Distribution limited WHC-92/CONF.002/1214 December 1992

Original: English/French

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURALORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THEWORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

sixteenth session(Santa Fe, united States of America, 7-14 December 1992)

REPORT

STRUCTURE o F THE REPORT

OPENING CEREMONYAND ELECTION OF THE NEW BUREAU

REPORTS

(Secretariat Rapporteur)

EVALUATION AND STRATEGIC ORIENTATIONS

MONITORING

PROMOTION

NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

1993 BUDGET

REVISION OF THE GUIDELINES(Criteria)

CLOSING SESSION

1

I. INTRODUCTION

I. 1 The sixteenth ordinary session of the World HeritageCommittee was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, united States ofAmerica, from 7 to 14 December 1992. It was attended by thefollowing members of the Committee: Brazil, China (People'sRepublic of), Colombia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Germany,Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines,Spain, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia andthe united States of America.

1.2 The following States Parties to the Convention whoare not members of the Committee were represented byobservers: Algeria, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, BUlgaria,Canada, Czech & Slovak Federal Republic, Finland, Greece,Guinea, Holy See, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Russia andswitzerland.

1.3 Representatives of the International Centre for theStudy of the Preservation and the Restoration of the CulturalProperty (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments andsites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN)attended the meeting in an advisory capacity. The completelist of participants is given in the Annex I.

II. OPENING SESSION

11.1 The outgoing Chairman of the Committee, Mr. AzedineBeschaouch, opened the session by thanking the authorities ofthe united states of America, namely the Honourable Mr. ManuelLujan, Secretary of the Interior and the Honourable Mr. BruceKing, Governor of New Mexico, for inviting the Committee toconvene its sixteenth session in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Mr.Beschaouch called the attention of the delegates to the factthat in 1992 the Convention completed 20 years of successfulwork since the adoption of the Convention and paid tribute toseveral persons who conceived the notion of world heritage anddrafted the text of the Convention, such as Messrs. GerardBolla and Russell Train who are present at this openingsession, and Messrs. Michel Batisse, Michel Parent, AhmedDarragi and the late Selim Adel Abdulhaq.

11.2 The Governor of New Mexico, Mr. Bruce King, welcomedthe delegates and participants and thanked the Committee foraccepting the invitation of the Government of the unitedstates of America and selecting Santa Fe as the venue forconvening its sixteenth session. He informed the delegatesthat Santa Fe was one of the oldest cities in the country and

2

had a population comprising many different cultures. Hehighlighted the fact that since it was located in thesouthwestern part of the united states where several WorldHeritage sites were situated, and due to its sceniclandscapes, Santa Fe provided an ideal location for such aninternational event.

11.3 The united states Secretary of the Interior, theHonourable Mr. Manuel Lujan, was introduced to the delegatesby Ms Jennifer Salisbury, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fishand wildlife and Parks. Mr. Lujan conveyed the greetings ofMr. George Bush, President of the United States of America.He remarked that world heritage was a noble idea whichmaintains that some scenic, historic and natural sites in theworld are so unique that the entire international community isresponsible for their conservation. He pointed out that thecompletion of the work of 20 years of the Convention is a timefor celebration as well as for serious reflection regardingthe future. He urged the Committee to be innovative inparticular when addressing the problems facing theconservation of World Heritage sites. He noted with regretthe lack of public awareness of the work of the Convention, inmost States Parties, including the united States of America.He informed the delegates that the US National Park Servicewas bringing together 16 World Heritage site managers at thetime of the sixteenth session of the Committee, to meet anddevelop a strategy for drawing up awareness and interpretationprogrammes specifically designed to inform the American publicof the universal significance of World Heritage sites. Heconcluded by pointing out that the next two years will be acritical time for the Committee, since during that time thework of the Convention in conserving the world's cultural andnatural heritage could either become renowned or beovershadowed by the work of a number of other conventionswhich are currently being elaborated by the internationalcommunity.

11.4 Mr. Russell Train, one of the founding fathers ofthe World Heritage Convention and currently the Chairman ofthe World wildlife Fund-US, was introduced to the delegates byMr. James Thorsell, IUCN's Senior Adviser for NaturalHeritage. Mr. Train commenced his address by paying tributeto all those who dedicated their life towards the conservationof the world's cultural and natural heritage. He emphasizedthat the concept of World Heritage is the internationalcommunity's acknowledgement of its shared responsibility toprotect the global commons. He briefly recapitulated thesequence of historical events which led to the elaboration ofthe World Heritage Convention and its adoption by UNESCO'sGeneral Conference in 1972. He noted that the original draftof the Convention was submitted to the UN Conference on theHuman Environment which was held in Stockholm, Sweden, in

3

1972. He highlighted the fact that the UN Conference onEnvironment and Development, recently concluded in July 1992in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, marked 20 yea~s of increasingenvironmental awareness among the nations of the world, duringwhich time the World Heritage Convention has contributedsignificantly to the conservation of the world's cultural andnatural heritage.

11.5 Mr. Train emphasized that the World HeritageConvention has been successful in establishing a system foridentifying and declaring sites of outstanding universal valueand providing an on-going mechanism of international co­operation for the conservation of such sites. He observedthat the recognition conferred under the Convention hasincreased visitation rates in some sites and contributed tothe improvement of management infrastructure and humanresource development in others. Mr. Train, however, cautionedstates Parties against complacency since many World Heritagesites faced serious threats due to industrial development andcivil unrest.

11.6 He drew the attention of the delegates to the factthat while all countries recognized the significance of thework of the Convention, not all of them were forthcoming inincreasing their financial contributions to the Fund in orderto address conservation problems faced by World Heritagelisted sites. After recognizing the value of effortsundertaken by the Committee to evaluate 20 years of the workof the Convention and elaborate a strategy for the future, Mr.Train concluded by appealing to all states Parties to increasetheir support to the World Heritage Convention.

11.7 The Director-General of UNESCO, Mr. Federico Mayor,who was introduced by the outgoing Chairman, Mr. AzedineBeschaouch, expressed his pleasure at being present in themulticultural city of Santa Fe to welcome delegates to thesixteenth session of the World Heritage Committee. He thankedthe authorities of the united States of America for hostingthe Committee's session and acclaimed "the services which Mr.Russell Train has rendered in conceiving and promoting thenotion of world heritage.

11.8 The Director-General stressed the fact that theconcept of world heritage encourages diverse expressions ofnon-tangible universal values of cultural and naturalsignificance, therefore adding a new dimension to thediscussions of the UN Conference on Environment andDevelopment in Rio de Janeiro, in June 1992, which were mainlyof an economic nature. He recognized that the task ofpromoting an awareness of the need to conserve natural andcultural World Heritage properties, the values of which cannotbe quantified, is a challenging one, particularly in the light

4

of pressures due to socio-economic development, naturaldisasters and civil unrest. He called upon states Parties tothe Convention to co-operate with one another and establishpartnerships with non-governmental and grassroot organizationsto meet this challenge. Mr. Mayor noted that there werealready 358 sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and atthe end of the sixteenth session of the Committee, additionalsites will be included in the List. He recalled the fact thatthe inscription of a site on the World Heritage List brings toa state Party not only prestige but responsibil i ties andobligations. He expressed the hope that the strategicorientations that were expected to be adopted by the Committeewill provide better guidance to the international community tomeet their obligations in the framework of the World HeritageConvention.

11.9 Mr. Mayor highlighted several policy issues, such asthe appplication of criteria for the evaluation of nominatedsites, inclusion of sites in the List of World Heritage inDanger and ensuring conservation of World Heritage sites inco-operation with 1COMOS and 1UCN. He requested the Committeeto consolidate efforts taken by states Parties to conserveWorld Heritage sites by soliciting the support of theinternational community. He underlined the fact that suchsupport need not always be financial and that awareness andrecognition of the universal significance of World Heritagesites could also strengthen the ability of states Parties toconserve their cultural and natural properties. The Director­General informed the delegates that he has recently set up aWorld Heritage Centre at UNESCO, bringing together thecultural and natural parts of the Secretariat which hadhitherto been under the administration of separate sectors,and has consolidated the Secretariat by appointing new staff.

11.10 Mr. Mayor was hopeful that the Centre, in co­operation with 1CCROM, ICOMOS and 1UCN, will be betterequipped to serve the Committee, to monitor the state ofconservation of World Heritage sites, to mobilize additionalfinancial and human resources and to raise public awareness.He concluded by ensuring the delegates that the noble ideal ofpreserving humankind's heritage was a strong component ofUNESCO's mission to promote peace and international co­operation.

5

III. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-CHAIRPERSONS

111.1 The outgoing Chairman, Mr. Azedine Beschaouch,submitted to the members of the Committee a recommendationmade by the Bureau at a special meeting held on 6 December1992, regarding the strictly specific situation evoked by theObserver Mission of the united states of America to UNESCO inits letter of 27 November 1992 to him in his capacity as theChairman of the Committee. In accordance with thisrecommendation, the Committee unanimously decided to suspendthe application of the dispositions of paragraph 2, Article 14of the Rules of Procedure, between the sixteenth andseventeenth plenary sessions of the World Heritage Committee(December 1992 to December 1993). The Committee, however,underlined the fact that this decision, taken in a friendlyspirit, which has always characterized relations between themembers of the Committee, cannot under any circumstances beevoked in the future as a precedent.

111.2 Ms Jennifer Salisbury (United States of America) waselected Chairperson of the Committee by acclamation. Mr.Azedine Beschaouch (Tunisia) was elected Rapporteur, also byacclamation, and the following members of the Committee wereelected as Vice-Chairpersons: Brazil, China, Colombia, Germanyand Senegal.

IV. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

IV.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee that theBureau, at a special meeting held on 6 December 1992 hadrecommended that the reports on the strategy for the future,requests for international assistance and the situation of theWorld Heritage Fund, instead of being examined by workinggroups, be submitted to the members of the Committee underagenda items 7, 12 and 13 respectively. The members of theCommittee also decided, in accordance with anotherrecommendation made by the Bureau at its meeting of 6 December1992, that they will consider the report of the expert groupon cultural landscapes under agenda item 14. The Committeeadopted the agenda incorporating these amendments.

6

V. REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT SINCETHE FIFTEENTH SESSION

V.1 Mr. Bernd von Droste, Director of the World Heritagecentre, congratulated the Chairperson, the Rapporteur and theVice Presidents on their election and reported on theactivities undertaken since the fifteenth session of theCommittee.

V.2 He drew the attention of the members of theCommittee to the important work undertaken to evaluate theimplementation of the Convention during the last twenty yearsand to elaborate a new strategy for the future. He pointedout that the strategic orientations that will be adopted bythe Committee at its current session would provide a frameworkfor states Parties to elaborate their own national strategies.He informed the Committee that some countries such asAustralia, have already begun to elaborate national strategiesfor the implementation of the Convention. He thanked Mr. A.Beschaouch, former Chairman of the Committee for his guidancein the elaboration of the strategic orientations.

V. 3 Mr. von Droste recalled that the Committeerecognized the increasing importance of monitoring the stateof conservation of properties inscribed on the World HeritageList. He emphasized the useful experience in monitoring thestate of conservation of World Heritage properties in theLatin American and Caribbean region. He informed the membersof the Committee that the same methodology had been used tomonitor several properties during 1992 and a detailed reportof the monitoring programme will be submitted to the Committeeby the Co-ordinator of UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project forCultural Heritage in the Latin American and the CaribbeanRegion.

V.4 He drew the attention of the Committee to the factthat due to the increasing number of World Heritage propertiesfacing serious threats to their authenticity and integrity,the budget for emergency assistance for 1992 had beencompletely spent. Most of the emergency assistance wasprovided to the Republic of Croatia for the restoration of thehistoric centre of Dubrovnik and for an international expertmission to assess the state of conservation of Plitvice LakesNational Park. Mr. von Droste recalled that the Committee, atits last session, inscribed Dubrovnik on the List of WorldHeritage in Danger. UNESCO and the World Heritage Fundtogether have provided US$249,OOO for the purchase of rooftiles, the training of artisans and craftsmen, the carryingout of a cadastral survey of the Old City of Dubrovnik and thepreparation of an inventory of damaged monuments. Mr. von

7

Droste remarked that, however, international assistancereceived so far for the restoration of Dubrovnik falls farshort of the estimated requirements.

V.5 Furthermore, he also mentioned that at its currentsession the committee will have to decide whether or not toinclude at least five more properties, namely Srebarna NatureReserve (Bulgaria), Plitvice Lakes National Park, (Croatia),Sangay National Park (Ecuador), Mt. Nimba strict NatureReserve (Guinea and Cote d' Ivoire) and Air-Tenere Reserve(Niger) in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

V.6 Mr. von Droste provided many examples of eventslaunched in states Parties and at UNESCO Headquarters tocommemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Convention. Heinformed the Committee that an estimated 30,000 peopleparticipated in events which were held in connection with anexhibition on World Heritage sites which was held from 8 Julyto 8 October 1992 at UNESCO Headquarters. He drew theattention of the members of the Committee to the launching ofsome new initiatives to promote the Convention, namely, a CD­ROM prototype has been developed to provide a user-friendlycomputer presentation on World Heritage sites to the generalpublic; under a programme entitled "Patrimoine 2001" aphotographic data base comprising high quality photographs ofWorld Heritage sites was being developed; a prototype for aWorld Heritage Newsletter has been prepared and was availablefor comment from the members of the Committee.

V. 7 Mr. von Droste reported satisfactory progress in thedevelopment of a World Heritage cities Network and informedthe members of the Committee that the General Assembly of theWorld Heritage cities Organization is expected to be convenedin Fez, Morocco, in mid-1993. He, furthermore, expressed hisconcern regarding the situation of the World Heritage Fund anddrew the attention of the Committee members to the fact thatthe outstanding obligatory contributions to the Fund nowexceeded US$2. 5 million. He suggested the Committee appeal tothe states Parties to make their contributions to the Fund ingood time.

V.8 Mr. von Droste thanked the Governments of Italy andGermany which had seconded staff to the World Heritage Centreand he informed the Committee members that he was negotiatingwith other States Parties to obtain the services of experts.He said that the Centre was also attempting to establishagreements with UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank in order toutilize funds from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) forthe conservation of World Heritage properties, and isexploring possibilities for launching joint projects withprivate foundations dedicated to preserving the world'scultural and natural heritage. He concluded by assuring the

8

members of the committee that the centre, in co-operation withICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN, will provide a new platform tomobilize and co-ordinate global efforts for the conservationof world heritage.

VI. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THEBUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

VI.1 Mr. Diaz-Berrio (Mexico) former Rapporteur of theCommittee, presented the report of the sixteenth session ofthe Bureau held in Paris from 6 to 10 July 1992. He drew theattention of the Committee to document WHC-92/CONF.002/2 andhighlighted _important elements from different sections of 'thereport. He informed the Committee of the findings ofmonitoring reports on the state of conservation of a selectednumber of cultural and natural properties. He recalled thatthe Bureau examined a total of 29 new nominations, and fourproposals for the extension of World Heritage sites andrecommended that the Committee inscribe 16 new properties onthe World Heritage List and approve three of the fourextensions proposed. The Rapporteur highlighted theobservations and recommendations of the Bureau with regard toproposed revisions to the Operational Guidelines and thepreparation of a strategy for the future implementation of theConvention, and noted that the Committee will be examiningthese items in greater detail.

VI.2 Mr. Diaz-Berrio also provided a brief summary of therecommendations of the Bureau made at a special meeting heldon 6 December 1992, on the nominations of four culturalproperties: two properties, one of which, the Kasbah ofAlgiers (Algeria), the nomination procedure had already beeninitiated, and Angkor (Cambodia), for which an emergencyprocedure had been initiated. The other two nominations weredeferred by the Bureau at its fifteenth session held in June2992: Rohtas Fort (Pakistan) and Ban Chiang Archaeologicalsite (Thailand). The Bureau recommended that the Committeeinscribe the Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria) and the Ban ChiangArchaeological site (Thailand) on the World Heritage List.The Bureau again deferred the nomination of Rohtas Fort(Pakistan) pending receipt of additional information from thestate Party. In the case of Angkor (Cambodia), the Rapporteurinformed the Committee that four members of the Bureau(France, Mexico, Senegal and Tunisia) were in favour ofimmediate inscription, whereas Thailand and the united statesof America while recognizing the outstanding value of theproperty, would only agree to its inscription once theconditions proposed by ICOMOS had been met. Mr. Diaz-Berriosaid that a report of the meeting of the Bureau, including

9

detailed recommenda.tions on each of the four properties, willbe submitted to the Committee to facilitate the discussion ofAgenda item 10.

VII. PRESENTATION OF THE EVALUATION REPORT ON THEIMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION AND THE DRAFT STRATEGYFOR THE FUTURE

VII.1 The document WHC-92/CONF.2/4 was introduced by Mrs.C Cameron, Chairperson of the Expert Group which was convenedin Washington (United states of America) from 22 to 24 June1992, then in Paris at UNESCO Headquarters, from 27 to 30October 1992. Mrs. Cameron stressed that on the one hand thegroup comprised a certain number of experts from differentregions of the world, and representatives of ICOMOS, ICCROMand IUCN, and on the other, Bureau members had participated inthe work of the Paris meeting. The discussions of the workinggroup were based on the evaluation report for theimplementation of the Convention, made by Mr. Beschaouch in1991, and presented to the Committee as document WHC­92/CONF.002/3, as well as a study prepared by Mr. G. Bolla in1992.

VII.2 Following in-depth discussions, the Committeeadopted, with a certain number of revisions, the conclusions,goals and the recommendations with which they had beenpresented, as constituting not only a strategy as such, butstrategic orientations for the future, aimed at the differentactors concerned with the implementation of the Convention,e.g. the States Parties, the World Heritage Committee, theadvisory organizations and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

VII.3 These strategic orientations are presented as Annex11 to the present report. The Committee requested the WorldHeritage Centre to send them to all States Parties to theConvention. The Committee also requested the World HeritageCentre, with the assistance of the UNESCO Legal Office, toprepare draft revisions to the Guidelines for theimplementation of the Convention reflecting its decisions, andto send them to all Committee members before the end of March1993. These draft revisions of the Guidelines should moreparticularly take into account the proposal presented byunited States of America as well as by Italy. These draftrevisions will be submitted to the Bureau of the Committee atits seventeenth session for review.

10

VIII. MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE WORLDHERITAGE CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES

VIII.1 The World Heritage Centre introduced document WHC­92/CONF.002/5 and stressed the fact that ensuring themaintenance of the values for which sites were given WorldHeritage status and taking measures to remove or minimizethreats to those values is a major part of the work of theCommittee, the non-governmental advisory bodies and theCentre. The Committee noted that the monitoring of the stateof conservation of World Heritage sites will receive greateremphasis than the identification and designation of sites inthe future work of the Convention. The Committee took note ofthe fact that the methodology used to monitor the state ofconservation of World Heritage properties in the LatinAmerican and the Caribbean region is to be adapted andextended to other regions. In 1993 it was decided thatmonitoring will be applied to 48 sites:

17 are in the Latin American and the Caribbeanregion (continuing programme) ;24 in the Mediterranean region (continuingprogramme) ;7 in the African and Asia-Pacific region,respectively (new programmes).

Cultural properties

VIII.2 Introducing the debate, the Deputy Director of theCentre, Mr. S. Zulficar, indicated that the report from theSecretariat provided information on the state of conservationof a number of World Heritage cultural sites. The Committeeexamined the state of conservation of the following sites, forwhich it made specific observations and recommendations.

Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia)

The Committee took note of the report on the state ofconservation of Dubrovnik, which was inscribed on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger, in Carthage in 1991, and was alsoinformed of the request received by the World Heritage Centrefor the creation of a buffer zone. This request will besubmitted to ICOMOS for review.

Abou Mena (Egypt)

The Committee was apprised of the report presented on the siteof Abou Mena following concerns expressed by the Bureau in

11

July 1992. At the request of the Chairperson, the Delegatefrom Egypt provided all the clarifications regardingallegations on the state of the site in his ~eport, which theChairperson, upon the suggestion of one of the delegates,requested the Committee to include in the report as anappendix. During the discussion which followed, the TunisianDelegate asked the Centre to pay special attention toconfirming the information received by the Secretariat beforebringing it to the attention of the Committee.

Delos and Delphi (Greece)

The Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre informed theCommittee of the status of the site of Delos, over which theBureau had expressed some concern in terms of the humanresources required for its protection. Following theexplanations provided by the Observer from Greece, thecommittee took note of the willingness of the Greekauthorities to increase the number of guards in spite of theproblems involved in attracting employees to an island whichis no longer inhabited. On the other hand, concerning thesite of Delphi, the Greek Observer reminded the Committee ofthe protective measures taken as well as the restorationactivities coinciding with the one hundredth anniversary ofthe excavation works of the Ecole FranQaise d'Athenescelebrated in 1992.

vatican (Holy See)

The Committee was informed of the various actions undertakenby the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS in collaboration withthe Holy See authorities following a certain number ofprotests concerning a new building on the site of the Hospiceof Santa Marta.

The Director of the World Heritage Centre as well as ICOMOSwere able to ascertain at the site that the allegationsreported mainly by the press were groundless. They commendedthe spirit of co-operation with which this problem had beenapproached by the authorities of the vatican. One delegatecongratulated ICOMOS on the quality of his report and raiseda point regarding the use of appropriate terminology by theSecretariat in presenting questions to the Bureau or theCommittee. The Representative from the Holy See then took thefloor to express his satisfaction with the way in which thismatter was settled and read a statement which was annexed tothe report.

12

Ggantija Temples (Malta)

The Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre brought upthe problem of protecting the Megalithic temples of Ggantijaand indicated that the report requested of the Malteseauthorities on this sUbject had arrived shortly before thesixteenth session of the Committee. This report shows thatthe authorities involved have taken the Bureau's concerns intoconsideration and confirmed the request to extend the site.

Ancient City of Damascus (Syria)

The Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre reported onthe information unofficially transmitted to UNESCO expressingconcern over the work being done on the western wall of theMosque of the Omeyyades in Damascus (Syria). When invited bythe Chairperson to provide clarification, the Delegate fromSyria retraced the history of the Mosque and confirmed thatthe work in question is being effected on a wall built abouttwenty years ago to protect the Mosque's inner courtyard fromthe rain.

The ensuing discussion emphasized the need for the Centre tohave a comprehensive and updated documentation available andfor the State Party concerned to specify the type ofintervention, which may vary from consolidation, restoration,renovation or reconstruction. One delegate pointed out thatthe States Parties must understand, when fears are expressedconcerning a site or a monument inscribed on the List, that itis the duty of the Committee to follow up, in a spirit ofopenness and co-operation, by sending a mission to the site.This opinion was seconded by other delegates. One of themexpressed the hope that the word "reconstruction" would neverappear in the reports of the Committee and that a missionmight visit Damascus in 1993 and that a report as detailed asthe one devoted to the vatican be submitted at the nextmeeting of the Bureau. Taking note of the favourable opinionof the Delegate from Syria, the Committee requested the Centreto send a technical mission in the first quarter of 1993.

El Jem (Tunisia)

Regarding the site of El Jem (Tunisia), the Committee wasinformed of the measures taken at the highest level ofGovernment, as the President of the Republic of Tunisia hadtransmitted through, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, inresponse to the concerns of the Bureau, the decisionspertaining to a halt in the construction of any extension tothe shopping arcade and to the ban on construction of anypermanent structures within the amphitheatre. Concerning this

13

point, the Delegate from Tunisia took the floor to thank thecommittee for its interest in heritage at large and to thesite of El Jem. From now on, new constructions are prohibitedby order of the President within a radius of 100 meters aroundthe amphitheatre. Furthermore, the Committee requested theCentre to write to the President of the Republic to thank himfor his intervention for the safeguard of the nationalheritage.

G6reme National Park and the Rock sites of Cappadocia (Turkey)

The Committee noted with concern the information received onthe state of conservation of the site. According to theconsultant responsible for evaluation of the site in question,the Turkish authorities and the Ministry of Culture inparticular did not seem to be aware of the decisions taken bythe Committee in 1985 providing for an extension of theprotected area of the Goreme site. According to theconsultant's report, this site is undergoing serious changesdue mainly to the construction of hotels in the safeguardedsector. After hearing the comments of the delegatesemphasizing the gravity of the situation in a site for whichUNESCO has issued an appeal for an international safeguardcampaign, and after receiving information from ICCROMconcerning preparations for a seminar in Goreme in 1993, theCommittee asked the World Heritage Centre to write to theTurkish authorities reminding them of its decisions. TheDeputy Director of the Centre indicated in this regard thatthe Turkish authorities had requested assistance from theCentre in setting up a coordinating committee for this site,which comes under the authority of several ministries.

Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)

On the sUbject of Istanbul, ICOMOS found the informationprovided by the Turkish authorities to be acceptable.However, it would be desirable for ICOMOS to obtain theaccompanying plans of the master safeguard plan, which theCentre might request. Given the importance of Istanbul, which,like Goreme, is the sUbject of a UNESCO internationalsafeguard campaign, the Committee felt it necessary to send amission there.

Latin American and the Caribbean

VIII.3 Mr. S. Mutal, Chief of the UNDPjUNESCO Regionalproject was given the floor and presented his report on themonitoring of World Heritage sites in Latin America and theCaribbean and in Portuguese-speaking Africa. After explaining

14

the process established for monitoring of sites in the region,he reviewed the methodology adopted and its application bynational and international experts who collaborated in thiseffort and whom he wished to commend. He expressed theopinion that this type of activity should be extended toinclude each of the geographic areas and the concept ofdevelopment, not only drawing upon the resources of the WorldHeritage Fund but also seeking other funding sources as wasdone in the case of the UNDPjUNESCO Regional Project for theCultural, Urban and Natural Heritage and the Environment, ofwhich he is in charge in Lima (Peru).

VIII.4 Emphasizing the fact that Latin America, theCaribbean and Portuguese-speaking Africa represent fourteenpercent of the total number of heritage sites, he focused hispresentation on the one hand, on the monitoring of six sitesin 1991, specifically: Antigua (Guatemala), Ouro Preto(Brazil), Cartagena (Colombia), Machu picchu (Peru), SanFrancisco de Lima (Peru) and Quito (Ecuador), and, on theother, on the monitoring of seven sites in 1992, specificallySalvador de Bahia (Brazil), San Lorenzo and Porto Bello(Panama), La Fortaleza and San Juan Historic site (PuertoRico) , Tikal (Guatemala) , Olinda (Brazil) and Potosi(Bolivia) .

VIII.5 The speeches by the delegates from the LatinAmerican region (Brazil, Peru and Colombia) confirmed theconclusions and recommendations submitted to the attention ofthe Committee. Concerning the site of La Fortaleza and SanJuan Historic site (Puerto Rico), the Delegate from the UnitedStates of America, while noting that the work carried out wasof high quality, pointed out that the report on this sitecould be confusing, especially as regards the monumentsincluded and those not included in the World Heritage site.

VIII.6 The Delegate from France commended the UNDPjUNESCOChief of the Regional project for his excellent report, whichhe appreciated as being exceptionally well thought out, wellfounded from the methodological and logistical standpoints andwisely focused in terms of geographic region.

VIII.? The Committee decided to continue this exercise forthe year 1993, in the same methodological conditions and inco-operation with the States concerned. The Delegate fromMexico informed that a monitoring exercise had already beencarried out by the national authorities concerned for foursites included in the new project and consequently herequested a revision be made with regard to this point. Thestatement of the Delegate of Mexico is annexed to the report.

VIII.8 At the request of the Delegates from Senegal andChina to extend this monitoring effort to other areas of the

15

world, the Director of the World Heritage Centre explainedthat on-going fund-raising efforts will continue to allow formonitoring on a regional level, with priority being given toSub-Saharian Africa and south-east Asia.

ICOMOS Monitoring Report

VIII.9 The Chairperson asked the Secretary General ofICOMOS to present the ICOMOS report which focused on a numberof sites; for the most part it was noted that these reportswere carried out at the request of the World Heritage Centrein response to perceived problems. Before introducing thestatus of the sites examined, the committee was informed aboutICOMOS, methodology in monitoring and its desire to stand backfrom the problems of specific sites and to draw generallessons for improving the state of conservation of all sites.ICOMOS also informed the Committee that its report differedfrom that of the Chief of the UNDPjUNESCO Regional project inthat the procedure followed was based essentially on responsesto specific cases.

Rila Monastery (Bulgaria)

After the presentation on the Monastery of Rila, the Committeeasked the World Heritage Centre to write a letter to theBUlgarian authorities to draw their attention to the necessityfor implementing a management plan in co-operation with Churchrepresentatives.

Quebec Historic Area (Canada)

In response to information conveyed by the press as well as bygroups and individuals, the ICOMOS Representative informed theCommittee of the task assigned to him by the World HeritageCentre to examine, with the authorities in Quebec, twoconstruction projects (one for the IMAX cinema and one for anaval academy) both on the land located immediately outsidethe protected area. The ICOMOS report on this matter and theadditional explanations given by him gave rise to twostatements, the first by the Observer from Canada and thesecond by the Representative from the City of Quebec. Both ofthem thanked ICOMOS for the quality of the work carried outand noted that the manner in which this matter was dealt withwas proof of the effectiveness of the Convention. The Delegateof Tunisia brought to the attention of the Committee theposition in favour of preservation of the historic sitepUblicly expressed by the Mayor of the City of Quebec duringthe meeting of the Mayors of World Heritage Cities which tookplace on 23 and 24 November 1992. He recommended to the

16

committee that it strongly support the proposals contained inthe ICOMOS report. The Committee approved this proposal.

Paris, Banks of the Seine (France)

Concern was expressed with regard to the insertion of a newbuilding in the historic setting of the Banks of the Seine inParis. Based on a visit to the site and a study of thearchitectural project, an ICOMOS expert, Mr. Barthelemy, madea favourable report on the proj ect which was approved byICOMOS and of which the committee took note.

Budapest, the Banks of the Danube (Hungary)

After having analyzed the characteristics of the constructionproj ect for the French Institute of Culture building inBudapest, the ICOMOS Representative emphasized the doctrinalconsiderations involved in inserting contemporary architecturein historic quarters, and the necessity to avoid pastiche or"kitch". He proposed that no action should be taken withregard to this project.

Historic Centre of Rome (Italy)

The ICOMOS Representative informed the Committee of the stateof the Rome Colisseum which is sUffering both from airpollution due to the proximity of a road and from vibrationscaused by the subway. At present financial support from theBanco de Roma is enabling conservation work of the monument toensure its safeguard.

The Delegate of Italy intervened to thank ICOMOS for thescientific information presented to the Committee and whichrecalled the usual problems dealt with concerningcatastrophes, but in this case the problem of the Colisseum isthe harmful daily effects on the monument.

However, it will be possible to implement projects toconsolidate and protect the stone due to the provision ofexceptional financial resources, from the Banco de Roma, andICOMOS and the Committee will be kept informed of progress.Moreover, prior to any intervention, the Italian authoritieshave initiated a systematic process to analyze materials, andhave set up a scientific committee which will co-operate withICCROM and ICOMOS.

In addition, the Delegate of Italy stated that, in general, itwas necessary to request states Parties to provide periodicinformation to the World Heritage Centre on interventions

17

anticipated in inscribed properties so as not merely toevaluate a fait accompli but rather to undertake preventiveaction.

Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)

Upon the initiative of ICOMOS, the report pertaining to theValley of Kathmandu was submitted to the attention of theCommittee. This site is the sUbject of a UNESCO internationalsafeguard campaign and, as the ICOMOS Representative pointedout, numerous reports have been written about it for the pasttwenty years. Moreover, following an ICOMOS seminar heldrecently in Nepal on wood conservation, the ICOMOSRepresentative was able to confirm previously identifiedobstacles posed by the protection of sites in the KathmanduValley. He expressed his concern for the future safeguardingof these sites, due especially to the absence of technicalpersonnel and skilled labour, and to the quality of somerestorations of wooden monuments with true architecturalvalue, in and outside in the protected area.

The conclusions drawn by ICOMOS addressed different levels ofintervention (site boundaries, legislation, human resources)and propose involving UNESCO and ICOMOS in a global evaluationprocess of everything which has been done from the standpointof safeguarding the cultural heritage of Kathmandu.

The Delegate of Germany, who expressed his concern at thisalarming report, asked the Committee to consider extending theseven protected areas so as to include all the historic andartistic elements of exceptional value, and to create a bufferzone which would comprise the greatest part of the Valley.Furthermore, he suggested to recommend to the NepaleseGovernment to substantially increase the staff at theAntiquities Department and the funds at their disposal so thatthey may act effectively with regard to urban developmentthreatening the Valley.

The Delegate of Tunisia reported on his contacts with twoteams of experts (Germany and the united States of America)who only confirmed the conclusions drawn by ICOMOS, which hecommended. He expressed the hope that the committee approvethe recommendations made by ICOMOS and that ICCROM reinforcethis action in this field with the support of the Committee.The Delegate from Pakistan and the ICCROM Observer eachdiscussed in turn the importance of acting in order topreserve the heritage of the Kathmandu Valley.

The Delegate of Pakistan recalled that the use of wood inarchitecture was a very old tradition since protohistorictimes. Hence, in India the Palaces of Pathipulsa are wooden

18

structures in spite of the fragility of this material. It isfor this reason that particular attention should be paid tothe preservation of wooden structures in historic areas intropical countries, as is the case for Kathmandu.

Following this discussion, the committee adopted therecommendations made by ICOMOS and asked the World HeritageCentre to contact the Nepalese authorities to study all therecommendations of ICOMOS and the Committee.

Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation)

with the help of slide illustrations, the ICOMOSRepresentative introduced the status of the site of KizhiPogost, explaining the nature of the problems and the mannerin which urgent problems were determined. This presentationwas followed by a discussion during which several technicalquestions were raised. The Committee decided to support thecoordination effort undertaken by ICOMOS for this site, andrequested that a report be provided during the next meeting ofthe Bureau in view of implementing an assistance project. TheCommittee adopted the recommendation formulated in the ICOMOSreport.

stonehenge, Avebury and Associated sites (United Kingdom)

Concerning Stonehenge, the ICOMOS representative provided allthe details on the management of the site as well as on theanticipated projects for improvement, including that of amuseum site. The ICOMOS recommended to the World HeritageCentre to write to the authorities in the united Kingdom inorder to support the measures undertaken for the management ofStonehenge.

Hadrian's Wall (United Kingdom)

Bringing up the point pertaining to Hadrian's Wall, the ICOMOSRepresentative indicated to the Committee that ICOMOS istaking the necessary steps to monitor all actions undertakennear this site and will keep the Committee informed. Theseinclude projects for opencast coal mining and for a long­distance footpath.

City of Bath (United Kingdom)

The Committee noted with satisfaction the model plan drawn upfor the City of Bath. The World Heritage Centre was asked towrite to the authorities in the united Kingdom to this effect.

19

Chaco Canyon (united states of America)

Following the monitoring report presented by ICOMOS on thestatus of the Chaco Canyon site, the Committee expressed itswarm congratulations to the National Park Service for the workcarried out.

VIII.1Q At the conclusion of the presentation on themonitoring of cultural sites, the Secretary General of ICOMOSinformed the Committee of plans to be developed with theCentre, IUCN and the Chief of the UNDPjUNESCO Regional projectfor Latin America and the Caribbean, for sUbmitting reports inthe future according to a standardized format. He alsosuggested that the Committee devote more time to analyse itsability to deal with major problems and themes emerging fromthe monitoring. He also stressed ICOMOS plans to work on aregional basis with the assistance of ICOMOS' nationalcommittees.

VIII.11 In his capacity as former Chairperson of thecommittee, Mr. Beschaouch had received information relating toa certain number of sites in the Arab region which areinscribed on the World Heritage List:

Tipasa (Algeria)

Mr. Beschaouch indicated that he had personally ascertainedthe status of the site of Tipasa in Algeria during a visit inOctober 1992. This site had suffered the effects of anearthquake in October 1989 and emergency assistance had beengranted by the Fund.The remedial works had been completed in good conditions anda safeguard plan elaborated. He asked the Committee torecommend application of the safeguard plan in order to ensurethe integrity of the site. The Committee adopted thisproposal. Furthermore, Mr. Beschaouch raised the question oftraining of scientific and technical staff for the safeguardof Tipasa. .

Tyr (Lebanon)

Concerning the site of Tyr, the Committee requested, at thesuggestion of Mr. Beschaouch, that a report be provided duringthe next meeting of the Bureau on the project carried out bythe Lebanese authorities and UNESCO, specifically from thestandpoint of the international safeguard campaign.

20

Ksar of Ait-Ben-Haddou (Morocco)

Mr. Beschaouch brought to the attention of the committeeinformation pertaining to a project implemented jointly byUNDP, UNESCO (World Heritage Centre) and the Moroccanauthorities on the site of the Ksar of Ait Ben Haddou(Morocco) and pointed this out as a positive example, and theCommittee took note of this.

Natural Properties

VIII.12 The Committee decided to register the report and themap provided by the Canadian authorities as a description ofthe revised boundaries of the Dinosaur Provincial Park(Canada) . The Committee expressed satisfaction on theprogress in the implementation of the rehabilitation projectin the Simien National Park (Ethiopia) for which the committeeapproved US$50,000 at its last session. In the case of 19uazuNational Park (Argentina), Igua9u National Park (Brazil) andWood Buffalo National Park (Canada), the Committee requestedthe Centre to submit progress on their state of conservaitonto the Bureau scheduled to meet in mid-1993 at UNESCOHeadquarters, Paris.

VIII.13 The Representative of IUCN introduced a monitoringreport. He explained the seven-step procedure used by IUCNfor monitoring the state of conservation of natural propertiesand drew the attention of the Committee to the new reportingformat. The Committee then examined the state of conservationof the following properties and made specific recommendations.

Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)

The committee noted that, as requested at the time of theinscription of this property on the World Heritage List in1988, IUCN had undertaken a review mission to the site. TheCommittee learnt with satisfaction that despite a slow start,the management of the Wet Tropics area had achieved muchprogress, particularly with respect to:

(a) establishing a headquarters and appointment of staff; (b)drafting legislation; (c) preparing management plans and siteplans; (d) carrying out a number of policy-relevant studies;(e) setting-up advisory committees and a management authority;(f) improving budgetary allocations for site management, and(g) rehabilitating degraded forest areas.

21

The Committee commended the Australian authorities fortaking these steps for ensuring the adequate management ofthis site and requested IUCN and the World Heritage Centre tocontinue to monitor progress.

Srebarna Biosphere Reserve (Bulgaria)

The Committee recalled that at its last session, itrecommended that the BUlgarian authorities nominate this small(600 ha) site for inclusion in the List of World Heritage inDanger. The Committee was informed of the conclusion of twoIUCN missions to this site undertaken in early 1992: althoughSrebarna's importance as a Ramsar site and a biosphere reservecould still be retained by the implementation of specificremedial measures, its World Heritage status can no longer bejustified because it has deteriorated to a state where it hasirretrievably lost the characteristics which merited itsinclusion in the World HeritageList. The Bureau at its last session held in Paris in July1992, recommended that the Committee consider deleting thisproperty from the List and had requested the Centre to obtainall observations and comments the Bulgarian authorities maywish to make.

The Committee recalled that Srebarna Biosphere Reserve wasinscribed on the World Heritage List in 1983 on the basis ofcriterion (iv), i.e. as a naturally functioning ecosystemproviding an important and significant habitat for thethreatened Dalmatian Pelican. The IUCN Representativeinformed the Committee that a series of upstreaminterferences, including the Iron Gates Dam, have permanentlyaltered the natural hydrology of the Danube River in theregion and that of Srebarna, located downstream along theriver. Prevention of seasonal flooding has caused significantdecline in the size and productivity of Srebarna; agriculturaland residential use of surrounding areas have impacted thewetland leading to decline or disappearance of the water andpasserine bird populations. Consequently, while awaiting theresults of the on-going studies, the Committee decided toinscribe Srebarna on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Observer from BUlgaria, while agreeing with theCommittee's decision that this site be included on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger, was of the view that measures whichare being currently taken by the Bulgarian Government willrestore the World Heritage values of Srebarna. He said thathis Government is planning to construct two canals which willincrease and regulate water delivery to Srebarna.Furthermore, 200 ha of surrounding area have been added to theReserve and all agricultural and residential activities whichimpacted the lake have been halted. He informed the Committee

22

of an on-going project to prepare a comprehensive assessmentof the state of conservation of the site and a plan forecosystem restoration, and that the report of this projectwould be available in the first quarter of 1993.

The committee instructed the Centre to indicate to theBulgarian authorities that scientific evidence available todate suggests that the site may no longer possess the naturalhabitat values for which it was inscribed, and that a fullrestoration of a naturally functioning ecosystem appears to behighly problematic and may be impossible. The Committeeinvited the Bulgarian authorities to submit to the Centre, notlater than 1 May 1993, the results of their on-going projectto prepare a comprehensive assessment of the state ofconservation of the site and a plan for ecosystem restoration.The assessment should include an analysis of available data tomonitor biological populations and environmental quality.

The CommitteE:! requested the Centre to co-operate with expertsnominated by IUCN and the Secretariat of the RAMSAR Conventionto undertake an interdisciplinary review of the report on thestate of conservation and ecosystem restoration plan which theBulgarian a.uthorities are expected to submit. Theinterdisciplinary review will require participation ofspecialists in wetland ecosystem dynamics, wetlandrestoration, avian population dynamics, hydrology, regionalplanning, resource management and other relevant disciplines.A report on the outcome of the review, indicating thepossibility of the full restoration of a self-sustainingwetland ecosystem, including a viable population of thethreatened Dalmatian Pelican that contributes substantially tothe survival of the species, should be submitted to the Bureauat its seventeenth session. The Bureau will assess whetherthe proposE!d plan being developed by the Bulgarianauthorities, will enable a full restoration of Srebarna as anaturally functioning wetland ecosystem. If the Bureauconcludes that such restoration is not technically feasible,then the Bureau should recommend that the Committee deleteSrebarna from the World Heritage List at its seventeenthsession.

Manovo-Gounda saint Floris (Central African Republic)

The Committee recalled that when this site was inscribed onthe World Heritage List in 1988, several members of theCommittee had registered their reservations as to its state ofconservation and several threats to its integrity. Despiteassurances given to the Committee at the time of itsinscription and the US$27 million EEC (European EconomicCommunity) project which had been implemented in the region,the deterioration of the property had continued and this site

23

still does not have a management plan. The committee wasinformed of the intention of the President of the CentralAfrican Republic to transfer the management of the site to aprivate foundation, and of the invitation made to UNESCO toparticipate, as a scientific body, in the management of thesite by this foundation.

The Committee was satisfied that the State Secretary to theMinistry of Scientific Research and Technology has, inaccordance with the recommendations of the Bureau made at itslast session held in Paris in July 1992, invited a mission toreview the state of conservation of the Park and evaluate theproposal to transfer the management of this site to a privateorganization. The Committee requested the Centre to organizesuch a mission, building upon a recent project audit carriedout by the EEC. The Committee recommended that the proposalto transfer the management of this site to a privateorganization be evaluated, particularly in relation to theimplications it would have to: (a) the protection of the site:(b) participation of local people in the management of thesite; and (c) the social and economic impact the setting up ofa private management regime will bring to the region and thenation. The Committee requested the Centre to submit thefindings of this mission and an evaluation of the proposedtransfer of management to the seventeenth session of theBureau.

Talamanca-La Amistad National Park (Costa Rica-Panama)

The Committee commended the Panamanian authorities forpreventing 59,000 hectares of La Amistad National Park beingreleased for oil exploration.

The Committee noted that the Costa Rican authorities have notyet informed the Centre of their views on its recommendation,made at its last session, to consider revising the boundariesof the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves by deleting four IndianReserves in the north-eastern Atlantic sector and submit a mapshowing the new boundaries of the site. The committee wasalso informed of a proposal to construct a road through theTalamanca-La Amistad Reserves and that the Costa Ricanauthorities have not yet responded to the Centre's request forinformation on the proposal and its potential impact on thestate of conservation of the site.

The Committee instructed the Centre to contact the Costa Ricanauthorities to request, once again, (a) that they considerrevising the boundaries of the Reserves and provide a mapshowing the new boundaries and (b) to obtain detailedinformation regarding the proposal for constructing a roadthrough the middle of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves,

24

including an assessment of the potential impact of thisproject on the state of conservation of the site.

The committee instructed the Centre to contact the Costa Ricanauthorities to request, once again, (a) that they considerrevising the boundaries of the Reserves and provide a mapshowing the new boundaries and (b) to obtain detailedinformation regarding the proposal for constructing a roadthrough the middle of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves,including an assessment of the potential impact of thisproject on the state of conservation of the site.

Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)

The committee noted that the Croatian authorities officiallyinformed UNESCO in June 1992, that they will abide by theobligations of the World Heritage Convention and requestedthat a joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN mission be undertakento assess the impacts which unrest in the region has had onthe state of conservation of Plitvice Lakes National Park.

Using part of the US$30,OOO approved by the Bureau at its lastsession, for the organization of such a mission, a team ofthree experts representing IUCN, the Federation of Nature andNational Parks of Europe and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre,respectively, visited Zagreb and Plitvice Lakes National Park,from 18 to 27 September 1992, in co-operation with the UNProtection Forces, the Ministry of Environment of Croatia andthe local authorities in Plitvice.

The Committee deplored that several villages in and around thenorthern boundary of the Park had been destroyed and theCroatian population resident in those villages forced towithdraw to Zagreb. The Committee, however, was relieved toknow that the values for which the Plitvice Lakes NationalPark was originally granted World Heritage status remainedintact and the tourism and management infrastructures insidethe Park and equipment such as boats and buses suffered littledamage during last year's (1991) conflict with minimum damage.The Committee also noted that part of the staff of PlitviceNational Park still reside within the site and carry out basicmanagement operations.

Although the World Heritage values of the Plitvice LakesNational Park have not been adversely impacted by the warwhich broke out in the region in 1991, the Committeerecognized that the potential resurgence of hostilitiescontinued to prevail as a threat to the integrity of thissite. Hence the Committee decided to inscribe this site onthe List of World Heritage in Danger, with the provision forremoving the site from the Danger List as soon as stability is

25

re-established and the relationship between the Government ofCroatia and the region of Krajina is normalized. Furthermore,the Committee also recommended the following:

(a) The Government of Croatia, UNPROFOR and the authoritiesin the Krajina region co-operate to implement the VancePlan and its successor resolutions to stabilize thepolitical situation.

(b) UNPROFOR undertake regular surveillance patrols in thePark area, particularly in the old growth forest inCorkova Uvala and take necessary measures to make allparts of the Park accessible.

(c) The Government of Croatia, UNPROFOR and the authoritiesin the Krajina region include the conservation ofPlitvice Lakes National Park as a sUbject to be addressedby such bodies as the Joint Commission, and bringtogether scientists from the two conflicting parties toundertake studies on water quality, the brown bearpopulation and forestry and tourism practices.

(d) The Centre organize another mission to Plitvice in early1993 to assess the state of conservation of the site andexamine the feasibility of organizing an internationalworkshop to plan the future management of Plitvice.

The Committee noted with satisfaction that the Croationauthorities have expressed their willingness to co-operatewith UNPROFOR and other UN agencies to normalize relationswith the region of Krajina, and revive the tourism industrywhich is of crucial importance to the economy of the region.

Sangay National Park (Ecuador)

The Committee noted that the Sub-Secretariat of Forestry andRenewable Natural Resources, which is responsible for themanagement of this site, has been successful in temporarilyhalting a proposed road construction project in order to bringtogether the relevant provincial and national agencies todiscuss the environmental impact of the project and planmitigating measures. The Committee commended the Ecuadoreanauthorities for having included substantial areas south ofthe World Heritage site in the National Park. The Committee,however, was concerned about the information reported by theRepresentative of IUCN regarding heavy poaching of wildlife,illegal livestock grazing and encroachment in this site.

Furthermore, the Committee took note of the fact that the roadconstruction could recommence, and that the Ecuadoreanauthorities have not yet undertaken an impact study and have

26

not responded to repeated requests for information by theCentre. The Committee was informed by the Representative ofIUCN that although the size of this site has been nearlydoubled, the values and conditions of the new areas added tothe site were not known, and the severity of the threats tothe integrity of the site has been confirmed by IUCN'sRegional Office for Latin America, and by the EcuadoreanConservation Organization, Fundacion Natura. The committeetherefore decided, in accordance with the provisions ofArticle 11, paragraph (4) of the Convention, to include thissite on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee requested the Centre to contact the Ecuadoreanauthorities and request them to (a) provide information on thestatus of the road construction project and on-going effortsto assess its impact on the integrity of the site, and (b)consider submitting a proposal to extend this World Heritagesite to include new areas added to the Park. The Committeeurged the Centre to co-operate with the Ecuadorean authoritiesto organize a mission, comprising regional experts, in orderto assess the severity of the threats faced by this site andplan necessary remedial action.

Galapagos National Park (Ecuador)

The Committee was informed that the employees of this WorldHeritage site staged a four-week strike during May-June 1992,demanding higher salaries and other improvements of theirworking conditions. The Committee also noted that a drafttourism and conservation plan for Galapagos is now beingfinalized and the management plan of the Park would have to berevised in the light of the strategies and programme of actionforeseen in the tourism and conservation plan.

The Committee noted with satisfaction that the GalapagosNational Park authorities, in accordance with therecommendations made by the Bureau at its last session, haveup-graded the annual training course for guards and guides ofthe Park by inviting international participation. They havealso submitted a request for technical co-operation forrevising the management plan to take account of strategies andprogrammes of action foreseen in the tourism and conservationplan.

Mt. Nimba Nature Reserve (Cote d'lvoire/Guinea)

The Committee recalled its decision taken at its last sessionin Carthage, Tunisia, that the reduction in the size of thissite proposed by the Government of Guinea in order to excludeareas that would be impacted by a proposed iron-ore mining

~.~~~------~._-- -------

27

project, posed a major threat to its integrity. The site isalso threatened by the arrival of a large number of refugeesto areas in and around the Guinean part of t~e World Heritagesite.

The Committee noted that a meeting of experts of Cote d'Ivoireand Guinea, with participants from UNDP and UNESCO, was heldat Mt. Nimba from 29 June to 3 July 1992. The meetingendorsed the recommendation of the Committee made at its lastsession, and called upon the Governments of Guinea and Coted'Ivoire to nominate this site for inclusion in the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger. The Committee took note of theBureau's recommendation, made at its last session, that theCentre, together with the two States Parties concerned anddonor agencies, such as the World Bank and UNDP, develop anintegrated rural development project to bring socio-economicbenefits to people living in the immediate vicinity of theWorld Heritage site.

The Committee was deeply concerned that the Guinean Governmenthad issued a decree on 6 August 1992 entrusting a part of theMt. Nimba Nature Reserve to an international mining consortiumand published a brochure announcing the launching of themining project. The Committee was informed by the GuineanObserver that there had been an error in the boundary of theMt. Nimba Nature Reserve originally nominated for inscriptionon the World Heritage List in 1981 and that the area proposedfor the iron-ore mining project was not considered by hisGovernment as being part of the World Heritage site.

Mr. Beschaouch confirmed this point, recalling a meeting hehad in Paris in July 1992, in his capacity as President of theCommittee, with the Minister for Environment and MineralResources of Guinea.

Aware of the confusion concerning the boundaries of the WorldHeritage site and the decision of the Government of Guinea onthe one hand, and on the other the real dangers ofexploitation of the mine and the arrival of large numbers ofrefugees, the Committee decided, in accordance with theprovisions of Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Convention, toinscribe Mt. Nimba on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee recommended that the Centre takes the necessarysteps to send an expert mission to (a) ascertain, in co­operation with the States Parties concerned, the boundary ofthe site at the time of its inscription and if it cannot bedefinitely determined, to recommend an appropriate boundary,and (b) assess the impact of the iron-ore mining project,demographic changes and other threats to the integrity of thesite and the universal values for which the site wasinscribed.

28

Furthermore, the committee requested the Centre and IUCN toco-operate with agencies such as UNDP to prepare an integratedmanagement plan that addresses the existing and potentialthreats to the site. The Committee instructed the Centre tocontinue on-going co-operation with donor agencies to developprojects and implement integrated rural development projectsthat benefit the local population.

Manas wildlife Sanctuary (India)

The Centre informed the Committee that the damage caused bythe invasion of this sanctuary by the Bodo tribe in Assam,India, was estimated to be about 50 million Indian rupees(about 1.6 million us dollars). Although the Parkinfrastructure suffered considerable damage, the habitat inthe inaccessible parts of the Sanctuary appeared to be intact.The Committee, while noting that the conditions forintroducing normal management and administration regimes forthe site may be improving, was nevertheless concerned that afull assessment of damage had not been made and that theIndian authorities have not yet provided a formal writtenreport on the state of conservation of this Sanctuary, despiterepeated requests from the Committee since 1989.

The Committee noted with concern the information provided bythe Representative of IUCN that the area is still notcompletely free from encroachment by militants belonging tothe Bodo tribe and that illegal cUltivation was spreading intoparts of the Sanctuary. The Committee concurred with the viewof IUCN that Manas wildlife Sanctuary continues to be indanger of losing the values for which it was granted WorldHeritage status. The Committee noted with regret that theIndian authorities have not provided a report on the status ofconservation of Manas, despite repeated requests over the lastthree years, and therefore decided to include Manas WildlifeSanctuary on the List of World Heritage in Danger, inaccordance with the provisions of Article 11, paragraph 4, ofthe Convention.

The Committee requested the Centre to inform the Indianauthorities of its decision and reiterate its request for acomprehensive report providing a full assessment of damage tothe site and the remedial measures that are being taken.

Tsingy Bemaraha Nature Reserve (Madagascar)

The Committee was concerned with the information reported bythe Representative of IUCN concerning the disruption ofconservation activities due to shortage of supplies in, andtransport to, this site which is situated in a remote part of

29

Madagascar. The committee noted that the World Heritage Fundhas provided to this site US$20, 000 for the purchase ofequipment and an additional US$20,000 for a management seminarduring 1992. The committee instructed the Centre to contactthe Malagasy authorities and request a state of conservationreport for this World Heritage site and a progress report onthe expenditure of funds provided in 1992.

Te Wahipounamu - Southwest New Zealand (New Zealand)

The Committee was informed that the Government of New Zealandhas approved an application from a private company for alicence to export water from the World Heritage site. Theexportation of freshwater would require the construction of adam, a buried pipeline and four large reservoirs at Jackson'sBay. The Committee noted that the visual and ecologicalimpacts of the proposed development project were not clearlyknown and that the legal and economic considerations whichguided the decision to approve the project are being activelydebated in New Zealand. The Committee instructed the Centreto contact the New Zealand authorities and request them tokeep the Committee informed of the environmental impacts ofthe water export project.

Air and Tenere Nature Reserve (Niger)

The Committee expressed concern that the region in which thissite is situated has recently been affected by civildisturbance. The Committee was informed that the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of the Government of Niger had requested theDirector-General of UNESCO to launch an appeal for theprotection of this site. The competent authorities in Niger,in accordance with the recommendation of the Bureau made atits last session in Paris in July 1992, have requested theCommittee to include this site in the List of World Heritagein Danger. The Niger authorities have also requestedfinancial assistance for the organization of a mission inorder to assess the state of conservation of this site.

The Committee decided to include this site in the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger. Noting with regret that six membersof the Reserve staff are being held hostage since February1992, the Committee decided not to support any mission to thesite until such time as security conditions in the region havereturned to normal. The committee instructed the Centre tocontact the relevant authorities in Niger and request them totake all measures possible in order to secure the safe releaseof the Reserve staff.

30

Danube Delta (Romania)

The Committee recalled that when this site was inscribed onthe World Heritage List at its last session in Carthage,Tunisia, it requested IUCN and the Secretariat to submit aprogress report at its sixteenth session. The Committee wasconcerned that despite assurances given at its last session bythe Representative of Romania, the final steps in the processto establish a legislative framework for this site have notyet been completed. The Committee instructed the Centre tocontact the competent authorities in Romania to remind them ofthe assurances they gave the Committee last year and urge themto finalize the process to establish a legal framework for theprotection of the site.

Djoudj National Park (Senegal)

The Committee recalled that the repair of barrages and gatesregulating water flow into this wetland area was financed bythe World Heritage Fund in 1988. The Committee noted that theparallel wooden planks, held together by clay, which keep thegates dry and resistant to water leaks and seepage to and fromthe Djoudj River, have been found to be defective, and thatthe Senegalese authorities had been provided emergencyassistance for the purchase of wood to replace the existingplanks at an estimated total cost of about US$10,OOO. TheDelegate of Senegal thanked the Committee and informed themembers that repair work was progressing rapidly andsatisfactorily.

Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)

The Bureau at its last session held in Paris in July 1992,requested IUCN to provide an up-to-date report on the measurestaken by the Senegalese authorities to mitigate the impacts ofa road being constructed through this Park. The Committeenoted that IUCN's Office for Western Africa, in co-operationwith the Senegal National Park Service and the University ofDakar has undertaken a field mission to examine the mitigativemeasures taken and that the findings of the mission will bereported to the Bureau when it convenes for its seventeenthsession.

Everglades National Park (United States of America)

The Delegate for the united states of America informed theCommittee members of the damage caused by Hurricane Andrew tothis site. The hurricane which affected extensive areas insouth Florida on 24 August 1992, damaged virtually all large

31

hammock trees and destroyed 20-25% of the royal palms, 25-40%of the pines, 90% of trees where the red-cockaded woodpeckersnested and 70,000 acres of mangrove forests. Despite theextent of the damage caused, the committee noted withsatisfaction that a post-hurricane survey of the areaundertaken by a team of 25 scientists has indicated that therecovery of vegetation and the status of wildlife populationswas satisfactory. The representative of IUCN informed theCommittee that IUCN has discussed the desirability ofpreparing a monitoring report, in 1993, on the Everglades withthe US National Park Service. IUCN will consult with theSecretariat of the Ramsar Convention to obtain information onthe recovery of the Everglades system from damage caused byHurricane Andrew, as well as the impacts of the diversion ofwaters flowing into the Everglades for agricultural andindustrial uses.

The Representative of IUCN said that a monitoring report tomade to the Bureau is being considered, which may include arecommendation to inscribe the Everglades on the List of WorldHeritage in Danger.

Olympic National Park (United states of America)

At its last session the Committee was informed by the Delegateof the united States of America of an oil spill off the coastof this World Heritage site. As requested by the Committee atits last session, the US Delegate submitted to the Committeea description of the plan and organization of the emergencyresponse mechanism used to mitigate the negative impacts ofthe oil spill and a proposed study to make an inventory andmonitor affected coastal areas. The Committee was informedthat the long-term impacts of the oil spill were unknown. TheUS Delegate, however, gave assurances that the committee willbe provided with new information regarding these impacts asthey become available.

Durmitor National Park (Montenegro)

The Committee noted that the authorities responsible for themanagement of this site had submitted to the Secretariatseveral reports on the potential impacts of the proposedconstruction of a hydroelectric dam on the Tara River and thepollution of that river by a large asphalt plant situatedupstream along the river. The committee was informed that theMontenegro authorities maintained that the two problemsmentioned above had minimal impacts on the conservation ofDurmitor and that necessary measures to mitigate those impactswere being taken. In accordance with the Bureaurecommendation, the Director of this Park has, in accordance

32

with the wish of the Bureau expressed at its last session,invited a joint UNESCOjIUCN mission to this site and hasagreed to provide on-site briefing on the status of the damconstruction proposal and pollution problems.

The Committee was also concerned about recent reportsregarding the threat caused by a dam adjacent to the TaraRiver which, if breached, could spill large volumes of toxicmaterial into the river. The Committee instructed the Centreto co-operate with the united Nations Protection Forces(UNPROFOR) to organize an international expert mission to thissite and to make a report on the threats to its integrity andnecessary mitigation measures to the seventeenth session ofthe Bureau.

Garamba National Park (Zaire)

The Committee recalled that at its last session, it deferredtaking a decision to remove this site from the List of WorldHeritage in Danger, due to the uncertainties associated withprevailing civil unrest in Zaire at that time.

The Committee was happy to note that the rhinoceros populationin the Park has now increased to 32 individuals and that thestate of conservation of the site continues to be stable.Hence, the Committee recommended, in accordance with therequest made by the state Party by letter of 26 February 1991,to remove this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee also recommended that the Centre suggest thatthe Zairois authorities (a) conduct an assessment of theoperation of the multi-donor project to date, particularlywith regard to institutional arrangements and futuredirections, and (b) continue to co-operate with the Committeeand other donors in ensuring that the integrity of the Park isfurther strengthened. The Committee also requested the Centreto transmit its congratulations to the Zairois authorities tohave undertaken all necessary measures which made the removalof this site from the List of World Heritage in Dangerpossible.

Mosi-oa-TunyajVictoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)

The Committee noted that a proposal to construct a dam acrossthe Batoka Gorge could flood some parts of this transfrontierWorld Heritage site, and that the Bureau had requested theCentre to contact the states Parties concerned and obtain moreinformation on the proposed dam construction project.

33

The Director of the Department of National Parks and wildlifeManagement of Zimbabwe has informed the World Heritage Centrethat the dam to be built at the Batoka Gorge,will flood up tothe third gorge which is about 10 km inside the World Heritagesite, but that he was of the view that this change in theecology of the site will have minimum impacts.' The Directorhas also informed the World Heritage Centre that hisDepartment accepts this development proj ect owing to itsminimum impact and the fact that it will produce power underfavourable environmental conditions, in contrast to thealternative of thermal power production. The representativeof IUCN informed the Committee that there is opposition to thedam construction project in Zambia.

The Committee requested the Centre to co-operate with IUCN,and in particular with IUCN I S Regional Office in Harare,Zimbabwe, to make an assessment of the proposal to constructa dam across the Batoka Gorge and submit a report to theseventeenth session of the Bureau.

MIXED WORLD HERITAGE SITES

Mt. Athos (Greece)

The Committee noted that the deforestation in this mixed sitecould have adverse impacts on the landscape in the area. Inresponse to a request for information from the Centre, theGreek authorities indicated that 25,732 acres of forest in thearea were damaged due to a fire in 1990 and this calamitymight have been responsible for reports concerning the removalof vegetation. The Greek authorities have, however, pointedout that the natural regeneration of the forest is progressingsatisfactorily.

The Committee noted that Mt. Athos is an autonomous regionwithin Greece and removal of timber from the forests by monksresident in Mt. Athos is permitted under a law gazetted on 24February 1953. This law was amended on 9 April 1991 to ensurethat the removal of timber is carried out on a sustainablebasis. The amendment also allowed the establishment of aForest Service which takes measures to control fires. During1992 there were seven fires caused by lightning, and theForest Service successfully controlled these fires to maintaindamage to the vegetation in this site at minimum possiblelevels.

The Committee was in agreement with the view of the Greekauthorities that the state of conservation of the naturalenvironment in this site is satisfactory and that there was noneed for a special expert mission.

34

IX. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES: REPORT ON THE CELEBRATION OF THETWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CONVENTION AND FUTUREPROPOSALS

IX.1 The committee congratulated the World HeritageCentre for the activities carried out in 1992 and presented indocument WHC-92/002/6, particularly with regard to theorganization at UNESCO Headquarters of the events to celebratethe twentieth anniversary of the World Heritage Convention.These events comprised a general exhibition on the Conventionand the properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, aswell as some thirty national exhibits, more than twentyconferences and about fifteen evening programmes. TheCommittee felt that these events, which could not have beenorganized without the co-operation of all the UNESCO servicesconcerned, and particularly that of the Office of PublicInformation and the Press Service, demonstrated the greatinterest of the public in the world heritage concept anddiscovery of the heritage of each country.

IX.2 In this respect, schoolchildren and teachers wereparticularly interested, and had requested additionalinformation on the Convention.

IX.3 The events also received excellent press coverage,from the written press as well as audio-visual, and proved agood investment for the future, the first effects of which canalready be felt to jUdge by the numerous proposals for books,films and promotional material that the Centre has alreadyreceived from the private sector.

IX.4 The Committee was in agreement with the proposal ofthe Centre to renew the experience, in a more modest way andmore decentralized, and by facilitating exchanges ofexhibitions between the States Parties.

IX.5 The Committee was also satisfied about the manyactivities carried out in 1992 by IUCN and ICOMOS; theseactivities had notedly included, for IUCN, the organization orthe participation of regional seminars, the publication ofbooks and articles on the Convention in the IUCN bUlletin, thepublication of the results of the seminar on the WorldHeritage Convention held during the Fourth Parks Congress inCaracas, Venezuela, in February 1992, etc. The USA-ICOMOSCommittee had, for its part, realized an educative project onthe Convention and the World Heritage sites which was in anexperimental stage and being used by some teachers, as well asan audio-visual presentation for adult audiences.

35

IX.6 The Committee noted that, during 1992, the statesParties had also organized a certain number of promotionalactivities which were described in the. document WHC­92jCONF.002j6. The Chinese Delegation informed the Committeethat, in co-operation with UNESCO and the States Partiesconcerned, a film project on World Heritage in certaincountries of Europe had been successfuly carried out by aChinese production team, and its distribution in China hadgreatly contributed towards the promotion of the WorldHeritage Convention. The Committee hoped this type ofproduction would be encouraged in the future.

IX.7 Finally, the Committee was happy to note that 1992had not been entirely devoted to activities for thecelebration of the twentieth anniversary of the Convention,but had also seen the updating and production of newinformation material, such as publications, a prototype video­disk (CD-ROM) for the general public and the model for anewsletter on world heritage, which were both presented tomembers of the Committee for their comments.

IX.8 with regard to activities proposed for 1993, theCommittee has accepted proposals contained in document WHC­92jCONF.002j6. However, it was felt that more emphasis shouldbe placed on the production of material aimed at informingmanagers of World Heritage sites about criteria and theimplications of the inscription of sites on the World HeritageList, and the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committeealso noted that the CD-ROM project should be pursued inaccordance with the recommendation of the Bureau, but that itwas not appropriate to allocate to it a quarter of thepromotional budget but a more modest amount, and that a partof the budget should rather be allocated to the production ofbasic educational material which is more easily disseminated.

IX.9 with regard to private initiatives for pUblicationsand films, etc. the Committee requested the Centre to controlthe technical quality of the information contained in thematerial produced and to negotiate, if· possible, the sharingof the copyright.

IX.10 The Committee also noted that three regionalseminars particularly destined for the press, which wereinitially foreseen to take place in 1992, had been postponeduntil 1993, and which will be organized in Dakar (Senegal),Fez (Morocco) and Quito (Ecuador).

IX.11 Finally, the Committee wished that its strategicorientations concerning promotion be taken into account in theactivities of the World Heritage Centre as of 1993.

36

X. NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THEWORLD HERITAGE LIST AND LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER

X.I The Delegate from China informed the Committee thatdue to inadequacy of information provided in the nominationdossiers, his Government was withdrawing the nominations ofLunan Scenic Area of the stone Forest and the HuangguoshuWaterfalls Scenic and Historic Area.

Nominations to the World Heritage List

A. Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List.

Name of Property Identifi­cationN°

State Party havifiqiteriasubmitted thenomination of theproperty inaccordance with theConvention

Butrinti

Kasbah of Algiers

570Rev

565

Albania

Algeria

C(iii)

C(ii) (v)

The Committee took note of the report presented by Mr.Beschaouch on the Kasbah and noted with satisfaction that, asrequested by the Committee at its fifteenth session, a generalsafeguard plan for the Kasbah had been drawn up and approved.Following the decision for inscription, the Committeerecommended that a special monitoring survey be carried out inliaison with the Algerian authorities for the safeguard of theKasbah. Furthermore, the French Delegation requested that thetext of the ICOMOS evaluation be modified, in accordance withthe discussions already held in Carthage, so that historicevents may be correctly portrayed. It is therefore requestedthat in the ICOMOS document (page 40 of the French version),the statement beginning with "the French occupation ... " andending with "saved a part of the city" be eliminated.

Fraser Island 630 Australia N(ii) (iii)

The committee inscribed the Fraser Island component of thenomination excluding the Cooloola National Park, on the World

37

Heritage List. The committee encouraged the efforts of theAustralian and Queensland authorities to plan and manageFraser Island in the wider context of a 'Regional Park' andextend statutory protection to all of Fraser Island. Thecommittee requested the Australian authorities to consider theaddition of the aboriginal name of Fraser Island and to reportto the June 1993 meeting of the Bureau on progress with thisissue.

Belovezhskaya Pushchastate National Park

627 Belarus N(iii)

The committee inscribed the core zone of this property on theWorld Heritage List, noting that this site is an extension ofthe Bialowieza National Park of Poland. The Committeeinscribed the transfrontier property as a single entry on theWorld Heritage List as Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forestof Belarus/Poland. The Committee commended the authorities ofthe two states Parties for recognizing the ecological unity ofthe transborder site and agreeing to inscribe the whole areaas a single entry on the World Heritage List. The Committeerequested the Belarus authorities to prepare a management planfor the area, in co-ordination with the plan available for thePolish part of the site and encouraged the two states Partiesto share management experience. The Committee recommendedthat the fence between the two parks be removed if themanagement plan indicates that it would lead to enhancedviability.

Angkor 667 Cambodia C(i) (ii) iii)(iv)

I. The Committee took note of the report presented by Mr. A.Beschaouch. Given the unique situation in Cambodia, which, inaccordance with the Paris Accords, has been placed under thetemporary administration of the united Nations since July1991, the Committee has decided to waive some conditionsrequired under the Operational Guidelines and, on the basis ofcriteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), has inscribed the Angkorsite, together with its monuments and its archeological zonesas described in the "Perimetre de Protection" accompanying theICOMOS report, on the World Heritage List.

The Committee stressed that this action was not to be taken assetting a precedent for the inscription procedure. Therefore,in order to guarantee protection of the site for a three yearperiod (1993 - 1995), the Committee has decided that a specialin-depth study will be made of the Angkor site, and thatreports will be presented to the Bureau and the Committee onthe status of the monuments and the protective perimeter; the

39

order to study the possibility that the site may also qualifyfor inscription under natural heritage criterion (iv).

Huanglong Scenic andHistoric Interest Area

638 China, People'sRepublic of

N(iii)

The Committee inscribed the central and second classconservation zones of Huanglong on the World Heritage List,excluding Mouni Gully sub-division in the west, since itscondition and natural values need to be further investigated.The Committee recommended that the Chinese authorities preparea species conservation status report in order to investigatethe possibility that the site may also qualify for inscriptionunder natural heritage criterion (iv).

The Committee recognized that the Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic andHistoric Interest Area and the Huanglong Scenic and HistoricInterest Area belong to the same ecological unit, despitebeing under different county administrations. Taking intoaccount the views expressed by members, the Committee proposedthat the separate listing of Huanglong and Jiuzhaigou as WorldHeritage sites be regarded as Phase I of a two-phase process.The Committee recommended that the Chinese authoritiesinitiate Phase 11 by investigating the land interveningbetween the Huanglong and Jiuzhaigou sites (including thepreviously nominated Wanglang Reserve) and consider submittinga revised nomination for inscription as a unified site in theMinshan Mountains. Such a revised nomination wouldincorporate the Huanglong and Jiuzhaigou sites and other landconsidered as meeting World Heritage criteria. The Committeealso noted that many precedents exist, including transfrontiersites, where the inscription of a large site does not implythe necessity for a single administrative structure.

The Delegate from China thanked the Committee for separatelisting of the two sites and informed the members that theChinese authorities would take into consideration therecommendations of the Committee. The reports on therecommendations will be submitted to the Committee in thefuture.

Historic Centreof Prague

616 Czech and Slovak c(ii) (iv)Federal Republic (vi)

Historic Centreof Cesky Krumlov

617 Czech and SlovakFederal Republic

C(iv)

In view of the heavy tourism pressure in the town, theCommittee requested the Czech & Slovak authorities to ensure

40

that safeguards be established to mitigate any potentialadverse impacts from the Sumava International Park project.

Historic Centreof Telc

621 Czech and Slovak C(i) (iv)Federal Republic

Bourges Cathedral

Mines of Rammelsbergand the historictown of Goslar

Pythagoreion andHeraion of Samos

El Tajin,Pre-Hispanic City

Rio AbiseoNational Park

635

623

595

631

548

France

Germany

Greece

Mexico

Peru

C(i) (iv)

C(i) (iv)

C(ii) (iii)

C(iii) (iv)

C(iii)

The Committee already inscribed this site on the WorldHeritage List on the basis of natural heritage criteria in1990. The Committee decided that this site qualified on thebasis of the cultural heritage criteria (iii) as well.

Old City of Zamosc

Historic Monumentsof Novgorod andsurroundings

Cultural andhistoricensemble of theSolovetsky Islands

564

604

632

Poland C(iv)

Russian C(ii) (iv) (vi)Federation

Russian C(iv)Federation

The White Monumentsof Vladimir andSuzdal

Ban ChiangArchaeologicalsite

Pueblo de Taos

644633

575

492Rev

41

Russian C(i) (ii) (iv)Federation

Thailand C(lii)

united states C(iv)of America

The committee took note of the agreement between the U. S.Government and Taos Pueblo Tribal Council on interpretation ofthe united states' trust responsibility for the protection ofthe Taos Pueblo as a World Heritage site to includeappropriate legal, moral and financial support necessary toassure respect for, and the protection of those culturaltraditions, natural resources and practices which the Pueblo'sleadership considers sacred and necessary for the continuityof the community.

The Committee also took note, in this regard, of theadditional agreement between the D.S. and Taos Pueblo on thelatter's status as a self-governed community, and that anyaction undertaken by the united states in carrying out itstrust responsibility for the protection and preservation ofthe Pueblo be conducted in a manner that acknowledges the fullknowledge, participation and prior approval of the Pueblo'sdUly elected leadership.

B. Properties which the committee did not recommend forinscription on the World Heritage List

Name of Property

nomination

Macquarie IslandNature Reserve

Identifi­cation N°

629

state Party havingsubmitted the

of the property inaccordance with theconvention

Australia

The committee noted that this natural site had interestinggeological value but was of the view that its characteristicswere not of universal significance. However, the Committee

42

endorsed the recommendation of IUCN that the Australianauthorities consider Macquarie in the wider sense of anoceanic island ecosystem representative of the subantarcticbiogeographic realm. The Committee noted that Macquarie'svalues might be enhanced if it was assessed in combinationwith some of New Zealand's neighbouring island groups and inthe long-term could be a part of an international nomination.

Berezinsky BiosphereReserve

628 Belarus

The committee noted that this natural site is internationallyrecognized as one of UNESCO's Biosphere Reserves but did notmeet criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List.

cidade Velha 607 Cap Vert

The Comittee noted that there was no protection or managementplan for this cultural property and that it did not meet thecriteria for inscription on the World Heritage List.

Tatra National Park 656 Czech and SlovakFederal Republic

The Committee acknowledged the high national importance ofthis natural site, but was of the view that it did not meetany natural heritage criteria for inscription on the WorldHeritage List. The committee, however, encouraged thenomination of this site to UNESCO's International Network ofBiosphere Reserves.

Gir wildlifeSanctuary

615 India

The Committee noted that the conservation of this natural sitewill be greatly enhanced if it were included in UNESCO'sInternational Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Committeewas of the view that although it is a site of high nationalvalue, it did not meet World Heritage criteria.

43

C. Extension of World Heritage sites

Name of Property

Kakadu NationalPark

Identifi­cationN°

631

state Party having criteriasubmitted the pro-posal for extensionof the property inaccordance with theConvention

Australia N(ii) (iii) (iv)C(i) (vi)

The Committee commended the Australian authorities forconcluding a IQ-year programme to extend this Park and for theexemplary management operation at the Park. The committeeinscribed the full extent of the Park as re-nominated by theAustralian authorities on the World Heritage List. On thebasis of the ICOMOS evaluation, the committee decided toinscribe Kakadu under cultural heritage criteria (i) and (vi)instead of (i), (iii) and (vi) as in the past.

Potsdam, Park 532biswith Sacrow Castleand Sauveur Church

Germany C(i) (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided that the Castle and Parks of Potsdam andBerlin would be extended to include the Park with SacrowCastle and Sauveur Church.

Megalithic Temples 132 bis Malta C(iv)

The committee decided to extend the existing culturalproperty, the Temples of Ggantija, to include the fiveprehistoric temples situated on the islands of Malta and Gozoand to rename the site as "The Megalithic Temples of Malta".

Glacier BayNational Parkextension of theWrangell/St.Elias/Kluane site ofCanada-USA)

72bisRev

united states ofAmerica

N(ii)

The committee inscribed the Glacier Bay National Park as anextension of the Wrangell/St. Elias/Kluane World Heritage siteof Canada and the united states of America. The Committee

44

encouraged the two states Parties to consider linking theGlacier Bay National Park with the Wrangell/St. Elias/Kluaneunit; specifically, the committee urged the Americanauthorities to consider adding the Tongass National ForestWilderness and the Canadian authorities to establish andincorporate a new protected area within the Haines Triangle.The Committee also requested the Canadian and Americanauthorities to propose a new name such as "st. Elias MountainParks" for the transfrontier World Heritage property. TheCommittee expressed serious concerns over the prospect ofpotential impacts of the proposal to exploit the Windy Craggymine in Canada.

The Delegate of the united states and the Observer from Canadaagreed to initiate processes necessary for the considerationand implementation of the Committee's recommendations. TheDelegate of the united states informed the Committee that theDivision of Environmental Affairs of the US Department ofInterior had already written to the Canadian Ministry ofEnvironment to request information concerning proposals toexploit the windy Craggy mine and possible impacts on GlacierBay.

D. Deferred Nominations

Name of Property

Mir Castle

Identification No. state Partyhaving submitted thenomination of theproperty in accord­ance with theConvention

625 Belarus

At the request of both ICOMOS and the Belarus authorities, theinscription of this cultural property has been deferred untila comparative study of similar castles in this region isundertaken by ICOMOS and a report on the study is presented tothe Committee at its next session.

Karlstejn Castle 619 Czech and SlovakFederal Republic

Several delegations requested that ICOMOS undertake a study ofthe historicity of the nineteenth century restoration of theCastle and present a report at the seventeenth session of theBureau. The inscription of this cultural property would bedeferred until such a report is available.

Reserve of PopularArchitecture ofVlkolinec

622

45

Czech and SlovakFederal Republic

The requested information arrived too late to enable ICOMOS tomake an evaluation and recommendations to the Committee, hencethe inscription of this cultural property was deferred.

Rohtas Fort 586 Pakistan

since the comparative study on military architecture in theregion has not been received, the committee decided to deferinscription of this cultural property until information becameavailable.

SafranboluVillage

614 Turkey

The Turkish authorities have not yet replied to the Bureau'srequest for further information concerning the boundaries ofthe site and on certain monuments. The committee decided todefer inscription of this cultural property until thisinformation was made available.

Tongariro National Park 421 New Zealand

This site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1990 onthe basis of natural heritage criteria. The committeeinstructed the Centre to contact the New Zealand authoritiesand request further supportive material on cultural aspects ofthis site in order to study the possibility to inscribe thesite under cultural heritage criteria as well.

E. List of World Heritage in Danger

A. Properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage inDanger

Srebarna Biosphere Reserve BUlgaria

The Committee, as requested by the authorities of Bulgaria byletter of 7 October 1992 decided, to include this site on theList of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee'sobservations and recommendations regarding the state ofconservation of this site are described in Chapter VIII, page21 .

Plitvice LakesNational Park

46

croatia, Republic of

The committee as requested by the authorities of Croatia byletter of 24 April 1992 decided to include this site on theList of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee'sobservations and recommendations regarding the state ofconservation of this site are described in Chapter VIII, page24.

Air-Tenere National Nature Reserve Niger

The Committee as requested by the authorities of Niger, byletter of 1 October 1992, decided to include this site on theList of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee'sobservations and recommendations regarding the state ofconservation of this site are described in Chapter VIII, page29.

Even though there were no requests from the states Partiesconcerned, the Committee on the basis of state of conservationreports provided by IUCN (see Chapter VIII, page 20) decided,in accordance with Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Conventionto include the following sites on the List of World Heritagein Danger.

Angkor (Cambodia)Mt. Nimba Nature Reserve (Cote d'lvoire/Guinea)Sangay National Park (Ecuador)Manas wildlife Sanctuary (India)

B. Property removed from the List of World Heritage inDanger

Garamba National Park zaire

The Committee, in accordance with a request made by the stateParty in their letter of 26 February 1991, decided to removethis site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.Observations and recommendations of the Committee forsustaining the improvements to the state of conservation ofthis site are described in Chapter VIII, page 31.

47

XI. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

The Committee examined document WHC-92/CONF/002/8, 8Add. and8Add.2, as well as information on additional requests receivedby the Committee from states Parties during its session, andapproved the following projects:

A. Technical Co-operation US$

Galapagos National Park (Ecuador)Revision of the Management Plan to harmonizeits goals and objectives to that of thetourism and conservation plan. The Committeeinstructed the Centre to provide these fundsto the Galapagos authorities on the conditionthat they finalise the implementation of on-goingprojects receiving assistance from the WorldHeritage Fund and nominate in 1993, the marinepark as an extension to the World Heritage site.

Old city of Cairo (Egypt)

Restoration of monuments and sites damagedby the earthquake which occurred in cairoand elsewhere in Egypt in October 1992.

Mt. Nimba Nature Reserve (Cote d'Ivoire/Guinea)Organization of an interdisciplinary missionto ascertain boundaries of the site inGuinea, assess impacts of iron-ore miningprojects and influx of refugees into the regionand plan integrated rural developmentprojects benefiting the local population.The Committee instructed the Centre to contactdonors such as UNDP and the World Bank toexplore the feasibility of obtaining fundsfor the organization of the interdisciplin­ary mission and to keep costs of organizingthis mission to the minimum possible level.

Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)Provision of materials and equipment forthe restoration of mosaics in st. Sophia.

29,000

50,000

35,000

30,000

World Heritage cities OrganizationSupport to allow participation at theGeneral Assembly and colloquium of theWorld Heritage cities Network, mid-1993,Fez, Morocco.

Sub-total (Technical Co-operation)

B. Training

1. Saudi ArabiaOrganization of a training course (4-19April, 1993) on protected area managementfor the Arab region.

2. France/MaliOrganization of a one-month (January­February 1993) course for FrancophoneAfrica in ecology and conservation in theBoucle de Baoule Biosphere Reserve, Mali.

The committee instructed the Centre torequest:a) the organizers to incorporate a component

on the philosophy and work of theConvention in the course curriculum;

b) undertake an evaluation of the course,covering the last 5-year period, andproviding specific information on theextent to which course participants havereturned to African States Parties toassume responsibilities concerned withnatural heritage protection;

c) to ensure in the future that these fieldcourses take place, if possible, at an Africannatural site inscribed on the World HeritageList.

The Committee also requested the Centre toinform the course organizers (ENGREF/France),that contributions from the Fund for thiscourse will, in the future, depend upon thefindings of this evaluation.

48

50,000

194,000

30,000

30,000

49

3. ICCROM

a) Financial contributions to trainees fromstates Parties participating in two courses,namely architectural conservation andscientific principles of conservation,respectively, to be held in Rome, Italy,January-March 1993.

b) Financial contribution to trainees fromstates Parties participating in the 10thInternational course on Technology of stoneConservation and organization of studytours during the course, Venice, Italy,autumn 1993.

Sub-total (Training)

30,000

44,000

134,000

The Committee took note of the fact that it approved, at itsfourteenth session in Banff, Canada, a sum of US$50,000 forthe Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves of Costa Rica, sUbject tothe state Party satisfying two conditions, viz. that the CostaRican authorities (a) report on the completion of the projectsfor which the Committee had already provided funds and, (b)revise the boundaries of the site in accordance with IUCN'srecommendations. The Committee was satisfied to note that theCosta Rican authorities have completed the implementation oftwo of three on-going projects which receive assistance fromthe World Heritage Fund. The Committee requested the Centreto contact the Costa Rican authorities and to urge them toexpedite the implementation of the remaining proj ect andrevise the boundaries of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves inaccordance with IUCN's recommendations.

The Committee took note of the fact that the implementation ofthe project to prepare a Master Plan for the Machu picchuHistoric Sanctuary, Peru, for which the Committee approved asum of U8$40,000 during its fifteenth session in Carthage,Tunisia, has not progressed according to the timetableforeseen in the project proposal due to changes in the co­operating government agencies.

The Committee was informed by the Regional Co-ordinator forthe UNDPjUNESCO Project on Cultural Heritage in Latin Americaand the Caribbean that the situation is now stable and thatthe implementation rate of the project is expected to improvein 1993.

50

XII.SlTUATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND DRAFT BUDGET FOR1993

XII.1 The committee examined the document WHC­92/CONF.002/9 which presented the situation of thecontributions to the World Heritage Fund for the years 1981 to1992. Noting with satisfaction that a certain number ofstates Parties had paid, within the given delay, either theirobligatory contribution or their voluntary contribution, the'committee remarked with concern that many states Parties hadnot yet paid their obligatory contributions. sometimes theoutstanding contributions covered several bienniums. Thecommittee therefore strongly appealed to the states Partiesconcernecd requesting them to make their outstandingcontributions to the Fund as soon as possible and socontribute to minimizing the impact of budgetary constraintson the development and the implementation of the Convention.

XII.2 A working group under the Chairperson of theCommittee examined the budgetary proposals presented by theWorld Heritage Centre and the advisory bodies (ICCROM, ICOMOSand IUCN). Also , it examined the approved proposal concerningthe programmes which was approved by the Bureau for monitoringcarried out by certain organisms in the Latin American andCaribbean region on the one hand, (US$60,000) and on the otherthe Mediterranean region (US$20,000). It also examined theproposals for international assistance and monitoringprogrammes proposed in the framework of the implementation ofthe new strategies for the Sub-Saharian African region, andthat for Asia and the Pacific (US$20,000) and for the Workshopon Monitoring Methodology (US$25,OOO).

XII.3 On the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committeeadopted the proposals presented by the Working Group on thebudget and decided to reserve a special line for monitoring,in conformity with the new strategic orientations, and anotherfor assistance for the participation of experts (LDC and DC)to statutory meetings of the Committee, in application of aprevious decision taken by the Committee. Furthermore, itrecalled the express decision of the Bureau, that thepossibility of transferring, from one line to another, ofcredits allocated but not yet engaged could not in any caseapply to credits for Emergency Assistance. Finally, theCommittee considered that the "Reserve Funds" would becredited by excess bUdgetary resources and that recourse tothis "Reserve Fund" would always remain dependant upon aspecific Bureau decision.

XII.4 Before the adoption of the budget for 1993 byconsensus, the Delegate of Thailand expressed some reserves.He recommended that in the future, all the budgetary documentsbe transmitted to the members of the Committee in sufficient

51

time for them to be fUlly studied, independent of theconstraints of the agenda of the session. The Committeeapproved this recommendation.

XII.5

Items

The committee adopted the following budget for 1993:

1993

1. Preparatoryassistance

2. TechnicalCo-operation

3. Monitoring

a) ICOMOSb) IUCNc) Others

Latin AmericaMediterranean

strategies for

Asia/Africa

Methodology Meeting

Total Item 3:

130,000

450,000

30,00034,000

60,00020,000

20,000

25,000

189,000

Items

4. Training

a) ICCROMb) IUCNc) Others

Total Item 4:

5. EmergencyAssistance

6. Promotion

7. Advisory Services

a) ICOMOSb) IUCN

8. TemporaryAssistanceto the Centre

9. Attendance of experts(LDC and DC) tostatutory Committeemeetings

TOTAL

1993

74,00010,000

316,000

400,000

150,000

210,000

280,000175,000

250,000

30,000

2,264,000

52

XII.6 After approval of the budget for 1993, the Committeeadopted the two following recommendations and decisions forthe execution of the budget:

A. The committee decided:

a) that the World Heritage Centre should present to theCommittee, at its next session, a financial statementshowing the funds allocated by the Committee, includingcredits earmarked for the services of ICCROM, ICOMOS and

53

IUCN. The Centre should also present detailed budgetaryproposals for 1994;

b) that the World Heritage Centre should indicate in itsbudgetary report to the Committee concerning PreparatoryAssistance, Training and Technical Co-operation, theprojects which have been approved by the Committee so asto take into account the ceiling of 20% (for all threeitems) for projects not approved by the Committee;

c) that before each ordinary Committee session, the WorldHeritage Centre should provide the committee with aglobal bUdgetary report to permit the Committee to betterunderstand the justification for temporary assistancerequested by the Centre;

d) that the amount allocated for promotion in 1993 shouldnot attain, with regard to the CD-ROM programme, anamount of 25% fixed in the detailed project budget. TheCentre should present to the Bureau a report on theevaluation and implementation of this programme. Thecontinuation of this programme (after end-1993) will bedecided in the light of this report;

e) that no funds allocated for temporary assistance can beused for the purchase of equipment or furniture foroffices;

d) that the World Heritage Centre should provide theCommittee at its next session with a complete bUdgetaryreport on the sum accumulated through World Heritage Fundinvestments.

B. The Committee recommended the following:

a) to ensure the scientific quality of operations to becarried out in the field (preparatory assistance,technical co-operation, etc.) it is indispensable to usethe services of experts, not only highly competent intheir field but also having a wide knowledge of thecultures concerned.

b) As far as possible and to make appreciable reduction incosts, it is recommended to make use of expertiseavailable in the region concerned.

c) with regard to training, whether local, regional orinternational, it is recommended to call upon, to theextent possible, the advice and services of IUCN andICCROM.

54

This method can, also be considered as contributingtowards lowering costs.

d) The participation of highly qualified experts isrecommended in each action necessary for the safeguardingof the heritage (be it archealogy and the history of art,conservation techniques for architecture or engineering,physical or chemical methods, or management techniques) .

Whenever necessary, call will be made upon thisexpertise, working as closely together as possible with thespecialized organizations concerned.

XII.7 Noting the comments' of IUCN and IOCMOS on theirbudget allocations, the Committee proposed that thesequestions of giving supplementary allocations be examined bythe Bureau at its next meeting upon submission of appropriatejustifications.

XIII.REVISION OF THE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THEWORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION

XIII.1 Natural Heritage criteria

XIII.1.1 The Bureau examined document WHC-92/CONF.002/10 inthe light of introductory remarks made by the Representativeof IUCN and changes proposed by the Delegation of the unitedstates of America. The Committee adopted the revised naturalheritage criteria and the conditions of integrity amended inaccordance with the proposals made by the United statesDelegation. The Committee requested the Centre to revise theOperational Guidelines accordingly and submit them to theBureau for verification and approval so that the revisedcriteria for integrity could come into effect by 1 October1993.

XIII.2 Cultural criteria

XIII.2.1 The Committee examined document WHC­92/CONF. 002/10Add. As requested by the Committee at itsfifteenth session in Carthage, the Secretariat incollaboration with ICOMOS, IUCN and other competent partners,organized an expert meeting on Cultural Landscapes at LaPetite Pierre in October 1992 at the invitation of the FrenchMinistry of the Environment.

55

XIII.2.2 The Representative of ICOMOS reported on theproposed amendments to the six existing criteria for culturalproperties and on the recommendations. for the newinterpretative paragraphs relating to cultural landscapeswhich would replace the existing paragraph 34.

XIII.2.3 The Committee adopted the revised cultural criteriawhich now include outstanding cultural landscapes.Furthermore, the Committee made the following recommendations:

(a) the modified criteria will be applied in identifying andevaluating cultural landscapes for the World Heritage List;

(b) the German proposal for amendments to paragraph 24 (b)(ii) and the new paragraph 37 will be incorporated in theOperational Guidelines;

(c) in view of the relationship of many cultural landscapesto the maintenance of ecosystem processes and biologicaldiversity, the importance of interdisciplinary reVlew ofproposals for inscribing such sites needs to be kept in mind.In this regard, IUCN has offered to assist ICOMOS in landscapeevaluations;

(d) it is essential to ensure that cultural landscapesnominated for the World Heritage List meet the higheststandards of universal significance and integrity thatcharacterize sites inscribed previously under natural andcultural criteria;

(e) the states Parties should be informed of the new criteriaand be asked to submit Tentative Lists of cultural landscapesin accordance with paragraph 7 of the Operational Guidelines;

(f) the Centre is requested to convene a group of experts onthe tentative lists and related lssues (illustrations,examples and specific revisions requested by these criteria) ,and report back to the seventeenth session of the Bureau.

XIII.3 Framework Proposal for the Global study

XIII.3.1 The Committee examined a proposed framework,presented by the Delegation of the united states of America,for the preparation of a global study for cultural properties.

XIII. 3 . 2 After having recalled that the proposal was theoutcome of discussions between the Delegations of the Unitedstates and Greece, the United states Representative

56

particuarly insisted on the distinction to be made between theindicative lists (prepared and presented by the states Partiesfrom a strictly national viewpoint) and the global studysystem (which must include the lists prepared by the experts,on a mUltidisciplinary basis and in line with given universalconsiderations). Furthermore, he emphasized that the need fora global study has been the object of a consensus for manyyears and it was now most important to start this study.

XIII.3.3 The Committee took note of the document as well asof the proposal of a study system founded on the basis of amatrix structuring cultural properties into three categories:time, culture and human achievement.

XIII.3.4 To this end, the Committee decided upon theconstitution of a working group which, in consultation withICOMOS and ICCROM and in liaison with the World HeritageCentre, will formulate a report to be presented to the Bureauduring its seventeenth session in 1993. The working groupwill comprise, apart from ICOMOS and ICCROM, experts fromGermany, the united states of America, France, Greece, Italy,Mexico, Poland and Tunisia and other interested statesParties.

XIV. DATE AND PLACE OF THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE BUREAUAND THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

XIV.1 The Committee decided that the session of theBureau of the World Heritage Committee will be held at UNESCOHeadquarters in Paris from 21 to 26 June 1993.

XIV.2 The Delegate from Colombia repeated the invitationby the Colombian Government to the Director-General to invitethe seventeenth session of the World Heritage Committee to beheld from the 6 to 11 December 1993 in Cartagena, Colombia. Onbehalf of the Director-General, Mr. von Droste expressed histhanks for the generous offer of Colombia, and underlinedthat, however, a formal agreement following the decisions ofthe General Conference has to be worked out. The Bureau willconduct a meeting in advance of the seventeenth session of theWorld Heritage Committee to consider a selected number ofitems.

XIV.3 Several members of the Committee expressed theirgratitude for the kind invitation by Colombia.

XIV.4nominate

IUCN expresseda natural site

thefor

wishthe

thatWorld

ColombiaHeritage

shouldList.

57

Furthermore, IUCN proposed to host a future Bureau meeting intheir new Headquarters in Gland/Switzerland.

xv. OTHER QUESTIONS

XV.l The committee took note of the proposal from Canadato provide to the World Heritage Fund in accordance with theprovisions of Article 15, paragaph 4 of the Convention, a sumof C.$200,OOO (Canadian dollars) for 1993-1994 for specificprojects identified by the Canadian Government. The Committeethanked and congratulated the Canadian Government for takingthis initiative. The Committee was informed by the CanadianObserver that under the proposed scheme the CanadianGovernment would request the Committee to advance funds forspecific projects and would reimburse the cost incurred by theWorld Heritage Fund for implementing the projects.

XV.2 The Committee, however, requested the Centre tostudy the Canadian proposal in detail, particularly theimplications linked to receiving funds from a States Party toimplement projects identified by that Party and submit areport to the seventeenth session of the Bureau.

XV.3 As a first step, the Committee approved acontribution of US$ 30,000 towards the organization of ameeting to harmonize tentative lists of heritage-canals fromall parts of the world.

XVI. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

XVI.l On behalf of the Committee, the Chairperson, Mrs.Salisbury, thanked the Rapporteur and the Secretariat of theWorld Heritage Centre for their efficiency in carrying out thework. She also mentioned the considerable work achieved by theCommittee. She thanked all those who contributed towards thesuccess of the sixteenth session.

XVI.2 In the name of his colleagues, the Delegate ofTunisia congratulated the Chairperson, and acknowledged thework accomplished by the Secretariat, the interpreters and thewelcome service of the host country.

XVI.3 Finally, the Director of the Centre, in the name ofthe Director-General, thanked the members of the Committee andthe Bureau and assured them that the Centre would implementthe new strategic orientations adopted by the Committee.

XVI.4 The Chairperson then declared the closure of thesixteenth session of the Committee.

I.

11.

Ill.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

XV.

XVI.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

OPENING SESSION

ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-CHAIRPERSONS

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT SINCETHE FIFTEENTH SESSION

REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THEBUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

PRESENTATION OF THE EVALUATION REPORT ON THEIMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION AND THE DRAFT STRATEGYFOR THE FUTURE

MONITORING OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE WORLDHERITAGE CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES

PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES: REPORT ON THE CELEBRATION OF THETWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CONVENTION AND FUTUREPROPOSALS

NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THEWORLD HERITAGE LIST AND LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER

REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

SITUATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND DRAFT BUDGET FOR1993

REVISION OF THE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THEWORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION

DATE AND PLACE OF THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE BUREAUAND THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

OTHER QUESTIONS

CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

(i)

I N D E X

A)

1.

Name of property

Abou MenaAft Ben HaddouAntigua

BathBudapest

CartagenaChaco Canyon

DamascusDelosDelphiDubrovnik

El Jem

GgantijaG6reme

Hadrian's Wall

Istanbul

KathmanduKizhi Pogost

Machu picchu

OlindaOuro Preto

Paris, Banks of the SeinePorto BelloPotosi

QuebecQuito

CULTURAL PROPERTIES

MONITORING

Page Number

10-112014

1816

1419

12111110

12-13

1213

18

13

17-1818

14

1414

161414

15-1614

RilaRome

Salvador de BahiaSan Francisco de LimaSan JuanSan LorenzoStonehenge

TikalTipasaTyr

vatican city

2.

Angkor

Ban ChiangBourgesButrinti

Cesky Krumlov

El Tajin

Goslar (and Rammelsberg)

Kasbah of Algiers

Novgorod

Prague

Rammelsberg (and Goslar)Rio Abiseo

SamosSolovetsky Islands

TaosTelc

Vladimir and Suzdal

Zamosc

( ii)

INSCRIPTION

Page number

1516-17

1414141418

141919

11

37-38, 46

414036

39-40

40

40

36

40

39

4040

4040

4140

41

40

B)

Name of Property

Air and Tenere

1.

( iii)

NATURAL PROPERTIES

MONITORING

Page Number

29

Danube DeltaDinosaur Provincial ParkDjoudjDurmitor

Everglades

GalapagosGaramba

IguayuIguazu

ManasManovo-Gounda saint FlorisMont NimbaMosi-oa-Tunya (victoria Falls)

Niokolo-Koba

Olympic National Park

Plitvice

Queensland

SangaySimienSrebarna

Talamanca-La AmistadTe-WahipounamuTsingy Bemaraha

Wood Buffalo

30203031-32

30-31

2632

2020

2022-2326-2832-33

30

31

24-25

20-21

25-262021-22

23-242928-29

20

Air and Tenere

Belovezhskaya Pushcha

Fraser Island

Huanglong

Jiuzhaigou

ManasMont Nimba

Plitvice

SangaySrebarna

WUlingyuan

(iv)

2. INSCRIPTION

Page number

46

37

36-37

39

38-39

4646

46

4645

38

Name of Property

Mont Athos

C)

1.

MIXED SITE

MONITORING

Page Number

33

I.

11.

(v)

A. ANNEXES TO THE REPORT

List of Participants

strategic Orientations

Ill. Declaration of the Representative of Egypt

IV.

V.

VI.

I.

11.

Declaration of the Representative of the Holy See

Declaration of the Representative of Mexico

Declaration of the Representative of the United States ofAmerica

B. INFORMATION DOCUMENTS

Speech of Mr. Russell Train, President of the WorldWildlife Fund for Nature, United States

Opening speech of the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr.Federico Mayor

ANNEX I

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS

I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE

BRAZIL/BRESIL

Mr. Ademar CRUZ Jr.Advisor to the Chief of the Cultural

DepartmentMinistry of Foreign AffairsSqn. 308 Block "F", Apto. 504BRAS ILIA

CHINA/CHINE

Mr. Shang Hua LIUSenior Engineer and Deputy DirectorDepartment of National Scenic AreasMinistry of Construction9 San Li He AvenueBeiwanzhuangBEIJING

Mr. Yansheng MADeputy DirectorDivision of General Policy, Culture and CommunicationChinese National Commission for UNESCOBEIJING 100816

CYPRUS/CHYPRE

Mr. Christos CASSlMATISDeputy Permanent DelegatePermanent Delegation of Cyprus to UNESCO86 Av. FochPARIS 75116

2

COLOMBIA/COLOMBIE

Mrs Olga PIZANODeputy Director of Cultural HeritageCO LCUL,:"'JRAColombian Institute for CultureCalle 9# 8-31BOGOTA

EGYPT/EGYPTE

Dr. Mohamed Gamal EL DIN MOKHTARex-PresidentEgyptian Antiquities16 Sahab streetGIZA

FRANCE

Mme. Francoise BERCEChief Conservator for HeritageMinistry for National Education and Culture12 rue du Parc Royal75003 PARIS

Mr. Jean-Pierre BOYERTechnical Adviser to the French National

Commission for UNESCOFrench National Commission for UNESCO42 Av. Ray~ond Poincare75116 PARIS

Mr. Jean-Louis PONScivil AdministratorMinistry for the Environment14 Bd. General Leclerc92524 NEUILLY-sur-SEINE

Mr. Leon PRESSOUYREProfessorUniversity of Paris IPARIS 75005

3

GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE

Mr. Hans CASPARYConservator of Hi~toric MonumentsLandesamt fur DenK~alpslege

Rheinland-PfalzGottelmannstrasse 170-6500 Mainz 1Germany

Mr. H. PLACHTERProfessor for Biology & Natural PreservationUniversity MarburgLahnbergeOW-MARBURG

INDONESIA/INDONESIE

Mr. Rizali INDRAKESUMAVice Consul (Cultural Information)Indonesian Consulate GeneralHOUSTON, TexasUSA

ITALY/ITALIE

H.E. Ambassador Michelangelo JACOBUCCIPermanent DelegatePermanent Delegation of Italy to UNESCOUNESCO House1 rue Miollis75015 PARIS

Mme. Margherita SABATINIDirection Generale for Cultural RelationsMinistry for Foreign AffairsVia N. Tilli 6200156 ROMEMs Clara PALMASMinistry of Environment and Architectural

Properties22 rue st. MicheleROME

MEXICO/MEXIQUE

Mr. Salvador DIAZ-BERRIODeputy DirectorTechnical Support and Training (INAH)CORDOBA 45MEXICO D.F. 06710

4

OMAN

~1r. Ali AL-KATHIRYSecond SecretaryEmbassy of the Sultanate of Oman2342 Massachusetts Av. NWWASHINGTON D.C.20008

PAKISTAN

Dr. Ahmed Nabi KHANDirector-General of Archaeology & MuseumsGovernment of Pakistan27-A Central Union Commercial AreaShaheed-e-Millat RoadKARACHI

PERUjPEROU

Mr. Martin YRIGOYENDirector of Press and InformationMinistry of Foreign AffairsMalecon Cismeros 1270MinafloresLIMA

PHILIPPINES

Mme Deanna ONGPIN-RECTOAttache to the Philippine Permanent

Delegation to UNESCOUNESCO House1 rue Miollis75015 PARIS

SENEGAL

Mr. Mbaye Bassine DIENGDirectorHistoric and Ethnographic CultureB.P. 4001DAKAR

Mr. Seydina Issa SYLLADirectorNational Parks ServiceBP 5135 DAKAR-FANNPoint "E" DAKAR

5

SPAIN/ESPAGNE

Ms. Maria MARINESubdirectora General de Monumentos y ArqueologiaICRBCMinisterio de Culturacalle Greco sin28015 MADRID

SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE ARABE SYRIENNE

Dr. Ali ABOU ASSEFIGeneral DirectorAnLiquities and MuseumsNational MuseumDAMASCUS

THAILAND/THAI LANDE

Dr. Adul WICHIENCHAROENChairmanNational Committee for Protection of the

World Cultural & Natural HeritageBANGKOK

Mr. Sunthad SOMCHEVITASecretary-GeneralOffice of Environmental Policy & Planning60/1 PhibulwattanaRama IV RoadBANGKOK 10400Lt. Bunnalert RUSHTAKULDeputy Director-GeneralRoyal Forest DepartmentBANGKOK

Mr. Payung NOPSUWANDirector of National Park DivisionRoyal Forest DepartmentBANGKOK

Miss Pinida LEWCHALERMWONGBudget AnalystBureau of BudgetOffice of the Prime MinisterBANGKOK

6

Mrs. Somsuda LEYAVANIJAArchaeologistArchaeology DivisionFine Arts Department68/2 Ladprado 87BANGKOK

Mr. Manit SIRIWANDirector of Natural and Cultural Heritage

Conservation DivisionSecretary to the National Committee on

World HeritageBANGKOK

Mr. Phathai NIJARNDRECHAVice-GovernorUdonthani ProvinceOffice of Udonthani Province

Mr. Surachet ~HETTAMART

Assistant ProfessorFaculty of ForestryKasetsart UniversityBANGKOK 10903

TUNISIA/TUNISIE

Mr. A. BESCHAOUCHDirector of Archaeological ResearchNational Institute of Archaeology and ArtTUNIS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE

The Honourable Manuel LUJAN Jr.united states Secretary of the Interiorunited states Department of the InteriorWASHINGTON D.C. 20013-7127

Ms Jennifer SALISBURYDeputy Assistant Secretary for Fish

and wildlife and Parksunited States Representative to the

World Heritage Conventionunited States Department of the InteriorWASHINGTON D.C. 20013-7127

7

8

Mr. Knute KnudsonDeputy Chief-of-StaffDepartment of the Interior635 A st. N.E.WASHINGTON D.C. 20002

Mr. James RIDENOURDirectorNational Parks Service

Mr. Robert BLOHMDeputy Director of the

Department of StateOffice of Ecology, Health & ConservationWASHINGTON

Mr. Terry MILLERDirectorOffice of UN Social & Refugee Affairs4787 Farndon StreetFAIRFAX, UA 22032

Mr. Richard COOKChief, International AffairsNational Park ServiceP.o. Box 37127WASHINGTON D.C. 20013

11. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/ORGANISATIONSPARTICIPANT A TITRE CO"'-:;ULTATIF

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES/CONSEIL INTERNATIONALDES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES(ICOMOS)

Mr. Herb STOVELSecretary General301 Strathearn AvenueMONTREALQuebec

Mr. Henry CLEEREWorld Heritage Co-ordinator75 rue du TemplePARIS 75003

Ms Terry B. MORTONPresidentICOMOS/US1600-H st. N.W.WASHINTON D.C.

9

Ms Barbara TIMKENEducation ConsultantICOMOS/US1600 H street NWWASHINGTr~ D.C. 20006

THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)/UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE(UICN)

Mr. James THORSELLSenior Adviser - Natural HeritageRue Mauverney 28CH-1196 GLANDswitzerland

Mr. P.H.C. (Bing) LUCASIUCN Commission on National Parks &

Protected Areas1/268 Main RoadTawaWELLINGTON 6006New Zealand

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THERESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D' ETUDES POURLA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM)

Mr. Marc LAENENDirectorVia di S. Michele 1300153 ROMEItaly

Mr. Jukka JOKILEHTOChiefArchitectural Conservation ProgrammeVia di S. Michele 1300153 ROMEItaly

Ill. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS

ALGERIA/ALGERIE

Mr. Mohammed BOUKLI-HACENEDeputy Director for Monuments, Historic Sites

and National ParksMinistry for Culture and CommunicationsPlateau des AnnassersPalais de la CultureALGIERS

Ms. Kadr ia KADRAInspector for Cultural HeritageMinistry for Culture and CommunicationsAlgiers

Mr. Omar HACHIChief Heritage ConservatorALGIERS

Ms. Houria BONHIREDPresident of the Association

"Sauvons la Casbah"3 rue Maleike Ben AissaKasbahALGIERS

AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE

Mr. Andy TURNERAssistant SecretaryDepartment of the Arts, Sport, the

Environment & TerritoriesCANBERRA

BANGLADESH

Mme Touhida Faruki BEGUMSecretaryBangladesh National Commission for UNESCO1 Asian HighwayDHAKA

BELIZE

Mr. Mick CRAIGBelize National Commission for UNESCOP.c. Box 47BELMOPAN

BULGARIA/BULGARIE

Mr. Branimor NATOVDeputy MinisterMinistry of Environment67 Gladstone str.SOFIA

10

11

CANADA

M. Michel BONNETTEDirecteurDivision du Vieux-Quebecet du Patrimoine

Service de l'urbanisme2 rue des JardinsC.P. 700, Haute-VilleQUEDEC GlS 4S9

Ms Christina CAMERONDirector-GeneralCanadian Parks ServiceEnvironment Canada25 rue EddyHULL P.Q. KIA OH3

Mme. Gisele CANTINChef, Affaires IntergovernementalesService Canadien des ParcsEnvironment Canada25 rue EddyHULL, Quebec K1A OH3

Mr. Harold EIDSVIKConsultant135 Dorothea DriveOTTAWA KIV 7C6

Mme Louise L. TRAHANChargee de Programme Culture et

Decennie Mondiale du DeveloppementCulturel

Commission Canadienne pour l'UNESCO99 rue Metcalfe, C.P. 1047OTTAWA KIP 5V8

CZECH AND SLOVAK FEDERAL REPUBLICjREPUBLIQUE FEDERALE TCHEQUE ETSLOVAK

Mr. Peter MUSKADirector of the Ecological Policy DivisionHlboua 281235 BRATISLAVA

Mr. Josef STULCMember of the National ICOMOS CommitteeAmericka 212000 PRAGUE 2

FINLAND/FINLANDE

Mr. Jaakko ANTTI-POlKADirectorSuomenlinna Fortress IslandSuomenlinna C 6200100 HELSINKI

GREECE/GRECE

Or Yannis TOURARSOGLOUDepart~ent of Classical AntiquitiesMinis~:y of CultureTossitsa No 1/106 82ATHENS

GUINEA/GUINEE

Mr. Lancei BAKAYOKODirector-GeneralMIFERB.P. 837CONAKRY

Mr. Ibrahima MAGASSDUBASecretary GeneralUNESCO National Commission for UNESCOP.O.Box 964CONAKRY

HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE

His Exc. Ernesto GallinaArchbishop, Apostolic NuncioDelegate for InternationalGovernmental Organizations

vatican CityROME

JAPAN/JAPON

Mr. Kunio KlKUCHIDirectorPlanning DivisionNature Conservation BuredUEnvironment Agency1-2-2 KasumigasekiChiyoda-kuTOKYO

12

Mr. Kanefusa MASUDAChief Senior Specialist of Historic MonumentsArchitecture DivisionAgency for Cultural AffairsMinistry of Education, Science and Culture3-2-2 Kasumigaseki ChiyodakuTOKYO 100

Mr. Kensei ODAForestry AgencyMinistry of AgricultureForestry & Fisheries1-2-1 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-kuTOKYO

NETHERLANDSjPAYS-BAS

Mrs. Sabine GIMBREREDeputy HeadBureau for International Cultural RelationsMinistry for Cultural AffairsP.o. Box 30092280 ML RIJSWIJK

POIANDjPOLOGNE

Professor Krzysztof PAWLOWSKIAssociate Professor of Toulouse & Monpellier UniversitiesResidence des FacultesLa Picardia201 Avenue de la Justice34090 MONTPELLIERFrance

RUSSIAjRUSSlE

Ms Tatiana NIKITINADeputy Minister of CultureMinistry of CultureKitaiskiy Pr. 7MOSCOW

SWITZERIANDjSUISSE

Ms Brigitta SCHOCHConsulConsulate General of switzerland11766 Wilshire Blvd.# 1400LOS ANGELES CA 90025

13

A. NON-GOVERNMENTALGOUVERNMENTALES

ORGANIZATIONS/ORGANISATIONS

14

NON-

THE GETTY CONSERVATIONCONSERVATION

Mr. Miguel Angel CORZODirectorThe Getty Conservation Institute4503 Glencoe AvenueMarina del ReyCa 90292

Mr. Neville AGNEWThe Getty Conservation Institute4503 Glencoe AvenueMarina del ReyCa. 90292

Ms Arlene FLEMINGConsultantThe Getty Conservation Institute4503 Glencoe AvenueMarina del ReyCa 90292

Ms. Margaret MACLEANSenior Co-ordinatorThe Getty Conservation Institute4503 Glencoe AvenueMarine del ReyCa. 90292

Ms Jane SLATEHead, Institutional RelationsThe Getty Conservation Institute4503 Glencoe AvenueMarina del ReyCa. 90292

Mr. Timothy P. WHALENProgram OfficerThe Getty Grant Program401 Wilshire Blvd.Santa Monica Ca. 90401

INSTITUTE/INSTITUT GETTY DE

15

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND-US/FOND MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE-USA

Mr. Russell E. TRAINChairmanWorld wildlife Fund-USA1803 Kalorama Square NWWASHINGTON D.C. 20008

Mr. Douglas WILLIAMSONWorld wildlife Fund-USACongressional Liaison1250 24th street NWWASHINGTON D.C. 20037

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS/INSTITUT AMERICAN DES ARCHITECTS

Mr. M. Hamilton MORTON, Jr.Architect4813 Falstone AvenueChevy ChaseMD 20815

IV. PRESS

Ms Marguerite CULPJournalistP.O. Box 23316SANTA FENM 87502

Ms Ellen HOFFMANOMNI Magazine/USAP.O. Box 3144Shepherdstown,W.V. '25443

v. SECRETARIAT

Mr. Federico MAYORDirector-General

Mr. Bernd von DROSTEDirectorWorld Heritage Centre

Mr. Said ZULFICARDeputy DirectorWorld Heritage Centre

Mr. Mounir BOUCHENAKIActing DirectorDivision of Cultural Heritage

Mr. Gerard BOLLAUNESCO Consultant

Mr. Richard ENGELHARDTUNESCO Representative in Cambodia

Mr. T. FORSTENZERDirectorate, CAB

Ms Breda PAVLICHead of OfficeUNESCO OfficeQuebec City

Mr. Natarajan ISHWARANWorld Heritage Centre

Ms Mireille JARDINWorld Heritage Centre

Ms Mechtild ROSSLERWorld Heritage Centre

Ms. F. TRUELInterpretation Division

Ms Jane DEGEORGESWorld Heritage Centre

Ms Jocelyne POUTEAUWorld Heritage Centre

UNESCO/UNDP

Mr. Sylvio MUTALChief, UNDPjUNESCO ProjectCasilla 4480LIMA

16

ANNEX 11

I. BACKGROUND

1. As of 1 October 1992, the Convention concerning the protectionof the world cultural and natural heritage (henceforth called the"Convention") adopted 16 November 1976 by the 17th Session of theUNESCO General Conference, comprising 127 States' Parties(henceforth called the "Parties") from all regions of the worldregardless of their political regimes, their socio-economicsystems, their centralized or federal governmental structures,their cultural diversities, their differing forms of cultural ornatural heritage, their policies with regard to administration oftheir heritage etc.

2. At the XIvth session of the World Heritage Committee (Banff,Canada in December 1990) (henceforth called the "Committee") it wasdecided that 1992, the year during which the Twentieth anniversaryof the Convention of the World Cultural Heritage is to becelebrated, should be the occasion for an in-depth evaluation ofthe implementation of the Convention prior to undertaking thepreparation and the adoption of a future strategy.

3. In 1991, as a follow-up to this decision, the Secretariatcalled in a consultant, Mr. Azzedine Beschaouch, who was given thetask of preparing an evaluation of the work done by the Convention.

4. A meeting took place in Washington between 22-24 June 1992during which a panel of experts, provided with the evaluationreport, drew up a series of recommendations which were examined bythe Bureau of the Committee (henceforth called the "Bureau") at its16th Session in Paris (6-10 July 1992).

5. This panel of experts has met once again in Paris from 27-30October 1992. The aim of the meeting was to finalise a plan setdown in this document, which is to be submitted to the Committee atits 16th Session (Santa Fe, 7-14 December 1992) taking intoconsideration the recommendations, proposals or suggestions putforward by Mr. Azzedine Beschaouch, those of the panel of experts,the Bureau of the Committee and its consultative bodies (ICCROM,ICOMOS, IUCN) , as well as the proposals contained in a reportprepared by Mr Gerard Bolla.

6. During its 140th session, the Executive Board of UNESCO hastaken into consideration a report of the Director-General (document40 EXj13) concerning "the revitalization of UNESCO' s action for theprotection of world cultural and natural heritage".

11. GOALS

A. INTRODUCTION

1992 marks the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of theWorld Heritage Convention. After twenty years, the Conventionremains a remarkably visionary instrument, with the potential toachieve outstanding successes in global conservation causes. At therequest of the World Heritage Committee, and its Secretariat, thenew UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the occasion has been dedicatedto a series of efforts to review and evaluate the Convention IS

performance, to identify weaknesses, and to recommend specificactions that would lead to improvements in its performance.

These efforts, including both special studies and meetingsdescribed in the following pages, have been undertaken with a viewto enabling the Convention not only to realize its full potentialas envisioned in 1972, but also to address new challenges based onanticipated trends of the future.

The original concept of the Convention and its futurechallenges involve several major goals that have been identified.For each goal, selected objectives have been listed as a referenceguide to States Parties, the Committee, the advisory organizations,and the World Heritage Centre.

In addition, the following pages describe the sequence ofevents during the evaluation and planning stages, generalrecommendations for renewed and expanded efforts among the StatesParties and a summary of specific recommendations for Committeeaction of both a procedural and technical nature.

It should be noted that this process is by no means marked bya clear beginning and ending. On the contrary, the process shouldbe maintained and improved, on a continuous basis. However, 1992is the appropriate occasion to advance the core elements that couldbe the bases for strategic plans by all the major players in theconvention, including the advisory bodies and the World HeritageCentre.

B. STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

1 - Goal

Objectives

Promote completion of the identification ofthe world heritage

Complete the global study and appropriatethematic studies

2 - Goal

Objectives

3

Assist, where necessary, in identification ofsites and preparation of nominationsEnsure the continued representativity andcredibility of the World Heritage List

Maintain objective and consistent review andevaluation procedures

Refine and update criteria for evaluation ofnatural/cultural heritage nominations

Promote consideration for incription from allgeo/cultural regions of the world

Consider situation ofqualifying for listing

sites no longer

3 - Goal

Objectives

4 - Goal

Objectives

5 - Goal

Objectives

Promote the adequate protection and managementof the World Heritage Sites

Take specific steps to assist in strengtheningsite protection and management

Take appropriate actions to address threatsand damage to sites

Pursue more systematic monitoring of WorldHeritage sites

Define elements and procedures for monitoring

cooperate with State parties and competentauthorities on regular monitoring work

Increase public awareness. involvement andsupport

Provide support to site presentation andinterpretation

Implement a professionally designedmarketing strategy

Attract donationsincluding throughaccountability inmanagement

and pUblic support,demonstration of

World Heritage Fund

4

Reinforce the image of a World Heritage sitenetwork by introducing standards in the designand content of site programs and generalinformation materials

Compile andhighlightingConvention

regularly distributethe success stories

reportsof the

Encourage appropriate co-operation with localpopulations in promoting and protecting WorldHeritage sites

Provide support for circulation of exhibits onWorld Heritage sites among states Parties tothe Convention

Ill. RECOMMENDATIONS

I. THE CONVENTION AND ITS LINKS WITH OTHER INTERNATIONALCONVENTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Every effort should be made to ensure that the states whichhave not yet done so become Parties to the Convention.

2. It is not necessary to revise the Convention, but only itsOperational Guidelines should be periodically reviewed.

3. There should be closer links between the World HeritageConvention and the other Conventions (the Hague Convention, theconvention concerning Illicit Traffic of cultural property, theGeneva Convention, the Ramsar Convention, the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species of wild Fauna and Flora(CITES), the Biodiversity Convention, etc.). These could beachieved by the states Parties to the World Heritage Conventionbecoming Parties to those Conventions, by organizing consultationsbetween the secretariats, when they exist, and by regularlyinviting observers from the other Conventions' governing bodies toattend meetings of the Committee. Moreover, it must be recalledthat it is necessary to study the means by which to strengthenthese links between the different conventions and avoid alloverlapping of their actions. In this context, it is advisablethat in the future the World Heritage Centre plays an increasinglyimportant role, in order to take into consideration all theproblems relating to the safeguarding of World Heritage in Danger.

5

11. BODIES RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

4. The three pillars on which implementation of the Conventionrests, namely, the Committee, the Secretariat, and theconsultative bodies, should play their role fully and equitably.

A. The committee

5. To ensure observance of Article 9.3 of the Convention, whichstipulates that the Member States of the Committee should berepresented by experts, it is recommended that:

states communicate in advance to the Secretariat the names andstatus of their representatives. The Secretariat shouldremind them, if necessary, of their obligations in thisregard;

The attendance of experts, not only from the LDCs but from allthe developing countries, should be facilitated as necessaryby assistance from the Fund. Attendance of not more than tworepresentatives (one for cultural sites, one for naturalsites) by country to any Committee meeting will be consideredinasfar as the Fund resources permit;

Pursuant to Article 10.2 of the Convention, the Committeeshould invite to its meetings pUblic or private bodies orindividuals who would attend the Committee's sessions asobservers and augment the expertise available to it. Theseobservers would be chosen with the utmost attention to theneed for equitable representation, within the Committee, ofthe different cultural and natural areas, and would beconsulted on specific matters.

6. In order to improve the functioning of the Committee, it isrecommended that:

Specific working groups be established not only during theCommittee sessions but also between its sessions in order toexamine questions such as the budget, the monitoring of thestate of conservation of property, requests for internationalassistance and revisions of the Operational Guidelines. Theseworking groups should report to the Committee;

Meetings of the outgoing Bureau should be organized beforeeach regular session of the Committee, with the attendancebeing sought of those members of the outgoing Bureau who wouldno longer be members of the Committee;

6

strict procedures for debate should continue to be followed inthe committee and the Bureau sessions, enabling each member toexpress his or her position, and to more accurately recorddecisions taken on each item of business, possibly even by avote, but without the search for a consensus being abandoned;

The rule that the representative of a state should notintervene to support a nomination or assistance request fromhis or her own country should be more strictly applied.

B. The Secretariat

7 . The Committe appeals to the Director-General of UNESCO toprovide sufficient financial resources to the World Heritage Centreto ensure the effective functioning of the Committee and theimplementatioon of its decisions, as required by Article 14 of theConvention. until this is done , it is recommended that theCommittee continue to consider requests by the Centre for temporaryassistance for this purpose.

8. States Parties to the Convention should be encouraged tosecond competent staff to the centre, in order to strengthen it.Closer and more constant cooperation between the Centre and otherUNESCO sectors as well as the implementing bodies of otherconventions, when they exist, is strongly encouraged for mutualstrengthening and support of the Convention.

C. The Consultative Bodies

9. Cultural and natural heritage should no longer be consideredseparately for purposes of site planning, management, andconservation. A common philosophy should be promoted which wouldmerge the human dimension of the heritage with the environmentalaspect. Such philosophy would not supplant the definitions of thenatural and cultural heritage in the Convention, but could be usedto further efforts to enhance site planning and conservation by amore integrated approach. It recommended that the Centre shouldtake all the necessary steps in this direction.

10. Every means should be employed to improve the structures andexpertise of ICOMOS and IUCN. with respect to ICOMOS, StatesParties should be encouraged to give more vigorous support to theNational Committees, and ICOMOS should ensure the representation ofthe different disciplines concerned, by drawing fully on itsconstituent professional groups and networks.

11. The offer of ICCROM to continue and even expand itscooperation with the Committee in areas of training, expertise,documentation, and research should be accepted and developedfurther.

7

12. The Centre should build on the special historic and traditionalpartnership which exists between IUCN, ICOMOS, and ICCROM inimplementation of the Convention.

13. Furthermore a genuine partnership should be established, onthe basis of the guidelines of the Committee, between the Centreand the three organizations, both regarding the techniques and thedoctrine of conservation.

14. The Centre should draw up a list of NGOs and institutions withwhich it would be desirable to have closer ties and which mightalso be consulted by the Committee and the Centre on specificmatters, pursuant to Article 10.1 of the Convention.

D. The General Assembly

15. The General Assembly of states Parties should be held as earlyas possible during the General Conference of UNESCO, and theChairman of the World Heritage Committee should present its reportto the General Assembly.

Ill. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION

A. The World Heritage List

16. No quantitative limits should be set to the List, butencouragement should be given to the establishment of tentativelists with more systematic assistance being given with theirpreparation to countries which have not yet drawn up such lists.

17. It is not necessary to limit the number of nominationssubmitted each year. However, in order to take account of thedifficulties that the Committee and the advisory bodies have had inmaking a more thorough evaluation and a more searching examinationof nominations, consideration should be given to several solutions,which could complement each other: They include: states beingasked to submit more detailed applications and adhering to thedeadlines set by the Operational Guidelines; nominations receivedafter the deadlines, and/or incomplete nominations should not beput forward for consideration; all available documentation shouldbe sent to the members of the Committee early in the annual cycleof nomination review; and, the advisory bodies should be given moretime for their reviews by:

expediting the referral of nomination files from theSecretariat; and,

producing a draft Bureau report during the Bureau meeting toconfirm recommendations with respect to nominations.

8

18. To make the List more representative, the Centre shouldexamine, with the appropriate experts, the List's deficiencies andways of correcting them.

19. A critical evaluation should also be made of the criteriagoverning the cultural heritage and the criteria governingauthenticity and integrity, with a view of their possible revision.The World Heritage Centre should, in consultation with ICOMOS,organize a meeting of experts in accord with the decision alreadymade during the fifteenth session of the World Heritage Committee.

20. At each inscription, the characteristics which justified theinclusion of the property on the List and which must, as a result,determine the basis of its future management, should be clearlystated.

21. Inscriptions of sites should be deferred until evidence of thefull commitment of the nominating government for site protection isavailable. Evidence should in particular take the forms ofnational legislation, staffing, funding within the capabilities ofthe government, and management plans, as currently required in thenomination document.

22. In order to insure a rigorous procedure for the inscriptions,nominations deferred by the Bureau on the basis of Category D ofthe Operational Guidelines should not be changed to a differentcategory/status except by consent of the Committee, and should notbe reexamined in the same calendar year.

B. List of World Heritage in Danger

23. Inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger should notbe seen as a sanction, but as the acknowledgement of a conditionthat calls for safeguarding measures, and as a means of securingresources for that purpose. The Centre should promote this ideaamong states.

24. In compliance with Article 11.4 of the Convention, thepossibility of inscribing a site on the List of World Heritage inDanger, without a prior request from the state concerned, should beincluded in the Operational Guidelines.

25. The assistance envisaged in Article 11.4 of the Conventionshould allow for messages from the Committee drawing attention tothe potential or actual dangers threatening a site ; paragraph 58of the Operational Guidelines should be modified accordingly. Inthe case of an emergency, priority should be given to theallocation of financial resources from the World Heritage Fund toproperties inscribed on the World Heritage in Danger.

10

There should be a number of aspects to these efforts, includingsystematic reminders to states Parties asking them to pay theircontributions, the seeking of contributions for specific projectsfrom private foundations and other pUblic or private sources.

33. states requesting and receiving assistance should be requiredto produce more precise reports, based on defined standards, andthe reports should be referred by the Centre, as appropriate, tothe advisory body and, together with their assessments, should bereviewed the Committee, with respect to further assistance requestsfrom the state Party. The Committee may request the World HeritageCentre to pUblish periodically a resume of these reportsaccompanied by illustrated documentation to better inform thepublic of the successes of the Convention in the field ofconservation

34. The Centre should note, in connection with each technicalassistance request, the status of the requesting state Party I sfinancial contribution to the Fund, the amount of assistance fromthe World Heritage Fund previously allocated to the project and/orsite, and, in the case of training, the per centage involvement ofWorld Heritage site related management or conservation staff.

35. No more than 20 per cent of the total annual assistance budget(excluding emergency assistance) should be allocated by theChairman without discussion and approval of the full Committee.

36. The Committee should consider re-establishing a contingencyreserve as a per centage of the annual budget to be available forresponses to unforseen emergencies affecting World Heritage sites.

37. Assistance requests should be referred, as appropriate, to theadvisory bodies for review/evaluation, and their evaluations shouldbe presented to the Bureau, appropriate sub-committee andCommittee.

38. The Fund should be invested more systematically in projectswhich could attract funding, rather than in small, isolatedproj ects. Training should preferably, but not exclusively , involvethe managers of World Heritage sites. When several trainingassistance requests compete for funding that is not adequate tosupport all, priority should be given to requests involving WorldHeritage site management and/or technical conservation personnel.

F. Promotional work

39. Promotional activities, in general, should cover threecomplementary aspects, as follows:

a) communication, i.e. pUblic information by means of themedia;

11

b) promotion i tsel f , by way of exhibitions and variouscultural events; and,

c) development of financial and human resources to promotethe Convention, with the assistance of associations,information from decision-makers, sponsorship and thesale of products credited to the Fund.

d) Information programmes proposed by the Committee to thestates Parties should include action to be taken atalready at primary school level.

40. All promotional activities concerning the Convention should,within UNESCO, be the primary responsibility of the World HeritageCentre, which would report to the Committee.

41. A report on the state of World Heritage property, showing theeffects of inscription on conservation, should, if possible, bepublished by the Centre on a two-yearly basis.

42. The Committee should devote more time, during its sessions, tothe discussion of questions concerning promotion, which should beexamined by specialists.

43. The advisory bodies should increase their respective effortsto increase awareness of, and support for, the Convention.

44. States Parties should promote the Convention, particularly onWorld Heritage sites, by producing publications, plaques, etc.,explaining to the public and groups concerned the philosophy andprinciples of the Convention and the qualities which had justifiedthe inscription of the site. States Parties also should promotethe establishment and activities of associations concerned with thesafeguarding of cultural and natural sites.

45. The World Heritage Centre should recognize the growing concernover the impact of tourism on World Heritage sites and considersponsoring a study on the topic. This study should take intoconsideration other similar efforts, including particularly a 1992publication by WTOjUNEP tourism in protected areas, in order toavoid duplication.

ANNEX III

ABU MINA (EGYPT)

The site of Abu Mina (Sant Minas) is located· in the desert,to the west of Alexandria, on an area of about 2,000 acres whichwas nominated as an archaeological site protected by the Egyptianlaws a long time ago. It contains the remains of a great basilicachurches, hostels for pilgrims, villas, houses, shops, bath houses,a health centre, wine factories, arches, parts of an enclosurewall, etc ..

The site had been venerated since the times of the old RomanEmpire, and became one of the important pilgrimage centres inEgypt. The site took its present form in the late fifth centuryand the early sixth. The legend that dealt with life, death andthe burial of st. Minas at that site, attracted Christian pilgrimsto visit the site.

The site was placed in 1979 on the World Heritage List becauseof its exceptional cultural and spiritual value.

The progress report (item 8 of the Provisional Agenda)reported that the Bureau noted with concern the damage threateningthe conservation of the site of Abu Mina because of these elements.

1. The increased flow of pilgrims

On the contrary, and even unfortunately, it must be noted thatfew pilgrims, visitors and tourists who visit the site nowadays,the site is not placed on Egypt's tourist maps. But, more than tenyears ago, the Coptic Pope choose to stay for some time in one ofthe monasteries of Wade El Natroun, which by chance, is not farfrom Abu Mina. So many of the visitors of the Pope thought that itwas a chance to visit that sacred site nearby. Thus, there was aflow of visitors at that time, but not at all nowadays.

2. The possibility of the reconstruction of a church over theSaint's tomb

There is a small monastery near the site of Abu Mina butentirely outside of the site. This monastery was established inthe year 1959, nearly 14 years before the World Heritage Conventionwas established, by Patriarch Cyril VI. It may be just a dream ora non-realistic hope of the monks of that monastery to come back tothe old sacred site, but at the same time there is no serioussuggestion or proposal for a project, or even the slightest idea ofany rehabilitation or new construction there. The site is entirelyprotected by the Egyptian law for the Protection of Antiquities,

which considers the transformation of any archaeological buildingor land or any part thereof into dwellings, an offence which ispunished by imprisonment and a fine (item 43).

So, such kind of rehabilitation which will damage the dominantcharacteristics and the nature of the historic site is against theAntiquities Law and is completely forbidden, and prevented by law.Surely no authority in Egypt may even think of replacing oldmonuments with new buildings in an archaeological site where lifewas completely different from nowadays.

3. The fragility of the site

No doubt that the remains of the monuments there, which areconstructed of mud and bricks, are very weak and fragile. But theGerman Archaeological Institute in Cairo, which executed manysuccessive excavations and research work there since the site wasdiscovered by the German archaeologist Kaufman in 1907, is nowmaintaining and reinforcing the monuments of the site in a verycareful, reasonable and scientific way. The preservation is inaccordance with the results of the excavations of the GermanInstitute, the Greco-Roman Museum in Alexandria and the CopticMuseum in Cairo.

At the same time, a circular enclosing drainage canal was dugaround the area of Abu Mina in order to protect the site fromunderground and ground water, that may penetrate owing to a projectaiming to reform and cultivate the neighbouring desert land, whichis partly funded by the World Bank. The canal seems also to be abarrier protecting and securing the enclosed area. Access to thesite is now legally possible through an entrance provided with abridge over the drain. There are also some projects to promote thesite, for example establishing a local museum nearby, improvementof the security system and increasing the number of guards at thesite.

Finally, I assure the Bureau and the Committee that the Minasite is not in danger and almost safe.

Thank you.

Dr. Gamal MokhtarRepresentative for Egypt10/12/1992

ANNEX IV

Declaration of the Representative of the Holy See

9 decembre 1992

Madame le President,

Jusqu'a present, par un desir de discretion, je n'ai jamaisdemande la parole.

Je vous l' ai demande maintenant, quand la question del'Hospice Santa Marta est desormais heureusement close, pour unedeclaration, que je prie de bien vouloir inserer - au moins commeannexe - dans le Rapport final:

La voici:

1. Quand, avec une procedure exceptionnelle,

a) le 7 octobre 1982, le Saint-Siege, apres uneinvitation unanime de la Conference generale del'UNESCO, a adhere a la Convention concernant laprotection du patrimoine mondial i

b) le 21 octobre 1984, la cite du vatican a ete inscritesur la Liste du patrimoine mondial i

c) le 8 decembre 1990, ses biens extraterritoriaux a Romeont ete inscrits sur la meme Liste ;

le Saint-Siege exprima sa respectueuse reconnaissance

a) pour la haute consideration dont on l'avait honore, etb) pour l'importante reconnaissance

- de la valeur culturelle unique de son patrimoine- et de son constant souci pour le sauvegarder.

2. Le Saint-Siege

a) desagreablement surpris par la forme et le contenud'une certaine declaration de juillet dernier, atoutefois prefere la considerer comme signe ulterieurd'interet pour ses biens culturels etroitement lies asa propre mission spirituelle

b) exprime sa satisfaction pour les corrections et leseclaircissements donnes a la presente session ducomite par des organes competents, apres de courtoisesvisites et constats personnels exhaustifs faits auvatican soit par le Directeur du Centre du patrimoinemondial, soit par le delegue de l'ICOMOSi

c) rappelle et souligne sa tradition millenaire depromotion et sauvegarde de tout son patrimoine qui estaussi patrimoine de l'humanite entiere.

ANNEX V

Declaration of the Representative of Mexico

Le delegue du Mexique a souligne l'importance des travauxde suivi au niveau regional et a signale l'interet accorde parson pays a cette activite.

En faisant reference aux textes relatifs aux six sitesmexicains inscrits en 1987, elabores et remis au chef du Projetregional PNUDjUNESCO et au Centre du patrimoine mondial enoctobre 1992, il a regrette que les informations fournies nesoient pas apparues dans le Bulletin publie par M. Mutal.

D' autre part, il a precise que le programme du Projetregional pour 1993 ne devait pas inclure les quatre sitesmexicains signales parmi les 17 sites proposes, car le travailde suivi pour ces quatre sites avait deja ete realise.

ANNEX VI

Inscription of Angkor

Declaration of the Representative of the united states of America

The Representative of the united states of America presenteda statement explaining his Government' s position on the Committeeaction. He noted that, although the united states has voted inthe Bureau to inscribe the site only sUbject to the conditionsidentified by ICOMOS, that position was now to support thecompromise consensus to inscribe Angkor immediately.

He noted, however, the United states hope that inscriptionwould in fact lead to stronger protection of this site ofunquestioned international value, and the united states concernthat the committee be willing and able to deal with futureproblems at the site should circumstances not improve.

He noted the position of the united states that thisinscription not be understood as a precedent, and congratulatedICOMOS for the integrity of their position and advice to thecommittee.

THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTIONTHE FIRST TWENTY YEARS AND BEYOND

REMARKS BY THE HONORABLE RUSSELL E. TRAINCHAIRMAN

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

Before

THE INTERNATIONAL WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE MEETINGSanta Fe, New Mexico

Monday, 7 December 1992

I am del ighted to be here this morning among this

distinguished company to reflect on twenty years of the World

Heritage Convention, its contributions to humanity, and its

future.

It is a particular point of pride for me to be present at

this 20th anniversary meeting. When the World Heritage

Convention was first adopted in 1972, I and others who helped

develop the World Heritage concept viewed it as a tremendous

step forward in the international community's recognition of

our shared responsibility to protect the global common. For

the first time, there existed a legal and financial mechanism

through which nations could cooperate to preserve natural and

cultural properties so unique and special that they should be

considered part of the heritage not only of individuals, but

of all mankind.

Today, the great maj ority of the community of nations are

party to the World Heritage Convention, and I believe it is a

great accomplishment that in just twenty years so many nations

have come together to embrace its concept and adopt measures

to ensure its effective implementation.

I believe that the rapid growth of membership in the

Convention reflects the global recognition of the common value

of World Heritage areas and the common need to protect these

areas. But before I get ahead of myself, let me review some

of the history of the Convention.

In the autumn of 1965, I had the privilege of serving as

a member of the Committee on Natural Resources of the White

House Conference on International Cooperation. The idea of a

World Heritage Trust emerged in discussions between myself and

the committee Chairman, Dr. Joseph Fisher, then the

distinguished President of Resources for the Future. The

report of our committee recognized that:

"certain scenic, historic, and natural resources

are part of man's heritage, and their survival is a

matter of concern to all".

and we recommended international cooperation to further chat

purpose.

So far as I recall, this recommendation received little

or no official reaction at first. When I became the first

chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality,

I had the opportunity to give the World Heritage concept a

real push. As a result, part of President Nixon's Message on

the Environment in 1971 said that:

"It would be fitting by 1972 (that being the

centennial Anniversary of the establishment of

Yellowstone National Park) for the nations of the

world to agree to the principle that there are

certain areas of such unique worldwide value that

they should be treated as part of the heritage of

all mankind and accorded special recognition as

part of a World Heritage Trust. Such an

arrangement would impose no limitations on the

sovereignty of those nations which choose to

participate, but would extend special international

recognition to the areas which qualify and would

make available technical and other assistance where

appropriate to assist in their protection and

management."

This idea became a focal point of the united States'

agenda at the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment held in

stockholm in June, 1972, where I was privileged to head the

U.S. Delegation. That Conference marked its twentieth

anniversary this year when the united Nations Conference on

Environment and Development convened in Rio de Janeiro. In

preparation for the 1972 meeting, both the International Union

for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and UNESCO developed draft

conventions embodying the World Heritage concept. The IUCN

draft included both natural and cuI tural sites as we had

originally proposed while the UNESCO draft was primarily

oriented toward the conservation of cultural properties and

sites. While the two draft conventions had some similarities,

there were also significant differences.

Recognizing these differences between the two drafts but

desiring to avoid duplication and to expedite development of

the ~orld Heritage Trust, and believing that the desirable

concept was a convention covering both the natural and

cultural heritage, the united States proposed to UNESCO that

the meeting of experts scheduled for April 1972 consider both

of the draft conventions with a view to combining them into a

single convention for a World Heritage Trust. At the

Conference the delegates in plenary session acknoyTledged that

the draft convention "marks a significant step towards the

protection, on an international scale, of the environment."

They voted overwhelmingly to invite governments to examine the

draft convention "with a view to its adoption at the next

General Conference of UNESCO." This was accompl ished in

October-November of 1972, and the Convention was adopted.

The twenty years between that first step and now seems a

short time in the history of humanity and nations. But in

that time, the World Heritage concept has blossomed into a

vigorous, worldwide program. What has the World Heritage

concept accomplished in its first twenty years? Most

importantly, it has established a system of protection for

those places that are so unique, priceless, and irreplaceable

that they have been declared World Heritage sites -- and I

commend the World Heritage Committee's careful work over the

years to identi fy the best of the best. But just as

important, as this meeting reflects, the Convention provides

an ongoing mechanism for international cooperation based upon

a common recognition of how precious the world's natural and

cultural heritage is, and how it is our common duty to protect

that heritage.

The 1990s and beyond present great possibilities for the

World Heritage program, and it is my hope that this meeting

will focus on bringing about even stronger efforts to realize

the goals of the Convention. Already, the Convention has led

to strengthened recognition of the importance of World

Heritage areas worldwide. It has significantly increased

tourism to such areas. It has raised management standards

and, most importantly, has provided technical training

opportunities, particularly on a regional basis. World

Heritage status has become an important bulwark against

actions which threaten the integrity of listed areas and

sites. The World Bank and other lending agencies now

recognize World Heritage sites as being of central importance

to natural area conservation.

This does not mean that the Convention does not face

significant challenges ahead. A number of World Heritage

sites remain endangered by inadequate management,

underfunding, pollution, and, tragically, even by human

warfare as in the case of Dubrovnik. Some sites remain listed

as severely threatened, and I hope t~at one goal of the

meeting will be to focus attention on bringing those areas

back from the brink. In the united States, the Everglades

National Park was classified for some years as a threatened

World Heritage site, and has again been severely damaged by

the recent hurricane.

The first twenty years have also brought challenges to

the World Heritage Committee. Governments, including, I must

add, the united states, have not always been forthcoming with

their dues to the World Heritage Trust. It is my hope that

before this week is over you will be given some indication by

U. s. representatives of increased U. s. financial support.

And, of course, I realize that developing operational

procedures, guidelines, and criteria for site selection has

also been a challenge.

Even with some shortcomings, however, I believe that we

can look back at the first twenty years of the World Heritage

Convention as a significant success and as a concept that has

proven its worth. Clearly, there is recognition that there

exists a common heritage that merits our special attention and

protection. And clearly, pUblic sentiment calls for

protection of natural and cultural treasures, whether they be

national parks such as the United states' Yellowstone or

cuItural marvels such as Egypt's Abu Simbel. What the

Convention, and this meeting, symbolize is that only through

concerted, cooperative action between governments throughout

the world community will this heritage be protected for future

generations.

Beyond will, protecting the World Heritage also requires

resources, and I hope that this meeting will address is that

of how the world community can increase the level of financial

and technical resources devoted to protecting World Heritage

areas. The 1990s present an awesome challenge to resource

managers in every field as global threats, environmental

degradation and increasing popUlation pressure in partiCUlar,

continue to mount against previously unspoiled natural and

cultural areas. A partiCUlar need exists in the developing

nations of the world, which house many of our greatest World

Heritage sites, but which are the least prepared financially

to protect them.

Finally, it seems clear to me that the fundamental

strength of the World Heritage, and, indeed, its power to help

shape human affairs, 1 ie in its concept of shared ~1uman

values, of a common heritage for all peoples. In a world that

seems increasingly torn by divisiveness, those are values to

cherish and promote. It has always saddened me that the

United States, which did so much to initiate the World

Heritage system, has consistently done so little to promote

knowledge of the World Heritage among its own citizens and

particularly at its 17 World Heritage sites. It is a concept

we should be proud of and actively promote. Mr. Secretary, I

hope that you and your successors at the Department of the

Interior will take that comment to heart and will give the

World Heritage program the attention it deserves.

In closing it is my sincere hope that the World Heritage

program will continue to grow and expand over the next twenty

years in the same way that it has in its first twenty. It is

a program that remains very close in my heart and thoughts.

I wish you the best in your deliberations on the future of the

World Heritage program over the next several days, and am

confident that, through the efforts of this meeting and

further cooperation between nations, the World Heritage

program will prosper. It is a program that deserves nothing

less than our full support.

opening address by M. Federico Mayor,

Director-General of UNESCO

Mr Secretary of the Interior,Mr Chairman of the World Heritage Committee,Mr Governor of the state of New Mexico,Mr Russell Train,Distinguished Members of the World Heritage Committee,Distinguished representatives of bodiesassociated with the World Heritage Convention,

Dear Colleagues,Ladies and Gentlemen,

It gives me very great pleasure to be here in themulticultural and most beautiful city of Santa Fe to inauguratethe sixteenth session of the World Heritage Committee and tocelebrate with you the twentieth anniversary of the WorldHeritage Convention, which has already been marked by a seriesof very successful activities organized at UNESCO Headquartersand in various States Parties.

It is appropriate that this anniversary session of yourCommittee should be taking place in the United States of America,which - as we have just heard - played a leading role in thebirth of the Convention. The united States was subsequently thefirst country to ratify the Convention and hosted - in 1978 inWashington - the Wor Id Her i tage Committee's second sess ion, whichsaw the inscription of the first properties on the World HeritageList. Its support for the Convention has remained strong over theyears, and I thank the American Government for reiterating ­through you, Mr Secretary - its commitment to the protection ofthe world heritage and for extending its hospitality to the WorldHeritage Committee on this occasion.

I should like to pay a special tribute to Mr RussellTrain, who as President of the Conservation Foundation wasinstrumental in promoting and shaping the concept of the WorldHeritage Convention, and who has contributed in no small measureto the success of this unique venture.

The main focus of international co-operation in 1992,twenty years after the Stockholm Conference on the HumanEnvironment, has been the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development. There has been much discussion ­before, during and after the Rio Summit - on the problems ofreconciling economic development with the protection of theenvironment. Somewhat less attention has been given to culturaland spiritual values, although they have much to do with whatdevelopment is about and may well hold the key to the achievementof a genuinely human and sustainable development.

The concept of the world heritage, which is essentiallynon-economic and cultural, provides a vital complement to thediscussions surrounding Rio. The World Heritage Conventionaffirms the importance of intangible values, of the humanaspiration to beauty and meaning as well as to the satisfactionof material needs and wants. It assimilates the wonders of natureto those of culture, regarding as a continuum what have all toooften - and at what cost ! - been treated as distinct. At thesame time, it gives to these diverse expressions of beauty andmeaning a universal dimension. What is most representative of thecultural identity of each people is - in its diversity - of value

- 2 -

to humanity as a whole and must be preserved for present andfuture generations, in the same way as landscapes of great beautyor outstanding interest.

The task of safeguarding the world's cultural and naturalheritage is an inherently challenging one. The challenge is thatof promoting awareness of the importance of preserving aninheritance whose loss is irreparable for precisely the reasonthat its value is unquantifiable ......... is that of mobilizingsupport - including the essential financial backing - for anundertaking that yields relatively few tangible "returns" to setagainst the all too tangible threats to which the heritage issubject.

Twenty years after the adoption of the Convention, thescale of these threats continues to grow. Uncontrolled urbandevelopment, overpopulation, environmental degradation, povertyand neglect place at risk priceless monuments and the historiccentres of cities. Natural areas are sUbject to encroachment byfarming, mining, drilling and other economic activities.Catastrophes provoked by human activity add to the problems ofnatural disasters. civil conflict threatens indiscriminately theworks of nature and civilization. Tourism including thatgenerated by inscription on the World Heritage List - can, if nothandled properly, be the cause of damage out of all proportionto the benefits it brings. The need for the World HeritageConvention has never been greater than at the present time.

Fortunately the strong support the Convention enj oysamong the nations of the world has served to limit the impact ofthese threats to the world heritage. It is a measure of thissupport that 128 states have to date acceded to the Conventionand 358 properties are currently inscribed on the World HeritageList. Your Committee will, I know, consider the inclusion of newproperties on the List at its current session as it pursues thetask of bringing all the world's heritage of universal valueunder the protection of the Convention.

It is worth underlining here that the inclusion of aproperty on the World Heritage List, while bringing benefits inthe form of increased prestige and worldwide recognition, alsoentails responsibilities for the state concerned. It implies anobligation to preserve the listed property in accordance with theprovisions of the Convention in order that it may be transmittedto future generations. All possible actors need to be mobilizedto this end. They include not only the relevant governmentdepartments but also non-governmental organizations, grassrootsassociations, young people and local authorities, includingelected representatives. In this connection, I welcome very muchthe creation with the help of the Canadian Government of anetwork of World Heritage cities, which should help through thepooling of knowledge and experience to promote in the citiesconcerned a development consistent with the spirit of theConvention.

- 3 -

At the international level, your Committee has a crucialrole to play. By setting out its goals and adopting, at itscurrent session, new strategic guidelines for the implementationof the Convention, the Committee is providing itself with policyinstruments that should enable it to fulfil to maximum effect itsrole of guiding the efforts of the international community toprotect and preserve the universal heritage.

I should like to take this opportunity to underline thefollowing policy issues that seem to me essential

The first concerns the need to continue to exercise goodsense and pragmatism in applying the criteria for theinclusion of properties in the World Heritage List,since the credibility of our enterprise rests not onlyon the maintenance of the highest standards of selectionbut also on taking into account all the relevantcircumstances in each particular case.

My second point is to emphasize the importance of listedproper~ies being maintained in a proper state ofconservation. The Committee, in association with itstechnical advisory bodies and all the local partners,must continue its efforts to improve monitorinq oflisted properties so that threats to the conservation ofsites can be detected well in advance and remedialmeasures taken. Before work or activities of any scaleare undertaken - particularly when the characteristicsthat led to the recognition of a site could be altered ­it is important that appropriate information should beprovided.

My third point would be to underline that, important asit is to boost the resources of the World Heritage Fund,the protection of the heritage is not exclusively aquestion of financial means. It is also of the greatestimportance to increase awareness and to mobilizedecision-makers and the general pUblic in support of thesafeguarding of the heritage. The World Heritage must bea shared inheritance in every sense of the term.

Events have shown that urgent action may be sometimes berequired in the heritage field. As Director-General, Ishall continue to act in accordance with myconstitutional prerogatives and with the duties assignedto me by treaties by moving quickly when our commonheritage is threatened.

On the question of the World Heritage in Danger andbearing in mind recent discussions in the Executive Board, itseems to me that exceptional circumstances - such as the recentcase of Dubrovnik - may justify the inclusion of a property onthe World Heritage in Danger List without preliminary requestfrom the state concerned. However, in most instances inclusionin the List should involve the consent of.the state Party andshould never be assimilated to a sanction. At the most it shouldbe a stimulus to the government concerned to work closely with

- 4 -

the Secretariat and your committee to identify and apply theappropriate technical solutions to the problem in question, aswell as a pressing invitation to donors to contribute to thesafeguarding of the universal heritage.

In order to support the work of your committee and inresponse to the wish of the General Conference to see UNESCO'saction reinforced in a field where it has special constitutionalresponsibilities, I have recently as you will knowestablished a World Heritage Centre, bringing together asecretariat previously divided along cultural and natural linesand strengthening it with the addition of four professionalstaff. This new unified World Heritage centre, working in closeco-operation with the other sectors of the Secretariat, shouldbe better equipped to assist the Committee in its variousobjectives, such as the building up of sound monitoring systems,the launching of appeals and fund-raising activities for theWorld Heritage Fund, and action to promote greater pUblicawareness of the Convention. It should also make for closer andeasier co-operation with the technical advisory bodies - notablyICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN - which have consistently provided UNESCOwith such excellent service in the implementation of the WorldHeritage Convention. Other tasks to which the Centre cancontribute include helping to persuade those countries that havenot yet acceded to the Convention to consider doing so, andpursuing efforts to ensure that the heritage list isrepresentative of the variety of the world cultures.

How then, as the implementation of the World HeritageConvention enters a new phase of consolidation and renewal, maywe sum up the future challenges and prospects for the protectionof the natural and cultural heritage under the Convention ?

The essential challenge is that of preserving the memoryof the past - that of the world and of humanity, of nature andcuIture, which remain indissociable. In preserving memory in thisway we are doing more than simply safeguarding the past : we areensuring organic continuity with the future. For as the Spanishphilosopher Unamuno observed "Memory is the basis of theindividual personality as tradition is the basis of thecollective personality of a people. We live in memory and throughmemory, and our spiritual life is, in the last resort, no morethan the effort of remembrance to persevere, to become hope, theeffort of our past to become future". Memory is the continuum ofpast and present and the essential context of individualcreativity. Memory of the past is often the best hope for shapinga brighter and more equitable future; and the future is the onlyheritage that remains intact to be better shared. The roots ofthe past embedded in works of nature or culture thus representan incalculable spiritual resource for humanity and one that itneglects to protect at its peril. They also serve to remindhumanity of its unity in diversity and thereby contributepowerfully to one of UNESCO's essential goals - the promotion ofmutual understanding and solidarity among peoples, theconstruction of the defences of peace in the minds of men, whichremains one of the international community's priority tasks atthe close of the twentieth century.

- 5 -

The prospects for the preservation of the world heritagemust inevitably depend on the success of the internationalcommunity in addressing the wider spectrum of problems - in thespheres of development, peace and protection of the environment- at the origin of so many of the threats to the heritage. Letus never forget that poverty, over-population, ignorance andprejudice threaten the collective memory and destiny of humanity,which are our children's birthright. Children, wherever they are,remain the supreme masterpieces of our common heritage. However,within the more limited context that is our immediate concern,the growing consciousness of the importance of the natural andcultural heritage, the strong support of the nations of the worldfor activities under the World Heritage Convention and thecommitment of UNESCO, your Committee and the relevant NGOs to itseffective implementation provide very real grounds for optimism.

And so, as we contemplate the whole network of worldheritage sites spread over the face of the globe, representingsimultaneously memories of the past and beacons of energy andhope, there is good reason - I believe - for all concerned withthe World Her i tage Convention to celebrate on this twentiethanniversary, and perhaps to proclaim with the poet Rimbaud :

"I have hung cords from steeple to steeple; garlandsfrom window to window; golden chains from star to star,and I dance".