Limited Distribution SC/84/CONF.004/9
Buenos Aires, 2 November 1984
Original: English and French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC
AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD
CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
World Heritage Committee
Eighth Ordinary Session
Buenos Aires, Argentina, 29 October-2 November 1984
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The eighth session of the World Heritage Committee was held at the
Centro Cultural General San Martin, Buenos Aires, Argentina, from 29 October
- 2 November at the invitation of the Argentine authorities. It was attended
by the following States Members of the World Heritage Committee: Algeria,
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Cyprus, France, Germany (Fed. Rep. of), Guinea,
Italy, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Senegal,
Switzerland and Turkey.
2. Representatives of the International Council of Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS) and of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity.
3. Observers from 16 States Parties to the Convention, not members of
the Committee, were also present as follows: Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia,
Egypt, Holy See, Honduras, Iraq, Madagascar, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal~
Spain, United States of America, Yugoslavia. The Chairman of the International
Fund for the Promotion of Culture (IFPC) and a representative of the
International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA) also attended the
meeting. The full list of participants is found in Annex I to this report.
CLT-85/WS/11
*[2]
II. OPENING OF THE SESSION
4. A formal inauguration of the session took place in the main hall of
the Centro Cultural General San Martin. The Lord Mayor of the city of Buenos
Aires, Mr. S.C. Saguier, welcomed all participants and indicated how important
the work of the Convention was in protecting cultural and natural properties,
and stressed Argentina's full commitment to support its objectives.
5. Mr. M. Batisse, Assistant Director General (Science Sector), gave a
welcoming address on behalf of the Director General of Unesco in which he
explained the purpose, the functioning and the present situation of the
Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage. He stressed the importance and originality of the Convention and
the unanimous support it was receiving in the world. He recalled that Argentina
had already one property inscribed on the World Heritage List and that the
nominations of two more, namely a cultural property - the Ruins of the Jesuit
Missions of the Guaranis - and a natural property - Iguazu National Park
- would be examined by the Committee at this session.
6. The meeting was opened by the outgoing Chairman, Mrs. L. Vlad-Borrelli
(Italy) who welcomed all delegates and observers and thanked the Argentine
authorities for their invitation to host the meeting.
III. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
7. The Committee adopted the agenda for the meeting.
IV. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN AND RAPPORTEUR
8. Mr. Jorge Gazaneo (Argentina) was elected Chairman of the Committee
by acclamation. Mr. Lucien Chabason (France) was elected Rapporteur and the
representatives of the following States Parties were also elected by
acclamation as Vice-Chairmen: Algeria, Australia, Norway, Pakistan and Senegal.
V. REPORT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
9. Mr. Batisse, Assistant Director General (Science Sector) presented
the report of the Secretariat on the activities undertaken since the seventh
session of the Committee held in Florence, Italy, on 5-9 December 1983. He
noted that the Convention had since been ratified or accepted by another
five States (Mexico, Qatar, United Kingdom, Arab Republic of Yemen and Zambia)
bringing the total of States Parties to 83. However, in spite of this steady
progression, some large countries were still missing and the representation
of Asian countries was still to be strengthened. He indicated that 27 new
nominations to the World Heritage List, recommended by the Bureau at its
eighth session, would be examined by the Committee as well as 4 nominations
to the List of World Heritage in Danger, of which three concerned natural
sites. Mr. Batisse described the status of implementation of the technical
cooperation requests approved by the Committee at Florence, and of the "small
scale" technical cooperation, preparatory assistance and support for training
which had been approved by the Chairman of the Committee during 1984. He
*[3]
indicated that 9 new requests for technical cooperation were presented to
the Committee but that regrettably the sums requested largely exceeded the
possibilities of the World Heritage Fund. In this connection, he noted that
the financial situation was critical and would be a dominating topic of debate
for the Committee at this session. Mr. Batisse finally stressed that recent
debates within Unesco have shown the continued interest of all Member States
in the smooth and successful implementation of the Convention.
10. In commenting on the report of the representative of the Director
General, Mr. G. Whitlam, of Australia, indicated that it was gratifying to
note the continued expansion of the Convention and described efforts which
the President of the Australian Unesco National Commission and he himself
had made to encourage the ratification particularly of countries of S.E.
Asia and the Pacific.
11. Taking the floor as an observer, Mr. Bakri, Chairman of the International
Fund for the Promotion of Culture noted the critical situation of the World
Heritage Fund and indicated that a special meeting was to be held to study
means to generate income to this Fund and to the support of culture in general.
VI. REPORT OF THE EIGHTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE
12. Mr. da Silva Telles (Brazil), Rapporteur of the previous Bureau,
presented the report of the eighth session of the Bureau held on 4-7 June
1984. He furthermore presented a report of the complementary meeting of the
Bureau which had taken place on 29 October prior to the eighth session of
the Committee itself. This complementary Bureau meeting aimed first of all
at considering the conclusions of a group of experts brought together by
ICOMOS to study the criteria applicable to historic towns and secondly
examining the nominations of the historic centres of Quebec, Canada (N° 300)
and of Salvador, Brazil (N° 309) in the light of these conclusions. It was
attended by Mrs. Vlad-Borrelli (Chairperson), the representatives of Algeria,
Australia, Guinea and Norway (Vice-Chairmen), Mr. A. da Silva Telles,
Rapporteur, as well as the representatives of ICOMOS. The representatives
of Bulgaria, Cyprus and Senegal attended as observers.
13. The Bureau examined the conclusions of the Meeting of Experts to Consult
on Historic Towns which met in Paris from 5 to 7 September 1984 and which
was organised by ICOMOS. While commending ICOMOS for the work it had
accomplished and adopting the proposed methodology, the Bureau suggested
that several amendments might be made to this document, which was intended
for wide distribution as a set of guidelines. Moreover, at the proposal of
the representative of Guinea, the Bureau laid particular stress on the point
that in the selection of towns for inclusion in the World Heritage List,
the more general values of renown and cultural representativity should be
considered, in so far as possible, along with the technical criteria defined
by the experts. Since the selection of a town for inclusion in the World
Heritage List called for a common conservational effort by its inhabitants,
the latter must be closely associated with -any decision upon which the future
of the property in question depended.
14. After examining the ICOMOS report and the recommendations of the Bureau,
the Committee adopted the following text:
*[4]
'Article 1 of the Convention provides for the inclusion in the
World Heritage List of "groups of buildings: groups of separate
or connected buildings which, because of their architecture,
their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of
outstanding universal value from the point of view of history,
art or science".
Groups of urban buildings eligible for inclusion in the World Heritage List
fall into three main categories, namely:
i towns which are no longer inhabited but which provide immutable
archaeological evidence of a past; these generally satisfy the general
criterion of authenticity and can be easily managed;
ii historic towns which are still inhabited and which, by their very nature,
have developed and will continue to develop under the influence of socio-
economic and cultural change, a situation that renders the assessment of
their authenticity more difficult and any conservation policy more
problematical;
iii new towns of the twentieth century which paradoxically have something
in common with both the aforementioned categories: while their urban
organization is clearly recognizable and their authenticity is undeniable,
their future is unclear because their development cannot be controlled.
The assessment of towns that are no longer inhabited does not raise any
special difficulties other than those related to archaeological sites in
general. The general criterion of the uniqueness or exemplary character of a
town has been used to make decisions regarding cultural properties that are
clearly representative of a specific urban type or structure and contain dense
concentrations of monuments. Examples include Timgad (Algeria), Mohenjo-
Daro (Pakistan) and Machupicchu (Peru). Sometimes as in the case of Cyrene
(Libya) and Kilwa Kisiwani (Tanzania) the decisive criterion has been the
town's important historical associations.
It is important for urban archaeological sites to be listed as integral units.
A cluster of monuments or a small group of buildings is not adequate to
suggest the multiple and complex functions of a city which has disappeared;
remains of such a city should be preserved in their entirety together with
their natural surroundings whenever possible.
In the case of inhabited historic towns the difficulties are numerous, largely
owing to the fragility of their urban fabric (which has in many cases been
seriously disrupted since the advent of the industrial era) and the runaway
speed with which their surroundings have been urbanized. To qualify for
inclusion, towns should possess architectural interest and should not be
considered only on the intellectual grounds of the rule they may have played
in the past or their value as historical symbols under criterion (vi) of
the Guidelines. To be eligible for inclusion, the organization of space,
structure, materials, forms and, where possible, functions of a cultural
property should essentially reflect the civilization or succession of
civilizations which have prompted the nomination of the property.
*[5]
Four categories of towns can be distinguished:
1) Towns which are typical of a specific period of culture, which have been
almost wholly preserved and which have remained largely unaffected by
subsequent developments. Here the property to be listed is the entire town
together with its surroundings, which it is essential to protect as well.
Examples include Ouro Preto (Brazil) and Shibam (Democratic Yemen).
2) Towns that have evolved along characteristic lines and have preserved,
sometimes in the midst of exceptional natural surroundings, spatial
arrangements and structures that are typical of the successive stages in
their history. Here the clearly defined historic centre takes precedence
over the present-day outskirts. Examples include Cuzco (Peru), Berne
(Switzerland) and Split (Yugoslavia).
3) "Historic centres" that cover exactly the same area as ancient towns
and are now enclosed within modern cities. Here it is necessary to determine
the precise limits of the property in its widest historical dimensions and
to make appropriate provision for the management of its immediate
surroundings. Examples include Rome (Italy), the old city of Damascus (Syria),
and the Medina of Tunis (Tunisia).
4) Sectors, quarters or isolated units which, even in the residual state
in which they have survived, provide clear evidence of the character of a
historic town which has disappeared. In such cases surviving areas and
buildings should be adequate as an indication of the former whole. Examples
include the Islamic district of Cairo (Egypt) and the Bryggen district in
Bergen (Norway).
Historic centres and ancient districts should be listed only where they have
a large number of ancient buildings in a sufficiently good state of
preservation to provide a direct indication of the characteristic features
of a town of exceptional interest. Proposals regarding groups of isolated
and unrelated buildings which allegedly represent, in and of themselves,
a town whose urban fabric has ceased to be discernible should not be
encouraged.
However, proposals could be made regarding works that occupy a limited space
but have had a major influence on the history of town planning, such as the
squares of Nancy (France) and the Meidan-e-Shah square in Ispahan (Iran).
In such cases, the nomination should make it clear that it is the group of
monuments that is to be listed and the town is mentioned only incidentally
as the place where the property is located. Similarly, if a building of
clearly universal significance is located in severely degraded or
insufficiently representative surroundings, it should, of course, be listed
without any special reference to the town. Examples include the Mosque of
Cordoba (Spain) and the Cathedral of Amiens (France).
It is difficult to assess the quality of new towns of the twentieth century.
History alone will tell which of them will best serve as examples of
contemporary town planning. The files on these towns should be shelved until
all the traditional historic towns, which represent the most vulnerable part
of the human heritage, have been entered on the World Heritage List.
*[6]
In conclusion, under present conditions, preference should be given
inclusion in the World Heritage List of small or medium-sized towns, which
are in a position to manage any potential growth, rather than the great
metropolises, which cannot readily provide files that will serve as a
satisfactory basis for their inclusion as complete units.
In view of the effects which the inclusion of a town in the World Heritage
List could have on its future, this should remain a limited measure.
Inclusion in the List implies that legislative and administrative measures
must first be taken to secure the protection of the property and its
environment. Informed awareness on the part of the population concerned,
without whose active participation any conservation scheme would be
impractical, is also essential.
Unesco should be kept informed, through regular reports by competent
authorities, of the current situation of cultural property that is protected
under the World Heritage Convention.'
15. Consideration of nominations N°s 300 and 309
Noting that ICOMOS had been unable, between 7 September and 28 October
1984, to process the nominations of Quebec (N° 300) and Salvador (N° 309)
in accordance with its normal procedure, the Committee decided to defer the
consideration of those nominations until the 1985 session of the Bureau.
VII. TENTATIVE LISTS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES
16. As regards cultural properties, the Secretariat informed the States
Parties that the Committee would like to receive the tentative lists of
cultural properties of all States Parties wishing to submit subsequent
nominations. Jordan and Libya have sent their tentative lists to the
Secretariat, supplementing those already received from Brazil, Bulgaria,
Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, Lebanon,
Pakistan, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United States of America.
17. The representative of ICOMOS pointed out that the establishment of
such lists appeared to be easy for prehistoric properties, whereas, for other
types of properties, the lists which have bean received include properties
that are more of national, rather than universal, value. ICOMOS suggested
that the properties included in the national lists should be grouped under
various themes likely to give rise to international consensus, as those lists
help ICOMOS not only to understand the States Parties' perception of their
own heritage, but also to determine whether the tentative lists of other
countries do not include some other property of the same type that better
meets the criterion of outstanding universal value. ICOMOS, which conducts
its thematical comparison work, felt that it was therefore necessary to obtain
the lists requested: it could thus determine which properties, of those on
these lists were most likely to be included, eventually, on the World Heritage
List.
18. The Secretariat stressed the importance of a feedback between ICOMOS
and the States Parties after receiving the tentative lists, so that the latter
*[7]
can be informed of ICOMOS' reaction and proceed with the nomination of their
properties or with further elaborating their own selection criteria.
19. The representative of the Federal Republic of Germany commented on
the beneficial effect that such a dialogue could have for Federal States.
indeed, it might help persuade the local authorities that are responsible
for drawing up their own part of the tentative list to apply strict selection
criteria.
20. As concerns tentative lists of natural sites, the representative of
IUCN noted some differences between the needs for evaluation of cultural
and natural properties and suggested that indicative lists of natural
properties were not absolutely indispensable for IUCN to evaluate natural
nominations. In 1982, IUCN had prepared a publication on the "World's Greatest
Natural Areas" listing properties that in their view might be considered
to be of World Heritage quality. This document was being updated to
incorporate
sites for which further information had been gathered or to include new sites
which had bean recently discovered. The representative of the Federal Republic
of Germany welcomed the compilation of the IUCN indicative inventory,
particularly as it guided the identification of natural properties in
countries
with a federal system of government. The representative of Turkey noted that
the Turkish authorities responsible for natural heritage had drawn up an
indicative list of natural properties which might be considered for the World
Heritage List although the IUCN inventory had not identified these. The
representative of IUCN agreed that the inventory was incomplete and that
national indicative lists would greatly help IUCN to improve their inventory.
In this connection, the Committee noted that Bulgaria and France had just
submitted tentative lists of natural properties, which supplement those
received from Brazil, Canada, Italy, Portugal, USA and Turkey.
VIII. MIXED CULTURAL/NATURAL PROPERTIES AND RURAL LANDSCAPES
21. The Rapporteur, Mr. Chabason, brought up the question of mixed
cultural/natural properties and particularly of rural landscapes, which meet
criterion (iii) for natural sites as "exceptional combinations of natural
and cultural elements". Mr. Chabason described three types of problems
connected with such properties. The first was the question of identification
of exceptionally harmonious, beautiful, man-made landscapes as epitomized
by the terraced rice-fields of S.E. Asia, the terraced fields of the
Mediterranean Basin or by certain vineyard areas in Europe. In this respect,
criterion (iii) would have to be expanded to facilitate the identification
of such properties. The second question concerned the evolution (equilibrium,
transformation and regression) of such living landscapes in a similar manner
as the evolution of historic towns. The third problem concerned the integrity
of such landscapes which are seldom protected under national jurisdiction
and require the concerted effort of the various land-owners and land-users
in order to maintain their characteristics.
22. Finally, Mr. Chabason felt that the operational guidelines of the
Convention did not give sufficient guidance to States Parties regarding such
"mixed" properties and suggested that, on the occasion of the next Bureau
session, ICOMOS and IUCN call a meeting of a group of experts, including
geographers, to elaborate a working framework for the identification and
nomination of such properties.
*[8]
23. Several States Members of the Committee expressed their agreement with
Mr. Chabason's analysis and proposals. In particular, the representative
of Italy described the difficulty of maintaining the traditional agricultural
practices of the land around a given cultural monument. She also referred
to the First World Conference on Cultural Parks, organised by the U.S. National
Parks Service at Mesa Verde on 16-21 September 1984 and at which there had
been a long debate on how to define a "cultural park".
24. Mr. Batisse recalled that the spirit of the World Heritage Convention
was to place bath the cultural and natural heritage on an equal footing.
Accordingly, there should not be a polarisation towards either "culture"
or "nature" although there had perhaps been such a tendency in the past as
States Parties had initially nominated the properties which clearly met either
the cultural or natural criteria. In this respect, the representative of
ICOMOS emphasised the influence of the natural environment on the cultures
which have built the monuments of World Heritage quality. In his opinion,
however, the role of the Convention was not to "fix" such landscapes but
rather to conserve their harmony and stability within a dynamic, evolutive
framework. IUCN recalled that one of the eight types of "protected area"
recognised by their organisation was the "protected landscape" which included,
for example, the national parks of the United Kingdom which consist essentially
of man-modified and man-maintained landscapes. He warned, however, that care
should be taken in the identification of such landscapes to ensure the
nomination of only those properties of outstanding universal value. IUCN
was to discuss the topic of "mixed" World Heritage properties at the IUCN
General Assembly to be held in Madrid on 2-14 November 1984. Accordingly,
the Committee requested IUCN to consult with ICOMOS and the International
Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA) to elaborate guidelines for the
identification and nomination of mixed cultural/natural rural properties
or landscapes to be presented to the Bureau and the Committee at their
forthcoming sessions.
IX. NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
25. The Committee examined the nominations to the World Heritage List,
taking account of the Bureau 's recommendations and of the evaluations of
ICOMOS and IUCN for each property. The Committee decided to enter 23 cultural
and natural properties on the World Heritage List which are presented in
List A below . The Committee decided to defer a decision on four nominations
presented in List B below. Finally, the Committee decided not to inscribe
the eight properties presented in List C below.
*[9]
A. Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
Contracting State having Ident. Name of property Criteria
submitted the nomination No.
of the property in accord-
ance with the Convention
Argentina 291 Jesuit Missions of the C (iv)
Guaranis
Under this name, the Committee decided to include jointly in the World
Heritage List, along with Sao Miguel das Missoes, in Brazil (which is already
included), the four missions nominated by Argentina, i.e. San Ignacio Mini,
Santa Ana, Nuestra Senora de Loreto and Santa Marla la Mayor. It considered
it would be desirable that certain missions located in Paraguay and Uruguay
also be included in the World Heritage List, so that the whole group of
monuments might provide a representative illustration of the Jesuit missions
of the Guaranis. The Committee took this opportunity to invite the governments
of Paraguay and of Uruguay to adhere to the World Heritage Convention. In
addition, the Committee drew the attention of the authorities concerned to
the necessity of protecting the surroundings of the missions.
Argentina 303 Iguazú National Park N (iii)(iv)
The Committee noted with satisfaction that the Argentine authorities firmly
intend to expand the area of the Park and to complete the management plan in
conformity with IUCN's recommendations. The Committee was furthermore glad to
be informed by the representative of Brazil that the contiguous Iguaçu
National Park, on the Brazilian side of the river, would be nominated by the
end of 1984 so that both parks could constitute next year a transfrontier
World Heritage Site.
*[10]
Canada 304 Canadian Rocky N (i)(ii)(iii)
Mountain Parks
The Committee requested the Canadian authorities to consider adding the
adjacent Provincial Parks of Mount Robson, Hamber, Mount Assiniboine and
Kananskis to this property. Furthermore, the Committee agreed to incorporate
the Burgess Shale site in this property, which henceforth would not be
separately indicated on the World Heritage List. Finally, the Committee
decided that the site be designated as the "Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks" to
specify the precise boundary of the property within the entire chain of the
Rocky Mountains.
Colombia 285 Port, Fortresses and C (iv)(vi)
Group of Monuments,
Cartagena
Noting that the monuments and architectural ensembles included in the List
were located within the unique natural setting of the bay of Cartagena, the
Committee also recommended that the bay be given the best protection possible.
Germany (Fed. Rep. of) 288 The Castles of Augustusburg C (ii)(iv)
and Falkenlust at Bruhl
Holy See 286 Vatican City C (i)(ii)(iv)(vi
India 246 The Sun Temple, Konarak C (i)(iii)(vi)
India 249 Group of Monuments at C (i) (ii) (iii)
Mahabalipuram (vi)
*[11]
Lebanon 293 Anjar C (iii)(iv)
The Committee wished that strict protection be given not only to the
intra-muros vestiges but also to the building with a central courtyard
extra-muros in the east which had been brought to light. It also suggested
that the surroundings of the site, where a modern village was being developed,
be strictly protected.
Lebanon 294 Baalbek C (i)(iv)
The Committee, when inscribing this property, expressed the wish that the
protected area include the entire town within the Arab walls as well as the
south-western quarter extra- muros between Bastan-al-Khan, the Roman works and
the Mameluk mosque of Ras-al-Ain. During the discussion, the representative
of Lebanon assured the Committee that the authorities of this country would
follow these recommendations.
Lebanon 295 Byblos C (iii)(iv)(vi)
The Committee wished that this site be included in a wide area of protection,
encompassing besides the ancient habitat, the medieval city within the walls
and the area of the necropoles.
*[12]
Lebanon 299 Tyre C (iii)(vi)
The Committee decided to inscribe this site such as it was defined in the plan
submitted by the Lebanese authorities. The Committee furthermore requested the
Lebanese authorities to give details on the type of protection given within
and around the zones of protection indicated on the plan as uncontrolled urban
development should not destroy the old city.
Malawi 289 Lake Malawi National Park N (ii)(iii)
(iv)
The Committee was informed that the Malawi authorities had agreed to the
Bureau's recommendation to consider extending the area of the National Park.
The Committee, however, recommended that the Malawi authorities officially
adopt and implement the management plan that had been prepared for the Park
and to continue research on the Park's natural resources.
Nepal 284 Royal Chitwan National Park N (ii)(iii)
(iv)
The Committee noted that there was only a remote possibility that the proposed
pulp mills be constructed on the Narayani River but requested that the
Nepalese authorities keep it informed of any developments in this respect
which could affect the Park.
Spain 313 The Mosque of Cordoba C (i)(ii)
(iii)(iv)
*[13]
Spain 314 The Albambra and the C (i)(iii)(iv)
Generalife, Granada
The Committee expressed the wish that, as indicated by the Spanish
authorities, a large protection zone will ensure that the visual environment
of this property will not be harmed by modern constructions.
Spain 316 Burgos Cathedral C (ii)(iv)(vi)
Spain 318 Monastery and site of the C (i)(ii)(vi)
Escurial, Madrid
The Committee called the Spanish authorities' attention to the importance of
strictly protecting the natural environment which is inseparable from this
monument.
Spain 320 Parque Guell, Palacio C (i)(ii)(vi)
Guell and Casa Mila, in
Barcelona
United States of America 307 The Statue of Liberty C (i)(vi)
United States of America 308 Yosemite National Park N(i)(ii)(iii)
In response to the Bureau's request on clarification of the status of the
proposed dam constructions in proximity of this property, the Committee noted
that the authorities had assured that the implementation of such proposals was
highly unlikely. The Committee nevertheless requested to be informed by the
American authorities of any developments in this respect which could affect
the Park. It also noted with interest that the relevant authorities had the
intention to implement a programme to reduce the impact of tourism.
*[14]
Zaire 280 Salonga National Park N (ii)(iii)
The Committee requested the Zaire authorities to proceed as soon as possible
to prepare and implement a management plan for the Park with due regard to
creating an appropriate corridor linking the two sectors of the National Park.
Zimbabwe 302 Mana Pools National Park, N (ii)(iii)
Sapi and Chewore Safari (iv)
Areas
The Committee requested to be kept informed by the Zimbabwian authorities of
the possible construction of a new dam on the Zambezi at Mapata Gorge. The
Committee also requested the Zambian authorities to consider nominating the
adjacent Lower Zambezi National Park in order to eventually constitute a joint
inscription on the World Heritage List.
B. Deferred nominations
Bangladesh 321 The Historic Mosque City of Bagerhat
The Committee decided to defer the inscription of the property until the
authorities of Bangladesh had given the assurances which the Bureau had
requested at its eighth session with regard to: - the highway which is now
planned to traverse this site and which could be re-routed as suggested by
ICOMOS; - the elaboration of a preservation and management plan along the
lines of the conclusions of the Unesco mission which took place in 1983.
*[15]
Bangladesh 322 Ruins of the Buddhist Vihara at Paharpur
The Committee decided to defer the inscription of this property until the
Bangladesh authorities had given assurances concerning the application of the
measures proposed by the same Unesco mission, particularly with a view to
avoiding the installation of mining industries in the ~proximity of the
monastery.
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 287 Prehistoric Rock-art Sites of Tadrart Acacus
The examination of this nomination was deterred at the request of the
representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
Lebanon 297 Sidon
The Committee deferred the examination of this nomination pending a response
from the Lebanese government to the Bureau's request to nominate only the
Sanctuary of Echmun.
C. Nominations not to be considered for inclusion in the World Heritage List
Costa Rica 106 National Archaeological Park of Guayabo
de Turrialba
The Committee considered that in its current state, this site did not fulfil
the criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List. A new nomination
could be presented in the event that the excavations (which will no doubt need
to be continued for a considerable time) produce results of exceptional
universal interest.
*[16]
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 301 Archaeological Site of Ptolemais (Tolmeita)
The Committee, while taking account of the great importance of this site for
the Libyan national heritage, felt that it did not fulfil the criteria of
"outstanding universal value" as understood by the World Heritage Committee.
Lebanon 298 Tripoli
The Committee asked to draw the Government's attention to the fact that
urbanisation and factory pollution were threatening this site which, although
it does not fulfil the World Heritage criteria, is of great value in the
Lebanese national Heritage.
Lebanon 296 Deir el-Qamar and Beit Ed-Dine
The Committee, while taking account of the great importance of this site for
the Lebanese national heritage, felt that it did not fulfil the criteria of
"outstanding universal value" as understood by the World Heritage Committee.
Malawi 290 Nyika National Park
Although this property does not fulfil the World Heritage criteria of
outstanding universal value, the Committee however noted the importance of
this property on the national and regional levels.
*[17]
Pakistan 176 Rani Kot Fort (Kirthar National Park)
The Committee, while taking account of the great importance of this site for
the Pakistani national Heritage, felt that it did not fulfil the criteria of
"outstanding universal value" as understood by the World Heritage Committee.
Zaire 281 Maiko National Park
The Committee noted that the natural features of this property were well
represented in other World Heritage properties and that the criterion of
integrity was not fulfilled. Although this property does not meet the criteria
for inscription on the World Heritage List, the Committee recommended that the
Zaire authorities take all the necessary steps to safeguard this highly
valuable site which constitutes one of the largest tracts of primary forest
remaining in Africa.
Zaire 283 Kundelungu National Park
This park did not meet World Heritage criteria and its integrity was in doubt.
The committee however recommended that the Zairois authorities be encouraged
to strengthen the protection of this very important park.
*[18]
X. NOMINATIONS TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
26. The Committee examined four nominations to the List of World Heritage
in Danger submitted by the States Parties concerned. The Committee noted
the recommendations of ICOMOS and IUCN and made the following decisions:
Wieliczka Salt Mine (Poland)
ICOMOS provided the Committee with the information which the Polish
authorities had given for this property. The Committee considered that there
was insufficient geological information at present to evaluate the dangers
facing this property. The Committee therefore decided to defer a decision on
this nomination until more information had been obtained and expressed the
wish that in the meantime the national authorities concerned ensure the
necessary protection.
Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)
The Committee was informed by IUCN that the immediate threat posed by the
earthen dam upstream from this property had been removed since the recent
rains had been sufficiently abundant to wash this temporary dam away. However,
the longer term threat posed by the dam to be constructed down-stream still
remained and still seriously jeopardised the future of this site. Taking
IUCN's comments and recommendations into account, and the response of the
Senegalese authorities to the Director General 's request, the Committee decided
to inscribe Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary on the List of World Heritage
in Danger.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania)
The IUCN representative presented the evaluation of the conservation status
of this property which had regrettably continued to decline and noted that
the Tanzanian authorities had recently responded positively to the request
of the Director General to inscribe this property on the List of World Heritage
in Danger. Taking account of IUCN's observations, the Committee decided to
inscribe Ngorongoro Conservation Area on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Garamba National Park (Zaire)
The Committee took note of IUCN's evaluation of this nomination and of up-
to-date information on the very critical situation of the white rhinoceros
population, now estimated to total less than 15 specimens, which means this
sub-species is severely threatened. The Committee noted IUCN's observations
and the positive response of the Zaire authorities to the Director General's
letter and decided to inscribe Garamba National Park on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
27. Mr. Batisse, on noting the Committee's decision to inscribe the 3 natural
sites described above on the List of World Heritage in Danger, remarked that
these inscriptions would constitute a test of the effectiveness of the
Convention on mobilising public opinion and solidarity to provide the important
national or international support necessary for their preservation.
*[19]
XI. STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND BUDGET FOR 1985
28. Mr. Batisse introduced the documents presenting the statements on
mandatory contributions and voluntary contributions to the World Heritage
Fund. He noted that several States Parties were still in arrears regarding
their contributions, whether mandatory or voluntary, under the terms of the
Convention.
29. Several States Parties, namely Australia, Bulgaria, France, Federal
Republic of Germany, Spain and USA informed the Committee that they had made
contributions since the date of the closure of the accounts or would soon
do so.
30. Regarding voluntary contributions in particular, the Committee recalled
that Article 16, paragraph 4 of the Convention, stipulates that these
contributions "... shall be paid on a regular basis, at least every two years,
and should not be less than the contributions which they (States Parties
having opted for voluntary contributions) should have paid if they had been
bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article." (mandatory
contributions amounting at present to 1% of the annual contribution of States
Parties to Unesco). In this respect the Committee appreciated the presentation
of the statement on voluntary contributions, as had been requested by the
Bureau at its eighth session.
31. The Committee reminded States Parties which had opted for voluntary
contributions that, in accordance with Article 16, paragraph 4 of the
Convention, they had the moral obligation to pay a contribution equivalent
to at least 1%. The Committee therefore appealed to such States Parties to
take the necessary measures to meet this objective. At the same time, the
Committee requested all States Parties making mandatory contributions to
pay any amounts in arrears at the earliest possible moment and asked the
Secretariat to remind these States Parties, as appropriate.
32. The Committee took note that the financial situation of the World
Heritage Fund was somewhat more optimistic than had been foreseen at the
time of the eighth session of the Bureau due to the fact that certain
contributions had been paid since that date and the Secretariat, in accordance
with the request of the Bureau, had made substantial savings on the 1984
approved budget. The Committee noted that the actual amount of cash-in-hand
at the time of its eighth session was estimated at approximately $830,000,
that is, not taking account of receivable mandatory contributions or imminent
payments.
33. In the light of these considerations, the Committee decided to adopt
the following budget:
*[20]
US $
I. Preparatory assistance and regional studies 60,000
II. Technical cooperation: 200,000
III. Training 150,000
IV. Emergency assistance 50,000
V. Promotional activities and information 70,000
VI. Advisory services:
- ICOMOS: 65,000
- IUCN: 35,000
-------- 100,000
VII. Temporary assistance to the Secretariat 90,000
_______
Sub-total 720,000
Reserve fund 80,000
Contingencies 3% 24,000
_______
Total 824,000
=======
XII. REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL COOPERATION
34. The Committee noted that the total of the sums requested for technical
cooperation greatly exceeded the allocation of $200,000 which the Committee
had approved for technical cooperation in 1985. The Committee decided,
therefore, that for this year technical cooperation projects should not exceed
$20,000 each, and that no individual decisions would be taken on these requests
before their further study and evaluation. The Committee asked the Secretariat
to further consult with the countries concerned and with ICOMOS and IUCN
as appropriate and to submit these requests directly to the Chairman of the
Committee who, in accordance with paragraph 71 of the Operational Guidelines,
had the authority to approve technical cooperation requests up to an amount
of $20,000. The Secretariat would then report on the Chairman's decisions
at the ninth session of the Bureau in 1985.
35. The Committee took note that although such financial support appeared
very modest in relation to the projects concerned, the World Heritage Fund
should essentially play a catalytic role in assisting States Parties to procure
the necessary funds to safeguard World Heritage properties. The World Heritage
Fund should not be used for subventions of activities which normally should
be supported at the national level, e.g. to cover the salaries of the personnel
ensuring the protection of World Heritage properties or to cover the costs
*[21]
of long-term training programmes. It rather should be used for specific,
limited projects and to help the State Party concerned to more easily seek
other sources of funds, including under bilateral cooperation agreements.
36. In this connection, the Committee requested the Secretariat, in
consultation with ICOMOS and IUCN, to draw up a set of guidelines for technical
cooperation and training requests, which should be relevant to the protection
of properties on the World Heritage List and which should help States Parties
to prepare their technical cooperation requests on the basis of established
rules.
XIII. PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTIES INCLUDED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE
LIST
37. The Secretariat informed the Committee of two activities being carried
out since the sixth session concerning the management of cultural properties
inscribed on the World Heritage List. One concerned the preparation of a
"Handbook on Managing World Heritage" which deals with the preservation of
these properties, ranging from general principles and legal considerations
to practical means for carrying out a management programme. The outline was
elaborated by an international group of experts during a meeting organised
by ICCROM and ICOMOS in 1983 at the suggestion of the Secretariat.
38. The Secretariat and ICOMOS have furthermore started to prepare new
World Heritage nomination forms which would facilitate the protection and
management of cultural sites once inscribed on the World Heritage List. There
will be several types of these forms. It is foreseen to use different forms
for individual monuments and for groups of monuments. For each of these
categories there will be first of all a basic form or simplified nomination
dossier, which will allow an appreciation of the value of the property and
to decide whether it is justified to proceed with further study. There will
also be a detailed form providing a comprehensive description of the property
which is an indispensable pre-requisite for its nomination to the World
Heritage List. This form will provide information on the condition of the
property, the threats which it faces and the protection afforded. It will
be possible to update this information and thereby follow any changes in
the conservation status of the property. The Committee expressed its agreement
with these two initiatives.
39. The Committee took note of document SC/84/CONF.004/7 in which the
Australian authorities, at the request of the Bureau at its eighth session,
submitted a brief commentary on the judgement of the High Court of Australia
regarding Western Tasmanian National Parks. The Committee agreed that the
Tasmanian case gave an example of the strength of the Convention, particularly
for States Parties having a similar system of Federal Government. The Committee
requested the Secretariat to distribute this document to all the other States
Parties to the Convention.
40. The Representative of IUCN recalled that the Committee at its seventh
session had encouraged the advisory non-governmental organisations to collect
information through their contacts and to inform the Committee on the state
of conservation of World Heritage properties. IUCN reported to the Committee
on four natural properties as follows:
*[22]
a) Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
IUCN reported that the National Park personnel had apparently abandoned this
park and that the area has been in the hands of armed groups. Although the
group had informally assured IUCN that no damage had occurred in the park,
however, IUCN still did not possess precise up-to-date information on the
conservation status of this site. The Committee requested the Secretariat
to invite the Ethiopian authorities to supply all possible information on
the subject.
b) Mount Nimba (Guinea and Ivory Coast)
IUCN recalled that the workshop supported by the World Heritage Fund to
establish a research programme and an integrated management plan for this
property had taken place at Mount Nimba in December 1983. The report of this
workshop had stressed that the property is under severe pressure from poaching.
The situation is further exacerbated by the lack of trained personnel and
surveillance patrols. Considerable support had been already provided from
the World Heritage Fund, including a financial contribution to the costs
of constructing mountain shelters for the patrols. The representative of
Guinea agreed that the situation was critical and the Committee requested
the Secretariat and the Chairman of the Committee to draw the Guinean
authorities' attention to the need to ensure the protection of this World
Heritage property.
c) Tai National Park (Ivory Coast)
IUCN reported that this site was still under very serious threat due to
poaching, gold prospection, tree-felling, and subsequent encroachment. The
World Wildlife Fund had bean discussing the means whereby international support
could be raised to mitigate the situation. IUCN noted that unless conditions
improved, this property might have to be recommended for inscription in the
List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested the Secretariat
to draw the attention of the Ivory Coast authorities on the need to ensure
the protection of this World Heritage property.
d) Durmitor National Park (Yugoslavia)
IUCN informed the Committee that three of the republics of Yugoslavia planned
to construct a hydro-electric dam which would flood a large part of the Tara
River Canyon in Durmitor National park, and that the construction of a lead
processing factory threatened to pollute the area. The observer from Yugoslavia
confirmed that these threats still exist and that meetings were being held
in Yugoslavia to try to resolve the problem. The Committee requested the
Secretariat to invite the Yugoslav authorities to keep it informed of the
situation and to report to the Bureau at its next session.
XIV. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
41. The Committee examined the report on promotional activities which
summarised the work undertaken aiming at making the Convention and the
properties inscribed on the World Heritage List better known to the general
public and at generating income to the World Heritage Fund. The Committee
*[23]
noted that due to various reasons, the Secretariat had not managed to
accomplish all the activities that had been planned but that this type of
activity would be given priority in the near future.
42. The representatives of several States Parties expressed their interest
in the ceremonies to inaugurate plaques commemorating the inscription of
specific properties on the World Heritage List, at which the Director General
of Unesco, or his representative, or the Chairman of the World Heritage
Committee' were invited to attend. As the texts, design and material of such
plaques were not always identical, the Committee requested the Secretariat
to prepare guidelines on the preparation of these plaques, to be examined
by the Bureau at its next session, with a view to obtaining a standard model
which may be used by other States Parties as they so desired.
XV. DATE AND PLACE OF NINTH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
43. In order to take various circumstances into account, the Committee
decided to request its Bureau to fix the date and place of the ninth session
of the Committee, in consultation with the Director General, and taking into
consideration the possibility to hold this session at Unesco's headquarters.
XVI TRIBUTE TO MRS. INDIRA GANDHI
44. The Committee, hearing of the death of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, which had
occurred a few hours earlier, observed a minute of silence in tribute to
her memory.
XVII. OTHER BUSINESS
45. The representative of Panama informed the Committee that, in accordance
with the Committee's decision regarding requests for technical cooperation
(paragraph 34 of this report), the Chairman had just approved a contribution
of US$20,000 towards the request for support for Darien National Park, plus
another US$6,000 for support to the training of the personnel of this park.
On behalf of his government, he thanked the Committee for this assistance.
46. The representative of the Holy See recalled that the Unesco General
Conference, at its 21st Session, had invited the Holy See to accede to the
World Heritage Convention in order that the Vatican City could be nominated
to the World Heritage List. He therefore expressed his satisfaction that
this invitation had resulted in the inscription of the Vatican City by the
unanimous decision of the Committee at this session.
XVIII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
47. Mr. Carlos Gorostiza, Secretary to the Ministry of Culture of Argentina,
congratulated the World Heritage Committee on the success of its work. The
Governor of the Province of Misiones, Mr. Ricardo Barrios Arrechea, then
invited all participants to visit Iguazu National Park and the Jesuit Missions
of the Guaranis which had just been inscribed on the World Heritage List.
After thanking all those who had contributed to the meeting, the Chairman,
Mr. J. Gazaneo, then closed the session.