of Cultural Relics
BEIJING 100 009
Mr JING Feng
Programme Officer
Chinese National Commission for UNESCO
BEIJING 100 816
Mr ZHOU Jinsheng
Executive Member, Association for the Protection of
Mountain Resort
CHENGDE CITY
Hebei Province
Mr XING Zhenfeng
Office of Foreign Affairs
CHENDGE CITY
Hebei Province
*[Annex I/2]
COLOMBIA/COLOMBIE
Ms Olga PIZANO
Deputy Director of Cultural Heritage
COLCULTURA
Colombian Isititute of Culture
Calle 9# 8-31
BOGOTA
CYPRUS/CHYPRE
Dr Sophocles HADJISAVVAS
Curator of Ancient Monuments
Department of Antiquities
Ministry of Communications and Works
NICOSIA
FRANCE
Mme Françoise BERCE
Conservateur Général du Patrimoine
Ministère de la Culture et de la Francophonie
PARIS
Mme Anne LEWIS-LOUBIGNAC
Conseiller technique
Commission nationale française pour l'UNESCO
42 avenue Raymond Poincar,
75116 PARIS
M. Jean-Louis PONS
Chargé de mission pour les Affaires internationales
à la Direction de la Nature et du Paysage
inistère de l'Environnement
Avenue du Saxe
75007 PARIS
M. Léon PRESSOUYRE
Vice-President
Université de Paris I
75005 PARIS
GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE
Dr Hans CASPARY
Conservator of Historic Monuments
Landesamt fur Denkmalpflege Rheinland-Pfalz
Gottelmannstrasse 17D-55130
MAINZ
*[Annex I/3]
Prof.Dr Harald PLACHTER
University of Marburg
Fachbereich Biologie
Karl-von-Frisch-Strasse
D-35032 MARBURG
Mr Thilo KOHLER
Federal Foreign Office (Referat 611-9)
Postfach 1148
D-53001 BONN
INDONESIA/INDONESIE
Mr SAMIDI
Head, Restoration Division
Directorate for Protection & Development of
Historical & Archaeological Heritage
Ministry of Education and Culture
JAKARTA
ITALY/ITALIE
Ministre Giorgio RADICATI
Chef de Bureau pour la coopération culturelle
multilaterale
Direction générale des Relations culturelles
Ministère des Affaires etrangères
ROME
Professeur Umberto LEANZA
Directeur de l'Institut de Droit international
Université "Tor Vergata"
ROME
Mrs Margherita SABATINI
Attachée au Secteur UNESCO
Direction général des Affaires culturelles
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
ROME
Mr Vitantonio BRUNO
Cabinet du Ministère des Biens culturels et naturels
Via Collegio Romano 27
00156 ROME
Mr Luciano MARCHETTI
Directeur et Coordinateur
Ministère des Biens culturels et naturels - sur
Intendence de Florence
Piazza Pitti 1
FLORENCE
*[Annex I/4]
JAPAN/JAPON
Mr Masaru WATANABE
Deputy Director
Second Cultural Affairs Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
TOKYO
Ms Fumiko ISHIDA
Section Chief
Planning Division
Nature Conservation Bureau
Environment Agency
TOKYO
Dr Akiyoshi WATANABE
Councillor on Cultural Properties
Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs
TOKYO
Dr Makoto MOTONAKA
Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties
Monuments and Sites Division
Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs
TOKYO
Dr Nobuko INABA
Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties
Monuments and Sites Division
Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs
TOKYO
Mr Mikito SAKATA
Assistant Director
Management Planning Division
National Forest Management Department
Forestry Agency
LEBANON/LIBAN
Mr Noel FATTAL
First Secretary
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Delegation of Lebanon to UNESCO
UNESCO House
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARIS
*[Annex I/5]
MEXICO/MEXIQUE
Mr Salvador DIAZ-BERRIO
Deputy Director
Technical Support and Training (INAH)
CORDOBA 45
Mexico D.F. 06710
NIGER
Mr Michel LE BERRE
Technical Advisor
EA631 Socio-Ecologie - UCBl1
43 Bd. 11-11-1918
69622 VILLEURBAUNE
France
OMAN
Dr Sadiq Bin Abdul Hussain AL-MASCATI
Director-General of Nature Protectorates
Ministry of Regional Municipalities and Environment
P.O. Box 461, P.C. 112
MUSCAT
PERU/PEROU
Dr Pedro GJURINOVIC
Chief
Instituto Nacional de Cultura
LIMA 1
Mr. Juan German KOSTER
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores
LIMA
PHILIPPINES
Mr Augusto F. VILLALON
Commissioner for Philippine Cultural Heritage
Philippine National Commission for UNESCO
107 Wilson Circle
SAN JUAN
1500 M. MANILA
SENEGAL
Mr Mbaye Bassine DIENG
Directeur
Patrimoine Historique et Ethnographique
Ministère de la Culture
B.P. 4001
DAKAR
*[Annex I/6]
SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Mr D. Jesús VINUELAS GONZALEZ
Director-General
Bellas Artes y Conservación y Restauración
de Biens Culturales
MADRID
Ms María MARINE
Deputy Director of Monuments and Archaeology
ICRBC GRECO
SN 25048 MADRID
THAILAND/THAILANDE
Professor Dr. Adul WICHIENCHAROEN
Chairman
National Committee for Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy & Planning
60/1 Phibulwattana, Rama 6 Road
BANGKOK 10400
M.C. Subhadradis DISKUL
Vice-Chairman
National Committee for Protectionof the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy & Planning
60/1 Phibulwattana, Rama 6 Road
BANGKOK 10400
Mr. Wadanyu NA THALANG
Member of National Environmental Board
901 Soi Tanakarn Akarnsongkroh
Ngamwongwan Road
NONTABURI 11000
Mr Sudjit NIMITKUL
Governor,
Phuket Province
Mr Pong LENG-EE
Director-General
Royal Forestry Department
BANGKOK 10900
Mr Sunthad SOMCHEVITA
Secretary-General
Office of Environmental Policy & Planning
60/1 Phibulwattana
Rama 6 oad
BANGKOK 10400
*[Annex I/7]
Mr Nikom MUSIGAKAMA
Inspector General
Ministry of Education
BANGKOK 10200
Mr Seree WANGPAICHITR
Governor
Tourism Authority of Thailand
372 Bamrung Muang Road
BANGKOK
Mr. Manit SIRIWAN
Director, Natural and Cultural Heritage
Conservation Division
Secretary to the National Committee for Protection of the
World Culture and Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy & Planning
60/1 Phibulwattana, Rama 6 Road
BANGKOK 10400
Mr. Norachai SRIPIMOL
Bureau of Budget
Rama 6 Road
BANGKOK 10400
Mr. Prachot SANGKANUKIJ
Director, Archaeology Division
Fine Arts Department
Si Ayutthaya Road
BANGKOK 10300
Mr. Montri CHUNTRUPOL
Tourism Authority of Thailand
372 Bamrung Muang Road
BANGKOK 10100
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
Mr Robert MILNE
Special Advisor,
International Affairs
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON D.C. 20013
Ms Sharon J. CLEARY
Chief, Office of International Affairs
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON D.C.20013
*[Annex I/8]
Mr E. Blaine CLIVER
Chief, Preservation Technology
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
P.O. Box 37127
WASHINGTON DC 20013-7127
II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY
CAPACITY/ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE
CONSULTATIF
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES/CONSEIL
INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS)
Mr Jean-Louis LUXEN
Secretary General
75 rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
Mr Henry CLEERE
World Heritage Co-ordinator
75, rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
Ms Carmen ANON FELIU
Member of the Executive Committee
Puerto Santamaria 49
MADRID 28043
Spain
Ms Regina DURIGHELLO
Assistant to the World Heritage Coordinator
75 rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
Mr Peter STOTT
ICOMOS-US
23 Bellevue Street
MEDFORD MA 02155, USA
THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)/UNION MONDIALE POUR LA
NATURE(UICN)
Dr James THORSELL
Senior Advisor - Natural Heritage
Rue Mauverney, 28
CH-1196 GLAND
Switzerland
Mr P.H.C. (Bing) LUCAS
1/268 Main Road
Tawa
WELLINGTON
New Zealand
*[Annex I/9]
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND
THE RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL
D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS
CULTURELS (ICCROM)
Mr Jukka JOKILEHTO
Chief
Architectural Conservation Programme
Via di S. Michele, 13
00153 ROME
Italy
III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS
ALGERIA
Mr Mohamed BEN GHERABI
Membre de l'Association "Sauvons le Casbah"
9 Rue Ruffon El Bier
ALGIER
Ms Fouzia BOUMEIZE
Membre Ministère des Affairs Etrangeres
ALGIER
Mr Houria BOUTTIRED
Secretaire général du Comite de "Casbah d'Algier"
Association "CASBAH"
9 Rue Buffon El Bier
ALGIER
ARGENTINA/ARGENTINE
Mr Hector ARENA
National Heritage Director
R.A. Siria 2885
BUENOS AIRES
AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE
Dr Warren NICHOLLS
World Heritage Unit
Department of the Environment, Sport & Territories
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA, ACT 2611
Dr Anthony PRESS
Australian Nature Conservation Agency
DARWIN
*[Annex I/10]
Mr Yami LESTER
Chairman, Uluru Kata Tjkatu Board of Management
P.O. Box 1260
DARWIN
Ms Barbara Tjkatu
Uluru Kata Tjuta Board of Management
ULURU
Ms Kunbry PEIPEI
Board Representative
P.O. Box 1260
DARWIN
Mr Jon WILLIS
Mututjulu Community
ULURU
Mr Robert OSBORNE
Harper-MacRae
38 Lodge Street
GLEBE, NSW
Mr Tony TJAMIWA
Board Representative
P.O. Box 1260
DARWIN
AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE
H.E. Mr Nikolaus SCHERK
Ambassador
Embassy of Austria in Thailand
BANGKOK
Thailand
CANADA
Mme Gisèle CANTIN
Chef, Affaires Internationales
Parcs Canada
Ministère du Patrimoine Canadien
25, rue Eddy
HULL, Quebec K1A OM5
CAMBODIA/CAMBODGE
Mr Molyvann VANN
Senior Minister in charge of Culture & Fine Arts
Council of Ministers
Phnom Penh
*[Annex I/11]
CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Mr Miroslav PODHAJSKY
First Secretary
Embassy of the Czech Republic
BANGKOK
Thailand
DENMARK/DANEMARK
Mr Allan ANDERSEN
Commercial Officer
The Royal Danish Embassy
BANGKOK
Thailand
ECUADOR/EQUATEUR
Mr Luis CARRERA DE LA TORRE
President of Environmental National Commission
Av. 10 de Agusto 3560
QUITO
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Ms Marja Terttu KNAPAS
Architectural Conservator National Board of Antiquities
Department of Historic Monuments
P.O. Box 187
00171 HELSINKI
HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE
H.E. Mr Ernesto Gallina
Archbishop, Apostolic Nuncio
Delegate for International Governmental Organizations
Vatican City
ROME
Reverand Father Carlo VELARDO
Skills Development Centre for the Blind
78/2 Tivanont Road
Pakkred
NONTHABURI 11120
Thailand
*[Annex I/12]
INDIA/INDE
Mr M. JAYARAMAN
Attache, and Assistant Permanent Representative of India
to ESCAP
Embassy of India
BANGKOK
Thailand
JAPAN/JAPON
Mr Masanobu NISHIMURU
Kyoto City Government
Kawaramachi OlKe
Nakagyo-Ku
604 KYOTO
Mr Masami NAKATSUJI
Kyoto City Government
Kawaramachi Olke
Nakagyo-Ku
604 KYOTO
Mr Yuga KARIYA
Kyoto City Government
Kawaramachi Olke
Nakagyo-Ku
604 KYOTO
KOREA/COREE
Mr Jae Hong LIM
Director
Human Rights and social Affairs Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
SEOUL
Mr Soo Young JEONG
Director
Department of Culture and Communication
Korean National Commission for UNESCO
SEOUL
Mr Jae Soo KANG
Assistant Director
Tangible Cultural Properties Division
Office of Cultural Properties
Ministry of Culture and Sports
SEOUL
*[Annex I/13]
LAOS DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE DEMOCRATIQUE
POPULAIRE LAO
Mr Bounhom CHANTHAMAT
Deputy-Director
Department of Archaeology and Museums
Ministry of Information and Culture
VIENTIANE
LUXEMBURG/LUXEMBOURG
Mr. Jean-Pierre KRAEMER
President
Luxemburg National Commission for UNESCO
LUXEMBURG
MALAYSIA/MALAYSIE
Mr Keromo PAIWAN
Department of Museums & Antiquity
Damansara Road
50566 KUALA LUMPAR
MYANMAR
Mr Nyunt HAN
Director
Department of Archaeology
32-D, 6 Mile,
YANGON
NORWAY/NORVEGE
Dr Oivind LUNDE
Director-General
Directorate for Cultural Heritage
P.O. Box 8196 Dep.
0034 OSLO
Ms Anne-Kristin ENDRESEN
Ass. Director-General
Ministry of Environment
P.O. Box 8013 Dep.
0030 OSLO
Ms Mari HAREIDE
Secretary-General
Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO
P.O. Box 1507 Vika
0117 OSLO
*[Annex I/14]
PAKISTAN
Mr S. Mushtaq H. RAZVEE
Counsellor & Alternate Permanent Representative
of Pakistan to UN ESCAP
Embassy of Pakistan
BANGKOK
Thailand
ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Mr Cristian MOISESCU
Director-General for Historical Monuments
Ministry of Culture
BUCHAREST
SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Mr Jozef BOZEK
Ambassador of the Slovak Republic in Thailand
BANGKOK
Thailand
SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE
Mr Joze OSTERMAN
State Secretary in the Ministry of Culture
61000 Lubljana
CANKARJEVA 5
SWEDEN/SUEDE
Ms Birgitta HOBERG
Principal Administrative Officer
Central Board of National Antiquities
and the National Historical Museum
P.O. Box 5405
11484 STOCKHOLM
Mr Per Olof JACOBSSON
Chairman
Planning and Building Committee
62011 HARDHEM
Ms Maria JONSSON
Chief, Regional Antiquarian
Gotland County Administrative Board
Lansstyrelsen
62185 VISBY
Mr Rolf LOFGREN
Conservation Officer
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
17186 SOLNA
*[Annex I/15]
Mr Ulf BJORKMAN
Head of the County Council of Tanum
Koltrastvagen 48
45731 TANUMSHEDE
Mr Henry CARLSSON
Member of the Tanum County Administrative Board
Ljungbytorp
45793 TANUMSHEDE
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Mr Thierry REGENASS
Attache
Swiss Embassy
BANGKOK
Thailand
VIETNAM/VIET NAM
Mr Nguyen Thanh SY
Chief of the Board for Culture and Information
Quang Ninh Province
Mr Truong Quoc BINH
Senior Expert
Cultural and Natural Sites
Ministry for Culture and Information
HANOI
Mr Dan Viet TRUNG
Permanent Secretary
Vietnamese National Commission for UNESCO
HANOI
IV. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ORGANISATIONS NON-
GOUVERNEMENTALES
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MUSEUMS/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES
MUSEES(ICOM)
Dr Don McMichael
P.O. Box 4
Monaro Crescent
ACT 2603
Australia
*[Annex I/16]
ORGANISATION OF WORLD HERITAGE CITIES/ORGANISATION DES
VILLES DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
Mr Marcel JUNIUS
Secrétaire général
56, rue Saint Pierre
QUEBEC G1H 4A1
Canada
Dr Celine SAUCIER
Directrice des projets speciaux
56, rue Saint Pierre
QUEBEC G1H 4A1
Canada
THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS/INSTITUT INDIEN DES
ARCHITECTS
Mr Akhtar CHAUHAN
c/o The Indian Institute of Architects
Prospect Chambers Annexe, 3rd floor
Dr. DN road, FORT
BOMBAY
India
VI. PRESS
Mr Kenji Goto
Mr Sathit Sanyawut
NTV
TOKYO
Japan
Mr Rachada Dangehamroon
Pacific News Centre
BANGKOK
Thailand
Mr Werapong Waitayawongskul
Television of Thailand Channel 11
PHUKET
Thailand
Mr Prasith Chueynark
Mrs Wanwipha Linoanda
Mr Pisek Manachit
Mr Vittasak Samuay
Radio Thailand
PHUKET
Thailand
*[Annex I/17]
Mr Wichai Paksawong
Mr Keartchai Juntaradat
Public Relations Department
Radio Thailand
PHUKET
Thailand
Mr Jalert Jeddawan
Mr Yotapan Sarayout
BANGKOK
Thailand
Mr Vichien Boonyaprasat
PRD
TV Thailand
PHUKET
Thailand
Ms Pornsiri Nakthongroop
Reporter
Thai News Agency
BANGKOK
Thailand
Mrs Achadtaya Chuenniran
Mr Tuanthong Sokmuang
Miss Thuenchai Kaokem
Reporters
PHUKET
Thailand
Mr Supachai Jirayut
Mr Phinyo Thummanon
Reporters
BANGKOK
Thailand
Mr Watchara Santakamonpong
Mass Communication Organization of Thailand
BANGKOK
Thailand
Mr Steve Rosse
The Nation
BANGKOK
Thailand
Mr Ron MOREAU
Newsweek Magazine
Bangkok Bureau Chief
BANGKOK
Ms Ellen Teper LOCHAYA
Associated Press (AP)
P.O. Box 261
83000 PHUKET
*[Annex I/18]
VII. SECRETARIAT
Mr Adnan BADRAN
Deputy Director-General a.i.
Mr Azedine BESCHAOUCH
Representative of the ADG/CLT
Mr Bernd von DROSTE
Director
World Heritage Centre
Ms Breda PAVLIC
World Heritage Centre
Ms Minja YANG
World Heritage Centre
Mr Laurent LEVI-STRAUSS
World Heritage Centre
Mr Harold EIDSVIK
World Heritage Centre
Mr Herman van HOOFF
World Heritage Centre
Mr Alexandre ANDREYEV
Interpretation Division
Ms Francesca TRUEL
Interpretation Division
Ms Jane DEGEORGES
World Heritage Centre
Ms Jocelyne POUTEAU
World Heritage Centre
Mr Sylvio MUTAL
UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project Manager
Casilla 4480
LIMA
Peru
Mr Charles de HAES
Special Advisor to the Director-General
Mr Hedayat AHMED
Director, UNESCO - PROAP Bangkok
Mr Richard ENGELHARDT
Regional Advisor for Culture in Asia/Pacific, Bangkok
Mr Natarajan ISHWARAN
UNESCO/ROSTSEA - Jakarta
*[Annex I/19]
Ms Valai NA POMBEJR
Specalist in International Education, Bangkok
Ms Reiko NOGUCHI
Press Officer, UNESCO/Bangkok
Ms Supimol VIJARNPOL
Secretary, UNESCO/Bangkok
Mr Paul Box
GIS Expert, UNESCO/Bangkok
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ANNEX II
Distribution limited WHC-94/CONF.003.1
Paris, September 1994
Original: English
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Eighteenth session
Phuket, Thailand
12-17 December 1994
PROVISIONAL AGENDA
1. Opening of the session by the Director-General of
UNESCO or his representative
2. Adoption of the Agenda
3. Election of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons and the
Rapporteur
4. Report on the activities undertaken by the Secretariat
since the seventeenth session of the Committee
5. Report of the Rapporteur of the sessions held in 1994
by the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
6. Constitution of working groups to examine specific
items on the Committee's agenda
7. Examination of UNESCO's Medium-Term Plan 1996-2001 and
World Heritage Conservation
8. Strengthening of the World Heritage Centre in 1994 and
its further development
9. Monitoring of the state of conservation of the World
Heritage cultural and natural properties, with
particular focus on properties inscribed on the List
of World Heritage in Danger
10. Progress report on the preparation of global strategy
for a representative World Heritage List
*[Annex II/2]
11. Information on tentative lists and examination of
nominations of cultural and natural properties to the
World Heritage List and List of World Heritage in
Danger
12. Requests for International Assistance
13. Examination of the World Heritage Fund and approval of
the budget for 1995, and presentation of a provisional
budget for 1996
14. Revision of the Operational Guidelines, including the
introduction of a new chapter on monitoring
15. Promotional activities, including adoption of a plan
for marketing and fund-raising
161. Organization of the General Assembly of
States Parties in 1995
17. Date and place of the nineteenth session of the Bureau
of the World Heritage Committee
18. Date and place of the nineteenth session of the World
Heritage Committee (December 1995)
19. Other business
20. Adoption of the Report of the Committee
21. Closure of the session
___________________________
1 This item was omitted in the draft Agenda
approved by the Bureau at its eighteenth session in July
1994 and is being submitted in accordance with the Report
of the Bureau. As regards the item "Evaluation of training
activities and definition of a future strategy", the
Secretariat proposes that it be postponed until the results
of the 1995 workshops are available.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ANNEX III
Address by Mr A. Badran
Deputy Director-General of UNESCO
at the 18th session of the World Heritage Committee
Phuket, Thailand, 12-17 December 1994
Madam Chairperson,
Honoured Representatives of the Government of Thailand,
Members of the World Heritage Committee,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is with great pleasure that I address again the
members of the World Heritage Committee, a year after its
successful meeting in Cartagena, Colombia, which I am happy
to recollect, thanks to the excellent organization and
charming hospitality of our Colombian hosts and in
particular you, Madam Pizano. I have every reason to
believe that the Committee's present session, hosted by the
Royal Thai Government in this magnificent place, and
organized by one of the Committee's most remarkable
members, Mr Wichiencharoen, and his team, will be another
important contribution to the further implementation of the
World Heritage Convention. Speaking on behalf of Mr
Federico Mayor, the Director-General of UNESCO, I wish to
thank the Royal Thai Government, and Mr Wichiencharoen in
particular, for this gracious hospitality.
A year ago, as you will remember, you entrusted me
to convey to the Director-General a number of suggestions
and recommendations the purpose of which was to increase
the World Heritage Centre's capacities to service rapidly
and effectively, the States Parties in all matters
concerning the implementation and promotion of the World
Heritage Convention. Today, I am happy to inform you that
the Director-General responded to this to the best of his
abilities, and that important results have been achieved in
these past twelve months. These are explained in more
detail in the report of the Secretary of the World Heritage
Convention, submitted to you for this session, and which
the Director of the World Heritage Centre will present to
you shortly. Allow me, however, to recall briefly some of
the initiatives undertaken, and to underline those for
which the Director-General wishes particularly to receive
your further reflections and possible guidance.
*[Annex III/]
As a result of your deliberations in Cartagena, the
Committee expressed "its strong concern that every effort
be made to secure funding and staff necessary to perform
adequately the tasks" and requested "the Director-General
to take this concern into consideration for further
action". Acting upon this, the Director-General therefore
added three professional posts (two P5 and one P4) to the
Centre's staff, one of them being an administration
officer. The Centre thus has today altogether nine
professional and three general service posts financed
through UNESCO's Regular Programme budget. The low number
of GS posts remains, obviously, a serious handicap, and we
hope to be able to improve this in the coming year.
As regards the funds allocated to the World Heritage
Centre under the Regular Programme, the total for 1994
amounts to just a little less than US $ 460,000. This may
seem as a relatively modest sum, but seen within the
context of UNESCO's entire Regular Programme budget, and
keeping in mind moreover that UNESCO contributes to the
Centre also "in kind", i.e., the office space,
infrastructure, etc., it is by no means insignificant.
However, the time may have come to envisage other
possible solutions by which to increase the Centre's
efficiency, and the Director-General has started to take
some steps in this direction. As you may well be aware, in
his oral report to the Executive Board at its recently held
145th session (October-November 1994), Mr Mayor stated: "I
find it is timely for UNESCO to take certain measures that
will institute the practical conditions for effective
functional autonomy of both IOC (Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission) and WHC (World Heritage Centre)
within the Organization. The procedures by which UNESCO
would confer to IOC and WHC an effective functional
autonomy in regard to administrative and financial aspects
would be based upon the successful modalities already
approved by the General Conference in regard to the
International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) and
the International Bureau of Education (IBE). In accordance
with the precedents established for these two institutions,
a proposal could be included within the Draft UNESCO
Programme and Budget for 1996-1997 (Draft 28 C/5) by which
UNESCO would provide its regular programme support to IOC
and WHC through a 'financial allocation'." (Footnote:
UNESCO document 145 EX/INF.3 Add.3: Introduction by the
Director-General to his Report on the Activities of the
Organization since the 144th session.) Consequently, this
idea has been further elaborated in Document CONF.003/5,
prepared for the present session. It is now up to you,
members of the World Heritage Committee, to examine the
proposal in view of its possible repercussions, and to
recommend to the Director-General further action in this
regard.
Similarly, acting upon your decision, taken at the
sixteenth session (Santa Fe, USA, December 1992), to
include among the strategic goals and objectives also the
need to "implement a professionally designed marketing
strategy to increase public awareness, involvement and
support", the Director-General commissioned a report to
that effect, prepared by his Special *[Annex III/3]
Adviser, Mr Charles de Haes, and Mr David Mitchell, which
you are invited to examine at this session. The Director-
General would appreciate receiving the Committee's advice
on all the points that you may wish to comment.
Specifically, as regards recommendations 1 to 5, he seeks
your views on the following: should there be a new World
Heritage logo, or should the existing one be kept but in a
revised (improved) version? What legal entity would be the
most appropriate owner of the WH logo, and would as such be
entrusted to license the use of the logo for commercial
purposes? One possibility would be that the World Heritage
Centre assumes this role, but you may have other proposals.
Furthermore, how much is the Committee willing to invest
for the legal protection of the WH logo? Finally, how to
ensure that World Heritage and UNESCO are mutually
supportive in the presentation of their respective logos?
Regarding recommendation 8, the Director-General
invites the Committee to express its views on contracting
private sector expertise for integrated communications and
fundraising. As for recommendations 6 and 7, both of which
concern directly the functioning of the WH Centre, in
addition to what I have already said on the subject of the
Centre's possible functional autonomy, let me underline
that the Director-General intends to define the
responsibilities of the Centre upon examining the
recommendations and decisions which will result from this
18th session of the World Heritage Committee.
The above-mentioned matters are certainly among the
topics which will be in the forefront of your
deliberations. Before concluding, however, I would like to
mention a few other points which merit to be brought to
your attention. The first of these is the decentralization
of the Centre's work, which would be an important future
task, should the Committee endorse this. In the past few
months, some of the States Parties, having anticipated such
a move, informed us of their readiness to provide
facilities, including personnel, for a possible
establishment of international World Heritage offices in
different parts of the world. Such eagerness may be an
encouraging sign but, here again, it is for the Committee
to examine what possible implications this may have in the
long run.
The Emergency Fund, established by the Committee last
year for the first time, has proven its great usefulness.
In the case of the Galapagos National Park, in which a fire
burned some 8,000 hectares of Isabela Island, US $ 50,000
were immediately provided out of this fund. The President
of Ecuador thanked the Director-General for the prompt
assistance provided by the WH Committee and the Centre. The
same amount of money was given to the Kahuzi-Biega National
Park and the Virunga National Park, in Zaire, both of which
are, as you know, the last reserves of mountain gorillas.
Due to the tragic events in Rwanda, both Parks have been
threatened by the massive arrival of refugees. Again, the
Chairperson's and the Centre's rapid action helped redress,
at least for the time being, the destabilization which
could have had irreversible consequences for the protected
fauna of these Parks.
*[Annex III/4]
These cases, as also those that have been perhaps less
dramatic, show clearly the importance of monitoring of the
state of conservation of the World Heritage properties,
which is one of the principal tasks of the Centre. The
Director-General is therefore happy that progress is being
made in the further development of a methodology of
systematic monitoring and reporting, which the Centre has
undertaken in cooperation with the Committee's advisory
bodies, namely ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN, and other experts.
Your further advice on this, once you have examined the
document prepared on this subject for this session,
(CONF.003/6), will be particularly helpful.
May I bring to your attention in this regard that the
Executive Board of UNESCO adopted at its recently held
145th session a resolution on "Preliminary proposals for
Medium-Term Planning from 1996 (28 C/4) and the Draft
Programme and Budget for 1996-1997 (28 C/5)" in which it
has stated, concerning the preservation of cultural
heritage, the following:
"(xiii) the monitoring of sites on the World Heritage
List should be undertaken in accordance with the Rules
of the World Heritage Convention and the guidelines
that should govern its implementation, keeping in mind
that Member States themselves will undertake the
monitoring of their World Heritage sites, in
consultation with UNESCO and other specialized
organizations."
Finally, I wish to underline that the Centre has
developed in the past year certain new projects which are
carried out in cooperation with other UNESCO units and
external partners. Among these, the Director-General is
particularly pleased with the Centre's interregional
project "Young People's Participation in World Heritage
Preservation and Promotion", which is being implemented
with the Sector for Education, other units in the
Secretariat, as well as some thirty National Commissions
for UNESCO and important external partners, among which
also the Rhone-Poulenc Company. (Detailed information on
this is given in Document CONF.003/INF.11). The entire
project, including next summer's "World Heritage Youth
Forum", to be hosted by Norway, is an innovation in many
respects, and may indeed be an important step in mobilizing
the enormous potential provided by schools, teachers'
associations, parent associations and the local communities
in general, for World Heritage awareness-building.
May I conclude on this hopeful note, and wish the
Committee, on behalf of the Director-General and
personally, every success in its deliberations.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ANNEX IV
ADDRESS
BY
HIS EXCELLENCY DR. PREECHA MUSIKUL
DEPUTY MINISTER OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
AT THE OPENING SESSION OF
THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION OF
THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
MONDAY, 12TH DECEMBER 1994
LE MERIDIEN PHUKET HOTEL,
PHUKET, THAILAND
Excellencies,
Distinguished Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
On behalf of the Royal Thai Government and the Prime
Minister who regrets his inability to be with you in
person, I have the honour and privilege to extend our warm
welcome to each and everyone present at the eighteenth
session of the World Heritage Committee and to express our
appreciation and gratitude to the Intergovernmental
Committee for accepting our invitation to hold its meeting
in Thailand, right here on Phuket Island with its natural
beauty and unspoilt charm.
First of all, I am pleased to say with certainty that
the Royal Thai Government cherish the philosophy and the
noble objectives of the Convention for the Protection of
the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. We fully share the
ideal that the cultural and natural properties of
outstanding universal value, to whatever States they may
belong, constitute as parts of the world heritage of
mankind as a whole, and that it is incumbent on Thailand to
join the international community to participate in the
collective efforts of safeguarding the heritage of all the
nations of the world. For these reasons, the Royal Thai
Government appreciate and attach great importance to the
tasks, the responsibility and the significant role of the
World Heritage Committee in implementing the provisions of
the Convention for the good of humanity.
*[Annex IV/2]
Following the acceptance of the World Heritage
Convention in 1987, Thailand was elected to the World
Heritage Committee in 1989. Since then, we have been even
more convinced of the effectiveness of the work and
activities of the World Heritage Committee as a mechanism
established by the Convention for international
co-operation and assistance designed to support State
Parties to the Convention in their efforts to protect and
conserve world heritage sites for the future of mankind.
With the valuable services and assistance provided by IUCN,
ICOMOS, ICCROM and the secretariat, the World Heritage
Committee has been able to alleviate the magnitude and the
gravity of the dangers threatening, directly or indirectly,
a number of properties on the World Heritage List.
On this special occasion for the Royal Thai Government
of having the opportunity of hosting the eighteenth session
of the World Heritage Committee, we, in Thailand, would
like to congratulate the Intergovernmental Committee for
its success in the implementation of its programmes and
projects to meet the requirements of Member States to
secure the protection, conservation, presentation or
rehabilitation of world heritage properties, as well as for
its discrete and effective use of the resources of the
World Heritage Fund established under the Convention for
such purposes. The forms of international assistance
provided by the World Heritage Committee are also
appropriate and carefully considered to meet the specific
needs of the recipient Member States, such as the provision
of experts, supply of equipment, training of staff and
specialists in the field of protection, conservation,
presentation and rehabilitation of the cultural and natural
heritage, studies concerning the artistic, scientific and
technical problems consistent with the objectives of the
Convention, as well as the emergency assistance wherever
and whenever there are such needs in the case of natural
calamities or man-made disasters. Thailand is dedicated
and fully committed to support the endeavours of the World
Heritage Committee to fulfill the noble objectives of the
Convention.
Again on this special occasion, I am pleased to
announce that, over and above Thailand's compulsory annual
contribution, the Royal Thai Government will be making a
voluntary contribution in the amount of three hundred
thousand Bahts to the World Heritage Fund.
*[Annex IV/3]
Lastly, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies
and gentlemen, allow me to say that I have no doubt that
the eighteenth session of the World Heritage Committee will
be a great success. But I also hope that in addition to the
tight schedules of meeting and strenuous work, you will be
able to find time to make use of the available facilities
so that your stay here will be an enjoyable, pleasant, and
memorable one.
I wish each and everyone all the best, and thank you
for your kind attention.
Thank You.