Distribution limited CC-79/CONF.003/13 Paris, 30 November 1979 Original: English UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Third session Cairo and Luxor, 22-26 October 1979 REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR ON THE THIRD SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE I. INTRODUCTION1. The third session of the World Heritage Committee was held in Cairo,Egypt (22 October 1979) and in Luxor, Egypt (23-26 October) at the kindinvitation of the Egyptian Government. The meeting was attended by thefollowing States members of the World Heritage Committee: Australia,Bulgaria, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Iran, Italy, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama,Senegal, Switzerland, United States of America and Yugoslavia.2. Representatives of the International Centre for Conservation (ICCROM),of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and of theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)attended the meeting in an advisory capacity.3. Observers from three States Parties to the Convention which were notmembers of the Committee, namely Canada, Federal Republic of Germany andHonduras also attended the session, as well as observers from two otherinternational organizations: the Organization for Museums, Monuments andSites of Africa (OMMSA) and the International Union of Architects (IUA).4. The full list of participants will be found in Annex I to this report.II. OPENING OF THE SESSION AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA5. The Chairman, Mr. David Hales, declared the session open and proposedthat items 2 to 4 of the Provisional Agenda be considered before theinaugural ceremony.6. This Proposal was accepted by the Committee which proceeded toexamine the Provisional Agenda prepared for the meeting. The Chairman(CC-79/CONF.003/COL.6)*[2]proposed that:i) an additional item be added to the agenda as item 5, namely "Report by former Chairman and Rapporteur on activities under- taken during the period September 1978-October 1979 and action to be taken thereon";ii) items 5 and 6 of the Provisional Agenda be examined as one item, andiii) item 14 should be reworded as follows "Support services to the Secretariat and to the advisory international organizations".With those modifications, the Committee adopted the Agenda.III. REVISION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE7. The Committee had before it a recommendation from the Bureau thatthe Committee's Rules of Procedure be amended to provide for the replace-ment of the Rapporteur when the Rapporteur was unable to act at anysession of the Committee or part thereof or was unable for any reason tocomplete his term of office (document CC-79/CONF.003/2). The procedureproposed for the replacement of the Rapporteur was identical to thatforeseen in the Rules of Procedure for the replacement of the Chairman.8. After examining the Bureau's proposal, the Committee thereforedecided to amend its Rules of Procedure by inserting immediately afterRule 14 an additional Rule providing for the replacement of the Rapporteur.Rules 15 to 37 would be re-numbered accordingly.IV. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN AND RAPPORTEUR9. Dr. Shehata Adam (Egypt) was elected as Chairman of the Committeeby acclamation. The Committee then elected by acclamation the followingStates members of the Committee as Vice-Chairmen: Bulgaria, Nepal,Panama, Senegal and United States of America and Mr. Michel Parent (France)as Rapporteur.10. In a reply to a member of the Committee, Dr. Shehata Adam, in hiscapacity as Chairman of the Committee, stated that States members of theBureau would be invited to designate as their representatives at meetingsof the Bureau persons qualified in both the natural and the culturalheritage, so that a proper balance would be maintained.V. INAUGURAL CEREMONY11. The Committee was honoured by the presence of H. Exc. Mrs. JihanEl-Sadat, First Lady of Egypt and of H. Exc. Dr. Mansour Hassan, Ministerof Presidency, Information and Culture, who both addressed the meetingduring the inaugural ceremony; the representative of the Director General,Mr. G. Bolla, and the Chairman of the Committee also addressed the meeting.*[3]VI. REPORT BY FORMER CHAIRMAN AND RAPPORTEUR ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN DURING THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1978-OCTOBER 1979 AND ACTION TO BE TAKEN THEREON12. In reporting to the Committee on activities undertaken during theprevious year, the former Chairman, Mr. David Hales, focussed on signifi-cant successes noted by the Committee and he also referred to seriousproblems for the future. He drew attention to the increase in the numberof ratifications or acceptances of the Convention which totalled 48, tothe substantial increase in the number of fellowships provided under theWorld Heritage Fund as well as in the assistance provided for the protec-tion of sites. Mr. Hales also laid stress on the vast increase in thenumber of nominations received for inscription on the World Heritage List.However, he had become aware over the past year of the fact that theConvention remained largely an unknown body in the majority of countriesand that many Governments did not fully understand its implications. Heexpressed his concern with respect to the extremely heavy workload for theSecretariat, the advisory organizations, the Bureau and the Committee itself,and he noted that the staff on the Secretariat of the Committee was stillinsufficient. Another problem was raised by the increasing imbalancebetween cultural and natural representation on the Committee and he feltthat appropriate action should be taken by the States members of theCommittee to redress this situation so that the credibility of the WorldHeritage List should not be put in doubt. Lastly, he underlined theserious responsibility of the Committee with respect to the List, stressingthat the Committee's wisdom would be judged by the composition of the List.13. The Rapporteur then proceeded to report on the last two sessions ofthe Bureau. The written report of the 2nd session, which took place inParis from 28-30 May 1979, gave rise to no comments from the members ofthe Committee.14. The report on the third session of the Bureau which took place inCairo on 21 October 1979 was read before the Committee. Those pointsraised by the Bureau which called for decisions by the Committee and whichwere not the subject of an item on the Agenda were then taken up by theCommittee.15. Thus, with respect to paragraph 16 of the report on the differenttypes of recommendation formulated by the Bureau to the Committee onnominations, the Committee decided to adopt for its third session theprocedure proposed by the Bureau which is as follows: nominations wouldnot be examined by the Committee: (a) when the deadlines for theirsubmission had not been respected, (b) when their proper processing hadnot been possible and (c) when it was evident that the supporting docu-mentation was incomplete and/or inadequate; on the other hand those nomina-tions which raised problems of application of the criteria (calling insome cases for the submission of additional documentation) would be sub-mitted to the Committee for consideration with a recommendation from theBureau that action be deterred, together with those recommended to theWorld Heritage List and those definitively not recommended for inscriptionon the List.*[4]16. The Committee agreed with the proposal Or the Bureau that in thecase of properties which fully met the criteria for inclusion in theWorld Heritage List and which had suffered damage from disasters, thenormal deadlines for the submission and processing of dossiers may bewaived by the Bureau.17. The Committee also shared the concern of the Bureau at the establish-ment in the United Kingdom of an organization bearing the name of "WorldHeritage Association" and of a Fund called "Heritage Trust". The Committeefelt strongly that the use in names of the term "World Heritage" shouldbe strictly limited to those activities directly related to the Conventionand considered that the use of these terms in the titles of other organiza-tions could only lead to confusion which would be regrettable. It thereforerequested the Chairman to write to the above-mentioned Association, expressingthe concern of the Committee, requesting it to modify its name so that theterms "World Heritage" no longer appeared therein and suggesting that theAssociation adopt a name such as the sub-title proposed by its Chairman-designate ("International Federation of Independent Organizations for theprotection of the cultural and natural heritage").18. Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee decidedto set up three working groups, as follows:A. On criteria for the evaluation of cultural property and the processing of nominations, composed of: Australia, Bulgaria (Chairman), Ecuador, France, Iran, Italy, Panama, United States of America, Canada (observer), ICOMOS and OMMSA.B. On the management of the Convention and its financial implications, composed of: Australia, France, Nepal, Pakistan, Senegal (Chairmen), Switzerland, United States of America, Yugoslavia, ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM.C. On criteria for the evaluation of natural properties, composed of: Australia (Chairman), France, United States of America, Canada (observer) and IUCN.VI. DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND STATESRECEIVING TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION19. The Chairman introduced the document (CC-79/CONF.003/5) preparedby the Secretariat. Complementary information was provided by therepresentative of the Director-General who proposed that the standardagreement should only be concluded in the case of large-scale projectsand referred in particular to two points of special importance, namelythe provisions relating to the protection of experts and to the exemptionof taxes and duties on equipment and material necessary for the executionof the projects. After examining the document before it, the Committeeapproved, as recommended by the Bureau, the revised draft text as prepared*[5]by the Secretariat. Furthermore, it decided to delegate authority to theChairman to sign such agreements on its behalf. However, in exceptionalcases or where necessary for practical reasons:, the Committee authorizedthe Chairman to delegate authority for this purpose to a member of theSecretariat, to be designated by him.VIII. PROCEDURE FOR THE EVENTUAL DELETION FROM THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST OFPROPERTIES IN CASE OF DETERIORATION LEADING TO THE LOSS OF THE CHARACTERISTIC'WHICH DETERMINED THEIR INCLUSION (Document CC-79/CONF.003/10)20. The document on this item which proposed a procedure with respectto the deletion of properties from the World Heritage List was introducedby Mr. Bolla who drew attention to the different stages in the proposedprocedure. A wide exchange of ideas ensued, during which several parti-cipants expressed the hope that the State Party on whose territory theproperty was located would inform the Secretariat of the Committee if anyproperty inscribed on the List had seriously deteriorated and others drewattention to the obligation contracted by the States Parties under theConvention to-properly preserve-the properties entered on the List.21. With respect to the source of information on the deterioration ofa world heritage site, the-Committee presumed that it would in most casesbe the State Party on whose territory the property was located which wouldtransmit such information to the Secretariat. However, information on thedeterioration of a site may be made available by other sources and it wouldbe for the Secretariat to check, as far as possible, on the source of theinformation and on the substance in consultation with the State Partyconcerned. The Committee requested the Secretariat in such cases to informthe Chairman of the results of its investigations and decided that it wouldbe incumbent on the Chairman to decide whether the information receivedshould be acted upon. '22. After some discussion, the Committee retained the proposal thatdecisions such as the sending out of fact-finding missions should be takenby the Committee, except in the case where emergency action was necessary,when the Bureau would be authorized to request the Secretariat to take suchmeasures. It was understood that in all cases, the State Party concernedwould be consulted. The question of organizing regular inspection missionswas also raised, but the Committee felt that each action should not be taken,particularly in view of the States' obligations to adequately preserveproperties inscribed on the List and of the cost involved.23. The representative of ICOMOS proposed that ICOMOS should be consultedon the choice of experts to be sent on fact-finding missions in connectionwith the state of preservation of cultural properties. In reply, Mr. Bollaindicated that ICOMOS was regularly consulted on the roster of expertsmaintained by the Secretariat but that any obligation for the Secretariatto consult ICOMOS, in addition to the State Party which was always consultedon the choice of experts, would invariably lead to delays in the sendingout of missions.*[6]24. The Committee adopted the procedure proposed by the Secretariatsubject to amendments to stage A on the source of information on thedeterioration of a property and subject to reference to cases where thenecessary corrective measures for threatened natural sites have not beenduly taken (see paragraph 40 below). It was decided to incorporate thisprocedure in the "Operational Guidelines". The full text of the procedureis to be found in Annex II to this report.IX. FORMS FOR REQUESTS CONCERNING PREPARATORY OR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCEAND FELLOWSHIPS25. Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approvedthe draft form for requests concerning preparatory or emergency assistanceand fellowships as annexed to document CC-79/CONF.003/8.X. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES26. The Committee took note of the report of the Secretariat on publicinformation activities undertaken during the preceding year. This reportcalled for decisions by the Committee on the publication of the WorldHeritage List and on the proposal received from the Swedish firm, UpsalaEkeby, to produce glass and silverware commemorating the World HeritageConvention.27. On the publication of the World Heritage List, the Committeedecided: (a) to retard the publication of the List in order to includethe properties placed thereon at its third session; , (b) that the List of World Heritage in Danger and the List ofproperties for which international assistance has bean granted would bepublished as appendices of the List; (c) that the list of properties for which international assistancehas been granted would include reference to properties for which technicalassistance has been granted but would make no mention of preparatoryassistance; (d) to publish the full list once every two years.28. The proposal from Upsala Ekeby to produce glass and silverwaregave rise to considerable discussion, since it raised the principle ofusing tho World Heritage Emblem and depictions of World Heritage Sitesfor commercial purposes. There was some reticence among members of theCommittee to authorize any commercial company to use the Emblem orpictures of the sites for such purposes. On the other hand the Committeeunderlined the need to-create a world-wide interest in the Conventionand recognized the importance of publicity. The Committee thereforedecided:*[7] (a) that the World Heritage Emblem should not be used for anycommercial purposes unless the Committee has given its authorization; and (b) that the name, symbol or depiction of any property inscribedon the World Heritage List or, of any element thereof should not be usedfor commercial purposes unless written authorization has been receivedfrom the State concerned on the principle of using the said name, symbolor depiction and unless the exact text or display has been approved bythat State and as far as possible by the national authority specificallyconcerned with the protection of the site; such utilization should be inconformity with the reasons for which the property has been placed on theWorld Heritage List; (c) to accept the proposal from Upsala Ekeby as set out in theAnnex to document CC-79/CONF.003/6.1, authorizing the firm to use theWorld Heritage Emblem and the name of the Convention on a series of silverspoons and the glassware, subject to the stipulation formulated in para-graph (b) above and on condition that the company was not given exclusiverights to use the emblem and the name of the Convention on articles of thetype proposed; it is however understood that the company will retainexclusive rights on its own design as foreseen in international agreementson the protection of industrial property.29. After examining the proposals of the Secretariat for promotionalactivities for 1980 (document CC-79/CONF.003/6.2) the Committee authorizedthe Secretariat to proceed with the following activities within a totalbudget of $36,900: Estimated cost $ (a) creation of a photo library of world heritage sites 9,600 (b) slide series and sound-track 7,000 (c) poster 7,500 (d) postcards 4,000 (e) journalists' seminars 2,800 (f) postage stamps 6'000 _____ $36,90030. In response to a question from a member of the Committee who soughtto avoid the publication of information on cultural and natural worldheritage sites in separate publications, Mr. Batisse indicated that theSecretariat was studying the possibility of enlarging the scope of theCultural Heritage bulletin to cover not only cultural sites but alsonatural heritage sites.31. The question was raised as to whether the Committee would authorizeStates Parties to the Convention to produce material bearing the Emblemsuch as postage stamps and post-cards for publicity purposes and for raisingfinancial contributions to the Fund. The Committee was of the opinion thatStates Parties were free to use the Emblem for such purposes, and could makeadditional voluntary contributions to the Fund by this means.*[8]XI. AMENDMENTS TO THE CRITERIA FOR THE INCLUSION OF CULTURAL AND NATURALPROPERTIES IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATIONOF NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST BY ICOMOS AND IUCN32. The Committee considered that it was absolutely essential that theList contained only properties which were of outstanding universal value.Unless this general criterion was applied to every nomination, the Listcould rapidly decline in value and indeed in credibility. With this inmind, the Committee recommended that the wording in the "OperationalGuidelines" and the nomination forms should more adequately reflect thisoverriding consideration, and that ICOMOS and IUCN should be instructedto regard this requirement as of critical importance in their evaluationof nominations.33. The Committee heard the reports of the two working groups set up toexamine amendments to the criteria and guidelines for the evaluation ofnominations and took the decisions set out below: (a)Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of cultural properties in the World Heritage List and guidelines for the evaluation of nominations by ICOMOS.34. On the general question of the number of inscriptions to be enteredon the World Heritage List, as well as of the selection criteria to beapplied, the Committee recalled that the Convention foresees in Article 11paragraph 1 that each State Party "shall in so far as possible submit tothe World Heritage Committee _an inventory of property forming part of thecultural and natural heritage_, situated in its territory and _suitable forinclusion_" in the World Heritage List (passages not underlined in the textof the Convention). The Committee recommends that States Parties in futureconform to this provision so that the Committee may have access to provi-sional and non-exhaustive lists of cultural properties for which theyintend to submit nomination files. This "inventory" and the nominationsshould be very restricted, it being understood however that no limit inthe number of nominations should be imposed and that assurance be givento each State Party that it may submit nominations for cultural propertyrelating to all the civilizations which have succeeded each other orwhich coexist in its territory. The Committee was of the opinion thatthe inventories submitted by the States Parties - inventories which wouldas it were constitute long-term plans over a period of 5 to 10 years -should enable the Committee to have a better global idea of the form thatthe World Heritage List would take and thus to better define the selectioncriteria.35. In response to specific questions raised by Mr. Michel Parent'sreport, the Committee adopted the following principles: (i) States Parties may propose in one single nomination several individual cultural properties, which may be in different geographical locations but which should: - be linked because they belong to the same historico- cultural group, or - be the subject of a single safeguarding project, or*[9] - belong to the same type of property characteristic of the zone. the geographical zone in which these properties are situa- ted should be delimited and the cultural properties indi- vidually described and also precisely localized. Each State Party submits only the cultural properties situated on its territory (even if these properties belong to an ensemble which goes beyond its borders) but it may come to an agreement with another State Party in order to make a joint submission. (ii) In its justification of the outstanding universal value of the property nominated, each State should, whenever possible, undertake a sufficiently wide comparison; (iii) The Committee should not take into consideration nomina- tions of immovable property which are likely to become movable. (iv) The authenticity of a cultural property remains an essential criterion. (v) Particular attention should be given to cases which fall under criterion (vi) so that the net result would not be a reduction in the value of the List, due to the large potential number of nominations as well as to political difficulties. Nominations concerning, in particular, historical events or famous people could be strongly influenced by nationalism or other particularisms in contradiction with the objectives of the World Heritage Convention.36. The Committee took note of the typology proposed in Mr. MichelParent's report. It considered that it was on the basis of the inventoriessubmitted by States Parties that such a typology could be finalized.The question will therefore continue to be studied until its next session. (b)Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of natural properties in the World Heritage List and guidelines for the evaluation of nominations by IUCN37. In view of the difficulty of assessing nominations without anadequate inventory, the Committee decided to encourage States Partiesto prepare such inventories. It was furthermore decided to ask IUCNto prepare a proposal for the next meeting of the Bureau relating tothe methodology and cost of preparing an inventory on a global basis.38. The Committee decided to instruct IUCN to use great caution inthe application of criterion (iv) when it was the sole criterion forrecommending sites for the World Heritage List. The sites nominatedunder this criterion should be habitats where "significant populations"or "concentrations of populations" of rare or endangered species of plants*[10]or animals survive, that is, sites representing in some way "superlativesituations".39. The Committee considered the complex issues concerning sites occupiedby migratory species on a seasonal basis and decided to add to paragraph 11on integrity in the "Operational Guidelines" a new sub-paragraph (v) asfollows:"In cases of migratory species, integrity will require critical areasnecessary for the survival of the species to be included in the nomination.States which are parties to the Convention are requested to seek the co-operation of other States which contain seasonable sites for populationsof World Heritage species so as to ensure that these species are protectedthroughout their full life cycle. Agreements of this nature should benoted in the nomination".40. The Committee noted that several areas nominated which meet thecriteria may be marginal because of the inability of States, for variousreasons to apply the rigid management criteria which they believe isnecessary. The Committee was concerned that this could lead to furtherdeterioration of these sites if corrective measures were not implemented.The Committee therefore decided to amend the "Operational Guidelines" byadding a sub-paragraph (vi) to paragraph 11 as follows:"Where the intrinsic qualities of a World Heritage site are threatened byaction or works of man and yet meet the criteria set out in paragraph 10,an action plan outlining the corrective measures required shall be sub-mitted with the nomination form. Should the corrective measures submittedby the nominating State not be taken within the time proposed by thatState, the site will be considered by the Committee for delisting inaccordance with the procedure adopted by the Committee." (c)Other questions41. The application of the procedure foreseen in paragraph 40 above tocultural properties will be considered by the Committee at a later meeting.42. The Australian Delegation drew attention to the fact that, onseveral occasions, members of the Committee and representatives of IUCNand ICOMOS had referred to the threat to which certain nominated siteswere exposed, and had suggested that this factor should influence thefavourable and rapid acceptance of the site in question. The Delegationexpressed concern at this development, pointing out that acceptance shouldbe based only on the established criteria dealing with the intrinsicproperties of the site and, further, that if the threat affected theintegrity of the site, acceptance should be deterred. The Bureau wasasked to discuss this matter in detail at its next meeting.43. The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a revised textof the "Operational Guidelines" reflecting the above-mentioned decisionsand to present this text to the Bureau at its next session. One questionthat should be studied in this connection would be the possibility ofadding a criterion on integrity for the evaluation of cultural properties.*[11]44. The Committee considered that it would be desirable to be able toexamine nominations at its fourth session within the framework of anational inventory of cultural and natural properties which the StateParty considers suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List. Thiswould allow for a preliminary evaluation of the comparative value ofproperties within that State. The Committee therefore expressed thehope that each State Party concerned would make available to the Committeebefore its next session a list of those properties which it intends tonominate to the World Heritage List during the next five to ten years.XII. CONSIDERATION OF NOMINATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST45. The Committee took up one by one those nominations which had beenrecommended by the Bureau for inscription on the List, those which hadbeen recommended by the Bureau not to be entered on the List and nomina-tions which raised a problem of application of the criteria, in accordancewith the Committee's decision mentioned in paragraph 15 above. In eachcase the Committee heard, as appropriate, the comments of the representa-tives of IUCN and/or ICOMOS who referred to the criteria met by the propertyin question.46. The Committee decided to enter in the World Heritage List thefollowing 45 properties:No. Name of property State Party___ ___________________________________________ ____________19 Fasil Ghebbi, Gondar Region Ethiopia20 Ancient City of Damascus Syrian Arab Republic The Committee noted the reservation expressed by ICOMOS concerning the threat to the site from rapid urban development.31 Auschwitz concentration camp Poland The Committee decided to enter Auschwitz concentration camp on the List as a unique site and to restrict the inscription of other sites of a similar nature.33 Bialowieza National Park Poland34 Forts and Castles, Volta Greater Accra, Central and Western Regions Ghana36 Medina of Tunis Tunisia37 Site of Carthage Tunisia38 Amphitheatre of El Jem Tunisia39 Ngorongoro conservation area Tanzania42 Boyana Church Bulgaria43 Madara Rider Bulgaria44 Thracian tomb of Kazanlak Bulgaria*[12]No. Name of property State Party___ ___________________________________________ ____________45 Rock-hewn churches of Ivanovo Bulgaria58 Urnes Stave Church Norway59 Bryggen Norway63 Virunga national park Zaire64 Tikal national park Guatemala The Committee learned of a tourism development project in the park and expressed the hope that the planned construction would not jeopardize the cultural and natural value of the site.65 Antigua Guatemala Guatemala71 Dinosaur provincial park Canada72 Kluane national Park, Wrangell- St. Elias National monument Canada & USA75 Grand Canyon national park USA76 Everglades national park USA78 Independence Hall USA80 Mont St-Michel and its Bay France81 Chartres Cathedral France83 Palace and Park of Versailles France84 Vezelay, Church and Hill France85 Decorated grottoes of the Vezere Valley France86 Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid fields from Giza to Dahshur Egypt The Committee took note of the ICOMOS proposal that a safeguarding plan for the environment of the pyramids should be drawn up.87 Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis Egypt88 The Nubian monuments from Abu Simbel to Philae Egypt89 Islamic Cairo Egypt Note was taken of the concern expressed by ICOMOS at the problems involved in safeguarding this site.90 Abu Mena Egypt94 Rock drawings in Valcamonica Italy*[13]No. Name of property State Party___ ___________________________________________ _____________95 Old City of Dubrovnik Yugoslavia96 Stari Ras and Sopocani Yugoslavia97 Historical complex of Split with the Palace of Diocletian Yugoslavia98 Plitvice lakes national park Yugoslavia99 Lake Ohrid (that part which lies in Yugoslavia) Yugoslavia The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the List in view of the assurances received concerning the integrity of the Lake as a whole.113 Tchogha Zanbil Iran114 Persepolis Iran115 Meidan-e Shah Esfahan Iran120 Sagarmatha National Park Nepal121 Kathmandu Valley Nepal125Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor Yugoslavia Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee decided to enter this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger as requested by the State Party concerned.47. The Committee decided furthermore to defer the following sites:No. Name of property State Party___ ___________________________________________ ___________8 Ichkeul National park Tunisia The Committee deferred this nomination until the Tunisian Government has contacted the other States concerned to ensure adequate protection of summering and wintering areas of major migratory species found in Ichkeul.79 Paphos, Birthplace of Aphrodite Cyprus The Committee deferred this nomination until more precise information was avail- able on the possible adverse impact on the sites of the pressing needs of tourism development.*[14]No. Name of property State Party___ ___________________________________________ _________92 Sta. Giulia/St. Salvator's Monastery Italy The Committee heard the comments of ICOMOS which referred to the outstanding universal value of the property. However, ICOMOS was concerned by the fact that the property had not been presented in the more general con- text of the cultural heritage of the country as a whole. While recognizing the value of the site nominated, the Committee decided to defer a decision until indications had been received from the Italian Government on the properties situated in Italy which it was considering nominating to the List.48. The Committee furthermore decided not to inscribe the followingtwo sites on the World Heritage List: No. 5: Zembra and Zembretta Islands National Park (Tunisia) and No. 73: the Madeleine Island (Senegal).49. In order to facilitate the examination by the Committee ofnominations, it was decided that in future documents submitting nomina-tions to the Committee would include indication of the criteria underwhich each nomination was to be considered.XIII. CONSIDERATION OF TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION REQUESTS50. After examining the requests received from States Parties and therecommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to grant technicalco-operation as follows:(a) Ecuador Equipment to enable the authorities to ensure the integrity of tho natural environment of the Galapagos Islands through protective measures. up to a maximum of $ 50,000(b) Tanzania Services of an architect-museologist for three weeks in order to draw up a project for the con- servation and presentation of the prehistoric sites of Olduvai and Laetolil. estimated cost $ 5,400(c) Egypt Services of specialists in cultural heritage as well as equipment to draw up a project for the restoration and development of the Islamic Centre of Cairo. up to a maximum of $ 30,000*[15]51. The Committee was informed that requests for technical co-operationwere forthcoming for the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania andVirunga National Park in Zaire and agreed to delegate authority to theChairman to approve these requests after consultation with members of theBureau if he considered it desirable.XIV. REVISION OF THE NOMINATION FORM52. The Committee approved the revised nomination form (CC-79/CONF.003/7)subject to the following:(a) the text should be revised to reflect the decisions taken by theCommittee on the criteria for the inclusion of properties in the WorldHeritage List and guidelines for the evaluation of nominations (seesession XI above); the attention of States Parties should be drawn, inparticular, to the essential criterion of outstanding universal valuethat should be met by properties nominated;(b) The form should emphasize the importance of adequate buffer zonesand ask for details on measures taken by the State Party on the establish-ment of such zones.(c) A provision would be added inviting States to prepare a brief summaryof each nomination for reproduction and for distribution to members of theCommittee.XV. SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE SECRETARIAT AND TO THE ADVISORY INTERNATIONALORGANIZATIONS53 The Committee heard the report of the working group on the managementof the Convention and its financial implications and took note of thefollowing points: i) The Convention was now entering its operational phase particularly as regards technical co-operation, emergency assistance and the training of specialists, which implied a considerable increase in the workload of the Secretariat. An amount of approximately $210,000 had been spent by the Unesco Secretariat in 1979 under its Regular Budget for the management of the Convention. ii) Funds actually obligated in 1979 under the World Heritage Fund for programme support were as follows: ICOMOS $ 15,600 IUCN $ 6,000 Temporary assistance to the Secretariat $ 59,000 ________ $80,600*[16] iii) The representatives of ICOMOS and IUCN explained that they had received funds under a lump-sum arrangement depending on the number of nominations examined but that this approach did not enable the Organizations to assure proper processing of the files and their continuous participation in the management of the Convention. They indicated that the direct contributions of their organizations to the management of the Convention could be estimated at $30,000 and $12,500 respectively in 1979.53. The Committee then decided: a) that it was not opportune at the present time to retain a fixed percentage such as 14%, as indicated in paragraph 26 of document CC-79/CONF.003/12, to cover direct management costs of the Convention; b) to ask the Director-General of Unesco to make additional efforts to provide the Secretariat with an adequate permanent staff to enable it to meet the substantial increase in workload due to the fact that the Convention has now entered its opera- tional phase. Until the Secretariat could be fully constituted and a sufficient number of Member States ratified the Conven- tion, the Committee considered it necessary to continue to provide for temporary assistance for the Secretariat and decided to review this question at its next session; c) that with respect to temporary assistance and the processing of files by the advisory organizations, only a limited number of files could be processed between two Committee sessions, and therefore no allocation per nomination file should be made. d) to allocate the following funds for programme support for the implementation of the Convention: - for the Secretariat: under temporary assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 70,000 of which $40,000 for two consultants each for 6 m/m, one consultant for the cultural part, and one consultant for the natural part, and $30,000 for two (part-time) secretaries-documentalists for IUCN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12,000 of which $4,000 for evaluation of files based on approximately 20 files, $2,500 for travel and per diem costs for participation in meetings of the Bureau, $2,500 for promotion of the Convention and, if necessary, field visits, $3,000 for professional experts in the evaluation of the nominations*[17] for ICOMOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 30,000 of which $20,000 for a part-time co-ordinator to evaluate nominations based on approximately 80 files, $10,000 for one third of a full-time secretary and miscellaneous secretariat expenditures. __________ $112,000XVI. PRESENTATION OF THE STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE WORLD HERITAGEFUND AND ADOPTION OF A BUDGET55. The Committee took note of the statement of account of the WorldHeritage Fund for the financial period which ended on 31 December 1978and the interim statement of account of the Fund for the two-yearfinancial period 1979/80 as set out in document CC-79/CONF.003/9.56. The Committee adopted the following budget for the periodOctober 1979 to December 1980. BUDGET October 1979 - December 1980 Activities Brought Additional Total funds forward funds authorized from allocated for period 1978-1979 October 78- December 80I. Preparatory $ $ $ Assistance 69,234 80,000 149,234 (30 m/m)II. Technical Co-operation -- 165,400 165,400III. Training 4,700 200,000 204,700IV. Emergency 70,000 100,000 170,000V. Promotional Activities 500 36,400 36,900VI. Programme Support - ICOMOS } -3,600 45,600 42,000 - IUCN } (deficit) (12,000 IUCN 30,000 ICOMOS)VII. Temporary Assistance to -- 70,000 70,000 the Secretariat ______________ ____________ ___________ 140,834 697,400 838,234 ======== ======= =======Contingencies: 3% oftotal funds authorized*[18]XVII. OTHER MATTERS a)Balance between natural and cultural properties57. The working group on natural criteria also reported to the Committeeon its concern at the relatively low number of natural properties so farincluded in the World Heritage List. It considered that, if the List gavean initial impression of being a list of cultural properties, it woulddeter further nominations of natural properties. The working group wasalso concerned that the delegations of States Members at the third sessionof the Committee did not include a sufficient number of specialists inthe natural heritage field which reduced the Committee's ability toevaluate properly natural properties. In order to increase the awarenessof the Committee and of States Parties of the need to redress this situa-tion, the working group made two specific recommendations to the Committee: (i) that in future a quorum for a meeting of the Committee should require, in addition to a majority of States Members at least five delegates among the delegations with expertise in natural heritage; and (ii) that, in allocating funds for assistance to States, not more than 60% should be allocated to either cultural or natural properties.58. The Committee shared the concern of the group. It considered,however, that in view of the difficulty of determining precisely whetherpersons were competent in the fields of nature conservation or of theprotection of cultural property, it would not be feasible to introducesuch a rule on the quorum for meetings of the Committee. The responsibilityfor ensuring balanced representation lay with each State Member of theCommittee.59. The Committee requested the Secretariat to renew its efforts toensure that the authorities in each State Party responsible for thenatural heritage were fully informed of the activities undertaken underthe Convention and of the meetings of the Committee. IUCN could also beof assistance through its direct contacts. It was decided that copiesof letters of invitation would be sent to those authorities responsiblefor the national heritage in the States Parties. The Committee decidedfurthermore to take up the matter again if the situation did not improve. b)Emergency assistance for the Natural and Culturo-historical region of Kotor (Yugoslavia)60. Note was taken of the request from Yugoslavia for emergencyassistance, in the form of equipment and consultant services, for theNatural and Culturo-historical region of Kotor. However, the Committeefelt that further information should be made available on the equipmentrequired and decided to grant in the first instance $20,000 for consultantservices.*[19] c)Charter on the rights and obligations relating to towns inscribed on the World Heritage List (Cracow-Quito)61. The Committee noted that a draft Charter had been prepared jointlyby the Ecuadorian and Polish authorities on this question and decided totake up the matter at a later stage. d)Appeal of Mrs. El-Sadat62. The Committee fully supported the appeal launched by Mrs. El-Sadatfor assistance in preserving the Islamic heritage of Cairo and membersdeclared that they would transmit details of the appeal to their respectivegovernments. e)Date and place of fourth session of the Committee63. The next session of the Committee will take place early inSeptember 1980, probably in France. The precise place and dates will becommunicated to all concerned as soon as possible.XVIII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION64. Following an expression of thanks from the floor to the Egyptianauthorities for the remarkable hospitality offered to the Committee, tothe Chairman for the admirable way in which he had conducted the meetingand to all those who had contributed to the smooth running of the meeting,the Chairman declared the session closed. +++++++ Michel Parent Rapporteur+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CC-79/CONF.003/13 Annex I LIST OF PARTICIPANTS/LISTE DES PARTICIPANTSI. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITEAUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIEH. Exc. Professor R.O. SlatyerAmbassador, Permanent Delegate of Australia to UnescoMr. Peter DalkinFirst Secretary, Australian Embassy, CairoBULGARIA /BULGARIEMme Magdalina Stantecheva Vice-Chairman/Vice-PresidentMembre de la Commission nationale pourl'UnescoMaître de Recherches au musée de SofiaECUADOR/EQUATEURMr. Rodrigo PallaresDirector, Instituto de Patrimonio CulturalEGYPT/EGYPTEDr. Shehata AdamPresidentOrganization of Egyptian Antiquities Chairman/PresidentFRANCEMr. Michel Parent RapporteurInspecteur général des Monuments historiquesMr. Jean-Pierre BadyDirecteur de la Caisse nationale desMonuments historiques et des sitesMr. Lucien ChabasonChef de Service de l'Espace et des SitesMinistére de l'Environnement et du Cadre de VieIRANMr. Charyer Adle (observer/observateur)Archéologue*[Annex I/2]ITALY/ITALIEMr. Giovanni d'AndreaDirecteur des Relations culturelles dela Région de LombardieMme Carla Maria BurriAttachée culturelle à l'Ambassade italienne au CaireNEPALH. Exc. Gen. Singh Bahadur Basnyat Vice-Chairman/Vice-PrésidentExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassadorof Nepal to EgyptPAKISTANMr. Shafqat KakakhelFirst Secretary, Pakistan Embassy in CairoPANAMADr. Reina Torres de Arauz Vice-Chairman/Vice-PrésidentNational Director of Historical HeritageSENEGALMr. Amadou Lamine Sy Vice-Chairman/Vice-PrésidentDirecteur du patrimoine nationalSWITZERLAND/SUISSEMr. Ernest MartinMembre correspondant de la Commission fédéraledes Monuments historiquesUNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUEMr. David Hales Vice-Chairman/Vice-PrésidentDeputy Assistant Secretary for Fish andWildlife and ParksDepartment of the InteriorMr. Robert R. Garvey, Jr.Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic PrenervationMr. Richard CookNational Park ServiceDepartmont of the InteriorMr. Robert C. MilneChief, International Park AffairsNational Park Service*[Annex I/3]UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE(cont'd) / (suite)Mr. Addison E. RichmondCounselor for Scientific and Technological Affairs,U.S. Embassy in CairoMr. William H. Eddy (observer/observateur)National Park ServiceYUGOSLAVIA/YOUGOSLAVIEMr. Milan PrelogProfesseur à l'Université de ZagrebII. OBSERVERS FROM OTHER STATES PARTIES/OBSERVATEURS D'AUTRES ETATS PARTIESCANADAMr. Peter H. BennettAdviser on Unesco World Heritage Conventionto Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks CanadaFEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY/REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNEDr. Georg MörschConservator in Rhineland-WestfalieHONDURASMr. Armando AlvarezMinister, Secretary of Culture and TourismMr. Guillermo CascoAdviser, Ministry of CultureIII. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT AVEC UN STATUT CONSULTATIFINTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION (ICCROM)/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL POUR LA CONSERVATIONMr. Louis-Jacques Rollet-AndrianeSpecial Representative of the Director*[Annex I/4]INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITESProf. Raymond LemairePrésidentMr. Krzysztof PawlowskiVice-PrésidentMr. François LeblancDirecteur du SecrétariatINTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES/UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE ET DE SES RESSOURCESMr. Harold EidsvikExecutive OfficerCommission on National Parks and Protected AreasIV. OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS/D'AUTRES ORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALESORGANIZATION FOR MUSEUMS, MONUMENTS AND SITES OF AFRICA (OMMSA)/ORGANISATION POUR LES MUSEES, MONUMENTS ET SITES EN AFRIQUEMr. Kwasi MylesSecretary GeneralINTERNATIONAL UNION OF ARCHITECTS/UNION INTERNATTONALE DES ARCHITECTESMr. Yehya Mohamed EidMember of the Board of the UIAV. SECRETARIATMr. Gérard BollaDeputy Assistant Director GeneralSector of Culture and CommunicationRepresentative of the Director-GeneralMr. Michel BatisseDeputy Assistant Director GeneralScience SectorMr. Bernd von DrosteDiviaion of Ecological SciencesMrs. Margaret van VlietDivision of Cultural HeritageMrs. Anne SauratConsultant+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CC-79/CONF.003/13 Annex II PROCEDURE FOR THE EVENTUAL DELETION OF PROPERTIES FROM THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST1. At its third session, the World Heritage Committee adapted the following procedure for the deletion of properties from the World HeritageList in cases: a) where a property has deteriorated to the point where it has lost those characteristics which determined its inclu- sion in the World Heritage List; and b) where the intrinsic qualities of a natural world heritage site* were already threatened at the time of its nomination by action or works of man and where the necessary corrective measured as outlined by the State Party at that time, have not been taken within the time proposed.A. When a property inscribed on the World Heritage List has seriouslydeteriorated or, in the case of a natural site*, when the necessarycorrective measures have not been taken within the time proposed, theState Party on whose territory the property is situated should so informthe Secretariat of the Committee.B. When the Secretariat receives such information from a sourceother than the State Party concerned, it will, as far as possible, verifythe source and the contents of the information in consultation with theState Party concerned and request its comments. The Secretariat willinform the Chairman of the Committee of the results of its investigationsand the Chairman will decide whether the information is to be acted upon.If the Chairman decides that the information is not to be acted upon, noaction will be taken.C. The Secretariat will request the competent advisory organization(s)(ICOMOS, IUCN or ICCROM) to forward comments on the information received.D. The information received, together with the comments of the StateParty and of the advisory organization(s), will be brought to the attentionof the Bureau of the Committee. The Bureau may take one of the followingmeasures:(a) it may decide that the property has not seriously deteriorated and that no further action should be taken;(b) when the Bureau considers that the property has seriously deterio- rated but not to the extent that its restoration is impossible, it may recommend to the Committee that the property be maintained on the List provided that the State Party takes the necessary measures to restore the property within a reasonable period of time. The Bureau may also recommend that technical co-operation be provided under the World Heritage Fund for work connected with the restoration of the property, if the State Party so requests.---------* The Committee decided to examine at a later stage the possibility ofapplying this rule to cultural properties.*[Annex II/2](c) when there is evidence that the property has deteriorated to the point where it has irretrievably lost those characteristics which determined its inclusion on the List, the Bureau may recommend that the Committee delete the property from the List; before any such recommendation is submitted to the Committee, the Secretariat will inform the State Party concerned of the Bureau's recommendation; any comments which the State Party may make with respect to the recommenda- tion of the Bureau will be brought to the attention of the Committee, together with the Bureau's recommendation;(d) when the information available is not sufficient to enable the Bureau to take one of the measures described in (a), (b) or (c) above, the Bureau may recommend to the Committee that the Secretariat be author- ized to take the necessary action to ascertain, in consultation with the State Party concerned, the present condition of the property, the dangers to the property and the feasibility of adequately restor- ing the property, and to report to the Bureau on the results of its action; such measures may include the sending of a fact-finding mission or the consultation of specialists. In cases where emergency action is required, the Bureau may itself authorize the Secretariat to take such measures.E. The Committee will examine the recommendation of the Bureau andall the information available and will take a decision. Any such decisionshall, in accordance with Article 13(8) of the Convention, be taken by amajority of two-thirds of its members present and voting. The Committeeshall not decide to delete any property unless the State Party has beenconsulted on the question.F. The State Party will be informed of the Committee's decision.G. If the Committee's decision entails any modification to theWorld Heritage List, this modification will be reflected in the nextupdated list that is published. Tho reasons for the deletion of anyproperty from the List will also be given in the publication.2. In adopting the above procedure, the Committee was particularlyconcerned that all possible measures should be taken to prevent the dele-tion of any property from the List and was ready to offer technical co-operation as far as possible to States Parties in this connection. Further-more, the Committee wished to draw the attention of States Parties to thestipulations of Article 4 of the Convention which reads as follows:"Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuringthe identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmissionto future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to inArticles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to thatState..."