Report of the 24th session, 27 November - 2 December 2000

Report of the 24th session, 27 November - 2 December 2000
PDF version
(1000K)
FRENCH VERSION
World Heritage
24 COM
Distribution limited
WHC-2000/CONF.204/21
Paris, 16 February 2001
Original: English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-fourth session
Cairns, Australia
27 November - 2 December 2000
REPORT
Table of Contents
OPENING SESSION
Adoption of the Agenda and Timetable
Election of the Chairperson, Rapporteur and Vice-Chairpersons
Report by the Secretariat on the Activities undertaken since the
twenty-third session of the World Heritage Committee
Reports of the Rapporteurs on the sessions of the World Heritage Bureau
Work of the World Heritage Reform Groups
Periodic Reporting
State of Conservation of Properties Inscribed on the World Heritage List
Progress Report on regional actions for the implementation of the Global Strategy Action Plan
Information on Tentative Lists and examination of nominations of
cultural and natural properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and
World Heritage List
Information Strategy
Documentation, information and education activities
Examination of the World Heritage Fund and approval of the budget
for 2001 and presentation of a provisional budget for 2002
International assistance
Training Strategy
Date, place and provisional agenda of the twenty-fifth ordinary
session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
Date, place and provisional agenda of the twenty-fifth ordinary
session of the World Heritage Committee
Other business
Closure of the session
List of Annexes
List of Participants
Speech of the outgoing Chairperson Mr. Abdelaziz Touri
Speech of the Assistant Director General for Culture of UNESCO, Mr. Mounir Bouchenaki
First Pacific World Heritage Youth Forum Action Plan
Recommendations transmitted to the attention of the World Heritage Committee by the Indigenous Peoples Forum
Speech of the incoming Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Mr. Peter King
Speech of the Director of the World Heritage Centre, UNESCO, Mr. Francesco Bandarin
Revised Calendar and Cycle for World Heritage Statutory Meetings to be implemented as of 2002
Letter from the Italian Government concerning Representativity of the World Heritage List
State of Conservation of Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
Report from Professor Brian Wilkinson, leader of the ICSU Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) on Kakadu National Park, Australia
Statement by IUCN on Kakadu National Park, Australia
Statement on the Report of the Independent Scientific Panel of ICSU by the Supervising Scientist of Australia concerning Kakadu National Park, Australia
Letter from Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner concerning Kakadu National Park, Australia
Recommendation of the Technical Workshop on World Heritage and Mining
Declaration of the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs in the Arab World
Statement by the Observer of Palestine
Statement by the Observer of Israel
Provisional Agenda of the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Bureau in Paris
I. OPENING SESSION
I.1
The twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage
Committee was held in Cairns, Australia, from 27 November to 2
December 2000. It was attended by all twenty-one members of the
World Heritage Committee: Australia, Belgium, Benin, Canada, China,
Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Portugal, Republic of Korea, South Africa,
Thailand, and Zimbabwe.
I.2
The following States Parties to the Convention who
are not members of the Committee were represented as observers:
Angola, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina
Faso, Cameroon, Chile, Fiji, France, Germany, Holy See, India,
Israel, Japan, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Peru,
Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Slovak
Republic, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uganda,
United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of
America, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Yemen.
I.3
The Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to
UNESCO, non State Party to the World Heritage Convention, also
participated at this session as an observer.
I.4
Representatives of the advisory bodies to the
Committee, the International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of the Cultural Property (ICCROM), the
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory
capacity. The meeting was also attended by representatives and
observers of the following international governmental organizations
(IGOs), international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Organization of World
Heritage Cities, South Pacific Regional Environment Programme,
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission, Australian
Conservation Foundation, Australian Rainforest
Conservation Society, Bama Wabu, The Colong Foundation for
Wilderness Ltd (Australia), CRC Tourism/Southern Cross University,
Environment Center NT Inc. (Australia), Environmental Defender's
Office of Northern Queensland, Inc., Fraser Island Defenders
Organization, Friends of the Earth Australia, Friends of the Earth
Japan, Gimy Walubara Yidinji, Gundjehmi Aboriginal
Corporation, Waanyi Traditional Elders Corporation, International
Centre for Cultural Landscapes, International Council for Science
[ICSU Independent Science Panel - Kakadu], International Federation
of Landscape Architects (IFLA), North Queensland Conservation
Council, Organisation for Museums, Monuments and Sites of Africa
(OMMSA), Simon Wiesenthal Centre Europe, United Nations Foundation,
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources, Victoria
University of Wellington (New Zealand), The Wilderness Society
(Australia), and the World Archaeological Congress, WWF Australia
and Queensland Conservation Council. (The full List of
Participants is attached as
Annex I
to this report).
I.5
The twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee
was opened by Mr Abdelaziz Touri, Chairperson of the World Heritage
Committee, who presented Ms Jeanette Singleton, Traditional Owner.
Ms Singleton, representative of a coastal indigenous group,
informed the Committee that her people lived on the land from time
immemorial coming into contact with the first Europeans in 1876.
She expressed her appreciation that the Committee was held in
Cairns near the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics of
Queensland World Heritage site.
1.6
The outgoing Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee,
Abdelaziz Touri thanked Ms. Singleton for her presentation. He
expressed his appreciation for the support of the Committee during
a demanding year and highlighted progress made and challenges
faced. (His speech is attached as
Annex II
to this report).
1.7
Mr Roger Beale AM, Secretary, Department of
the Environment and Heritage, on behalf of the host country,
welcomed all participants to Australia, noting that the meeting was
being held on Aboriginal lands of North Queensland. He commended Mr
Touri for his efficient Chairmanship of the World Heritage
Committee and Bureau and the way he had steered the sessions of the
Bureau and Committee. He expressed his gratitude to Mr. Bouchenaki
and the staff of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre for their
support. With respect to the preparations for the meeting, he drew
attention to the enormous task involved and urged the Secretariat
and the Committee to use new technological tools to make these
meetings more efficient. Mr Beale also acknowledged the great
contribution made by the Queensland Government; and the staff of
the two local World Heritage sites, namely, the Wet Tropics of
Queensland, and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority all
which made the meeting possible.
1.8
Mr Rod Welford, Minister for Environment and
Heritage, Queensland Government, paid respect to the Traditional
Owners of Queensland on whose land the meeting was being held. He
welcomed the Chairperson, the Committee members and all
participants and informed the Committee that Queensland has five of
the thirteen World Heritage areas of Australia and that these
unique sites are managed with responsibility. On behalf of the
Queensland Government, he warmly welcomed all the Committee
participants.
1.9
The Representative of the Director-General of
UNESCO, Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Assistant Director-General for
Culture, expressed his sincere gratitude to the Australian
authorities for hosting the meeting and for their generosity and
hospitality. Noting the special significance of this meeting in the
Pacific region, where only six of the 16 Member States of UNESCO
were States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, he made
special mention of the two Pacific Island States Parties, Papua New
Guinea and Solomon Islands, who were present. He informed the
Committee about reform measures undertaken in UNESCO, which he
linked to the complementary reform process being undertaken by the
Committee and the Secretariat. He said that he was fully confident
that "Cairns 2000" would become as equally well known as the
recently concluded "Sydney 2000" and, like it, a worldwide success.
(His speech is included as
Annex III
).
1.10
Mr Francesco Bandarin, Director of UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, then took the floor to acknowledge the warm
welcome given by Australia. He praised the leadership of Mr Touri
who had been at the helm during a challenging year. The Director
expressed appreciation for the way he had been received into the
Secretariat and the support from the Committee that enabled him to
settle in well into his new position.
I.11
A delegation of students presented the results of
the First Pacific World Heritage Youth Forum, held in Cairns,
Australia, 23 - 28 November 2000. The Forum was organised by the
Australian National Commission for UNESCO and Environment Australia
within the framework of the UNESCO Special Project "Young People's
Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion". The
students presented an action plan for 2001 to better ensure young
people's participation in World Heritage identification,
preservation and promotion in the Pacific (see
Annex IV
). They
emphasised the need for 1) integrating World Heritage into
classroom teaching, 2) organisation of on-site conservation
activities for young people and 3) proposed to set up a network of
"Pacific Patrimonitos' Centres" at schools to provide students with
a platform for concrete conservation work and research in the
fields of local and World Heritage. These centres would furthermore
ensure networking and exchange of know-how between young people
throughout the region. A teacher from New Zealand presented the
plan to develop a Pacific version of the World Heritage Educational
Resource Kit and an Associated Schools Coordinator from Fiji
explained how World Heritage is being integrated into the
curriculum at the national level. The Director of the UNESCO Apia
Office underlined the complementarity of education and World
Heritage conservation in the Pacific region.
I.12
On 28 November 2000 representatives from Australia,
Canada, the Solomon Islands and New Zealand attending an Indigenous
Peoples Forum on World Heritage held in Cairns (24 November) made
a presentation to the World Heritage Committee. In their
presentation they made a plea for the protection of indigenous
knowledge systems, values and traditions in World Heritage areas,
asserting that these sites were "ancestral lands" that had to be
treated with respect. In the management of these sites,
consideration should be taken to involve and negotiate with
Indigenous Peoples who are the Traditional Owners. They urged the
Committee to adopt four specific recommendations that they
submitted, particularly for the establishment of a World Heritage
Indigenous Council of Experts. Representatives of Traditional
Owners from Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta, the Willandra Lakes Region,
the Tasmanian Wilderness, the Wet Tropics Area and New Zealand,
returned to the Committee to confirm the authenticity of the
presentation. (See
Annex V
).
I.13
Following a proposal by Australia and supported by
members of the Committee, the Committee asked the Secretariat to
follow-up on the recommendations of both the Youth Forum and the
Indigenous People's Forum. A review of the feasibility of these
proposals would be presented by the Secretariat to the twenty-fifth
session of the Bureau.
II. II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND TIMETABLE
II.1
The Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda and
Timetable (WHC-99/CONF.204/1 Rev.10) without any modifications.
III. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-CHAIRPERSONS
III.1
Proposed by the Delegate of Hungary, and endorsed by
Canada, Thailand and Benin, Mr Peter King (Australia) was elected
as Chairperson by acclamation. The following members of the
Committee were elected as Vice-Chairpersons by acclamation: Canada,
Ecuador, Finland, Morocco and Thailand. Mr. Dawson Munjeri
(Zimbabwe) was elected as Rapporteur.
III.2
The Committee warmly thanked the out-going Chairperson,
Mr Abdelaziz Touri for the excellent leadership he provided the
Committee during the past year which had resulted in closer working
relations between the Committee and the Secretariat.
III.3
The newly-elected Chairperson, Mr Peter King,
expressed his appreciation for the remarkable manner in which Mr
Touri carried out his functions as Chairperson of the Committee. He
pointed out that this had resulted in several important initiatives
taken during his tenure of office and thanked all Committee members
for electing him into office. Mr King further highlighted regional
initiatives and concluded by stating his commitment to a new
partnership in the World Heritage movement and to finding new ways
of encouraging practical support for heritage conservation. (His
speech is attached as
Annex VI
).
IV. REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE
TWENTY-THIRD SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
IV.1
Mr Francesco Bandarin, Director of the World
Heritage Centre and Secretary to the World Heritage Committee,
presented the report on activities undertaken since the last
session of the World Heritage Committee in 1999. He referred to
Information Document WHC-2000/CONF/204/INF.4. Using a Powerpoint
presentation, he highlighted the important points of the past
year's activities.
IV.2
The Director stressed the wide reform agenda within
UNESCO and commitments made by Mr Koichiro Matsuura, the new UNESCO
Director-General, to reform the Secretariat in order to meet these
challenges. Among positive changes envisaged were the announced
reform of the Committee's working methods, to energize the Centre
and which will increase its efficiency to meet the growing demands
of the Committee and the States Parties.
IV.3
The Director briefly mentioned the four World
Heritage statutory meetings held in 2000 and the work accomplished
by the four reform groups, namely the Task Force on the
Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention,
the Working
Group on the Representivity of the World Heritage List, the Working
Group on Equitable Representation in the World Heritage Committee
and the International Expert Meeting on the Revision of the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention.
He also presented some preliminary
proposals for improvement in Documentation. These were designed to
facilitate and speed-up decision-making by the Bureau and the
Committee.
IV.4
Concerning co-operation with the advisory bodies,
the Director referred to two meetings held in February and
September 2000 which enabled close co-ordination between inputs
from the advisory bodies and the Centre in the preparation of
working documents for the Bureau and the Committee sessions. Other
meetings and workshops were organized in co-operation with the
advisory bodies, for example, the expert meeting on World Heritage
and Mining (September 2000) in Gland, Switzerland, jointly
organized by the Centre and IUCN, with the active participation of
ICOMOS and the International Council on Metals and the Environment
(ICME).
IV.5
The Director highlighted the continuing co-operation
of the Centre with other UNESCO Sectors and Units in the
implementation of a variety of projects related to the preservation
of World Heritage sites, as well as the increasing number of
activities undertaken in co-operation with the regional offices.
IV.6
In the framework of co-operation with other
Conventions, the Director mentioned fruitful exchanges that
included the Biodiversity Convention, the Convention on Migratory
Species and the Ramsar Convention. He also mentioned the adoption
of the European Landscape Convention by the Council of Europe's
Committee of Ministers in July 2000.
IV.7
Concerning the co-operation with other
organizations, special mention was made of the partnership with the
United Nations Foundation for strengthening the protection of World
Heritage natural sites, in the framework of which some 8.5 million
dollars had been provided as outright grants for projects of
benefit to World Natural Heritage of global biodiversity
significance. The Director further mentioned ongoing projects and
co-operation with, among others, the United Nations Environment
Programme, the International Council on Metals and the Environment
(ICME), the World Tourism Organization, The World Bank, the Japan
Bank for International Cooperation, the French Agency for
Development, the Caisse des dépôts et consignation de
France, the European Union Asia Urbs Programme and the Nordic World
Heritage Office. In all this, the Director stressed the
increasing importance of strategic partnerships that would
reinforce the Centre's efforts and help improve the problems
arising from insufficient resources.
IV.8
The Director of the Centre indicated that Namibia,
Kiribati and Comoros had ratified the Convention in 2000, bringing
the number of States Parties to the Convention to 161. He stressed
the record number of 72 nominations to be discussed at this session
of the World Heritage Committee and informed the Committee that 115
among the 161 States Parties, had submitted Tentative Lists that
comply with the format specified in the
Operational
Guidelines.
IV.9
Within the activities related to the Global Strategy
to ensure a representative and balanced World Heritage List,
reference was made to a certain number of initiatives undertaken to
address lacuna related to under-represented regions and types of
heritage. Among the meetings and workshops held in 2000, mention
was made of the following: 'Assessing Natural Heritage of Coastal
and Marine Areas of Africa', held in Maputo, Mozambique;
'Authenticity and Integrity in an African Context', held at Great
Zimbabwe; the AFRICA 2009 regional 3-month training course,
'Conservation and Management of Immovable Cultural Heritage', Porto
Novo, Benin; the 'Regional Capacity-Building Workshop for the
Promotion of Awareness in Natural Heritage Conservation', Muscat,
Oman. Furthermore, a Global Strategy Expert Meeting on Central
Asian Cultural Heritage was hosted by the Government of
Turkmenistan in Ashgabat; a seminar on Natural Heritage in the
Caribbean was held in Paramaribo, Suriname; a Workshop on the
Management of Sites in the Guyana Shield was held in Georgetown,
Guyana; a Regional Thematic Expert Meeting on Potential Natural
World Heritage Sites in the Alps took place in Hallstatt, Austria;
a conference was organized on World Heritage Fossil Sites in
Australia, and cultural landscapes meetings were held in Italy,
Kenya and Costa Rica.
IV.10
In the framework of Periodic Reporting, the Director
indicated that the final synthesis report for periodic reporting
for the Arab Region will be presented to this session of the
Committee and that the Periodic reporting exercise for Africa,
taking place in 2001, is in preparation.
IV.11
Several other sites had been in the focus of public
attention in 2000, such as the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, the
Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, Peru, and the Whale Sanctuary
of El Vizcaino, Mexico. The Director briefly mentioned reports on
the state of conservation of sites inscribed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger at the last session of the World Heritage
Committee, and particularly the recent developments at the Group of
Monuments at Hampi, India.
IV.12
The increase in the number of international
assistance requests approved in 2000 (105) reflects the growing
number of sites and threats to them. In view of the limited budget
within the World Heritage Fund, the World Heritage Centre continued
to give priority to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) or Low-Income
Countries (LICs), especially those with sites on the List of World
Heritage in Danger, encouraging them to utilize the funds in
catalytic ways. Moreover, non LDC/LIC States Parties were
encouraged to actively seek funds for large-scale projects from
other sources.
IV.13
The Director referred to the activities of the
Centre's Documentation, Information and Education Unit, emphasizing
the increased range of activities undertaken in 2000. He
particularly stressed the heavy workload concerning the Centre's
statutory archival and documentary function, but pointed out that
the Unit had been reinforced with two staff members detached from
the UNESCO Culture Sector. He also indicated that the
World
Heritage Review
had increased its frequency by becoming a bi-
monthly edition, and that new partnership initiatives had been
undertaken, notably through activities with the tourism industry.
Special mention was made of the Special Project
Young People's
Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion
which is proving to be one of the most successful flagship projects
launched by UNESCO for young people. In 2000, more than 130 Member
States actively participated in the experimentation and adaptation
of the Educational Resource Kit for Teachers "World Heritage in
young hands".
IV.14
Finally, the Director brought to the attention of
the Committee, the inadequacies of resources, but was optimistic
that this would not delay the work of the Committee.
IV.15
At the end of the presentation of the Secretariat's
report, the Director shared with the Committee his initial
impressions as newly appointed Director of the World Heritage
Centre and Secretary of the World Heritage Committee. (His speech
is attached as
Annex VII
to this report).
IV.16
The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee
thanked the Director for his excellent presentation that enabled
him to gain insight into the wide and diverse array of the Centre's
activities.
V. REPORTS OF THE RAPPORTEURS ON THE SESSIONS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE BUREAU
V.1
The Chairperson informed the Committee that the
Rapporteur of the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau (26 June - 1
July 2000), Ms Anne Lammila, had finished her term as Deputy
Permanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO and had returned to Finland
to the take up new duties. Therefore, at the invitation of the
Chairperson, the Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre
informed the Committee that the Report of the Rapporteur of the
twenty-fourth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee, Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/2, had been adopted by the
Bureau.
V.2
The Chairperson informed the Committee that the
Bureau, at its twenty-fourth session, decided to hold a Special
Session of the Bureau in Budapest, Hungary from 2-4 October 2000.
This Special Session was held in order to further discuss the:
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
Representivity of the World Heritage List
Equitable Representation of the World Heritage Committee
Revision to the
Operational Guidelines
As the position of the Rapporteur was vacant, in accordance with
Rule 15.2 of the
Rules of Procedures of the World Heritage
Committee
, the Committee was informed that Australia had been
called upon to provide a replacement Rapporteur for the Special
Session of the Bureau and the twenty-fourth extraordinary session
of the Bureau in Cairns, Australia (23-24 November 2000). Mr Kevin
Keeffe served as Rapporteur at these two sessions.
V.3
The Rapporteur drew the attention of the Committee
to the Report of the Special Session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee (Budapest, 2-4 October 2000) presented in
Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/3 that includes recommendations on:
Statutory meetings, strategic planning, the proposal for a
sub-committee system and equitable representation in the World
Heritage Committee
Representivity of the World Heritage List
Information and documentation management
Other matters.
The Committee was informed that the Budapest Bureau session was
very fruitful and should lead to the finalisation of some of the
important reform measures which were now before the Committee,
including those related to World Heritage statutory meetings.
V.4
In relation to the discussions held concerning the
Revision to the
Operational Guidelines
Mr Keeffe
presented the following text, to replace paragraph III.22 of the
Report of the Special Session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee (Budapest, 2-4 October 2000) presented in Document WHC-
2000/CONF.204/3.
"The Bureau recommended that once the new overall framework
for revised
Operational Guidelines
(WHC-
2000/CONF.202/9) had been approved by the Committee, details
of new text could be finalized. The Bureau agreed that the
production of revised
Operational Guidelines
incorporating proposed changes be considered by the Committee
as a high priority. The Bureau agreed that the revision of the
Operational Guidelines
would require teamwork on the
part of the Secretariat, advisory bodies and representatives
of States Parties."
An initial draft text had been prepared by Australia and is
presented as an Information document, but not intended for
discussion by the Committee.
With this correction, the Report of the Special Session of the
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee was adopted by the
Committee.
V.5
The Rapporteur thereafter presented the Report of
the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee (Cairns, 23-24 November 2000) presented in
Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/4. He recalled that this was a working
document for the twenty-fourth session of the Committee and drew
the attention of the Committee to the sections concerning:
III. State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
World Heritage and Mining
State of conservation of natural properties
State of conservation of mixed properties
State of conservation of cultural properties
IV. Examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties
to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage
List
VI. Feasibility study on the proposed system of sub-committees.
The Rapporteur informed the Committee that any additional comments
on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List could be made during discussions under Agenda Item
8.2, and on the Feasibility Study during Agenda Item 6
respectively.
VI. WORK OF THE WORLD HERITAGE REFORM GROUPS
VI.1
The Committee noted the reports of the following four
reform groups and sincerely thanked the States Parties who had
participated in their work.
Task Force on the implementation of the Convention
Chair: C. Cameron (Canada)
Rapporteur: K. Keeffe (Australia)
WHC-2000/CONF.2000/INF. 7
Working Group on the Representativity of the World Heritage List
Chair: H.E. Ambassador Mr Olabiyi B.J. Yai (Benin)
Rapporteur: H.E. Mr M. Peek (Australia)
WHC-2000/CONF.2000/INF. 8
Working Group on Equitable Representation in the World Heritage Committee
Chair: H.E. Ambassador J. Musitelli (France)
Rapporteur: D. Masek (Czech Republic)
WHC-2000/CONF.2000/INF.9
International Expert Meeting on the Revision of the
Operational Guidelines
, Canterbury, United Kingdom (10-14 April 2000)
Chair: C. Young (United Kingdom)
Rapporteur: K. Kovacs (United States of America)
WHC-2000/CONF.2000/INF.10
VI.2
In view of the large number of detailed
recommendations prepared by the four groups listed above, and given
that there was limited time for discussion, the Committee focused
its discussions on the reform process by examining four specific
issues as follows:
1. PROPOSED REFORM OF THE CALENDAR AND CYCLE OF WORLD HERITAGE STATUTORY
MEETINGS
AND FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM OF SUB-COMMITTEES
The Committee recalled that the Task Force for the Implementation
of the Convention, chaired by Ms Christina Cameron (Canada), had
proposed that sub-committees be established to facilitate the work
of the World Heritage Committee and the World Heritage Centre.
The Committee also recalled that the twenty-fourth session of the
Bureau (June 2000) had requested that there be further examination
of the possibility of a sub-committee system and that the Special
Session of the Bureau (Budapest, 2-4 October 2000) had discussed
the proposal further with reference to a paper prepared by the
United Kingdom.
As requested by the Special Session of the Bureau, a paper on the
feasibility and implications of a sub-committee system was prepared
and examined by the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the
Bureau (WHC-2000/CONF.203/6).
The four objectives for proposing changes to the existing Bureau
and Committee system were to:
Objective 1
Facilitate the work of the World Heritage
Centre,
Objective 2
Facilitate the work of the World Heritage
Committee and allow it to devote more time to
general policy discussions for the implementation
of the Convention,
Objective 3
Improve the prior examination of various
issues submitted to the Committee, and
Objective 4
Increase representation of States Parties
in the work of the Committee.
The Committee decided to:
Revise the calendar and cycle of World Heritage
meetings from June/November to April/June (see
Annex VIII
Abolish the extraordinary sessions of the Bureau and
Committee
Implement changes to the calendar and cycle of the Bureau
and the Committee in 2002 (Note: Hungary, who hopes to be
host country to the Committee in 2002, expressed their
agreement to this date for the introduction of a new
calendar and cycle)
Introduce an Item A and B decision-making system (Item A:
items which are the subject of consensus for adoption
and, Item B: items requiring discussion by the Committee)
Enforce Rule 22.2 of Committee's
Rules of Procedure
to
limit the time allowed to each speaker (especially if
they are an observer)
Defer the examination of nominations received in 2001 to the
year 2003. This deferral would imply only a limited
pause (7 months) in the nomination process, and allow the
necessary transitional adjustments
Introduce a biennial budget for the World Heritage Fund to
harmonize with the UNESCO budget cycle
Review any changes to the calendar, cycle and meetings of the
Bureau (or sub-committees) and the Committee after they
have been in operation for 4 years
The revised deadline for nominations would be 1 February.
Evaluations would be due from IUCN and/or ICOMOS 6 weeks prior
to the April Bureau.
Referrals of nominations would be re-examined by the Bureau in
the year following initial examination before proceeding to
the Committee for decision.
The deadline for receipt of international assistance requests
and state of conservation reports would also be on 1
February.
During the transition period the following timetable would
apply:
Nominations received by
To be examined by the Bureau
To be examined by the Committee
1 July 2000
June/July 2001
December 2001
31 December 2000
April 2002
June 2002
1 February 2002
April 2003
June 2003
1 February 2003
April 2004
June 2004
______________________
Full and complete nominations received by the World Heritage Centre prior to 31
December 2000 will be considered together with nominations deferred, or referred,
from previous meetings and changes to the boundaries of already inscribed properties.
The Committee may also decide to consider, on an emergency basis, situations falling
under paragraph 67 of the
Operational Guidelines.
The Committee decided to defer a decision on the introduction of a
sub-committee system or the extension of the Bureau session from
six to eight days, until the effectiveness of the other reforms
(changed statutory meeting calendar and cycle
limitation in
number of nominations to be examined each year and reforms to
meeting documentation) could be assessed at a later date. It was
thus agreed that reform should proceed gradually. Greater efforts
were to be given to structuring the work of the Bureau to focus its
work. The ordering of the agenda by topics was considered useful
as was the use of informal ad hoc working groups to expedite the
work of the Bureau and Committee.
The Delegate of Hungary presented a document distributed to the
Committee entitled "A Hungarian World Heritage Vision". The
document refers to the need to address the balance of
representation of the World Heritage List in favour of under-
represented or non-represented countries. It also calls for a more
prominent role for tentative lists. The Delegate of Hungary
suggested that with a pause in the examination of nominations in
2002, the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in 2002 could
concentrate on the preparation of a Strategic Plan and other issues
important for the future implementation of the Convention.
Documentation
The Committee noted that the Task Force on the Implementation of
the World Heritage Convention had recommended a number of reforms
to the documents prepared for World Heritage statutory meetings.
Following a presentation by the Director of the World Heritage
Centre, the Committee agreed that the objectives of reforming
meeting documentation would be to:
facilitate decision-making and increase efficiency
streamline document preparation
provide transparency and equity of access to documentation
reduce costs.
The Committee decided that reform of the system of documentation,
as proposed by the Director of the World Heritage Centre, would
include:
maintaining Reports of the Rapporteurs
reducing the number of working documents by compiling
one decision-making guide to be distributed 2 weeks prior to the meeting
including additional working documents only in exceptional cases - e.g. Strategic Planning documents,
or changes to Reference Texts (
Operational
Guidelines
Rules of Procedure
etc.)
all other documents as Information Documents.
To enhance communication between the World Heritage Centre and the
Committee, the Committee also decided, as proposed by the Director
of the World Heritage Centre, that the Centre would,
prepare a regular report referencing documents currently
available
organize two information meetings per year for Committee
members at UNESCO Headquarters (non-Committee members to
attend as observers)
continue to prepare a Secretariat Report to the Bureau
and Committee but improve its structure and content.
The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to implement as
many of these reforms as are feasible before the twenty-fifth
session of the Committee.
2. EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION IN THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
The Committee recalled that in October 1999 the twelfth General
Assembly,
adopted by consensus a Resolution underlining the
importance of an equitable representation of the World
Heritage Committee and the need to increase the number of
its members
requested the World Heritage Committee to submit
proposals on this matter to the thirteenth General
Assembly of States Parties and to inscribe an item on the
agenda of the thirty-first General Conference in 2001.
The Committee noted that in 2000, a Working Group on Equitable
Representation within the World Heritage Committee was established
under the Chairmanship of H.E. Ambassador J. Musitelli (France).
The report of the Working Group was discussed at the June and
October 2000 sessions of the Bureau (WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.9).
The Committee noted the proposals on the equitable representation
of the Committee developed following the Special Session of the
Bureau session (WHC-2000/CONF.204/6) and decided to recommend the
following Draft Resolution for adoption by the 13th General
Assembly:
The General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention
concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage,
Recalling
Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention
which stipulates that "Election of members of the Committee
shall ensure an equitable representation of the different
regions and cultures of the world";
Recalling
Article 9 of the Convention which stipulates
that "The term of office of States members of the World
Heritage Committee shall extend from the end of the ordinary
session of the General Conference during which they are
elected until the end of its third subsequent ordinary
session";
Recalling
the Resolution of the 7th General Assembly of
States Parties (1989);
Considering
the representivity of the World Heritage
List could be enhanced through the increased participation in
the work of the Committee of States Parties whose heritage is
currently unrepresented in the List;
Considering
that the strong interest of States Parties in
participating in the work of the World Heritage Committee
could be addressed by a more frequent rotation of Committee
members;
Invites
the States Parties to the World Heritage
Convention, to voluntarily reduce their term of office from
six to four years;
Encourages
States Parties that are not members of the
Committee to make use of their right to participate in
meetings of the World Heritage Committee as observers;
Discourages
States Parties from seeking consecutive
terms of office in the World Heritage Committee;
Decides
that before each election of Committee members,
the President of the General Assembly of States Parties will
inform States Parties of the situation of the representation
of regions and cultures in the World Heritage Committee and
World Heritage List;
Decides
to amend its Rules of Procedure as follows:
New Rule to be inserted after Rule 13.1
A certain number of seats may be reserved for State Parties
who do not have sites on the World Heritage List, upon
decision of the World Heritage Committee at the session that
precedes the General Assembly. Such a ballot for reserved
seats would precede the open ballot for the remaining seats to
be filled. Unsuccessful candidates in the reserved ballot
would be eligible to stand in the open ballot.
Amendment to existing Rule 13.8 (new text in bold)
13.8
Those States obtaining in the first ballot the
required majority shall be elected, unless the number of
States obtaining that majority is greater than the number of
seats to be filled. In that case, the States obtaining the
greatest number of votes, up to the number of seats to be
filled, shall be declared elected.
If the number of States
obtaining the majority required is less than the number of
seats to be filled, there shall be a second ballot, followed
by a third and, if necessary a fourth, to fill the remaining
seats.
If the number of States obtaining the majority
required is less than the number of seats to be filled, there
shall be a second ballot. If the number of States obtaining
the majority required is still less than the number of seats
to be filled there shall be a third and, if necessary a fourth
ballot, to fill the remaining seats
For the third and
fourth ballots,
the voting shall be restricted to the
States obtaining the greatest number of votes in the previous
ballot, up to a number twice that of the seats remaining to be
filled.
Decides
that this resolution should be implemented
immediately.
The Committee also recommended that the General Assembly organize
the agenda of its thirteenth session so that the measures foreseen
by these amendments may enter into force at that same session.
In order to implement the new rule to be inserted following Rule
13.1, the Committee decided that
one
seat be reserved for a
State Party not having a site inscribed on the World Heritage List
at the date of the thirteenth session of the General Assembly.
The Committee requested the Secretariat to inform all States
Parties of the implementation of the new electoral procedures,
particularly those States Parties which may fulfill the conditions
to be candidates for the reserved seat.
The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare with the
involvement of interested States Parties and the advisory bodies,
a proposal for the twenty-sixth session of the World Heritage
Committee for further amendment to Rule 13 of the
Rules of
Procedures of the General Assembly
relating to the election of
members of the World Heritage Committee in order to ensure an
equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of
the world. This proposal is to be based on a thorough analysis of
the consequences of the proposed changes and the adjustments that
would be required to the election procedures.
The Committee also decided to revise the
Rules of Procedure of
the World Heritage Committee
as follows:
New Rule 4.3
"In determining the place of the next session, the Committee
shall give due regard to the need to ensure an equitable
rotation among the different regions and cultures of the
world."
New Rule 20.4
"In appointing consultative bodies, due regard shall be given
to the need to ensure an equitable representation of the
different regions and cultures of the world."
New Rule 21.3
"In appointing subsidiary bodies, due regard shall be given to
the need to ensure an equitable representation of the
different regions and cultures of the world."
3. REPRESENTIVITY OF THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
The Committee examined and discussed the recommendations of the
Working Group on the Representivity of the World Heritage List
chaired by Ambassador Yai (Benin), which had been transmitted by
the Special Session of the Bureau with some changes.
The Committee recognized that the issue of representivity of the
World Heritage List was the most difficult of the reform issues
under consideration by the Committee. The Committee noted that
more effective use of tentative lists and greater regulation of the
ever-increasing number of nominations was required. It was agreed
that other measures, such as assistance for capacity-building would
be vital for ensuring the representation of sites from all regions
on the World Heritage List.
The Committee therefore agreed on a decision presented in 5
sections:
Respecting the Convention
Tentative Lists
Nominations
Resolution of the Twelfth General Assembly, 1999
Capacity Building for under-represented Regions
With reference to Section 3, the Delegate of Hungary asked that his
request for a change in the deadline for submission of nominations
to be examined in 2002, from December 2000 as agreed by the
Committee, to April 2001, be noted in the Report. The Committee
agreed to note this request by the Delegate of Hungary but stated
that in the interest of a smooth transition, the majority position
of the Committee will be maintained.
With the exception of Hungary, the text of the decision was adopted
by all members of the Committee. A letter from the Italian
Government is included as
Annex IX
of this report.
The Committee agreed to transmit its decision to the Thirteenth
General Assembly of States Parties in 2001.
1. Respecting the Convention
The Committee reaffirmed the Convention for the Protection of the
World Natural and Cultural Heritage as an instrument of consensus,
cooperation and accord between States Parties and takes particular
note of Articles 6 (1) and 6 (2) and Article 11 (1):
(i) Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the States on
whose territory the cultural and natural heritage mentioned in
Articles 1 and 2 is situated, and without prejudice to
property right provided by national legislation, the States
Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage
constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the
duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate
(Article 6 (1)
(ii) The States Parties undertake, in accordance with the
provisions of this Convention, to give their help in the
identification, protection, conservation and presentation of
the cultural and natural heritage . . . if the States on whose
territory it is situated so request (Article 6 (2)).
(iii) Every State Party to this Convention shall, in so far as
possible, submit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory
of property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage,
situated in its territory and suitable for inclusion in the
list . . . (Article 11 (1).
Decisive cooperative action is required by the Committee and States
Parties to ensure that the World Heritage List is fully
representative of the world's natural and cultural heritage.
2. Tentative Lists
(i) In the future, consistent with Article 11, .the tentative
lists of cultural and natural sites should be used, as a planning
tool to reduce the imbalances in the World Heritage List. States
Parties are reminded of the invitation to submit tentative lists in
conformity with Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee should
revise paragraphs 7 and 8 of the
Operational Guidelines
to
extend to natural sites its decision not to examine nominations of
sites for inscription if the property does not appear on a
tentative list.
(ii) The advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre should
proceed with an analysis of sites inscribed on the World Heritage
List and the tentative list on a regional, chronological,
geographical and thematic basis. This analysis should be
undertaken as soon as possible, taking into account the workload on
advisory bodies and the financial implications of this work,
particularly in regard to the large number of sites on the
tentative list. For this reason, the work should be undertaken in
two parts, sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and sites on
the tentative list. The analysis will provide States Parties with
a clear overview of the present situation, and likely trends in the
short to medium term with a view to identifying under-represented
categories.
(iii) The advisory bodies should take into account in their
analyses:
The diversity and particularities of natural and cultural
heritage in each region,
The results of regional Periodic Reporting, and
The recommendations of the regional and thematic meetings on
the harmonisation of tentative lists held since 1984 and those
on the Global Strategy organised since 1994.
(iv) The World Heritage Centre and advisory bodies should
communicate the results of the analyses to the World Heritage
Committee and, following the Committee's examination, the results
should be conveyed to States Parties to the Convention, together
with the Committee's recommendations. This will allow them to
prepare, revise and/or harmonise their tentative list, taking into
account, where appropriate, regional considerations, and to take
the results of the analyses into consideration for the submission
of future nominations.
(v) The results of the analyses should be communicated no later
than 30 September 2001.
3. Nominations
In order to promote the effective management of the increasing size
of the World Heritage List, the Committee at each ordinary session
will set the maximum number of nominations to be considered. In the
first instance and on an interim basis, it is proposed that at the
twenty-seventh session of the Committee in 2003, the number of
nominations examined by the Committee will be limited to a maximum
of 30 new sites.
In order to determine which sites should be given priority for
consideration, all nominations to be considered at the twenty-
seventh session of the Committee must be received in full by the
new due date of 1 February 2002 agreed by the Committee as part of
the change of cycle of meetings. No State Parties should submit
more than one nomination, except those States Parties that have no
sites inscribed on the World Heritage List who will have the
opportunity to propose two or three nominations.
In order to address the issue of representivity of the List the
following criteria will be applied in order of priority:
In the event that the number of nominations received exceeds the
maximum number set by the Committee, the following priority system
will be applied each year by the World Heritage Centre before
nominations are transmitted to the advisory bodies for evaluation,
in determining which sites should be taken forward for
consideration:
Nominations of sites submitted by a State Party with no
sites inscribed on the List;
Nominations of sites from any State Party that illustrate
un-represented or less represented categories of natural and
cultural properties, as determined by analyses prepared by the
Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies and reviewed and approved
by the Committee;
Other nominations.
When applying this priority system, date of receipt of full and
complete nominations by the World Heritage Centre shall be used as
the secondary determining factor within the category where the
number of nominations established by the Committee is reached.
In addition to the approved maximum number of sites, the Committee
will also consider nominations deferred, or referred, from previous
meetings and changes to the boundaries of already inscribed
properties. The Committee may also decide to consider, on an
emergency basis, situations falling under paragraph 67 of the
Operational Guidelines
____________________
In nominating properties to the List, States Parties are
invited to keep in mind the desirability of achieving a reasonable balance between
the numbers of cultural heritage and natural heritage properties included in the World
Heritage List (Paragraph 15 of the
Operational Guidelines
In evaluating these, and all other nominations, the Advisory Bodies should
continue to apply a strict evaluation of criteria as set out in the
Operational Guidelines
Transition arrangements
Committee meeting, December 2001
No change to existing system.
Committee meeting June 2002
Full and complete nominations received by the World Heritage
Centre prior to 31 December 2000 will be considered together
with nominations deferred, or referred, from previous meetings
and changes to the boundaries of already inscribed properties.
The Committee may also decide to consider, on an emergency
basis, situations falling under paragraph 67 of the
Operational Guidelines
Committee meeting June 2003
Nominations to be submitted by 1 February 2002 and prioritized
in accordance with the system as described above.
Review
The system described above is to be reviewed by the Committee after
two full years of operation.
4. Resolution of the Twelfth General Assembly, 1999
The Committee decided to call on States Parties concerned to inform
the Committee with a minimum of delay, of measures taken in the
implementation of the clauses of the Resolution adopted by the
Twelfth General Assembly (Paragraph B) that invites all States
Parties that already have a substantial number of sites inscribed
on the World Heritage List to:
(i) Apply paragraph 6 (vii) of the
Operational Guidelines for
the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
by spacing voluntarily their nominations according to
conditions that they will define, and/or
by proposing only properties falling into categories still
under-represented, and/or
by linking each of their nominations with a nomination
presented by a State Party whose heritage is under-
represented, or
by deciding, on a voluntary basis, to suspend the
presentation of new nominations.
ii) Initiate and encourage bilateral and multilateral co-operation
with States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented in
the List within the framework of the preparation of tentative
lists, nominations and training programmes,
iii) Give priority to the re-examination of their tentative lists
within the framework of regional consultations and to the
preparation of periodic reports.
5. Capacity Building for Under-represented Regions
The Committee decided that cooperative efforts in capacity-building
and training are necessary to ensure that the World Heritage List
is fully representative and agrees that:
(i) The World Heritage Centre should continue to promote training
programmes, preferably at the regional level, aimed at allowing
States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented to be
better versed in the Convention and to better implement the
measures under Article 5. These primarily concern the
identification, management, protection, enhancement and
conservation of heritage. Such programmes should also assist
States Parties to acquire and/or consolidate their expertise, in
the preparation and harmonisation of their tentative lists and the
preparation of nominations.
(ii) The advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre should use
the opportunity of evaluation missions to hold regional training
workshops to assist under-represented States in the methods of
preparation of their tentative list and nominations. Appropriate
financial and human resources should be provided through the World
Heritage Centre budget process to undertake such workshops.
(iii) Requests by States Parties whose heritage is non-
represented or under-represented should be given a high priority
when the portion of the World Heritage budget relating to
Preparatory Assistance in preparing nominations is developed.
(iv) The order of priorities for the granting of international
assistance, as defined in paragraphs 91 and 113-114 of the
Operational Guidelines
, should be revised in a manner
consistent with the recommendations of the International Expert
Meeting on the Revision of the
Operational Guidelines
(Canterbury, United Kingdom) to improve the representivity of the
World Heritage List and to be coherent with the Global Strategy.
Beyond the conditions provided for by the Convention, and subject
to the conclusions of the evaluation of international assistance,
the new priority order should take into account:
The necessity of encouraging the beneficiary countries to develop
measures for the implementation of the Convention in their country,
The order of priority for the examination of the nominations for
inscription,
The state of preparation of the beneficiary countries, and
The necessity of giving priority to the least developed countries
(LDCs) and countries with a low revenue.
(v) Regional Plans of Action should be updated and developed within
the framework of the Global Strategy. These should specify for
each targeted region and State Party, the objective, action needed,
responsibility, timetable for adoption, state of play and a
mechanism to report on progress in implementing these at each
session of the World Heritage Committee. In order to underline
their incentive nature, the Plans of Action should highlight the
actions by the States Parties concerned, notably in application of
Article 5 of the Convention, and should mention the bilateral or
multilateral co-operation programmes in the field of heritage in
general, for the elaboration in particular of nominations.
(vi) The next UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy should stress the
necessity of adopting an intersectoral policy aimed at better
implementing the Convention. From the 2002-2003 biennium, an
intersectoral project should be developed and implemented to
encourage the States Parties whose heritage is still under-
represented to reinforce their capacity to protect, conserve and
enhance it.
The Committee noted that the Hungarian authorities had prepared a
proposal for the establishment of a Heritage Partnership Programme
to be examined by the Committee at its twenty-fourth session in
Cairns (WHC-2000/CONF.204/19).
The Committee decided that a review of the implementation and
effectiveness of such measures should take place not later than
2003.
4. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE
OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
The Director of the World Heritage Centre thanked English Heritage
and the Government of the United Kingdom for having organized,
jointly with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the International
Expert Meeting on the Revision to the
Operational Guidelines
in Canterbury, England, from 10 to 14 April, 2000. He also
thanked the Government of the United Kingdom for having offered to
provide an additional financial contribution to this important
activity in 2001.
Following a report on the results of the Expert Meeting by
Christopher Young (United Kingdom), who had chaired the meeting,
the Committee decided that
the Operational Guidelines
be
restructured according to the proposed new overall framework
(WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.10).
INTRODUCTION
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES
INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
The Committee requested that the
Operational Guidelines
be
simplified, streamlined and presented in a user-friendly form with
most of the existing and new supporting material to be moved to
annexes and other documentation. The Committee asked that the
Operational Guidelines
be organized in a logical way,
returning to the fundamental principles of the World Heritage
Convention. The revised
Operational Guidelines
will
introduce for the first time a consolidated section on the
Protection and Conservation of World Heritage Properties.
IUCN welcomed the excellent work done at the Canterbury Expert
Meeting to propose a reshaping of the
Operational
Guidelines
. IUCN agreed that a comprehensive overhaul of this
key document was required rather than the past practice of
incremental, ad hoc amendments. IUCN expressed their wish to
contribute to a process of revisions and proposed five objectives
for the revised
Operational Guidelines:
The integration of cultural and natural criteria while
maintaining the current wording of the natural criteria
The close link between concepts of integrity and authenticity
Stronger emphasis placed on site management
Emphasis on reactive monitoring as nothing does more for the
credibility of the Convention
More creative use of tentative lists.
The Committee decided that the process for revising the
Operational Guidelines
should be co-ordinated by the World
Heritage Centre through a collaborative process involving
representatives of States Parties, the advisory bodies and the
Secretariat. It was agreed that revised
Operational
Guidelines
should reflect different regional and cultural
perspectives. The Committee agreed to the following phased
approach to the revision of the
Operational Guidelines
. The
Director of the World Heritage Centre noted that additional human
and financial resources would be required for the Centre to co-ordinate this process.
Phase I
Meeting at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris in January
2001 to define the process for revising the
Operational
Guidelines
Phase II
Preparation by the Secretariat of a first draft
revised text in English and French to reflect all current
proposals for revision and showing the source of the proposed
revisions
Phase III
Circulation of the revised text to all States
Parties and posting of revised text on the Web
Phase IV
Contributions in writing from States Parties
Phase V
Meeting to refine new
Operational Guidelines
section by section
Phase VI
Submission of revised
Operational Guidelines
to the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage
Committee in 2001 for decision.
VII. PERIODIC REPORTING
Report on the state of conservation of World Heritage in the
Arab region
VII.1
The report (WHC-2000/CONF.204/7) was presented to the
Committee by Mr Abdelaziz Daoulatli, Consultant (WHC) for Periodic
Reporting in the Arab Region. In all, as at the beginning of
November 2000, there were 52 sites on the World Heritage List, of
which 44 were inscribed prior to 1993 and the latter were the
subject of the report. He explained the processes followed in the
compilation of the report (a synthesis of 2,500 pages of data) and
underscored the high level of co-operation received from the States
Parties. Out of a possible 44 reports, 36 had been received.
From his observations, Mr Daoulatli drew special attention of the
Committee to the following areas:
Absence of strategies and management plans
General absence of adequate documentation
Lack of and, in cases, absence of necessary professional
and technical skills
Ignorance about the World Heritage Convention and a
general public unawareness of the existence or
significance of World Heritage sites
Central government-driven initiatives and non-involvement
of civil society, NGOs and the public
Management-based on "rule of thumb" and not on scientific
principles and consequently absence of key indicators
Ill-defined or ill-understood values.
In the light of these observations, Mr Daoulatli advocated an
Action Plan focused on:
Identification of properties
Integrated management and conservation plans
Preventive monitoring
Promotion of the Convention and awareness proposals on
World Heritage sites
Training and international co-operation.
VII.2
He recommended the holding of a second regional
meeting to submit the final report to the States Parties of the
Arab region; the harmonization of the tentative lists for the Arab
Region; the limiting of new nominations whilst taking into account
an equitable representation in States Parties and categories of
properties, and focusing on the conservation of existing ones. He
also recommended the setting up of a monitoring service for the
Arab region and the study of an Action Plan, the implementation of
which to be funded jointly by the World Heritage Fund and
extrabudgetary sources.
VII.3
The Delegates of Mexico, Italy, Canada, Morocco,
Cuba, the Observer of the United Kingdom and the Delegate of
Greece, as well as the Representative of IUCN, successively took
the floor to express their satisfaction with the report, the first
of its kind. They pointed out that it served as a prototype for the
other regions, and conveyed their congratulations to the authors.
The Delegate of Mexico questioned the existence of a system for
inventories and the Delegate of Italy queried the reasons why some
Arab States had advocated the revision of the statement of value in
the nomination forms, or the elaboration of new statements of
value. This notion of value was taken up by the Delegate of
Morocco, who considered it to be a critical question that deserved
thorough discussion. He also drew attention to the appropriateness
of the Moroccan boundary, as reflected on the presenter's map of
the Arab region. The Observer of the United Kingdom underlined
the need to take into account, at the time of the revision of the
Operational Guidelines
, changes concerning the boundaries of
the inscribed sites or their buffer zones. The Delegate of Greece
emphasized the need to evaluate, prior to the inscription of new
sites, their management plans. She referred to the statement of
the Observer of the United Kingdom, to integrate monitoring into
the framework of the global approach to site management, idea also
taken up by the Representative of IUCN.
VII.4
Noting the awareness problem, the Delegate of Canada
suggested that the Secretariat arrange a meeting with the
representatives of the States Parties of the Arab region to
appraise them on the Report. The Secretariat could arrange another
meeting with possible funding agencies. In concluding, the
Chairperson invited the Director of the Centre to study the
proposals contained in the Report, as they were unanimously
supported by all delegates, who looked forward to their
implementation, in co-operation with the States Parties concerned.
In this respect, the Director was called upon to convene a meeting
with the Permanent Delegates to UNESCO to inform them of the
results of the periodic reporting exercise.
Periodic Reporting: Progress report on regional strategies for
periodic reporting.
VII.5
The Secretariat recalled that in accordance with the
decisions taken by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-
second session regarding the application of Article 29 of the World
Heritage Convention, the following principles guide the design and
implementation of the regional periodic reporting strategies:
The States Parties themselves are responsible for the preparation
of national Periodic Reports.
States Parties may request expert advice from the Secretariat
or the advisory bodies. The Secretariat may also commission
expert advice with the agreement of the States Parties.
Periodic reporting will provide the framework for the exchange
of experiences among States Parties.
Periodic reporting is a participatory process in which all
World Heritage partners are involved.
The Secretariat will facilitate the implementation of the
periodic reporting requirement by the States Parties and will
synthesise the national reports by region. In doing so, full
use will be made of the available expertise of the advisory
bodies, States Parties, competent institutions and expertise
available within the region.
VII.6
Following the overall approaches to periodic
reporting for the Arab States and Africa that were presented to and
endorsed by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-third
session (working document WHC-99/CONF.209/12), a progress report on
the implementation of the periodic reporting strategy for Africa,
as well as the regional strategies for Asia and the Pacific, and
Latin America and the Caribbean were presented to the World
Heritage Committee.
VII.7
Concerning the African region reporting on 40 sites
located in 18 States Parties, the Committee was informed that the
first two phases of the seven-phase action plan were already
completed. The remaining phases are foreseen for completion in time
for the presentation of the regional synthesis report to the
twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee in 2001:
Phase I
Preparation of the periodic reporting exercise
and finalisation of a questionnaire
Phase II
Exploitation of the first replies to the
questionnaires
Phase III
Organisation of periodic reporting workshops
and set-up of electronic communication as well as analysis of
questionnaires
Phase IV
Completion of analysis of questionnaires
Phase V
Analysis and synthesis of periodic reporting
exercise
Phase VI
Assistance missions to identify and solve
problems on the ground
Phase VII
Presentation of the regional report to the World Heritage Committee in 2001.
VII.8
A Periodic Reporting Workshop for the Francophone
African countries was held in Dakar, Senegal from 5-8 July 2000.
Site managers of four cultural and five natural sites attended this
Workshop representing six out of the invited nine countries.
Various sections of the reporting questionnaire were examined by
the participants. The participating managers, who completed the
questionnaires themselves, expressed their general satisfaction
with this reporting tool, which was designed by the World Heritage
Centre. At the Workshop several general problems concerning site
management and more specifically information-flow and decision-
making processes were identified. Furthermore, the lack of human
and material resources was highlighted, especially emphasising the
need for regular training to enable site managers to apply more
efficiently the decisions of the World Heritage Committee. A
regional Periodic Reporting Workshop for Anglophone African
countries will be held during the first half of 2001.
VII.9
The geographically vast Asia-Pacific Region, with 26
Asian and six Pacific States Parties, is home to 124 World Heritage
sites. There are 42 natural or mixed World Heritage sites
distributed over thirteen countries in Asia and the Pacific. Of
these, 42 natural or mixed, 33 from eleven countries were inscribed
on the World Heritage List in or before 1994 and will be included
in the periodic reporting exercise. Three of the eleven countries,
i.e. Australia, China and India, account for 21 of the 33 sites
inscribed on the World Heritage List up until 1994. As for cultural
heritage sites, out of 84 cultural World Heritage sites in the
Asia-Pacific Region, all concentrated in the Asian Region, 55 were
inscribed before or in 1994 located within 14 States Parties. In
China, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are located 36 of 55 of these
cultural sites. The reporting approach is subdivided into the
following four phases:
Phase I:
Information to States Parties of the periodic
reporting procedures
Phase II:
Desk studies to harmonise and collate existing
data
Phase III:
Collection and analysis of data
Phase IV:
Preparation of a synthesis report and
submission for examination by the Committee in 2002.
VII.10
Considering that an integrated approach combining
all forms of assistance for national capacity building has been
applied in the region since 1996, fact sheets on countries and on
sites which have been compiled, will be made available to the
States Parties for the reporting exercise. National focal points
are being identified and a regional meeting for cultural properties
to be hosted by the Republic of Korea in early 2001, followed by
sub-regional meetings in 2002, are intended to stimulate exchange
of information and experience to enrich the preparation of the
synthesis report for submission to the Committee in 2002.
VII.11
The process for Latin America and the Caribbean was
presented as a five-phase approach, leading from a preparatory
information phase, through three sub-regional meetings and one
regional meeting to the presentation of the regional report to the
Committee in 2003. The first phase, which is already underway, is
centred on informing the concerned States Parties about the
reporting process and providing them with the necessary information
material. The States Parties have been requested to identify
national focal points.
VII.12
For Europe and North America, a regional strategy
proposal will be submitted to the Committee at its twenty-fifth
session.
VII.13
During the debate, several States Parties and IUCN
took the floor. Regarding the action plans presented for the Asia-
Pacific region, the Delegate of Australia remarked that it was not
entirely clear how the process leads from the preparation of
national reports to the synthesis report to be presented to the
World Heritage Committee in 2002. Concern was expressed that the
region's States Parties had not been given enough opportunities to
contribute to the development of the action plan. The Delegate of
Hungary highlighted the importance of the reporting exercise and
suggested the use of the regional division used by UNESCO, i.e.
Europe and North America, to be divided into the Western Europe and
North America group and the Eastern and Central European group,
taking into consideration the different budgetary requirements of
these sub-regions. The Delegate of Italy asked about the existence
of management plans for African sites. The Secretariat responded
that most of the African sites do not have management plans and
those that do are facing difficulties in their implementation due
to lack of financial resources and expertise. A request by the
African States Parties for a model management plan applicable to
the African context was mentioned by the Secretariat. The Delegate
of Canada remarked that the approaches outlined in Annex 4 of
Working Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/8 mentioned the creation of
reporting tools in different regions and stated the need to avoid
the duplication of efforts. She suggested that the World Heritage
Centre take the leadership in co-ordinating these efforts. IUCN
commended the Secretariat as well as the States Parties for the
preparation of the action plan for Asia-Pacific and welcomed the
proposed linkage between periodic reporting and reactive
monitoring, as well as the provisions for input from external
bodies such as the advisory bodies and NGOs. IUCN furthermore
informed the Committee about a World Heritage Centre/IUCN project
focused on monitoring, which is funded by the United Nations
Foundation over a four-year period. The project will operate in
pilot World Heritage sites in Eastern and Southern Africa, South
Asia and Latin America. The selection of sites is currently being
discussed with States Parties, site managers and other partners. In
preparation of the periodic reporting exercise, IUCN urges linking
meetings whenever possible to avoid the multiplication and
duplication of efforts.
VII.14
The Committee approved the regional strategies
presented in Annexes I, II, III and IV of Working Document WHC-
2000/CONF.204/8. The budgetary implications are considered under
item 13 of the Agenda (WHC-2000/CONF.204/15, Chapter IV of the
budget).
VIII. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
A. REPORTS OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
VIII.1
The Committee reviewed document WHC-2000/CONF.204/9
describing state of conservation reports of eighteen natural and
five cultural properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
A. NATURAL HERITAGE
VIII.2
The Committee was informed that in accordance with
the recommendation it made at the last session, the Centre and IUCN
had organised a workshop on the "Role of World Heritage Danger
Listing in Promoting International Co-operation for the
Conservation of World Natural Heritage" on 6 and 7 October 2000 in
Amman, Jordan, at the time of IUCN's Second World Conservation
Congress. As requested by the participants of that Workshop, the
Committee noted the seven priority recommendations included in
WHC-2000/CONF.204/9 and suggested that the Centre consider
incorporating them as appropriate in revisions to the
Operational Guidelines
. The Committee requested the Centre
and IUCN to consult with States Parties and other suitable partners
to study the feasibility of implementing the priority
recommendations and submit a report to the twenty-fifth session of
the Committee in 2001.
VIII.3 Iguacu National Park (Brazil)
The Committee noted that an oil spill that occurred 600 km from the
site did not have any major impact on the site. The Committee
recognised that the illegal opening and the use of the Colon Road
is the most immediate threat to the site and learned that IBAMA has
allocated the equivalent of US $560,000 to support action related
to the closure of the road and to restore areas affected by road
construction. The Committee was informed that the Brazilian
participant at the workshop held in Amman, Jordan had informed the
Centre and IUCN of other potential threats posed by expanding
agricultural lands outside of the northeastern sectors of the Park
that would require systematic monitoring.
The Committee commended the State Party for its persistence in
strictly enforcing the Federal legal decision to close the Colon
Road and urged the State Party to communicate the reasons for the
closure of the road to the wider public and take all necessary
actions to restore the World Heritage area affected by road
construction activities. The Committee invited the State Party to
report to the Centre, before 15 April 2001, on progress to ensure
effective closure of the Colon Road and rehabilitate impacted
areas. The State Party was also requested to provide an up-date on
the results of monitoring the impacts of the oil spill that
occurred in July 2000. The Committee retained the site in the List
of World Heritage in Danger.
VIII.4 Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
The Committee was informed that the Minister of Environment and
Water, by a letter dated 11 September 2000, has transmitted a state
of conservation report to the Centre. The report reached the Centre
only on 17 November 2000 and hence allowed only a preliminary desk-
review by IUCN.
The report describes changes in physical (e.g. water quality) and
biodiversity indicators that show improvements in the state of
conservation of the site. It outlines measures taken by the State
Party to strengthen social, cultural and political support for the
protection of the site, including regional and international
arrangements made to co-ordinate the overall protection of wetlands
in the Danube River basin. The report stresses the fact that the
improvements registered in the state of conservation of the site,
including the administrative and organizational arrangements put in
place to sustain those improvements, justify the removal of
Srebarna from the List of World Heritage in Danger by the twenty-
fourth session of the Committee. However, IUCN, while noting the
positive achievements in the state of conservation reported,
suggested that the Committee defer its consideration of the removal
of Srebarna from the List of World Heritage in Danger until a site
visit is undertaken to assess the results of the rehabilitation
efforts reported by the State Party.
The Committee thanked and commended the State Party for submitting
a comprehensive report and for its efforts to fully rehabilitate
the site. The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate
with the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and other suitable partners
to field a mission to the site to undertake a thorough evaluation
of the successes of the rehabilitation efforts reported and their
sustainability. The Committee asked the Centre and IUCN to submit
a report to the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001,
advising the Committee whether it could remove Srebarna from the
List of World Heritage in Danger and of the next steps in preparing
a trans-national, multi-country Danube Delta World Heritage area
nomination incorporating designated and potential World Heritage
areas of the Danube Delta River Basin. The Committee retained the
site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VIII.5 Manovo-Gounda-St.Floris National Park (Central African
Republic (CAR))
The Committee was informed that a representative of the State Party
had presented a paper on the state of conservation of the site at
the Amman Workshop held on 6 and 7 October 2000. He had confirmed
that poaching, including by armed groups from neighbouring States,
was widespread in the area and that an UNESCO/IUCN mission to the
site to plan mitigation and rehabilitation measures would be
welcome. The UNESCO National Commission of CAR had contacted the
Centre and plans to field a mission were underway. The Committee
noted opportunities for possible collaboration with a US-based non-
governmental organisation, namely the Earth Conservancy.
The Committee thanked the UNESCO National Commission of CAR for
facilitating discussions to plan and field a mission to the site
and for arrangements to prepare a state of conservation report and
a rehabilitation plan. The Committee urged the Centre and IUCN to
undertake the mission as early as possible in 2001 with a view to
submitting a comprehensive report to the twenty-fifth session of
the Bureau in 2001. The Committee retained the site in the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
VIII.6 World Heritage sites of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC)
The Committee noted detailed information on the state of
conservation of the five sites in the DRC, i.e. Virunga, Garamba
and Kahuzi Biega and Salonga National Parks and the Okapi Wildlife
Reserve, reported from pages 2 to 5 of the document WHC-
2000/CONF.204/9. Furthermore, the Committee noted the following
additional information reported by the Centre:
(1) In addition to the UNOMC, contacts have been established with
members of a UN Panel conducting a Probe on Illegal Exploitation of
Natural Resources in DRC and located at the UN complex in Nairobi,
Kenya. Information on the state of conservation of the five sites
will be regularly transmitted to the UN Panel mentioned above for
appropriate action;
(2) A Co-ordination Unit for the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project has
been operational in Nairobi, Kenya since 10 September 2000,
assisted by the services of a consultant and an "ICCN Homologue"
seconded by ICCN, Kinshasa. Recruitment of a Project Co-ordinator
had been delayed but is likely to finalized before the end of the
first quarter of 2001;
(3) A meeting of technical personnel representing the three
different governance regimes within the territory of the DRC was
convened from 8 to 10 November 2000 in Nairobi, Kenya. The three
technical personnel have signed a formal agreement of co-operation
that will facilitate the monitoring of the state of conservation of
the sites, execution of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project,
information and material exchange between sites and the
organization and conduct of joint activities involving staff from
the five sites. Furthermore, the three authorities have also agreed
to co-ordinate together movements and career development options
for ICCN personnel, despite prevailing administrative and political
barriers to such co-ordination;
(4) Following a meeting on 28 September 2000, the Director-General
of UNESCO and the Executive Director of UNEP expressed an interest
to lead a high-level mission to the capitals of the three countries
(i.e. Kinshasa, Kigali and Kampala) implicated in the war in
eastern DRC to meet with the Heads of States and other important
personalities and draw their attention to the need to respect
international law and strengthen conservation of the all World
Heritage sites in the area, and particularly those in eastern DRC.
The possibility of fielding such a mission will be further pursued
by the Centre in co-operation with relevant partners of UNESCO
under the framework of activities for executing the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-
UNFIP Project. The three technical authorities located in the three
different regions of DRC (see point 3 above) have committed to
facilitate such a high-level diplomatic mission to the fullest
extent possible, if and when it is fielded.
IUCN underlined the significance and the timeliness of the
financial support provided by the UN Foundation to support the work
of site personnel and commended the dedication and commitment of
the site staff to protect the sites.
The Committee noted with satisfaction that the Centre has
established contracts with project partners for payment of
salaries, performance related bonuses and medical and food rations
to site staff in all of the five World Heritage sites and transfer
of funds to benefit site staff are about to begin soon. The
UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP project has set aside funds for the
continuation of such payments to site staff over a period of four
years; i.e. until October 2004. The Committee also noted with
appreciation the support of the Government of Belgium for a project
focusing on providing support to local communities in and around
the five sites to enable them to contribute towards their
protection. The Government of Belgium is expected to provide a sum
of US$ 500,000 for the four-year project that is expected to begin
in early 2001.
The Centre, based on information received from partners of the
UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project and a variety of other sources,
informed the Committee that the state of conservation in Garamba
and Virunga National Parks was relatively good. In Okapi, recent
assistance from military authorities in the region had enabled
staff of the Wildlife Reserve to disarm poaching gangs and improve
conservation prospects. Salonga, though outside of the war zone and
still accessible to ICCN-Kinshasa, is significantly threatened by
illegal poaching. The situation in Kahuzi Biega is the most
disconcerting, as staff do not have access to nearly 90% of the
Park's surface area.
The Committee requested the Centre to further develop its relations
and explore optimal ways of liaising with UNOMC and other
appropriate bodies, like the UN Panel undertaking a Probe on
Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in DRC, in order to
promote the links between peace-building and World Heritage
conservation in DRC and in neighbouring countries. The Committee
recommended that the Centre, in co-operation with ICCN and other
partners, ensure effective execution of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP
project emphasizing and prioritizing project components that
strengthen the work of site staff. The Committee urged the Centre
to work with relevant administrative and support units of UNESCO to
find ways and means to ensure rapid and effective transfer of funds
via project partners to on-site beneficiaries who are attempting to
protect World Heritage sites in a zone of high security risks. The
Committee thanked and welcomed the interest of the Government of
Belgium to support a project that would enable local communities to
work with site staff to support conservation of the five sites, and
urged UNESCO and the Centre to expedite finalisation of
negotiations with Belgium to enable early transfer of assistance to
local communities resident near the five sites. The Committee
decided that all five sites be retained in the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
VIII.7 Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
The Committee was informed that the Minister for Environment of
Ecuador participated in the Amman Workshop and had noted that the
inclusion of the Sangay National Park in the List of World Heritage
in Danger had helped the Ministry of Environment in negotiations
with the Ministry Public Works and other Government bodies to
obtain resources to evaluate environmental impacts of the Guamote
Macas Road and plan mitigation measures. The Minister was of the
view that despite recent improvements in the state of conservation
of the site, Sangay should continue to remain in the List of World
Heritage in Danger. IUCN informed the Committee that the increased
access to the site resulting from the construction of the Guamote
Macas Road could threaten the integrity of the site
The Committee requested that the Centre and IUCN continue
negotiations with the State Party to elaborate a plan with
indicators and benchmarks, including those that could signal the
timing for the removal of the site from the List of World Heritage
in Danger. The Committee endorsed IUCN's view that indicators must
directly relate to the values for which the site had been granted
World Heritage status and that they should be clear, understandable
and capable of replication over time. The Committee retained Sangay
in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VIII.8 Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
The Committee was informed that the Director of the Department of
Agriculture from the Amhara Region, which is directly responsible
for the management of this site, participated in the Amman
Workshop. In his presentation, the Director had pointed out several
improvements in the state of conservation of the site and expressed
his disagreement with the 1996 consultant mission findings that led
to the Committee to include Simen in the List of World Heritage in
Danger. The Permanent Delegate of Ethiopia, by letter of 16 October
2000 to the Director of the Centre, has confirmed agreement of the
Amhara Regional authorities to receive a new and high-level
consultant mission that may view and discuss the many efforts of
the Regional Government to rehabilitate the Park. Such efforts
including: (a) increases in budget and staff deployment; (b)
favourable outcome of discussions with local communities; (c)
steering committee for rehabilitation and development; (d) a 5-year
plan for execution; (e) strengthened co-operation with donors; and
(e) increased numbers of key species such as ibexes and red foxes.
In the same letter, the Permanent Delegate also informed the Centre
that the Amhara Regional Government is intending to propose a
realignment of a road expected to run through the Park, resettle
farmers currently resident inside the Park and enlarge the Park and
redefine boundaries to excise areas occupied by villagers.
The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the
State Party and the Amhara Region to field a site visit to Simen
National Park in order to prepare a report for the next session of
the Committee, including observations and comments on existing
plans for rehabilitation and changes and modifications to such
plans that may be needed. In preparing such a report, the Centre
and IUCN may also wish to discuss indicators and benchmarks that
may be described and be useful in determining when the site could
be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee
retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VIII.9 Mount Nimba Nature Reserve
(Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire)
The Committee noted that at a World Heritage and Mining Technical
Workshop, held at IUCN Headquarters from 20-23 September, 2000, the
case of Mt. Nimba was discussed and participants noted that key
issues at this site include: (a) the need for clear boundary
demarcation, taking into consideration the boundaries proposed at
the time of inscription and changes proposed subsequently; (b) the
need for effective transboundary co-operation between the two
States Parties (Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire) as well as Liberia,
which has yet to ratify the Convention; and (c) the need to
stimulate fund-raising efforts for this site, based on previous
proposals and recommendations, including those made by the
Committee concerning the establishment of a fund or a foundation
for the conservation of Mt. Nimba. The Director General of CEGEN
(Centre for Environmental Management of Mt. Nimba), presented a
paper at the Amman Workshop which reiterated the findings reported
at the World Heritage and Mining Workshop referred to above. In
that context, the Committee recommended that the Centre and IUCN
co-operate with CEGEN and relevant authorities in Côte
d'Ivoire and Liberia to address points (a), (b) and (c), as
described above, and prepare an action plan describing specific
measures to be taken within a defined time period. The Committee
retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VIII.10 Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
The Committee was informed that the Centre/IUCN mission to this
site was fielded from 24 to 30 October 2000. A preliminary report
of the mission indicated that of the ten major recommendations of
the previous (1995) Centre/IUCN mission which led to the inclusion
of this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger 1996, five
have been implemented. Some notable achievements made since 1995
include: completion of a participatory management plan; increasing
on-the-ground management presence; establishment of inter-agency
control posts in strategic locations; preparation and the beginning
of the execution of an inter-institutional action plan; and
organization of agro-forestry co-operatives. Continuing concerns
regarding the integrity of the site centre around: deforestation
rates in the buffer zone that exceed the national average (4%);
resettling core-zone family units into the buffer zone and land-
titling issues in influence zones; and unacceptable levels of
logging and poaching. The mission report acknowledges and
appreciates the support given by the German Government to the
conservation of Rio Platano. The Committee was informed of a UN
Foundation-financed project to link biodiversity conservation and
sustainable tourism development targeting six sites, including Rio
Platano. This project may generate employment and economic benefits
via outreach, ecotourism and research activities as recommended by
the 1995 mission.
The Committee requested the Centre to transmit the full report of
the IUCN/Centre mission to the site to the State Party to obtain
formal written responses and comments from the State Party for
submission to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in 2001. The
Committee urged the State Party to continue its efforts to improve
management of the site. The Committee retained the site in the List
of World Heritage in Danger.
VIII.11 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The Deputy Inspector General for Wildlife of the Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MOEF) in New Delhi, in a letter of 26
September 2000 addressed to the Charge d'Affairs of the Permanent
Delegation of India to UNESCO suggested that the proposed UNESCO
World Heritage Centre mission to Manas be undertaken in May 2001.
The Deputy Inspector General for Wildlife also presented a paper at
the IUCN/Centre Workshop in Amman in which he emphasised the fact
that the inclusion of Manas in the List of World Heritage in Danger
has influenced State and Central Government decision to invest
funds to rehabilitate the Sanctuary. IUCN observed that this is
another example of a site where the inclusion of the site in the
List of World Heritage in Danger resulted in the elaboration of a
rehabilitation plan and its execution with partial support from the
World Heritage Fund.
The Committee recommended that the Centre/IUCN mission to review
progress in the implementation of the rehabilitation plan adopted
in 1997 and partly financed by grants amounting to US$ 165,000 from
the World Heritage Fund be undertaken in May 2001 as proposed by
the State Party, and a report submitted to the twenty-fifth
ordinary session of the Bureau in 2001. The Committee urged the
Centre and IUCN to use all available information to plan the site
visit, particularly to assess the impacts of the rehabilitation
measures designed to minimize poaching threats to the rhinos in
Manas. The Committee retained the site in the List of World
Heritage in Danger
VIII.12 Aïr and Ténéré Natural
Reserves (Niger)
The Committee was informed that the State Party had notified the
Centre that it wished to complete implementation of all activities
of the rehabilitation programme before requesting the Committee to
consider removing this site from the List of World Heritage in
Danger. A representative of the State Party who participated and
presented a paper at the Amman Workshop confirmed this position of
the State Party.
The Committee invited the State Party to submit a comprehensive
progress report, before 15 April 2001, to the Centre on the
achievements of the rehabilitation programme implemented to date.
It also requested the Centre and IUCN to review that report and
submit their findings to the twenty-fifth ordinary session of the
Bureau in 2001. The Centre and IUCN should undertake a detailed
assessment of the threats to the site that have been effectively
mitigated and determine the need for any additional actions that
may be required to enable the twenty-fifth session of the Committee
to decide whether or not this site could be removed from the List
of World Heritage in Danger by the Committee at its twenty-fifth
session at the end of 2001. The Committee retained this site in the
List of World Heritage in Danger.
VIII.13 Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)
The Committee was informed that following two winters of adequate
rainfall that allowed recovery of the freshwater vegetation,
reversal in rainfall patterns has led to a renewed increase in the
salinity of Lake waters, resembling levels that prevailed in the
area in 1997 and as such, the benefits of the restoration of the
Lake achieved during the last two years are in danger of being
lost. Such unpredictable, climate-induced reversals are likely to
happen in the future. Nevertheless, the Committee stressed the need
to fully implement the recommendations of a mission to the site
undertaken in March 2000 by a team comprising representatives from
IUCN, the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and other international and
regional organisations described in document WHC-2000/CONF.204/9.
A representative of the State Party who participated at the
Centre/IUCN Workshop in Amman, Jordan from 6 to 7 October 2000,
also emphasised the importance of implementing the recommendations
of the March 2000 mission team.
The Committee recommended that the State Party take all necessary
steps to implement, as expeditiously as possible, the
recommendations of the mission team that visited the site in March
2000. The Committee highlighted, in particular, the importance of
the development of a clear timetable of activities leading to
measurable improvements of the Lake and surrounding marshes within
the next five years. The Committee requested the Centre to contact
the State Party once again to obtain a formal written response to
the recommendations proposed by the mission team that visited the
site in March 2000. The Committee retained this site in the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
VIII.14 Rwenzori Mountains (Uganda)
The Committee noted that the Executive Director of the Uganda
Wildlife Authority (UAW), in his letter of 13 September 2000, has
stressed that the Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP) should be
retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger, owing to the fact
that: (a) RMNP is still closed to visitors and effects of
insurgency by armed groups continue to affect management, habitats
and wildlife; (b) Communities resident around the Park are equally
affected and regard the Park as a major source of resources posing
clear threats to habitats and wildlife and, in the absence of
control and management, may adopt unsustainable resource use
practices; and (c) the Park lacks basic management tools to meet
the challenges of insurgency and community pressure for resources.
The Executive Director has welcomed suggestions of the twenty-
fourth ordinary session of the Bureau to increase international
awareness for the conservation of the site and expressed his
readiness to work with the Centre and others concerned for raising
funds for the protection of the World Heritage site in Danger. The
Committee noted that the Centre has initiated communication with
the Executive Director to explore possibilities for financing
projects and activities to strengthen conservation of the site.
The Committee suggested that the Centre and IUCN continue to
explore possibilities to raise international awareness for the
conservation of this site, and co-operate with the State Party and
concerned UN units in the region to study ways and means, including
mobilising necessary financial resources, to support staff
responsible for the protection of the site and minimize threats
posed by militant and armed groups. The Committee retained the
property in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VIII.15 World Heritage sites of the United States of America:
Everglades National Park
Yellowstone National Park
The Committee recalled that the twenty-fourth ordinary session of
the Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to meet with the State
Party and discuss the preparation of a schedule of actions for
complete rehabilitation of the site and its eventual removal from
the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Centre, IUCN and relevant
authorities from the State Party, including the Directors of the
two sites, participated in a conference call on 27 October 2000.
The Observer of the United States of America informed the Committee
that measures to address the threats to both Parks continue to be
undertaken. In the view of the State Party, neither Yellowstone nor
Everglades National Park has shown enough progress to warrant
removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger. Following the
conference call, consultations between the Centre, IUCN and the
State Party, comprehensive discussions of the issue by the
appropriate US Department of the Interior and National Park Service
staff have taken place.
U.S. officials determined that complex scientific analyses of
measures necessary to abate the threats to these two Parks are
required. They have also concluded that it will be possible to
prepare for review by the Committee a schedule of actions necessary
for the eventual removal of these two sites from the List of World
Heritage in Danger. This schedule will include measures as part of
a national assessment of risks to Parks based on domestic law. Once
this national assessment has been completed, the U.S. will derive
from those analyses the information necessary to respond more fully
to the Bureau's request.
Meanwhile, the Department of the Interior and the National Park
Service will continue to submit interim reports on the condition of
the two Parks and will work on completing the schedule for their
removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Observer of the United States of America also indicated that
the
Operational Guidelines
do not provide clear procedures
for removing sites from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Consequently, the potential exists for different interpretations of
how removal from the List should be accomplished. It was noted that
the issue had not been resolved in the
Operational
Guidelines
revisions proposed by the Canterbury Working Group.
Accordingly, it was believed that a technical workshop on the
process for delisting, involving other States Parties, as well as
the United States, is well merited. Such a workshop could propose
an appropriate amendment to the
Operational Guidelines
IUCN welcomed the observations of the Observer of the United States
and agreed that the elaboration of measures and indicators that
could provide a systematic approach to placing and removal of sites
from the List of World Heritage in Danger require considerable
research work and scientific analyses. IUCN expressed its
readiness to co-operate with the State Party and the Centre to test
out work needed to improve these aspects of state conservation
monitoring.
The Committee recommended that the Centre and IUCN co-operate with
the State Party to carry out the necessary scientific and technical
work, using suitable means such as conference calls and workshops,
in order to put in place a schedule of actions that will enable the
Committee to track improvements in the state of conservation of
these two sites in an objective manner and determine, in
consultation with the State Party, the appropriate time for their
removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
State of Conservation of properties inscribed on the List
of World Heritage in Danger
VIII.16 Butrint (Albania)
The Committee recalled that in October 1997, a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS-
Butrint Foundation mission was undertaken to assess the damages
caused to the site by civil unrest earlier that year. US$ 100,000
was made available as emergency assistance in 1997 to implement
activities identified in the Programme of Corrective Actions, but
to date, no report has been received on its implementation.
The Committee reiterated its request to the State Party to submit
a progress report by 15 April 2001 on the implementation of
recommendations of the 1997 UNESCO-ICOMOS-Butrint Foundation Joint
Mission, to enable the Bureau to examine this case at its twenty-
fifth session.
Noting the apparent difficulties in the implementation of the
Programme of Corrective Actions, including those financed under the
World Heritage Fund's Emergency Assistance, the Committee requested
the Albanian authorities concerned to establish the administrative
procedures necessary to enable the implementation of the
Programme.
The Committee requested UNESCO and ICOMOS to undertake a joint
mission in early-2001 for an assessment of the current situation
and to report to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.
VIII.17 Angkor (Cambodia)
The Secretariat recalled that this site, inscribed on the List of
World Heritage in Danger at the time of its inscription in 1992, is
the largest cultural site in Southeast Asia. It extends over an
area of some 400 km2 and includes no less than 100 monuments and
hundreds of archaeological features. The socio-economic needs of
the inhabitants require integration of conservation and development
considerations. Although the armed conflict in the region of
Angkor, which prompted its in-danger listing is now over, looting,
illicit excavation and traffic in cultural objects and the
continued need for large-scale international assistance, have kept
this site on the Danger List. It was recalled that the Committee
expressed concern at its twenty-third session in 1999, and the
Bureau at its twenty-fourth session, regarding the airport
extension plan, rapid development of tourism facilities, and
uncoordinated public and private works that may undermine the
integrity of the site. Responding to the Committee's request for
APSARA, the site management authority, and the International
Coordinating Committee for Angkor (ICC) to coordinate all
conservation and development projects in the region and strengthen
national capacity through training, the State Party, through the
UNESCO Office in Phnom Penh, provided the information contained in
WHC-2000/CONF.204/9 for the attention of the twenty-fourth session
of the Committee.
The Delegate of Hungary stated that despite past requests by the
Bureau and the Committee for the report of the ICC meetings, these
had not been made available. Furthermore, he drew the attention of
the Committee to the fact that the report on all on-going and
planned projects for conservation, as well as on infrastructure had
not been received. He urged the Committee and the advisory bodies
to demonstrate more commitment for the safeguarding of this
outstanding site. The Secretariat, at the invitation of the Chair,
responded that the case of Angkor has been examined by the Bureau
and Committee, at every single session since 1992, or no less than
20 times. All requests for international assistance submitted by
the State Party have been supported, in addition to multi-year
projects being financed through the Culture Sector of UNESCO in the
largest operational programme being undertaken by the Organization.
As for the advisory bodies, the Committee was informed that ICOMOS
participated in the ICC meeting, and both IUCN and ICCROM have had
operational presence, including a highly successful
well-appreciated training programme (Tanee) recently implemented by
ICCROM.
The Committee, after having examined the report on the state of
conservation of the site, congratulated the Royal Government of
Cambodia for the significant progress made in the field of training
thus ensuring the control and maintenance of the monuments and
encouraged it to continue in its efforts. The Committee invited
the APSARA and UNESCO to strengthen development activities for the
collection of documents for the International Centre for Scientific
and Technical Documentation of Angkor, which should aim at securing
all documentation produced during the safeguarding and development
projects of the site. It also encouraged further efforts to
develop partnerships with international teams at the site.
Furthermore, the Committee requested additional information on the
monitoring of work undertaken on the entrance porch of the central
monument and the collapsed tiers of the western moat of the Angkor
Vat Temple. The Committee reiterated its earlier request for
information concerning tourism development at the site and the
development of infrastructure in this respect, with particular
reference to the question of the extension of the Siem Reap/Angkor
airport. Finally, the Committee decided to retain this property on
the List of World Heritage in Danger.
VIII.18 Group of Monuments of Hampi (India)
The Committee's attention was drawn to the state of conservation of
the Group of Monuments of Hampi and the updated information
concerning progress made by the State Party in removing the threats
facing the site caused by the
ad-hoc
public works within the
World Heritage protected areas. The Committee examined the findings
and recommendations for corrective measures of the ICOMOS-UNESCO
reactive monitoring (February 2000) requested by the Committee at
its twenty-third session. It noted with appreciation the successful
work of the Karnataka State Government's Task Force for Hampi that
examined the ICOMOS-UNESCO mission recommendations leading to the
State Government's decision to demolish and relocate the two
bridges that were negatively impacting upon the site. The Committee
noted that the Task Force Chairperson had informed the Director-
General of UNESCO that the decision by the State Government had
been received favourably by the general public in India. The
Committee also examined the deliberations and decision of the
Bureau at its twenty-fourth session in June 2000, as well as the
resolution concerning Hampi adopted by the participants of the
UNESCO-Archaeological Survey of India National Workshop for
Management of Indian World Cultural Heritage (22-24 October
2000).
The Observer of India expressed her Government's appreciation for
the co-operation of the World Heritage Committee and the World
Heritage Centre for the actions taken to enhance conservation and
management of this site. She informed the Committee that the Indian
Government was taking all necessary actions to ensure the
conservation and development of this unique and vast site. The
Observer stated that the construction of the two bridges was
halted, not withstanding repeated news that work to complete the
bridges had resumed. The Observer informed the Committee that the
State Government of Karnakata decided to dismantle and relocate the
footbridge connecting the Virupaksha Temple and the Virapapura Gada
Island. Reference was also made to other actions such as removal of
illegal encroachment and preparation of a comprehensive management
plan, being taken by the District Commissioner of Bellary. The
relevant State authorities were committed to ensure the protection
of the integrity and authenticity of the site. The Committee was
informed that the Chief Minister of the State Government of
Karnataka had recently announced his commitment to protect the
World Heritage areas of Hampi, and that a careful study of the
vehicular bridge would be undertaken, with a view to maintaining a
balance between the needs to protect the heritage values and those
of the local community members who had been demanding the
construction of these bridges and therefore had strong views on the
matter. The Observer underlined the importance of fully involving
the local communities in the process of elaborating the
comprehensive management plan.
The Committee expressed its appreciation for the positive actions
and measures taken by the State Party to ensure the conservation of
the World Heritage values of the Group of Monuments of Hampi. The
Committee requested State Party to submit for examination by the
Bureau at its twenty-fifth session, a report on the progress made
in:
relocating the two intrusive bridges outside the World
Heritage site;
implementing the 4-point recommendations for corrective
measures of the UNESCO-ICOMOS mission in February 2000;
preparing a comprehensive management plan for the site.
In addition, the Committee requested the Government of India to
examine the possibilities of establishing a special administrative
body empowered to ensure integrated development and conservation of
the whole World Heritage protected areas, whose primary objective
would be to co-ordinate various development and cultural and
natural heritage conservation activities within the protected areas
of Hampi World Heritage site. The Committee requested the World
Heritage Centre to continue closely co-operating with the State
Party to ensure the development of a comprehensive management plan.
The Committee decided to retain the property on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
VIII.19 Bahla Fort (Oman)
The Secretariat informed the Committee that following the
recommendations of the twenty-fourth ordinary session of the
Bureau, two consultants prepared "Guidelines for the establishment
of a Management Plan for Bahla Fort and Oasis, a World Heritage
Site". A mission was scheduled to visit the site in September 2000
to discuss the management plan, but the mission has been
rescheduled to December 2000. A report will be provided to the
Bureau for examination at its twenty-fifth session.
The Committee encouraged the State Parties to proceed with the
preparation of the management plan and furnish a progress report by
15 April 2001. It decided to retain the property in the List of
World Heritage in Danger.
VIII.20 Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)
As suggested by ICOMOS at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau
in 2000, the Peruvian authorities prepared a single volume
Management Plan to summarize the nine volumes previously produced
and approved. Furthermore, a document on the state of conservation
of the site was submitted to the World Heritage Centre, following
the periodic reporting format. The entire documentation was
transmitted to ICOMOS.
The Committee commended the State Party for its efforts to protect
the property and to implement the Master Plan and congratulated the
completion of the single volume Management Plan and the use of the
periodic reporting format for the state of conservation document.
The Committee requested the Peruvian authorities to submit a report
on further progress made in the implementation of the Management
Plan by 15 September 2001 for examination by the World Heritage
Committee at its twenty-fifth session. The Committee furthermore
decided to retain the property on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD
HERITAGE LIST
VIII.21
The Committee considered the decisions of the
twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau
(WHC-2000/CONF.204/4) and the working document WHC-2000/CONF.204/10).
The relevant section of the report of the twenty-fourth
extraordinary session of the Bureau is attached as
Annex X
i)
Natural properties which the Committee inscribed on
the List of World Heritage in Danger
VIII.22
Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)
The Committee noted the results of the joint expert mission by the
Centre, IUCN and the Ramsar Bureau undertaken from 14 - 22
September 2000, which was examined by the Bureau. The report of the
mission called for urgent financial assistance to deal with the
introduced species
Salvinia molesta.
In view of the imminent
danger facing the site, the Director of Senegal National Parks had
requested that the site be inscribed in the List of World Heritage
in Danger. IUCN highlighted the seriousness of the threat to both
the environment and the economy of the region, and the difficulty
of controlling the introduced species. The Delegate of Benin
commented that the site is facing a number of threats as discussed
by the Bureau, and that danger listing would be an appropriate step
to be taken.
The Committee decided to include the site in the List of World
Heritage in Danger, in accordance with the expressed wishes of the
State Party. The Committee furthermore called on international
donor support.
ii)
State of conservation reports of natural properties
examined by the Committee
VIII.23 Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino (Mexico)
The Secretariat informed the Committee that, following the
President of Mexico's statement of 2 March 2000, the proposed salt
works at the World Heritage site of El Vizcaino would not proceed.
The Committee noted that letters from the Chairperson of the
Committee and the Director-General of UNESCO welcomed this decision
and congratulated the President of Mexico for the actions taken to
implement the World Heritage Convention. The UN Foundation had
approved a US$ 2.5 million project entitled "Linking Conservation
of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage sites"
for six sites, including the two natural sites in Mexico, the Whale
Sanctuary of El Vizcaino and Sian Ka'an. The Committee
furthermore noted that the Management Plan of the El Vizcaino
Biosphere Reserve has been published and transmitted to the
Centre.
The Committee commended the Mexican Government for its actions to
ensure the conservation of the World Heritage values of the Whale
Sanctuary of El Vizcaino and to implement the World Heritage
Convention. It encouraged the authorities to collaborate with the
Centre and other interested partners in implementing on-site
projects for demonstrating possibilities for generating employment
and income for local communities, such as the UN Foundation project
on 'Linking Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at
World Heritage Sites'.
iii)
State of conservation reports of natural properties
noted by the Committee
VIII.24 World Natural Heritage Properties of Australia
Shark Bay, Western Australia
Great Barrier Reef
The Secretariat informed the Committee that a letter on the recent
grounding incident was received from the Australian authorities on
28 November 2000 and that a report will be presented to the
twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Bureau in 2001.
Central Eastern Australian Rainforest Reserves
Wet Tropics of Queensland
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest
(Belarus/Poland)
Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
Gros Morne National Park (Canada)
Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks (Canada)
VIII.25 Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
The Delegate of Colombia informed the Bureau that the field visit
foreseen from 10-12 November 2000 had not taken place and looked
forward to a visit in 2001. Such a field visit would not only
review the state of conservation of the site, but moreover review
co-operation possibilities for a World Heritage nomination of the
meso-american biological corridor project and transboundary
collaboration with the adjacent Darien National Park (Panama).
Comoe National Park (Côte d'Ivoire)
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
Lorenz National Park (Indonesia)
Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya)
Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand (New Zealand)
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
Huascarán National Park (Peru)
Danube Delta (Romania)
VIII.26 Golden Mountains of Altai
(Russian Federation)
The Observer of Russia informed the Committee that the proposed
road and gas pipeline through the Ukok Plateau is supported at the
highest political level. The project will be reviewed at a meeting
on 15 and 16 December 2000 in the Altai Republic.
VIII.27 Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russian Federation)
The Observer of Russia informed the Committee that the information
provided in the Bureau report seemed to relate to the Kamchatka
region and not the World Heritage site. He stated that in-depth
information would be provided by September 2001.
Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)
Doñana National Park (Spain)
Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda)
Gough Island (United Kingdom)
Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti National Park
(United Republic of Tanzania)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
MIXED (CULTURAL AND NATURAL) PROPERTIES
(i)
Mixed properties which the Committee inscribed on the List
of World Heritage in Danger
VIII.28
The Committee did not inscribe any mixed sites on
the List of World Heritage in Danger.
(ii)
State of conservation reports of mixed properties examined
by the Committee
VIII.29 Kakadu National Park (Australia)
The Committee recalled that in July 1999, the third extraordinary
session of the Committee examined the state of conservation of
Kakadu National Park with reference to the development of a uranium
mine on the Jabiluka Mineral Lease in an enclave of the Park.
The Committee examined the state of conservation of this mixed
cultural and natural property in two parts relating to natural
values and cultural values.
Natural values
The Committee was informed that the Independent Scientific Panel
(ISP) of the International Council of Science (ICSU) and a
representative of IUCN had participated in a mission to Kakadu
National Park and the Jabiluka and Ranger Mineral Leases in July
2000.
The Committee noted the conclusions of the report of the ISP of
ICSU presented by Professor Brian Wilkinson, the leader of the ISP
(WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.20) (see
Annex XI
), the statement made by
IUCN to the Committee (see
Annex XII
) and the response of the
Supervising Scientist of Australia (see
Annex XIII
).
The Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Committee
that on 28 November 2000 the State Party had advised that a new
agreement had been signed between the Northern Territory government
and the Commonwealth government to provide further regulation of
mining in the Northern Territory.
The Delegate of Australia thanked the ISP of ICSU and IUCN for
their constructive participation in the mission in July 2000. With
reference to a concern raised about the change in ownership of the
mining company Energy Resources of Australia Inc (ERA), he informed
the Committee that the Minister for Environment and Heritage had
written to ERA on 22 September 2000, to ensure that they meet
commitments made to the World Heritage Committee in July 1999. The
Minister's letter had been copied to the new parent company of ERA,
Rio Tinto. ERA replied on 31 October 2000 confirming it would
honour the commitments.
The Delegate of Australia indicated his full respect for the advice
of the ISP and Supervising Scientist concerning monitoring. He
stated that he would seek resources for early implementation of
monitoring at Jabiluka as part of normal budgetary appropriation
procedures.
Responding to questions relating to the ISP's recommendation to
establish an Independent Science Advisory Committee for the
proposed mine and mill at Jabiluka raised by the Delegate of
Finland, the Delegate of Australia informed the Committee that the
appointment of the chair and the majority of the voting members of
the existing statutory scientific review committee will be made by
learned societies in Australia such as the Australian Academy of
Science and the equivalent academy for engineering and
technology.
The Committee adopted the following decision concerning the
protection of the natural values of Kakadu National Park:
The twenty-fourth Session of the World Heritage Committee,
recalling
The Committee decision of July 1999 that ICSU should continue
the work of the ISP to assess, in co-operation with the
Supervising Scientist and IUCN, the Supervising
Scientist's response to the first ISP report
Notes
That the overall conclusion of the ISP is that the Supervising
Scientist has identified all the principal risks to the
natural values of the Kakadu World Heritage site that can
presently be perceived to result from the approved
Jabiluka Mill Alternative proposal; these risks have been
analysed in detail and have been quantified with a high
level of scientific certainty; such analyses have shown
the risks to be very small or negligible and that the
development of the approved Jabiluka Mill Alternative
should not threaten the natural World Heritage values of
the Kakadu National Park
That the ISP assessment has been made only in relation to the
proposal to develop Jabiluka as described in the April
1999 Report of the Supervising Scientist to the World
Heritage Committee and does not necessarily relate to any
future new proposals for the Jabiluka Mill Alternative
That Australia has provided an assurance that all new aspects
of the Jabiluka proposal would be the subject of formal
assessment by the Supervising Scientist and that any
significant changes would be referred to the Chair of the
scientific review committee (see below) for comment
That the ISP has made a number of recommendations related to
processes that should, in its view, be followed in the
final design of the project and on the ongoing regulation
and monitoring process
That the Australian government has accepted the intent of all
of the recommendations of the ISP and the IUCN. In
particular,
The Australian Government has decided to amend the membership
and role of the existing statutory scientific review
committee to meet the needs identified by the ISP in its
recommendation on the establishment of an Independent
Science Advisory Committee. The chair and the majority of
the voting members will be appointed following selection
by the most appropriate body representing Australian
scientists and engineers, possibly the Australian Academy
of Science. This Committee will be able to report openly,
independently and without restriction
The supervisory role of the Supervising Scientist has been
strengthened through the Agreement between the
Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments dated 17
November 2000
That Australia, noting that the natural values of the lease
and surrounding areas have been extensively investigated
and documented through the environmental assessment
process for Jabiluka, has undertaken to extend this work
in the manner recommended by the ISP and the IUCN.
The World Heritage Committee:
Welcomes the work of the ISP and the IUCN and the response of
the Australian Government to their recommendations
Requests that the Australian Government allocate resources as
soon as possible to enable the implementation of the
landscape and ecosystem analysis and monitoring program
recommended by the ISP and IUCN and the appointment of a
water resource specialist to the Office of the
Supervising Scientist
In the light of the above, concludes that the currently
approved proposal for the mine and mill at Jabiluka does
not threaten the health of people or the biological and
ecological systems of Kakadu National Park that the 1998
Mission believed to be at risk.
Cultural values
The Director of the World Heritage Centre referred the Committee to
the text of the recommendation of the twenty-fourth extraordinary
session of the Bureau. Since then, the Committee had been informed
that he had received a letter dated 28 November 2000 from Yvonne
Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner, informing him that
discussions between the Mirrar and the Australian Government in
relation to a new process regarding cultural heritage protection
(as outlined in the Bureau recommendation) had broken down. (See
Annex XIV
).
The Representative of ICOMOS reflected that when ICOMOS had
evaluated the Phase I and Phase 2 nominations of Kakadu, for
inclusion on the World Heritage List, the cultural values had been
assessed in relation to the area's archaeology and rock art. It
had only been in the evaluation of Phase 3 of the nomination that
the living cultural traditions were properly considered.
The Representative of ICOMOS stressed that for any cultural
heritage impact assessment there must be cultural mapping. He
acknowledged the existence of an impasse between the Mirrar
Traditional Owners and the Australian government and suggested that
the same process as had been used for the review of scientific
issues by the ISP of ICSU should be used for resolving the issue of
cultural mapping. He suggested the establishment of an independent
international group to consult with the Mirrar and the Australian
government to find a way forward.
The Delegate of Thailand cautioned against intervening in domestic
affairs by establishing an independent international group to deal
with cultural issues at Jabiluka.
The Delegate of Hungary trusted that a solution could be found and
made reference to the outstanding importance of the living cultural
heritage of Kakadu National Park and expressed his concern with the
current situation reported to the Committee.
The Delegate of Australia expressed his concern about the breakdown
in dialogue between the Mirrar Traditional Owners and the
Australian government. He however saw it as "an interruption" and
"not termination" of the dialogue process. He informed the
Committee that the Minister for Environment and Heritage was ready
to re-commence talks at any time. Explaining what could have been
the cause of the interruption, he referred to the letter from
Yvonne Margarula that referred to concern to allegations that
financial incentives had been offered to the Mirrar People (see
Annex XIV
). He stressed that indeed at no time had such an offer
been made by the Australian negotiators.
The Delegate of Australia informed the Committee that he considered
that the only commitment made by the Australian government to the
Committee in July 1999 that had not been fully met was the
development of a cultural heritage management plan and cultural
mapping. He recalled that the Jabiluka mine was on stand-by and in
environmental management mode and that commercial production would
not take place for a considerable time reflecting the commitment to
sequential mines. He stated that the mining company was legally
obliged to provide a Cultural Heritage Management Plan and that the
Australian government was concerned that a correct process for its
preparation be found as soon as possible through a process of
domestic negotiation.
The Delegate of South Africa expressed her agreement with the
independent review process proposed by ICOMOS and suggested use of
a facilitator. She appealed to the Australian government to agree
to a process involving an outside facilitator noting that Kakadu is
a site of value to all humankind not just Australia.
The Delegate of Finland suggested that a similar method of working
to that which had been used to address scientific issues at Kakadu
should be used to ensure progress on cultural heritage issues.
The Delegate of Canada acknowledged the importance of the living
cultural values of Kakadu and expressed the wish of Committee
members to see their protection. If an agreement between the
Mirrar and the State Party was not possible, then involvement of a
third party should be considered.
The Observer of Papua New Guinea stressed the importance of
recognizing living cultural heritage values right at the beginning
of the process of World Heritage identification and protection.
ICCROM commented that while they had strongly supported the
recommendation proposed by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau,
particularly given its emphasis on process, they were concerned
that "process" was being interpreted in different ways by different
delegates, as "mediated dialogue" by South Africa, and as "study"
or "scientific reference group" by ICOMOS and others. ICCROM felt
that clarification of the implications of reference to process was
necessary for the consolidated recommendation being drafted to be
fully effective in assisting the State Party.
Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner, was invited to
address the Committee. She spoke about her country (her
traditional lands) and of the sacred sites and "dangerous sites"
(djang) at Jabiluka. She said that her country was "in danger"
because the Government of Australia said that they were lying when
they said the site was sacred and the Mirrar appealed for help from
the World Heritage Committee. The Delegate of Australia said that
the Minister for Environment and Heritage stressed that he did not
believe the Mirrar were acting dishonestly.
The Committee adopted the following decision on the protection of
cultural values at Kakadu National Park:
The Committee,
Noted the concern of the Traditional Owners that serious
impacts on the living cultural values of Kakadu National
Park posed by the proposal to mine and mill uranium at
Jabiluka still exist.
Considered that the Committee's previous decision
regarding cultural mapping and the preparation of a
cultural heritage management plan for Jabiluka cannot be
implemented at this stage and that an approach founded on
partnership between all parties concerned is required to
ensure the protection of the living cultural values of
Kakadu National Park.
Recalled that at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau
in Paris (2000) ICOMOS indicated its willingness to
"participate in activities leading towards resolving
cultural heritage issues pertaining to the management of
Kakadu National Park".
Noted that the State Party is prepared to consider a new
process to address any outstanding issues relating to
cultural values. Any new process would be facilitated by
the State Party, in consultation with Traditional Owners
and other domestic stakeholders.
Expressed disappointment about the current interruption
in dialogue between the State Party and the Mirrar
Traditional Owners.
Reaffirmed the importance of the living cultural heritage
of Kakadu National Park.
Encouraged the State Party and the Mirrar Traditional
Owners to resume and continue their efforts in a
constructive dialogue, in order to develop together a
process leading towards the protection of Kakadu's
cultural heritage.
In the event that the interruption in the dialogue
continues, requested that the State Party and the Mirrar
Traditional Owners consider a facilitated dialogue to
achieve an agreed-upon process by the twenty-fifth
session of the Committee in 2001.
(iii)
State of conservation reports of mixed properties
noted by the Committee
Mount Emei and Leshan Giant Buddha (China)
Historic Sanctary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
CULTURAL HERITAGE
(i)
Cultural property which the Committee inscribed on the
List of World Heritage in Danger
VIII.30
Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore (Pakistan)
The World Heritage Centre informed the Committee that the Director-
General of UNESCO had received a letter dated 27 November 2000 from
the authorities of Pakistan requesting the World Heritage Committee
to inscribe the Shalamar Gardens on the List of World Heritage in
Danger. In the letter, the authorities of Pakistan informed the
Director-General that the State Party recognised the urgent need to
restore the damaged part of the outer walls and hydraulic works of
Shalamar Gardens. Reiterating the great importance attached to
activities for protecting the World Heritage sites located in
Pakistan, the Director-General was assured that all necessary steps
would be taken to ensure proper renovation and restoration of these
unique gardens, which are not only an important cultural heritage
landmark in the historic city of Lahore, but also a site visited by
thousands of people. The authorities informed the Secretariat that
the Department of Archaeology and Museums of the Ministry of
Culture, and the local authorities concerned are actively co-
operating to ensure that the gardens remain intact and do not
suffer any further deterioration.
Through this letter, the Government of Pakistan expressed its
appreciation for continued assistance from the World Heritage
Committee and the World Heritage Centre for the conservation and
development of the Shalamar Gardens. By nominating the property on
the List of World Heritage in Danger, the State Party expressed its
hope to increase public awareness both nationally and
internationally on the importance of preserving this Moghul
exemplary site of World Heritage of value, which continues to be a
living cultural heritage site.
The Committee examined the state of conservation of Shalamar
Gardens and the deliberations of the Bureau during the twenty-
fourth extraordinary session, and took note of the request by the
State Party to inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage
in Danger. The Committee expressed serious concern over the
complete loss of two of the three hydraulic works and the partial
demolition of the third hydraulic work. Recognising that the
property is threatened by serious and specific danger,
necessitating major operations to ensure the protection of these
essential components of the historic monumental and garden complex
within the property, the Committee decided to inscribe the Fort and
Shalamar Gardens on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
While appreciating the co-operation between the central and local
authorities concerned to enhance the conservation of the Shalamar
Gardens, the Committee requested the State Party:
to prohibit parking on the site of the first and second tanks
as soon as possible to prevent further damage to the
archaeological remains;
to fence off the site on which these remains are located from
the immediate surrounding so that it is no longer
directly accessible;
to consolidate the remaining foundations of the two tanks as
an archaeological relic and take measures to prevent
further deterioration of what still remains of the third
tank with its brick arches, in order to safeguard the
remains of the former hydraulic works;
to define and implement a "rescue programme" as soon as
possible, as recommended by the ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive
monitoring mission (October 2000) in close co-operation
with the World Heritage Centre;
The Committee requested the State Party to provide clarification
concerning ownership, land use and the legal status of the land
within 60 metres of these hydraulic works, particularly in view of
the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance, applicable to
this site.
Finally, the Committee underlined that the damage to this property
illustrates a case where world heritage values of a property had
been severely undermined due to insufficient attention given to
conservation needs in the planning and implementation of public
works.
VIII.31
Historic City of Zabid (Yemen)
The Committee recalled the report on the state of conservation of
the Historic City of Zabid, examined by the Bureau at its twenty-
fourth extraordinary session that included information on the State
Party's request to inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage
in Danger. ICOMOS fully supported the findings and recommendations
of the UNESCO monitoring mission undertaken in 1999 and the request
by the State Party that the site be inscribed on the World Heritage
in Danger in view of the serious condition of the historic
buildings within the property.
The Committee decided to inscribe the Historic City of Zabid on the
List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested the World
Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to organize a mission composed of
multidisciplinary experts in order to evaluate the situation and
recommend further actions.
(ii)
State of conservation reports of cultural properties
examined by the Committee
VIII.32 Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
The Committee recalled that it had repeatedly expressed concern for
this site and repeatedly deferred inscription on the List of World
Heritage in Danger since 1992. The Committee recalled that it had
decided again to defer decision on in-danger listing at its twenty-
third session, pending a report from a High Level Mission that the
Committee decided to send to Kathmandu in 2000 for consultations
with representatives of His Majesty's Government of Nepal. This
mission, headed by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee,
Mr Abdelaziz Touri, would also transmit the Committee's concerns
and try to convince the Nepalese authorities of the merits of in-
danger listing. This mission took place from 24 to 29 September
2000. The High Level Mission was well received by the State Party
and met high level authorities including His Majesty the King and
the Prime Minister of Nepal.
The Director of the World Heritage Centre presented the conclusive
findings and final considerations of the Report of the High Level
Mission to Kathmandu Valley (23-30 September 2000),
WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.17. The Director informed the Committee that no
new plans had been put forth by the Nepalese authorities to redress
the persistent and continued deterioration of the materials,
structures, ornamental features, and overall architectural
coherence in most Monument Zones. He drew the attention of the
Committee to the state of conservation of the site, highlighting
the fact that in general, publicly-owned historic monuments were in
good condition, but the problem lay in the urban fabric within the
Monument Zones. Thus, essential and authentic urban fabric had been
severely altered to the point that in a number of Monument Zones,
the changes were irreversible.
The Committee was informed of the continuing commitment of His
Majesty's Government of Nepal to protect the seven Monument Zones
composing the site. The Director reported that the authorities had
emphasised the difficulties in imposing international standards in
the conservation of privately-owned historic buildings without
substantial subsidy and technical support. The Director informed
the Committee, however, that the mission was unable to convince the
representatives of His Majesty's Government of Nepal on the
constructive aims of the system of in-danger listing, notably to
mobilise the support of policy makers at the highest level and
international donors. In light of this, the High Level Mission
concluded that the deterioration of the historic urban fabric will
persist, irreversibly damaging the vernacular architecture
surrounding the public monuments, and consequently destroying the
World Heritage values of this unique and universally significant
site. The problem was compounded by the lack of technical capacity
and the population pressures giving rise to encroachment from the
periphery to the Monument Zones. As a result of this, the Bureau at
its twenty-fourth extraordinary session, transmitted the
recommendations presented in WHC-2000/CONF.204/4 to the
Committee.
The Committee examined the state of conservation of the Kathmandu
Valley and the discussion of the Bureau. The Committee also took
note of the two information documents tabled on 27 November 2000,
WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.21 (Updated progress report on the
implementation of the 55 Recommendations for Enhanced Management of
Kathmandu Valley and Time-Bound Action Plan for Corrective
Measures, submitted by His Majesty's Government of Nepal on 22
November 2000) and WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.22 (Conclusions of Mr.
Henrik Lilius, Vice-President of the World Heritage Committee and
ICOMOS Representative during the High Level Mission to Kathmandu
Valley).
The former Chairperson, Mr Abdelaziz Touri, who headed the High
Level Mission, noted that the serious state of conservation of
Kathmandu Valley had been examined at 20 sessions of the Committee
and Bureau since 1992. The situation was indeed grave. However, he
informed the Committee that the Bureau had formulated a
recommendation for the Committee's consideration at its twenty-
fourth extraordinary session, which allowed two more years for the
Nepalese authorities to further implement the 1998 UNESCO-ICOMOS-
HMG of Nepal Joint Mission's 55 Recommendations for Enhanced
Management and Time-Bound Action Plan for Corrective Measures
adopted by the State Party.
The Committee, recalling that it had deferred the inscription of
Kathmandu Valley on the List of World Heritage in Danger numerous
times, expressed its disappointment that the State Party was not
convinced of the constructive objectives of the List of World
Heritage in Danger, as a mechanism for strengthening further
political commitment and mobilizing international technical co-
operation and greater awareness at both national and international
levels.
During the ensuing debate, discussions focused on the objectives of
the Convention and international co-operation. The Committee
underlined the need to ensure the credibility of the World Heritage
Convention, its Committee and the World Heritage List, while
effectively implementing the mechanisms provided under the
Convention and appropriately assisting States Parties in
safeguarding the World Heritage properties, especially when both
ascertained threats faced sites inscribed on the World Heritage
List. Most members of the Committee agreed that it would be
desirable to define procedures for examining cases such as
Kathmandu Valley, where certain values or components justifying
World Heritage inscription have been irreversibly lost.
The question of whether or not consent by a State Party was
necessary for inscribing a property on the List of World Heritage
in Danger was debated at length, especially in relation to the
interpretation of Articles 11.3 and 11.4 of the Convention. Some
delegates and the Observer of Nepal felt that the Committee was not
empowered to inscribe a property on the List of World Heritage in
Danger without the consent of the concerned State Party and without
the request for assistance by the State Party. However, other
members of the Committee and Observers stressed that Article 11.4
allowed the Committee to inscribe a property on the List of World
Heritage in Danger without the consent of the State Party
concerned, although it was preferable to have the State Party's
consent in advance.
The Delegate of Belgium underlined the crucial importance of
clarifying this point. Recalling the obligation of UNESCO to
provide legal advice to Members of the Committee when requested,
the Delegate of Belgium formally requested legal advice concerning
this question on behalf of his Government.
At the invitation of the Chairperson, the UNESCO Legal Adviser
pointed out that this subject was quite controversial. It had most
recently been debated at the Canterbury International Expert
Meeting on the Revision of the
Operational Guidelines
where
the experts had recommended that legal advice be sought on the
matter. The Legal Adviser had been informed that certain States
Parties in fact had obtained legal advice from eminent jurists on
this question, and that these jurists apparently had provided legal
opinions that were widely divergent.
The Committee was reminded that the UNESCO Legal Adviser had no
authority to provide any definitive interpretations of the terms of
the Convention. Under international law it was only the States
Parties as a whole who could make definitive interpretations of the
terms of their Convention. In his view, there were various options
available to the States Parties. They could:
exchange copies of the expert legal opinions which they had
obtained or would obtain, with a view to reaching a
consensus as to which legal arguments were the most
persuasive,
agree to have the matter decided simply by a vote of the
General Assembly of States Parties, or
agree to have the matter arbitrated by some competent legal
body such as the World Court at the Hague.
The Legal Advisor concluded by indicating that while he was not in
a position to give a spontaneous opinion on this matter without the
benefit of appropriate research, especially on the relevant
preparatory work preceding the adoption of the Convention, he
remained at the disposal of the States Parties to provide, in due
course, any further advice or opinions as may be considered useful.
The Delegate of Belgium, expressed regret that the UNESCO Legal
Advisor would limit himself to mentioning general principles
concerning the interpretation of the World Heritage Convention. He
requested that the UNESCO Legal Advisor would clearly declare
whether, in his opinion, prior consent of the Government concerned
is or is not necessary and that his advice would be transmitted to
all States Parties to the Convention through the World Heritage
Centre early enough for the question to be discussed during the
forthcoming Meeting for the Revision of the
Operational
Guidelines
to be organized by the Secretariat or at the next
Bureau or Committee session. The Delegate of Belgium underlined
that the advice and view of the UNESCO Legal Advisor could only be
an interpretation and would not provide a definitive answer to the
issue in question. Finally, the Delegate of Belgium stressed that
should the view of the UNESCO Legal Advisor and those of
international legal experts in various States Parties be divergent
and States Parties do not reach an agreement on the interpretation
of Article 11 of the Convention, this question must be submitted to
the International Court of Justice of the Hague or arbitrated by
another competent legal body.
The Committee decided to consider the issue of the inscription of
properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger in a broader
context, in order to develop appropriate criteria and procedure for
the Committee to evaluate situations such as Kathmandu Valley. To
this end, the Committee accepted the offer by the Government of
Morocco to host a meeting on this issue, and decided to consider
developing a draft agenda and allocation of funds for the
organisation of this meeting, within the context of the revision of
the
Operational Guidelines
The Committee expressed its appreciation to Nepal for the continued
efforts to enhance the management and conservation of the Kathmandu
Valley World Heritage site. The Committee reiterated its deepest
concern for the state of conservation of Kathmandu Valley, where
urban encroachment and alteration of the historic fabric in most of
the seven Monument Zones composing the site have significantly
threatened its integrity and authenticity.
The Committee requested the State Party to produce a new structured
framework for monitoring all corrective measures by the State
Party, to be reviewed by the Committee within the context of the
Asia-Pacific Regional Periodic Reporting exercise in 2002. In the
interim, the State Party was requested to submit a progress report
for consideration by the Committee at its twenty-fifth session in
2001. The Committee further recommended that other States Parties
be engaged in the conservation and monitoring effort by providing
technical and financial assistance to the concerned authorities of
His Majesty's Government of Nepal. In this regard, the Committee
decided to consider reserving an appropriation within the 2001
International Assistance budget, to finance specific time-bound
activities related to the protection of the urban fabric within the
World Heritage site.
The Observer of Nepal expressed to the Committee his Government's
appreciation for the favourable response to requests for technical
and financial assistance which the Committee and UNESCO have been
providing for Kathmandu Valley since the 1970s. He recalled the
great pride of the Nepalese citizens in 1979 when the site was
inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, but informed the
Committee that they were unaware, until 1992, of the World Heritage
conservation standards, hence the errors made. The Observer
reiterated the Government's strong commitment to ensure the
implementation of the 16 Recommendations of the 1993 Joint Mission,
the 55 Recommendations and Time-Bound Action Plan resulting from
the 1998 Joint Mission, and requested that the Bureau provide the
Government of Nepal sufficient time to redress the situation and
defer decision on in-danger listing until 2004.
The Committee finally decided to adopt the Bureau's recommendations
including the acceptance of the invitation extended by the
Government of Morocco.
VIII.33 Taxila (Pakistan)
The Committee examined the state of conservation of the site, and
adopted the following:
The Committee noted the Reports submitted by the State Party,
ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre concerning the state of
conservation of the Taxila World Heritage site. The Committee
expressed its appreciation to the authorities of Pakistan for
taking the necessary measures to mitigate the threats caused by the
construction of the sports stadium on the Bhir Mound within Taxila.
The Committee, while noting the efforts made by the State Party to
strictly control illicit trafficking of sculptures illegally
excavated from Buddhist archaeological remains, nevertheless
reiterated its request to the State Party to continue strengthening
the protection of unexcavated areas in Taxila. The Committee
requested the Government of Pakistan to implement the
recommendations formulated by ICOMOS following the October 2000
ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring mission. The Committee requested
the State Party to submit a report before 15 September 2000 on the
progress made in implementing these recommendations, for
examination by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth extraordinary session
in September 2001. Finally, in order to support the State Party to
overcome the difficulties faced in regularly monitoring the
numerous and physically dispersed archaeological remains of the
Taxila World Heritage site, the Committee expressed its commitment
to extend its assistance to support the State Party, and requested
the State Party to consider nominating the site for the List of
World Heritage in Danger at the twenty-fifth session of the World
Heritage Committee.
VIII.34 Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)
The Committee examined the state of conservation of the site and
noted the information provided by the Secretariat and by the Under-
Secretary of State of Poland, responsible for the implementation of
the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim .
The Committee recalled that, at its twenty-third session (Kyoto,
1998), it confirmed its support for the principles laid out in the
Declaration of March 1997; this process should continue in a
consensual manner among all parties involved. It expressed the
belief that no steps should be taken unless consensus had been
reached.
The Committee expressed its concern regarding the delay in
implementing the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim and
the work of the international group of experts. It urged the Polish
authorities to address these issues without further delay.
Concerning the construction projects within the zones related
physically or symbolically to the Concentration Camp, the Committee
requested the State Party to avoid any action that could compromise
reaching consensus between the authorities, institutions and
organizations involved and to ensure that the sacred nature of the
site and its environment are preserved giving special attention to
their integrity.
The Committee reiterated its request to the State Party, previously
made during its twenty-fourth session, to submit a progress
report on the implementation of the Strategic Governmental
Programme for Oswiecim, and requested the State Party to submit
this detailed report by 15 April 2001, at the latest, for
examination by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.
Furthermore, the Committee requested the Secretariat to
maintain close contacts with the State Party and other parties
involved in order to support planning actions and the process for
establishing a consensus as indicated in the decision adopted by
the Committee at its twenty-third session.
In conclusion, the Committee reiterated the need for the
establishment of a buffer zone to be created around the site, as
well as a plan for the implementation of development control
mechanisms within this newly identified area. It urged the Polish
authorities to pay particular attention to this matter and to
submit a report on the progress made in the identification of a
buffer zone and control mechanism for examination by the twenty-
fifth session of theBureau.
The Observer of Israel underlined that the two former Concentration
Camps -Auschwitz and Birkenau - approximately 3 kms from each
other, are located in two different municipalities - Oswiecim and
Birkenau - are managed under different jurisdictions, and that
before the creation of a buffer zone, the two locations should be
unified. He stressed that the Strategic Governmental Programme for
Oswiecim was not the management plan but a plan developed by the
town of Oswiecim and that this should be clarified. Furthemore, he
declared that he had taken note of the comments from Zimbabwe,
Finland and Greece (included in the Report of the Rapporteur).
Finally, he underlined that coordination between the International
Group of Experts, the State Party and ICOMOS was essential and
should be reinforced. In addition, due to the high sensitivity
linked to this site, the Observer of Israel specified that
representatives of the State Party and of the Jewish community
should be involved in the work undertaken by the International
Group of Experts.
(iii)
State of conservation reports of cultural properties
which the Committee noted
VIII.35 Brasilia (Brazil)
Concerning the state of conservation report to be noted by the
Committee, the Observer of Brazil stated that strict building
regulations are being applied to all construction activities in
Brasilia. Although the city is facing challenges due to the
increase in population (3 million for a city originally designed
for 500,000 inhabitants), which has led to some tension in the
outskirts, the core of the city which forms the World Heritage site
is intact and the World Heritage value is not adversely affected in
any way by new developments. The Observer pointed out that the
recommendation as adopted at the twenty-fourth extraordinary
session of the Bureau, did not reflect the situation on the
site.
Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China)
The Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
VIII.36 Islamic Cairo (Egypt)
The Delegate of Belgium recalled an intervention during the
Committee's twenty-third session in Marrakesh in 1999, on the need
to make the local population aware of the need to ensure the
conservation of this site, and stated that this important issue
should be taken into account.
VIII.37 Roman Monuments, Cathedral St Peter and Liebfrauen-Church
in Trier (Germany)
The Observer of Germany stressed that the vestiges of a water pipe
and the wall of the ramparts in proximity to the Amphitheatre are
important witnesses to the history of the town and the Roman
civilization of the north of the Alps. However, he indicated that
these vestiges are located inside a building for commercial use and
that the problems linked to conservation, presentation and public
access are not entirely resolved. The Minister of Culture of the
Land Rhenanie-Palatinat has decided to provide the necessary
funding to elaborate a project which aims at preserving the
property without altering its authenticity. The Observer of
Germany further indicated that the Minister intended to invite
ICOMOS to carry out a mission before the twenty-fifth session of
the Committee to examine these discoveries and the efforts made for
their preservation.
Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
Classical Weimar (Germany)
Hortabagy National Park (Hungary)
VIII.38 Khajuraho Group of Monuments (India)
The Observer of India informed the Committee that her Government
intended to provide an updated report on the state of conservation
of Khajuraho Group of Monuments site to the World Heritage Centre.
She informed the Committee that the authorities have ascertained
that the unauthorized construction has taken place on privately
owned land, near the western group of the Khajuraho Temple but not
within the area of 100-meter boundary limits of the protected
monuments. Nevertheless, the Archaeological Survey of India is
taking the necessary legal measures to correct the illegal
construction. Moreover, the authorities concerned are acquiring
vacant areas surrounding the western group of temples in order to
prevent further encroachment. Therefore, the Observer from India
expressed her Government's view that the ICOMOS reactive monitoring
mission in early 2001 may be premature and requested
postponement.
Sun Temple of Konarak (India)
Petra (Jordan)
Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic)
Byblos (Lebanon)
Ksar Ait Ben Haddou (Morocco)
VIII.39 Island of Mozambique (Mozambique)
The Observer of Israel made a statement regarding the situation in
Mozambique after the Cyclone Eline and the present socio-economic
conditions in the country. He underscored the importance of
enhancing conservation strategies through capacity-building of the
African States Parties, in particular offering training programmes
which provided employment opportunities in conservation. He
welcomed the views of the Delegate of Zimbabwe as reflected in the
Bureau report, which emphasizes the importance of consultation and
co-operation with the States Party's Ministry of Culture.
Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)
Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo - San
Lorenzo (Panama)
Archaeological Site of Chavin (Peru)
VIII.40 Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras
(Philippines)
The Observer of the Philippines underlined that monitoring of the
fragile cultural landscape of the Rice Terraces of the Philippine
Cordilleras required not only a GIS database but also a
comprehensive management plan for ensuring its conservation and
sustainable development. He informed the Committee that the
Philippines National Mapping Authority was expected to complete its
work in January 2001 for the GIS mapping project, supported by the
World Heritage Fund. For this reason, the Observer expressed his
Government's appreciation for the Bureau's decision requesting the
World Heritage Centre to organize a reactive monitoring mission to
the site in close co-operation with ICOMOS and IUCN. Regarding the
site's tourism development plan requested by the Bureau, the
Committee was informed that the Government and the World Tourism
Organization were co-operating to elaborate a National Tourism
Master Plan which would integrate management plans for the
conservation of all World Heritage properties in the Philippines as
a priority concern.
VIII.41 Baroque Churches of the Philippines
(Philippines)
The Observer of the Philippines informed the Committee of the
intention of the authorities to elaborate in January 2001, a
Conservation Master Plan for the San Agustin Church of Intramuros
Manila, in accordance with the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission
recommendations. Furthermore, the Committee was informed that the
Philippines National Committee for Culture and the Arts had
commenced consolidation of the façade of the San Agustin
Church of Paoay to enhance protection against further earthquake
damage, following the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission
recommendations.
VIII.42 Cultural Landscape of Sintra (Portugal)
The Observer of Portugal stated that, contrary to what was
indicated in the Bureau Report, the "Monte da Lua" Agency was
created to strengthen the integrated management of the site.
VIII.43 Istanbul (Turkey)
The Observer of Turkey assured the Committee that all efforts were
being made to complete the conservation plan of the Historic
Peninsula of Istanbul and the detailed plan of Fatih and Eminonu.
The Observer confirmed the report of the Secretariat that the delay
was caused by public hearings on the revised land use
regulations.
Complex of Hué Monuments (Vietnam)
WORLD HERITAGE AND MINING
VIII.44
The Committee recalled that in accordance with its
request at its twenty-third session, IUCN and the World Heritage
Centre planned and organised, in consultation with the
International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME), a
technical meeting which analysed case studies on World Heritage and
mining. This meeting was held at the IUCN Headquarters (Gland,
Switzerland) from 21 to 23 September 2000 and reviewed practical
case studies from the following sites: Lorentz National Park,
Indonesia; Huascaran National Park, Peru; Doñana National
Park, Spain; Camp Caiman Gold Project, French Guyana (adjacent to
a Ramsar site); Kakadu National Park, Australia; and Greater St.
Lucia Wetlands Park, South Africa.
VIII.45
The Committee noted the deliberations of the twenty-
fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau on this matter included
in working document WHC-2000/204/4.
VIII.46
The Observer of the United States stated that the
discussions at the Bureau session on mining and World Heritage were
helpful. This partially stems from the World Commission on
Protected Areas (WCPA) position statement on mining and World
Heritage that had been discussed at past meetings of the World
Heritage Committee and its Bureau. The Rapporteur's report of the
twenty-fourth session cited IUCN's view "that this issue has been
characterized by a lack of dialogue between conservation and mining
interests". He agreed, and applauded IUCN, ICME and the Centre for
holding a technical meeting in Gland (Switzerland), that included
representatives of mining and conservation interests. He believed
that there remained a need for more dialogue on this issue to
resolve outstanding issues. As a result, he requested that the
Centre and IUCN consider holding a follow-up workshop on this issue
to build on the progress made at the Gland meeting. Finally, he
informed the Committee that the US House of Representatives
Committee on Resources held a hearing on this subject in October
1999. The report of this hearing is available at
, listed as document
106-80
VIII.47
The Delegate of Canada supported the comments by the
United States of America and recommended that the proceedings of
the workshop be published. Concerning the specific recommendations
of the workshop, his country would see the preparation of
guidelines on World Heritage and mining and the dissemination of
the results of the workshop as a priority. The Delegate of Hungary
noted that this issue is a breakthrough in terms of a strategic
policy development and requested that progress made in this matter
be brought back to the next Committee session and that possibly
similar strategic issues, such as World Heritage and tourism be
raised.
VIII.48
In summing up the discussion, the Chairperson said
that the Committee agreed to the establishment of a Working Group
on World Heritage and Mining to carry forward the work in this
important field.
VIII.49
The Committee noted the recommendations of the
report for transmission to the various key actors. The
recommendations of the Workshop are contained in
Annex XV
IX. PROGRESS REPORT ON REGIONAL ACTIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL STRATEGY ACTION PLAN
IX.1
The Secretariat introduced document WHC-2000/CONF.204/11
describing the progress report on the implementation of regional
actions as described in the Global Strategy Action Plan adopted by
the Committee at its twenty-second session (Kyoto, 1998). The
Committee reviewed progress achieved in the year 2000, noting the
regional Action Plans for 2001-2002 and approved specific
activities to be executed during 2001.
IX.2
The Delegate of Benin noted the importance of
implementing the Global Strategy and linking it to issues related
to improving the representivity of the List. The Centre's efforts
in Africa were commended. He informed the Committee that
international co-operation activities offered by countries such as
Norway and France have improved support to African States Parties
and appealed for the expansion of such effective partnerships with
other donor nations. He drew the attention of the Committee to the
recommendations of the meeting held in Zimbabwe on authenticity
within the African context (reference: WHC-2000/CONF.4/INF.11) and
suggested that the list of recommendations of that meeting be
widely circulated. He welcomed planned activities to improve
awareness of the work of the Convention in States Parties and urged
the Centre to aim for a balanced distribution of activities 2.2 -
2.8 of the Action Plan among the various sub-regions of Africa.
IX.3
The Delegate of South Africa acknowledged the
usefulness of Global Strategy activities in Africa and called for
special attention to raise awareness for the protection of World
Heritage of States Parties such as the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC) suffering from war and armed conflict. She expressed
the hope that peace would return to DRC soon and in the meantime
urged the Centre to make efforts to raise awareness among decision-
makers and the people as a whole so that they can understand the
universal significance of these sites. She proposed that
consideration be given to designating World Heritage sites in zones
of conflict, such as those in the DRC, as 'peace parks' and efforts
be made to link protection of these sites to peace-making
efforts.
IX.4
The Observer of Japan made reference to the Workshop
on "Nature and Biodiversity as World Heritage", (page 12 of working
document CONF.204/11), and expressed Japan's satisfaction with the
successful conduct of that Workshop which was held in close
co-operation with the Centre, IUCN and East and Southeast Asian States
Parties, as well as with the participation of New Zealand. The
Workshop had resulted in a "Strategic Statement on Natural World
Heritage in East and Southeast Asia" describing practical measures
to enhance the implementation of the Global Strategy Action Plan
and raising awareness of the role of the Convention in biodiversity
conservation. He said that copies of the "Strategic Statement" and
the proceedings of the Workshop could be made available to
interested States Parties. He expressed Japan's continuing interest
to collaborate with the Centre and IUCN to improve the
implementation of the Convention and attain the objectives of the
"Strategic Statement" in East and Southeast Asia.
IX.5
Japan intends to host a thematic expert meeting on
Asian Sacred Mountains as Cultural Landscapes at the Wakayama
Prefecture from 4 to 12 September 2001 and hoped that the
participation of representatives of less developed countries at the
Workshop could be supported through international assistance from
the World Heritage Fund.
IX.6
The Delegate of Greece pointed out that the document
needed to set out priorities as well as emphasizing a selection of
themes for meetings and workshops. She called for a better
illustration of the links between the activities implemented as
part of the Global Strategy Action Plan and the preparation of
indicative lists and training activities. She noted that several
workshops and seminars had been held, but a critical analysis and
evaluation of such activities was lacking.
IX.7
The Representative of IUCN highlighted the need to
link the implementation of the Global Strategy Action Plan and
improving the representivity of the World Heritage List. He noted
the importance of identifying critical gaps in the List and in that
regard highlighted the work of the Centre and IUCN to undertake a
global review of the application of the Convention in coastal and
marine ecosystems. Currently, World Heritage sites in coastal and
marine ecosystems are under-represented. To address that, there
would be a workshop on marine World Heritage in 2001. The IUCN
Representative also drew the attention to the World Parks Congress
to be held in 2003 in Durban, South Africa. Referring to the
comments of the Delegate of South Africa, he emphasized the
significance of the links between the Global Strategy and periodic
and reactive monitoring activities.
IX.8
The Ambassador of France to UNESCO made a
presentation of the France-UNESCO Co-operation Agreement for
Protection of Monumental, Urban and Natural Heritage signed in
1997. This instrument of co-operation aims to support the
implementation of the Convention, and in particular, includes
provisions for preparatory assistance to assist under-represented
States Parties to meet the conditions required for the nomination
of sites. The co-operation therefore includes activities that
strengthen legal protection, management and restoration of sites on
the tentative lists as well as designated World Heritage sites, and
support for improvement of documentation and training of personnel
in less developed countries. A joint co-ordination and a technical
committee facilitate the selection and implementation of activities
and emphasis is on decentralised co-operation; i.e. co-operation
between designated sites in less developed countries (e.g. Luang
Prabang in Laos) and in France (e.g. Chinon), or co-operation
between local authorities. Most projects are of a minimum 3-year
duration and between 1997 and 1999, 17 projects have been launched
in 26 countries including amongst others, Argentina, Brazil and
Colombia in Latin America, Benin, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Nigeria and
Senegal in Africa and China and Laos in Asia. He invited other
countries interested in participating in the co-operative programme
to contact the French Delegation at UNESCO, Paris.
IX.9
The Chairperson thanked the Ambassador of France for the
information provided and noted that the French-UNESCO co-operative
programme could serve as a model for similar efforts of other
interested States Parties. He requested the Ambassador of France to
transmit the Committee's thanks to the relevant French authorities.
IX.10
The Delegate of Italy informed the Committee that
following the "Regional Thematic Expert Meeting on Potential
Natural World Heritage Sites in the Alps" (Hallstatt, Austria, 18
to 22 June 2000) it wished to follow-up on the important issues
related to the definition and protection of the Alpine Arc as a
transborder territory with outstanding natural and cultural
landscape values. To this end, a meeting is to be organized in
spring 2001 in Turin, Italy. States Parties from the Alpine Arc,
the Centre, the advisory bodies, local communities, NGOs, as well
as other institutions and organizations involved were invited to
attend.
IX.11
The Observer of Germany congratulated the Centre for
the excellent and valuable work in the framework of the Global
Strategy. Following the comments from Greece, he felt that the
results are sometimes not well recognized by the national and local
authorities and that a more comprehensive follow-up including
publication and dissemination of results, would be needed. He
requested that the Centre report back on this matter to the next
Committee session.
X. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND
NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND WORLD HERITAGE LIST
Tentative Lists
X.1
The Chairperson indicated that all the cultural
nominations for inscription are included in the tentative lists of
the countries concerned.
X.2
The Secretariat informed the Committee that it had
received in the year 2000 six new tentative lists from Australia,
Israel, Malawi, Poland, Turkey and Ukraine. It also had received a
letter from the Arab League Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO) dated 24
November 2000 transmitting the Declaration of the meeting of Arab
Ministers of Cultural Affairs held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 21
to 22 November 2000 concerning the Tentative List of Israel (see
Annex XVI
to this Report).
X.3
Both the Observer of Palestine and the Observer of
Israel presented statements that are attached as Annexes
XVII
and
XVIII
Changes to names of properties inscribed on the World Heritage
List
Following the request from the States Parties concerned, the
Committee approved changes to the names of the following properties
included on the World Heritage List:
Canada
Existing Name
Name change requested
Anthony Island /
Ile Anthony
aang Gwaii (Anthony
Island) /
aang Gwaii (Île
Anthony)
Parcs des Rocheuses canadiennes
Parcs des montagnes Rocheuses
canadiennes
Parc provincial des Dinosaures
Parc provincial Dinosaur
Parc national du Gros Morne
Parc national du Gros-Morne
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Complex /
Secteur du précipice à bisons "Head-Smashed-In
Buffalo Jump Complex"
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump /
Le précipice à bisons Head-Smashed-In
L'Anse aux Meadows National
Historic Park /
Parc national historique de l'Anse aux Meadows
L'Anse aux Meadows National
Historic Site /
Lieu historique national de L'Anse aux Meadows
Lunenburg Old Town /
Vieille ville de Lunenburg
Old Town Lunenburg /
Le Vieux Lunenburg
Quebec (Historic area)
Historic District of
Québec
Parc national de Wood Buffalo
Parc national Wood Buffalo
Canada and the United States of America
Tatshenshini-Alsek/ Kluane National Park/
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park
and Reserve and Glacier Bay National Park /
Tatshenshini-Alsek, Parc national de Kluane, Parc national et Réserve de Wrangell-St-Elias,
et Parc national de la baie des Glaciers
Kluane / Wrangell-St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek
Kluane / Wrangell-St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek
Glacier Waterton Parc international de la paix
Parc international de la paix Waterton-Glacier
Germany:
Existing Name
Name change requested
Roman Monuments, Cathedral and
Liebfrauen-Church in Trier
Roman Monuments, Cathedral of
St. Peter and Church of our Lady in Trier
List of World Heritage in Danger
X.4
Following the review of the state of conservation reports
and at the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to
inscribe the following natural cultural properties on the List of
World Heritage in Danger:
Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore (Pakistan)
Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)
Historic City of Zabid (Yemen)
X.5
The Committee did not recommend the deletion of any
properties from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties to
the World Heritage List
X.6
The Secretariat informed the Committee that the following
sites have been withdrawn:
National Park of Abruzzo
(Italy) and
Lena River Delta
(Russian
Federation).
X.7
The Committee noted that concerning the sites of
Fernando de Noronha Marine National Park
(Brazil),
Ancient Pula with the Amphitheatre
(Croatia) and
The Cape
Floristic Region - Phase 1: Cape Peninsula Protected Natural
Environment
(South Africa), the respective States Parties have
requested postponement.
A. NATURAL HERITAGE
A.1
Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
Property
Ischigualasto/Talampaya Natural Parks
Id. N�
966
State Party
Argentina
Criteria
N (i)
The Committee inscribed Ischigualasto/Talampaya Natural
Parks on the World Heritage List under natural
criterion
(i).
Criterion (i).
The site contains a complete sequence of
fossiliferous continental sediments representing the entire
Triassic Period (45 million years) of geological history. No other
place in the world has a fossil record comparable to that of
Ischigualasto-Talampaya which reveals the evolution of vertebrate
life and the nature of palaeoenvironments in the Triassic Period.
IUCN noted that existing pressures on the site are low, that the
site is effectively managed and that a positive response was
received from the State Party concerning a co-operative management
plan.
A number of delegates, in supporting the nomination, highlighted
the uniqueness of the site covering the whole Triassic period.
The Observer of Argentina thanked the Committee for the decision,
which will strengthen the protection of natural areas in his
country. He informed the Committee that the two areas are now well
integrated and that a joint management plan is in place since 2
October 2000. He also agreed to a name change from Ischigualasto
Provincial Park and Talampaya National Park to
Ischigualasto/
Talampaya Natural Parks
as suggested by some delegates who felt
the name was complicated.
Property
Greater Blue Mountains
Area
Id. N�
917
State Party
Australia
Criteria
N (ii) (iv)
Recalling the history of the nomination, IUCN informed the
Committee that the Bureau at its twenty-third session had
recommended deferral for the natural part of this originally mixed
nomination inviting the Australian authorities to consider the
possibility of a serial nomination to cover the full range of
values of eucalyptus ecosystems. The Bureau had noted that although
the area was nationally important, it was not considered on its own
to be a significant representation of eucalyptus-dominated
vegetation on a global scale. There were also unresolved integrity
questions. The Bureau at the time also did not recommend
inscription for its cultural values.
IUCN informed the Committee that a thorough evaluation of the
additional material subsequently presented by Australia took place.
The additional material did not address the question of a serial
nomination to cover the full range of values of eucalyptus
ecosystems. IUCN also noted that, while the information provided
by the State Party had verified the international significance of
eucalypt dominated vegetation, the areas to be included in a serial
site were not identified and recommended again to defer the site.
Now that the issue was before the Committee to decide, IUCN's
advice was to defer the nomination, as recommended by the Bureau in
1999 in favour of a possible serial site and reminded the Committee
of
Operational Guidelines
, Paragraph 19 dealing with serial
sites. IUCN noted however, that this was a finely balanced case and
if the Committee wished to inscribe the site, it would suggest that
criterion (ii) would be a potential one. He also referred to
proposed national legislation where the identification of eucalypt
heritage sites could go some way to meeting IUCN's suggestion of a
serial site. Possible sites could include areas in Southwest
Australia and the Australian Alps, although integrity problems may
need to be addressed.
The Committee discussed the issues raised by IUCN at length and
supported the nomination, in particular highlighting the need to
recognize eucalyptus ecosystems on a global scale. Committee
members also pointed out the uniqueness of the site in relation to
the recently discovered Wollemi Pine and the increase in the
representation of eucalypts on the World Heritage List. They
emphasised Australia's responsibility in protecting eucalypts in
their original ecosystems. The Committee also considered adding
criterion (iv).
The Committee inscribed the Greater Blue Mountains Area under
natural
criteria (ii) and (iv).
Criteria (ii) and (iv)
: Australia's eucalypt vegetation is
worthy of recognition as of outstanding universal value, because of
its adaptability and evolution in post-Gondwana isolation. The site
contains a wide and balanced representation of eucalypt habitats
from wet and dry sclerophyll, mallee heathlands, as well as
localised swamps, wetlands, and grassland. 90 eucalypt taxa (13% of
the global total) and representation of all four groups of
eucalypts occur. There is also a high level of endemism with 114
endemic taxa found in the area as well as 120 nationally rare and
threatened plant taxa. The site hosts several evolutionary relic
species (
Wollemia, Microstrobos, Acrophyllum
) which have
persisted in highly restricted microsites.
The Delegate of Australia thanked the Committee and IUCN for the
constructive process and informed the Committee that the world's
most eminent experts on biodiversity and eucalypts have stated the
outstanding universal value of the Blue Mountains. Whilst the
Greater Blue Mountains has been inscribed as a stand-alone site,
Australia recognises that there may be other important key sites of
outstanding significance representing the evolution of the
eucalyptus.
He informed the Committee that the Australian Government is shortly
to introduce legislation to allow listing of places of national
heritage significance. These places will be protected to the same
level under Commonwealth law currently provided to World Heritage
sites. The national list will be compiled according to themes
representing the natural, cultural and historic environment. Whilst
any particular site can only be listed following a public
assessment and consultation process, it is expected that the
identification of places representing the evolution of the
eucalyptus would be an appropriate early theme for assessment,
complementing the inscription of the Blue Mountains on the World
Heritage List.
Property
Noel Kempff Mercado National
Park
Id. N�
967
State Party
Bolivia
Criteria
N (ii) (iv)
The Committee inscribed Noel Kempff Mercado National Park on
the World Heritage List under natural
criteria (ii) and
(iv).
Criteria (ii) and (iv)
: The site contains an array of
habitat types including evergreen rainforests, palm forests,
cerrado, swamps, savannahs, gallery forests, and semi-deciduous dry
forests. The cerrado habitats found on the Huanchaca Meseta have
been isolated for millions of years providing an ideal living
laboratory for the study of the evolution of these ecosystems. The
site also contains a high diversity of plant and animal species,
including viable populations of many globally threatened large
vertebrates.
Property
Ja� National Park
Id. N�
998
State Party
Brazil
Criteria
N (ii) (iv)
The Committee inscribed Jaú National Park on the
World Heritage List under natural
criteria (ii) and (iv)
Criteria (ii) and (iv)
: The site protects a large and
representative example of the Amazon Central Plain Forest including
the entire hydrological basin of the Jaú River. The site is
important for biodiversity, protecting a large portion of the
biodiversity associated with the Blackwater River system - one of
the three types of lymnological systems associated with the Amazon
basin. The site has a sufficient size to allow the maintenance of
significant on-going ecological and biological processes, such as
blow downs, changes in the river flood dynamics and natural burns,
thus providing unique opportunities to study their effect on
biodiversity in natural ecosystems.
The Observer of Brazil informed the Committee that his Government
is committed to the protection of the Amazon system.
Property
Pantanal Conservation Area
Id. N�
999
State Party
Brazil
Criteria
N (ii) (iii) (iv)
The Committee inscribed Pantanal Conservation Complex on the World
Heritage List under natural
criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv).
Criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv)
: The site is representative of
the Greater Pantanal region. It demonstrates the on-going
ecological and biological processes that occur in the Pantanal. The
association of the Amolar Mountains with the dominant freshwater
wetland ecosystems confers to the site a uniquely important
ecological gradient as well as a dramatic landscape. The site plays
a key role in the dispersion of nutrients to the entire basin and
is the most important reserve for maintaining fish stocks in the
Pantanal. The area preserves habitats representative of the
Pantanal that contain a number of globally threatened species. The
area is a refuge for fauna as it is the only area of the Pantanal
that remains partially inundated during the dry season.
The Committee discussed a number of potential threats to the site,
including extraction of minerals and the use of mercury to extract
gold from the soils. IUCN pointed out that although there are
threats in the Panatanal ecosystem, the nominated site is located
upstream from them and studies confirmed that there are no
pollution-related impacts. The Committee decided to change the name
from Pantanal Conservation Complex to Pantanal Conservation
Area.
The Observer of Brazil concurred with this and assured the
Committee that his Government is committed to the protection of
this unique area, part of a larger recently designated UNESCO
Biosphere Reserve.
Property
Isole Eolie (Aeolian Islands)
Id. N�
908
State Party
Italy
Criteria
N (i)
The Committee inscribed the Aeolian Islands on the World Heritage
List under natural
criterion (i)
Criterion (i)
: The volcanic landforms of the site represent
classic features in the continuing study of volcanology worldwide.
With their scientific study from at least the 18th Century, the
islands have provided two of the types of eruptions (Vulcanian and
Strombolian) to vulcanology and geology textbooks and so have
featured prominently in the education of all geoscientists for over
200 years. They continue to provide a rich field for
volcanological studies of on-going geological processes in the
development of landforms.
The Committee noted that the State Party has adequately responded
to the issues raised at its twenty-third session and commended the
State Party for further strengthening the nomination by simplifying
the boundaries of the nominated area, creating a clear surrounding
buffer zone and a co-ordinated management structure.
A number of delegates supported the nomination and emhasized that
the site is a textbook example of the world's volcanology.
The Delegate of Italy stated that his authorities were happy to
comply with all requests by Committee and that they were ready to
cooperate with IUCN in the implementation of the management plan
for the site.
Property
Kinabalu Park
Id. N�
1012
State Party
Malaysia
Criteria
N (ii) (iv)
The Committee inscribed Kinabalu Park on the World Heritage List
under natural
criteria (ii) and (iv).
Criteria (ii) and (iv)
: The site has a diverse biota and
high endemism. The altitudinal and climatic gradient from tropical
forest to alpine conditions combine with precipitous topography,
diverse geology and frequent climate oscillations to provide
conditions ideal for the development of new species. The Park
contains high biodiversity with representatives from more than half
the families of all flowering plants. The majority of Borneo's
mammals, birds, amphibians and invertebrates (many threatened and
vulnerable) occur in the Park.
IUCN noted that on request from the Bureau, the State Party has
provided the information requested concerning land-use impacts near
the boundaries of the Park.
In supporting the nomination, a number of delegates pointed out
that the authorities have successfully tackled the Bureau's request
and that the site is clearly of outstanding universal value for its
high biodiversity.
The Observer of Malaysia informed the Committee about the
importance of the cultural and natural heritage in her country.
Property
Gunung Mulu National Park
Id. N�
1013
State Party
Malaysia
Criteria
N (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
The Committee inscribed the Gunung Mulu National Park under
natural
criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)
Criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)
: The concentration of caves
in Mulu's Melinau Formation with its geomorphic and structural
characteristics is an outstanding feature which allows a greater
understanding of Earth's history. The caves of Mulu are important
for their classic features of underground geomorphology,
demonstrating an evolutionary history of more than 1.5 million
years. One of the world's finest examples of the collapse process
in Karstic terrain can be also found. GMNP provides outstanding
scientific opportunities to study theories on the origins of cave
faunas. With its deeply-incised canyons, wild rivers, rainforest-
covered mountains, spectacular limestone pinnacles, cave passages
and decorations, Mulu has outstanding scenic values. GMNP also
provides significant natural habitat for a wide range of plant and
animal diversity both above and below ground. It is botanically-
rich in species and high in endemism, including one of the richest
sites in the world for palm species.
IUCN also noted the positive response received from the authorities
received concerning a number of issues raised at the twenty-fourth
session of the Bureau and proposed that the authorities be
encouraged to review the additions to the site for their World
Heritage potential when the gazetting process is completed.
The Observer of Malaysia stressed the commitment of the
authorities to preserve the site.
Property
Central Suriname Nature
Reserve
Id. N�
1017
State Party
Suriname
Criteria
N (ii) (iv)
The Committee inscribed the Central Suriname Nature Reserve under
natural
criteria (ii) and (iv).
Criteria (ii) and (iv)
: The site encompasses significant
vertical relief, topography and soil conditions that have resulted
in a variety of ecosystems. This ecosystem variation allows
organisms within these ecosystems to move in response to
disturbance, adapt to change and maintain gene flow between
populations. The site's size, undisturbed state (in general a rare
condition in Amazonian forest parks) and protection of the entire
Coppename watershed, will allow long-term functioning of the
ecosystem. The site contains a high diversity of plant and animal
species, many of which are endemic to the Guyana Shield and are
globally threatened.
The Delegate of Thailand expressed his concern about potential
threats from gold mining and impacts to the integrity of the site.
IUCN noted that the site is a pristine area, that the first phase
of the management planning has been completed and that a US$ 18
million trust fund to support protection of the site was
established, which could serve as a model for other sites.
This Chairperson informed the Committee that the site is Suriname's
first inscription on the World Heritage List.
Property
The High Coast
Id. N�
898
State Party
Sweden
Criteria
N (i)
The Committee inscribed The High Coast under natural
criterion
(i)
Criterion (i)
: The site is one of the places in the world
that is experiencing isostatic uplift as a result of deglaciation.
Isostatic rebound is well-illustrated and the distinctiveness of
the site is the extent of the total isostatic uplift which, at
294m, exceeds others. The site is the "type area" for research on
isostacy, the phenomenon having been first recognised and studied
there.
A number of Committee members supported the nomination. The
Committee, however, discussed a number of issues relating to the
integrity of the site. In light of the evolving management regime,
the Committee requested a review of the effectiveness of the
management of this site in two year's time.
The Delegate of Finland informed the Committee that the evaluation
of the site was beneficial for the preparation of the proposed
Kvarken World Heritage nomination.
In supporting the enlistment, the Delegate of Morocco highlighted
the fact that The High Coast was very significant because, apart
from Hudson Bay in Canada, it was the most important example of
glacio-isostatic uplift and the only icecap and geological feature
in the north.
The Observer of Sweden informed the Committee that the designation
of this property is of great importance and thanked the Committee
for the constructive review process requiring the production of
additional studies. This material will be beneficial for the
management of the area.
A.2
Inclusion of an additional criterion to a
property inscribed on the World Heritage List
Property
Ha Long Bay (renomination)
Id. N�
672 Bis
State Party
Viet Nam
Criteria
N (i) (iii)
The Committee inscribed Ha Long Bay under natural
criterion
(i)
in addition to the site's existing 1994 listing under
criterion (iii).
Criterion (i)
: The site is the most extensive and best known
example of marine invaded tower karst and one of the most important
areas of fengcong and fenglin karst in the world. The size of the
area provides sufficient integrity for these large scale geomorphic
processes to operate unhindered.
The nomination under
criterion (i)
was supported by a number
of Committee members, who wondered why this criterion was not taken
into account originally. The Delegate of Hungary also noted the
environmental impact assessment referred to under the item "state
of conservation of properties" discussed during the twenty-fourth
extraordinary session of the Bureau.
A.3
Extension of natural properties inscribed on the
World Heritage List
Property
Plitvice Lakes National Park
Id. N�
98 Bis
State Party
Croatia
Criteria
The Committee approved the extension of Plitvice Lakes National
Park site by the nominated area of 10,020 ha as this would
contribute to the integrity of the site.
Property
Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst
Id. N�
725-858 Bis
State Party
Hungary / Slovakia
Criteria
The Committee approved the incorporation of the Dobsinská
Ice Cave as part of the Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak
Karst World Heritage site. Although this ice cave is a relatively
small (6km2) and specialised feature, it does add variety to the
existing site and its features relate to and complement the Caves
of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst.
The Delegate of Hungary welcomed the extension and the Observer of
Slovakia informed the Committee that an intergovernmental agreement
between the two States Parties was established in 1999 for joint
projects including research, protection and monitoring.
A.4
Natural property which was not inscribed on the World
Heritage List
Property
Kopacki rit
Id. N�
964
State Party
Croatia
Criteria
The Committee noted that Kopacki rit is an important site at the
European scale and very significant within the Danube Basin as a
whole. Nonetheless, it does not meet the criteria set by the World
Heritage Convention and a number of important integrity questions
remain unresolved.
The Committee decided not to inscribe the property on the World
Heritage List.
B. MIXED PROPERTY
B.1
Mixed Property inscribed on the World Heritage List
Property
uKhahlamba / Drakensberg
Id. N�
985
State Party
South Africa
Criteria
N (iii) (iv) C (i) (iii)
The Committee inscribed uKhahlamba/Drakensberg Park on the World
Heritage List under
natural criteria (iii) and (iv)
and
cultural criteria (i) and (iii)
Natural criteria (iii) and (iv):
The site has exceptional
natural beauty with soaring basaltic buttresses, incisive dramatic
cutbacks and golden sandstone ramparts. Rolling high altitude
grasslands, the pristine steep-sided river valleys and rocky gorges
also contribute to the beauty of the site. The site's diversity of
habitats protects a high level of endemic and globally threatened
species, especially of birds and plants.
Cultural criteria (i) and (iii)
Criterion (i)
The rock art of the
uKhahlamba/Drakensberg is the largest and most concentrated group
of rock paintings in Africa, south of the Sahara and is outstanding
both in quality and diversity of subject.
Criterion (iii)
The San people lived in the mountainous
uKhahlamba/Drakensberg area for more than four millennia, leaving
behind them a corpus of outstanding rock art which throws much
light on their way of life and their beliefs.
A number of delegates supported the nomination, which enhances the
diversity of African biogeographical provinces represented on the
World Heritage List, with this site being an example of the
Mediterranean biome. The Committee furthermore encouraged the
State Party to work on an integrated management plan, including the
management of fire and invasive species as well as visitor
management.
The Delegate of South Africa informed the Committee of the
importance of Izintaba zoKhahlamba in her country and that the
authorities are addressing a number of issues raised by the
Committee. She hoped that with bilateral and international
assistance the integrated management plan could be accomplished.
C. CULTURAL HERITAGE
C.1
Properties that the Committee inscribed on the World
Heritage List
Property
The Jesuit Block and Estancias of
C�rdoba
Id. N�
995
State Party
Argentina
Criteria
C (ii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage
List on the basis of
criteria (ii) and (iv)
Criterion (ii)
The Jesuit buildings and ensembles of
Córdoba and the estancias are exceptional examples of
the fusion of European and indigenous values and cultures
during a seminal period in South America.
Criterion (iv)
The religious, social, and economic
experiment carried out in South America for over 150 years by
the Society of Jesus produced a unique form of material
expression, which is illustrated by the Jesuit buildings and
ensembles of Córdoba and the estancias.
The Delegate of Mexico noted the influence of the Jesuit Order on
the American continent and highlighted the fact that the property
was representative of an extensive agricultural system founded by
religious orders.
Property
The Monastery of Geghard and the Upper Azat
Valley
Id. N�
960
State Party
Armenia
Criteria
C (ii)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criterion (ii):
Criterion (ii)
The Monastery of Geghard,
with its remarkable rock-cut churches and tombs, is an
exceptionally well preserved and complete example of medieval
Armenian monastic architecture and decorative art, with many
innovatory features which had a profound influence on
subsequent developments in the region.
The Delegate of Italy stressed that this site is integrated in a
programme of cultural routes initiated by the Council of Europe
and Italy.
Property
The Cathedral and Churches of Echmiatsin and the
Archaeological Site of Zvartnots
Id. N�
1011
State Party
Armenia
Criteria
C (ii) (iii)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii) and (iii)
Criterion (ii)
:The developments in
ecclesiastical architecture represented in an outstanding
manner by the Churches at Echmiatsin and the archaeological
site of Zvartnots had a profound influence on church design
over a wide region.
Criterion (iii):
The Churches at Echmiatsin and the
archaeological site of Zvartnots vividly depict both the
spirituality and the innovatory artistic achievement of the
Armenian Church from its foundation.
Property
The Wachau Cultural
Landscape
Id. N�
970
State Party
Austria
Criteria
C (ii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribed this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii) and
(iv):
Criterion (ii)
The Wachau is an outstanding
example of a riverine landscape bordered by mountains in which
material evidence of its long historical evolution has
survived to a remarkable degree.
Criterion (iv)
:The architecture, the human
settlements, and the agricultural use of the land in the
Wachau vividly illustrate a basically medieval landscape that
has evolved organically and harmoniously over time.
Several members of the Committee expressed their appreciation for
this nomination including the Delegate of Canada who underlined the
importance of the coordinating commission for the management of the
site. She also inquired whether the new boundaries of the site
protected its viewscape; this question was answered positively by
ICOMOS.
Property
The Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace
and Maiden Tower
Id. N�
958
State Party
Azerbaijan
Criteria
C (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criterion (iv):
Criterion (iv)
: The Walled City of Baku represents an
outstanding and rare example of a historic urban ensemble and
architecture with influence from Zoroastrian, Sassanian,
Arabic, Persian, Shirvani, Ottoman, and Russian cultures.
In response to several Delegates, expressing concern about the
authenticity and coherence of the management policy of the site,
ICOMOS underlined that the Walled City of Baku was the best
preserved city of this region and that the inscription on the World
Heritage List enhances the protection of the site. This statement
was endorsed by several delegates. The Committee agreed to enlist
the property but indicated that its concerns should be brought to
the attention of the State Party.
Property
The Mir Castle Complex
Id. N�
625
State Party
Belarus
Criteria
C (ii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii) and (iv)
Criterion (ii):
Mir Castle is an exceptional
example of a central European castle, reflecting in its design
and layout successive cultural influences (Gothic, Renaissance
and Baroque) that blend harmoniously to create an impressive
monument to the history of this region.
Criterion (iv)
: The region in which Mir Castle
stands has a long history of political and cultural
confrontation and coalescence, which is graphically reflected
in the form and appearance of the ensemble.
Property
Historic Centre of Brugge
Id. N�
996
State Party
Belgium
Criteria
C (ii) (iv) (vi)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii), (iv), and (vi)
Criterion (ii):
The Historic Town of Brugge is
testimony, over a long period, of a considerable exchange of
influences on the development of architecture, particularly in
brick Gothic, as well as favouring innovative artistic
influences in the development of medieval painting, being the
birthplace of the school of the Flemish Primitives.
Criterion (iv):
The Historic Town of Brugge is an
outstanding example of an architectural ensemble, illustrating
significant stages in the commercial and cultural fields in
medieval Europe, of which the public, social, and religious
institutions are a living testimony.
Criterion (vi):
The Town of Brugge was birthplace
of the Flemish Primitives and a centre of patronage and
development of painting in the Middle Ages with artists such
as Jan van Eyck and Hans Memling.
The Delegates of Thailand and Mexico questioned the application of
criterion
(vi)
for this site. ICOMOS justified the criteria
on the basis that the city had sponsored the development of Flemish
primitive art and was home to artists. The Delegate of Thailand
expressed his reservation on the use of criterion (vi).
Property
The Major Town Houses of the Architect Victor Horta
(Brussels)
Id. N�
1005
State Party
Belgium
Criteria
C (i) (ii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (i), (ii) and
(iv):
Criterion (i)
:The Town Houses of Victor
Horta in Brussels are works of human creative genius,
representing the highest expression of the influential
Art
Nouveau
style in art and architecture.
Criterion (ii)
:The appearance of
Art
Nouveau
in the closing years of the 19th century marked a
decisive stage in the evolution of architecture, making
possible subsequent developments, and the Town Houses of
Victor Horta in Brussels bear exceptional witness to its
radical new approach.
Criterion (iv)
:The Town Houses of Victor
Horta are outstanding examples of
Art Nouveau
architecture, brilliantly illustrating the transition from the
19th to the 20th century in art, thought, and society.
Further to a question raised by several delegates concerning the
protection of the town houses, Belgium underlined that town
planning provisions already exists and that the protection goes
beyond the requirements of the World Heritage Committee. ICOMOS
confirmed protection measures in place in particular the series of
bufferzones.
Property
The Neolithic Flint Mines at Spiennes
(Mons)
Id. N�
1006
State Party
Belgium
Criteria
C (i) (iii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (i), (iii) and (iv)
Criterion (i)
:The Neolithic flint
mines at Spiennes provide exceptional testimony to early human
inventiveness and application.
Criterion (iii)
:The arrival of the
Neolithic cultures marked a major milestone in human cultural
and technological development, which is vividly illustrated by
the vast complex of ancient flint mines at Spiennes.
Criterion (iv)
:The flint mines at Spiennes
are outstanding examples of the Neolithic mining of flint,
which marked a seminal stage of human technological and
cultural progress.
The Committee noted the change of name of the property from
Archaeological Site of the Neolithic Flint Mines at Spiennes,
Mons
to
The Neolithic Flint Mines at Spiennes (Mons).
Property
Notre-Dame Cathedral in
Tournai
Id. N�
1009
State Party
Belgium
Criteria
C (ii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii) and
(iv)
Criterion (ii):
The Cathedral of Notre-Dame in
Tournai bears witness to a considerable exchange of influence
between the architecture of the Ile de France, the Rhineland,
and Normandy during the short period at the beginning of the
12th century that preceded the flowering of Gothic
architecture.
Criterion (iv)
:In its imposing dimensions,
the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Tournai is an outstanding
example of the great edifices of the school of the north of
the Seine, precursors of the vastness of the Gothic
cathedrals.
Property
Tiwanaku: Spiritual and Political Centre of the Tiwanaku
Culture
Id. N�
567 Rev
State Party
Bolivia
Criteria
C (iii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage
List on the basis of
criteria (iii) and (iv)
Criterion (iii)
The ruins of Tiwanaku bear striking
witness to the power of the empire that played a leading role
in the development of the Andean prehispanic civilization.
Criterion (iv)
The buildings of Tiwanaku are exceptional
examples of the ceremonial and public architecture and art of
one of the most important manifestations of the civilizations
of the Andean region.
Several States Parties raised the issue of the authenticity of the
site as noted in the ICOMOS report. The Advisory Body remarked that
the restorations made in Tiwanaku were not of recent date and that
scientific knowledge available today would permit more careful
interventions.
The Delegate of Cuba stressed the universal significance of the
site as an icon of a larger pre-columbian culture.
Property
The Churches of Chilo�
Id. N�
971
State Party
Chile
Criteria
C (ii) (iii)
The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage
List on the basis of
criteria (ii) and (iii)
Criterion (ii)
The Churches of Chiloé are
outstanding examples of the successful fusion of European and
indigenous cultural traditions to produce a unique form of
wooden architecture.
Criterion (iii)
The
mestizo
culture resulting
from Jesuit missionary activities in the 17th and 18th
centuries has survived intact in the Chiloé
archipelago, and achieves its highest expression in the
outstanding wooden churches.
A number of delegates took the floor to express their support for
the nomination citing the churches as emblematic of the
architecture of the archipelago and as embodiment of Jesuit ideals.
The need to protect the vernacular architecture surrounding the
churches was also stressed. Ecuador noted that tourism numbers
might rise with the construction of a planned bridge that connects
the area to the mainland making additional protection necessary.
Finland suggested that sub-numeration of properties including
distinct monuments, would give a better idea of the number of
monuments actually inscribed on the World Heritage List. Italy and
South Africa both indicated that they felt sub-numeration would
detract from the unity of the site, and that the churches should be
seen as an ensemble within their setting and not be subdivided.
Property
Mount Qincheng and the Dujiangyan Irrigation
System
Id. N�
1001
State Party
China
Criteria
C (ii) (iv) (vi)
The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the World Heritage
List on the basis of
criteria (ii),(iv), and (vi):
Criterion (ii)
The Dujiangyan Irrigation
System, begun in the 2nd century BCE, is a major landmark in
the development of water management and technology, and is
still discharging its functions perfectly.
Criterion (iv)
The immense advances in
science and technology achieved in ancient China are
graphically illustrated by the Dujiangyan Irrigation System.
Criterion (vi)
:The Temples of Mount
Qingcheng are closely associated with the foundation of
Taoism, one of the most influential religions of East Asia
over a long period of history.
The Delegate of Hungary recommended the application of cultural
criterion (v) for this site as it is an outstanding example of
traditional land-use marked by the irrigation system which is
representative of a culture. ICOMOS was requested to examine this
point, particularly for sites in Asia, but it maintained that in
this case, the site's outstanding universal value could not be
justified on the basis of cultural criterion (v).
The Committee discussed the question of inscription under natural
criteria, a proposal for the construction of a dam by the water
conservancy project and the issue of sacred mountains in China. The
Committee noted that Mt Qingcheng is considered to meet
natural
criteria (ii)
and
(iv).
However, it
decided to defer the nomination under natural criteria and
requested that IUCN and the World Heritage Centre clarify with the
State Party the following matters relating to the integrity of the
site: the management regime in the buffer zone; the completion of
the Overall Plan for the management of Longxi-Hongkou Nature
Reserve, and a commitment to its early implementation; the
inclusion within the plan of arrangements to deal with long term
funding, the development of adequate trained staff, satisfactory
controls over tourism development and activities, and programmes
for monitoring, research, education and public awareness and
information on the water conservancy project and the possible
impacts of the dam proposal.
The Delegate of China explained that the proposal for a new dam was
only a proposition at this stage and the authorities were willing
to invite foreign experts to inspect the site.
The Committee encouraged the State Party to consider: (a) the
merits of enlarging the site to include other Giant Panda areas,
such as Wolong Nature Reserve, physically linked to the site; (b)
initiating a wider review of the potential which exists in China
for other natural World Heritage sites with consideration for a
workshop focusing on possible boundaries for an enlarged site as
well as to identify other sites of biodiversity value in the
region.
The Chairperson also recalled that a workshop on sacred mountains
in Asia will be hosted by the Japanese Government.
Property
Ancient Villages in Southern Anhui - Xidi and
Hongcun
Id. N�
1002
State Party
China
Criteria
C (iii) (iv) (v)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (iii), (iv), and (v)
Criterion (iii):
The villages of Xidi and Hongcun
are graphic illustrations of a type of human settlement
created during a feudal period and based on a prosperous
trading economy.
Criterion (iv)
:In their buildings and their
street patterns, the two villages of southern Anhui reflect
the socio-economic structure of a long-lived settled period of
Chinese history.
Criterion (v)
:The traditional non-urban
settlements of China, which have to a very large extent
disappeared during the past century, are exceptionally well
preserved in the villages of Xidi and Hongcun.
The Committee recommended that the State Party consider nominating
other historic villages in Southern Anhui to extend the site.
Property
Longmen Grottoes
Id. N�
1003
State Party
China
Criteria
C (i) (ii) (iii)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (i), (ii), and
(iii)
Criterion (i)
:The sculptures of the Longmen
Grottoes are an outstanding manifestation of human artistic
creativity.
Criterion (ii)
:The Longmen Grottoes
illustrate the perfection of a long-established art form that
was to play a highly significant role in the cultural
evolution of this region of Asia.
Criterion (iii)
:The high cultural level and
sophisticated society of Tang Dynasty China are encapsulated
in the exceptional stone carvings of the Longmen Grottoes.
Property
Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing
Dynasties
Id. N�
1004
State Party
China
Criteria
C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
and (vi):
Criterion (i)
:The harmonious integration of
remarkable architectural groups in a natural environment
chosen to meet the criteria of geomancy
(Fengshu
i)
makes the Ming and Qing Imperial Tombs masterpieces of human
creative genius.
Criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv)
:The imperial
mausolea are outstanding testimony to a cultural and
architectural tradition that for over five hundred years
dominated this part of the world; by reason of their
integration into the natural environment, they make up a
unique ensemble of cultural landscapes.
Criterion (vi)
:The Ming and Qing Tombs are
dazzling illustrations of the beliefs, world view, and
geomantic theories of
Fengshui
prevalent in feudal
China. They have served as burial edifices for illustrious
personages and as the theatre for major events that have
marked the history of China.
The Committee took note, with appreciation, of the State Party's
intention to nominate the Mingshaoling Mausoleum at Nanjing
(Jiangsu Province) and the Changping complex in the future as an
extention to the Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing dynasties.
Property
The Cathedral of St. James in
Sibenik
Id. N�
963
State Party
Croatia
Criteria
C (i) (ii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property be on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (i), (ii) and
(iv)
Criterion (i)
:The structural
characteristics of the Cathedral of St James in Sibenik make
it a unique and outstanding building in which Gothic and
Renaissance forms have been successfully blended.
Criterion (ii)
:The Cathedral of St James is
the fruitful outcome of considerable interchanges of
influences between the three culturally different regions of
Northern Italy, Dalmatia, and Tuscany in the 15th and 16th
centuries. These interchanges created the conditions for
unique and outstanding solutions to the technical and
structural problems of constructing the cathedral vaulting and
dome.
Criterion (iv)
:The Cathedral of St James in
Sibenik is a unique testimony to the transition from the
Gothic to the Renaissance period in church architecture.
Property
Archaeological Landscape of the First Coffee
Plantations in the Southeast of Cuba
Id. N�
1008
State Party
Cuba
Criteria
C (iii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage
List on the basis of
criteria (iii) and (iv)
Criterion (iii)
The remains of the 19th and early 20th
century coffee plantations in eastern Cuba are unique and
eloquent testimony to a form of agricultural exploitation of
virgin forest, the traces of which have disappeared elsewhere
in the world.
Criterion (iv)
The production of coffee in eastern Cuba
during the 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in the
creation of a unique cultural landscape, illustrating a
significant stage in the development of this form of
agriculture.
In support of the nomination some delegates mentioned the
significance of the nomination as the first of its kind and drew
attention to the slave trade on which these plantations were
founded.
Property
Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc
Id. N�
859 Rev
State Party
Czech Republic
Criteria
C (i) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (i) and (iv):
Criterion (i)
:The Olomouc Holy Trinity
Column is one of the most exceptional examples of the apogee
of central European Baroque artistic expression.
Criterion (iv)
:The Holy Trinity Column
constituted a unique material demonstration of religious faith
in central Europe during the Baroque period, and the Olomouc
example represents its most outstanding expression.
The Delegate of Greece expressed some reservations regarding the
application of criterion
(i)
for this site.
Property
Kronborg Castle
Id. N�
696 Rev
State Party
Denmark
Criteria
C (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criterion (iv)
Criterion (iv)
:Kronborg Castle is an
outstanding example of the Renaissance castle, and one that
played a highly significant role in the history of this region
of northern Europe.
Property
The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and
Chalonnes
Id. N�
933
State Party
France
Criteria
C (i) (ii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii)
and
(iv)
Criterion (ii):
The Loire Valley is an outstanding
cultural landscape along a major river which bears witness to
an interchange of human values and to a harmonious
development of interactions between human beings and their
environment over two millennia.
Criterion (iv)
: The landscape of the Loire Valley, and
more particularly its many cultural monuments, illustrate to
an exceptional degree the ideals of the Renaissance and the
Age of the Enlightenment on western European thought and
design.
Chambord has been inscribed on the World Heritage List on the basis
of criterion
(i)
alone. The revised State Party nomination
incorporated this property into the cultural landscape of the Loire
Valley. The Committee decided that criterion
(i)
is also
applicable to this new inscription.
Criterion (i)
: The Loire Valley is noteworthy for the
quality of its architectural heritage, in its historic towns
such as Blois, Chinon, Orléans, Saumur, and Tours, but
in particular in its world-famous castles, such as the
Château de Chambord.
Members of the Committee commended the State Party for taking into
account the recommendations of the Bureau.
Property
The Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz
Id. N�
534 Rev
State Party
Germany
Criteria
C (ii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii) and (iv)
Criterion (ii)
The Garden Kingdom of
Dessau-Wörlitz is an outstanding example of the
application of the philosophical principles of the Age of the
Enlightenment to the design of a landscape that integrates
art, education, and economy in a harmonious whole.
Criterion (iv)
:The 18th century was a
seminal period for landscape design, of which the Garden
Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz is an exceptional and wide-
ranging illustration.
The Committee noted the change of name of the property from
Gartenreich Dessau-Wörlitz (The Garden Kingdom of Dessau-
Wörlitz, cultural landscape of Dessau-Wörlitz)
to The
Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz.
Property
Monastic Island of Reichenau
Id. N�
974
State Party
Germany
Criteria
C (iii) (iv) (vi)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (iii), (iv) and (vi)
Criterion (iii)
:The remains of the
Reichenau foundation bear outstanding witness to the religious
and cultural role of a great Benedictine monastery in the
early Middle Ages.
Criterion (iv)
:The churches on the island
of Reichenau retain remarkable elements of several stages of
construction and thus offer outstanding examples of monastic
architecture in Central Europe from the 9th to the 11th
century.
Criterion (vi)
:The Monastery of Reichenau
was a highly significant artistic centre of great significance
to the history of art in Europe in the 10th and 11th
centuries, as is superbly illustrated by its monumental wall
paintings and its illuminations.
The Committee noted the change of name of the property from
Monastic Island of Reichenau in Lake Constance (Klosterinsel
Reichenau im Bodensee)
to
The Monastic Island of
Reichenau.
Property
The P�cs (Sopianae) Early Christian
Cemetery
Id. N�
853 Rev
State Party
Hungary
Criteria
C (iii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (iii) and (iv)
Criterion (iii):
The burial chambers and memorial chapels
of the
Sopianae
cemetery bear outstanding testimony to
the strength and faith of the Christian communities of Late
Roman Europe.
Criterion (iv)
: The unique Early Christian sepulchral art
and architecture of the northern and western Roman provinces
is exceptionally well and fully illustrated by the
Sopianae
cemetery at Pécs.
The Committee noted the change of name of the property from
Sopianae Palaeochristian Cemetery Site, Pécs
to
The Pécs (Sopianae) Early Christian Cemetery
Property
City of Verona
Id. N�
797 Rev
State Party
Italy
Criteria
C (ii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii) and (iv)
Criterion (ii):
In its urban structure and its
architecture, Verona is an outstanding example of a town that
has developed progressively and uninterruptedly over two
thousand years, incorporating artistic elements of the highest
quality from each succeeding period.
Criterion (iv)
:Verona represents in an
exceptional way the concept of the fortified town at several
seminal stages of European history.
Property
Assisi, the Basilica of San Francesco and Other
Franciscan Sites
Id. N�
990
State Party
Italy
Criteria
C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
and (vi)
Criterion (i)
:Assisi represents an ensemble
of masterpieces of human creative genius such as the Basilica
of San Francesco, which have it a deep fundamental reference
for art history in Europe and in the world.
Criterion (ii)
:The interchange of artistic
and spiritual message of the Franciscan Order has
significantly contributed to developments in art and
architecture in the world.
Criterion (iii)
:Assisi represents a unique
example of continuity of a city-sanctuary within its
environmental setting from its Umbrian-Roman and medieval
origins to the present, represented in the cultural landscape,
the religious ensembles, systems of communication, and
traditional land-use.
Criterion (iv)
:The Basilica of San
Francesco is an outstanding example of a type of architectural
ensemble that has significantly influenced the development of
art and architecture.
Criterion (vi)
:Being the birthplace of the
Franciscan Order, Assisi has from the Middle Ages been closely
associated with the cult and diffusion of the Franciscan
movement in the world, focusing on the universal message of
peace and tolerance even to other religions or beliefs.
The Observer of the Holy See warmly congratulated the Committee for
the inscription of the site. He underlined that the rehabilitation
work of the Balisica of San Francesco undertaken after the
earthquake of 1997 was carried out remarquably. He stressed the
importance of the commitment - including financially- of the
Italian State. He considered that the application of criterion
(vi)
was particularly justified.
Property
Gusuku Sites and Related Properties of the Kingdom of
Ryukyu
Id. N�
972
State Party
Japan
Criteria
C (ii) (iii) (vi)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii), (iii), and
(vi)
Criterion (ii)
:For several centuries the
Ryukyu Islands served as a centre of economic and cultural
interchange between south-east Asia, China, Korea, and Japan,
and this is vividly demonstrated by the surviving monuments.
Criterion (iii)
:The culture of the Ryukyuan
Kingdom evolved and flourished in a special political and
economic environment, which gave its culture a unique quality.
Criterion (vi)
:The Ryukyu sacred sites
constitute an exceptional example of an indigenous form of
nature and ancestor worship that has survived intact into the
modern age alongside other established world religions.
Property
Curonian Spit
Id. N�
994
State Party
Lithuania/Russian Federation
Criteria
C (v)
The Committee inscribed the Curonian Spit as a cultural landscape
on the World Heritage List on the basis of
criterion (v)
Criterion (v)
The Curonian Spit is an outstanding
example of a landscape of sand dunes that is under constant
threat from natural forces (wind and tide). After disastrous
human interventions that menaced its survival the Spit was
reclaimed by massive protection and stabilization works begun
in the 19th century and still continuing to the present
day.
Concerning natural values, the Committee noted that the Curonian
Spit is an important site at the European scale and very
significant within the Baltic Region as a whole. However, it was
not considered to meet the criteria for inscription on the World
Heritage List as a natural property.
The Committee welcomed the effective collaboration in the
management planning between the two States Parties.
The Observer of Lithuania in expressing her appreciation, informed
the Committee of her Government's commitment to the effective
protection of this fragile environment. The Observer from the
Russian Federation noted that this is the first cultural landscape
from his country and a result of continuous transborder co-
operation for the last two years. He hoped that a similar exercise
could be envisaged with Finland for a potential World Heritage
area.
Property
Rietveld Schröderhuis (Rietveld Schröder House)
Id. N�
965
State Party
Netherlands
Criteria
C (i) (ii)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (i) and (ii)
Criterion (i)
:The Rietveld
Schröderhuis in Utrecht is an icon of the Modern Movement
in architecture and an outstanding expression of human
creative genius in its purity of ideas and concepts as
De Stijl
movement.
Criterion (ii)
:With its radical approach to
design and the use of space, the Rietveld Schröderhuis
occupies a seminal position in the development of architecture
in the modern age.
Following an extensive debate on the application of criterion
(vi)
to this particular site and in general, and at the
request of several delegates, the Delegate of Zimbabwe (Rapporteur)
informed the Committee that during the meeting "Authenticity and
Integrity in the African Context" held recently in Zimbabwe, the
application of criterion
(vi)
, as well as, of criterion
(i)
was debated at considerable length. He therefore
proposed, upon completion of the report of that meeting, to
transmit it to the Committee in order to enable the Committee to
continue discussions on this matter.
The Committee therefore decided to defer the the application of
criterion
(vi)
to this property.
Property
Ruins of Le�n Viejo
Id. N�
613 Rev
State Party
Nicaragua
Criteria
C (iii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage
List on the basis of
criteria (iii) and (iv)
Criterion (iii)
The ruined town of León Viejo
provides exceptional testimony to the material culture of one
of the earliest Spanish colonial settlements.
Criterion (iv)
The form and nature of early Spanish
settlement in the New World, adapting European architectural
and planning concepts to the material potential of another
region, are uniquely preserved in the archaeological site of
León Viejo.
Property
The Frankencense Trail
Id. N�
1010
State Party
Oman
Criteria
C (iii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (iii) and (iv).
Criterion (iii)
: The group of
archaeological sites in Oman represent the production and
distribution of frankincense, one of the most important luxury
items of trade in the Old World in antiquity.
Criterion (iv)
: The Oasis of Shisr and the
entrepots of Khor Rori and Al-Balid are outstanding examples
of medieval fortified settlements in the Persian Gulf region.
At the initiative of ICOMOS, and with the agreement of the State
Party the name of the property was changed to
The Frankincense
Trail
Property
Historical Centre of the City of
Arequipa
Id. N�
1016
State Party
Peru
Criteria
C (i) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage
List on the basis of
criteria (i) and (iv)
Criterion (i):
The ornamented architecture in the
historic centre of Arequipa represents a masterpiece of the
creative integration of European and native characteristics,
crucial for the cultural expression of the entire region.
Criterion (iv):
The historic centre of Arequipa is an
outstanding example of a colonial settlement, challenged by
the natural conditions, the indigenous influences, the process
of conquest and evangelization, as well as the spectacular
nature of its setting.
Property
Kyongju Historic Areas
Id. N�
976
State Party
Republic of Korea
Criteria
C (ii) (iii)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii) and (iii)
Criterion (ii)
:The Kyongju Historic Areas
contain a number
of sites and monuments of
exceptional significance in the development of Buddhist and
secular architecture in Korea.
Criterion (iii)
:The Korean peninsula was
ruled for nearly a thousand years by the Shilla Dynasty, and
the sites and monuments in and around Kyongju (including the
holy mountain of Namsan) bear outstanding testimony to its
cultural achievements.
The Delegate of Morocco commended the State Party for agreeing to
remove the railway line currently truncating the site.
Property
Koch'ang, Hwasun, and Kanghwa Dolmen
Sites
Id. N�
977
State Party
Republic of Korea
Criteria
C (iii)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criterion (iii):
Criterion (iii)
:The global prehistoric
technological and social phenomenon that resulted in the
appearance in the 2nd and 3rd millennia BCE of funerary and
ritual monuments constructed of large stones (the "Megalithic
Culture") is nowhere more vividly illustrated than in the
dolmen cemeteries of Koch'ang, Hwasun, and Kangwha.
Supporting the nomination, the Delegate of Australia commended the
impeccable state of the site and hoped that when the time is ripe,
dolmen sites north of the 38° parallel would be added.
Property
Historic and Architectural Complex of the Kazan
Kremlin
Id. N�
980
State Party
Russian Federation
Criteria
C (ii) (iii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii), (iii) and
(iv)
Criterion (ii)
:The Kazan Kremlin complex
represents exceptional testimony of historical continuity and
cultural diversity over a long period of time, resulting in an
important interchange of values generated by the different
cultures.
Criterion (iii)
: The historic citadel represents an
exceptional testimony of the Khanate period and is the only
surviving Tatar fortress with traces of the original town-
planning conception.
Criterion (iv)
:The site and its key
monuments represent an outstanding example of a synthesis of
Tatar and Russian influences in architecture, integrating
different cultures (Bulgar, Golden Horde, Tatar, Italian, and
Russian), as well as showing the impact of Islam and
Christianity.
Property
The Ensemble of Ferapontov
Monastery
Id. N�
982
State Party
Russian Federation
Criteria
C (i) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (i) and (iv)
Criterion (i)
:The wall paintings of Dionisy
in the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin at Ferrapontov
Monastery are the highest expression of Russian mural art in
the 15th-16th centuries.
Criterion (iv)
:The complex of Ferrapontov
Monastery is the purest and most complete example of an
Orthodox monastic community from the 15th-17th centuries, a
crucial period in the cultural and spiritual development of
Russia.
Property
The Island of Saint-Louis
Id. N�
956
State Party
Senegal
Criteria
C (ii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List in the basis of
criteria (ii) and (iv):
Criterion (ii):
The historic town of Saint-Louis
exhibits an important exchange of values and influences on the
development of education and culture, architecture,
craftsmanship, and services in a large part of West Africa.
Criterion (iv):
The Island of Saint-Louis, a former
capital of West Africa, is an outstanding example of a
colonial city, characterized by its particular natural
setting, and it illustrates the development of colonial
government in this region.
ICOMOS informed the Committee that it had received a map of the
property responding to the request by the Bureau to expand the
boundaries of the property to include the entire island.
Property
Bardejov Town Conservation
Reserve
Id. N�
973
State Party
Slovakia
Criteria
C (iii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (iii) and (iv):
Criterion (iii)
:The fortified town of
Bardejov provides exceptionally well preserved evidence of the
economic and social structure of trading towns in medieval
Central Europe.
Criterion (iv)
:The plan, buildings, and
fortifications of Bardejov illustrate the urban complex that
developed in Central Europe in the Middle Ages at major points
along the great trade routes of the period.
Property
The Archaeological Ensemble of
T�rraco
Id. N�
875 Rev
State Party
Spain
Criteria
C (ii) (iii)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii) and (iii):
Criterion (ii)
:The Roman remains of
Tárraco are of exceptional importance in the
development of Roman urban planning and design and served as
the model for provincial capitals elsewhere in the Roman
world.
Criterion (iii)
:Tárraco provides
eloquent and unparalleled testimony to a significant stage in
the history of the Mediterranean lands in antiquity.
Property
The Pameral of Elchel
Id. N�
930
State Party
Spain
Criteria
C (ii) (v)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii) and (v)
Criterion (ii):
The Palmeral (palm groves) of Elche
represent a remarkable example of the transference of a
characteristic landscape from one culture and continent to
another, in this case from North Africa to Europe.
Criterion (v)
:The palm grove or garden is
a typical feature of the North African landscape which was
brought to Europe during the Islamic occupation of much of the
Iberian peninsula and has survived to the present day. The
ancient irrigation system, which is still functioning, is of
special interest.
The Committee noted the change of name of the property from
The Palmeral of Elche:
A Cultural landscape Inherited
from Al-Andalus
to
The Palmeral of Elche.
Property
The Roman Walls of Lugo
Id. N�
987
State Party
Spain
Criteria
C (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criterion (iv)
Criterion (iv):
The Roman walls of Lugo are the
finest surviving example of late Roman military
fortifications.
Property
Catalan Romanesque Churches of the Vall de
Bo�
Id. N�
988
State Party
Spain
Criteria
C (ii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii) and (iv)
Criterion (ii)
: The significant developments in
Romanesque art and architecture in the churches of the Vall de
Boí testify to profound cultural interchange across
medieval Europe, and in particular across the mountain barrier
of the Pyrenees.
Criterion (iv):
The Churches of the Vall de Boí
are an especially pure and consistent example of Romanesque
art in a virtually untouched rural setting.
In relation to the works of art of these churches, which are
currently exhibited in a museum in Barcelona, ICOMOS recommended
that the State Party investigate the possibility of returning some
of these to their original location.
The Delegate of Finland recalled his previous statement on the
necessity of a sub-numbering system for serial nominations such as
this property. He urged the Committee to examine this issue. The
Delegate of Ecuador disagreed with the proposal of a sub-numbering
system.
The Committee noted the change of name of the property from
The
Catalan Romanesque Cultural Landscape of the Vall de Boí
to
The Catalan Romanesque Churches of the Vall de
Boí
Property
The Archaeological Site of
Atapuerca
Id. N�
989
State Party
Spain
Criteria
C (iii) (v)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (iii) and (v):
Criterion (iii)
:The earliest and most
abundant evidence of humankind in Europe is to be found in the
caves of the Sierra de Atapuerca.
Criterion (v)
:The fossil remains in the
Sierra de Atapuerca constitute an exceptional reserve of
information about the physical nature and the way of life of
the earliest human communities in Europe.
The Committee noted the change of name of the property from
Archaeological Site of the Sierra de Atapuerca, in the
Municipalities of Atapuerca and Ibeas de Juarros (Burgos)
to
The Archaeological Site of Atapuerca
Property
The Agricultural Landscape of Southern
Öland
Id. N�
968
State Party
Sweden
Criteria
C (iv) (v)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (iv) and (v):
Criterion (iv)
:The landscape of Southern
Öland takes its contemporary form from its long cultural
history, adapting to the physical constraints of the geology
and topograpy.
Criterion (v)
: Southern Öland is an outstanding
example of human settlement, making the optimum use of diverse
landscape types on a single island.
Several delegates, as well as IUCN, emphasized that the site was an
outstanding example of a continuing landscape which supports and
maintains biological diversity.
The Committee noted the change of name of the property from
Södra Ölands Odlingslandskap (The Agricultural
Landscape of Southern Öland)
to
The Agricultural
Landscape of Southern Öland.
Property
Three Castles, Defensive Wall and Ramparts of the
Market-town of Bellinzone
Id. N�
884
State Party
Switzerland
Criteria
C (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criterion (iv):
Criterion (iv)
:The fortified ensemble of
Bellinzone is an outstanding example of a late medieval
defensive structure guarding a key strategic Alpine pass.
The Delegate of Italy drew the attention of the Committee to the
influence of the Dukes of Milan in the construction of the
defensive walls.
Property
The Historic Town of St George and Related
Fortifications, Bermuda
Id. N�
983
State Party
United Kingdom
Criteria
C (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage
List on the basis of
criterion (iv):
Criterion (iv):
The Historic Town of St George with its
related fortifications is an outstanding example of a
continuously occupied, fortified, colonial town dating from
the early 17th century and the oldest English town in the New
World.
ICOMOS recommended that this property be inscribed on the basis of
criteria (iv) and (vi).
The Delegate of Mexico expressed surprise at seeing the property
nominated as a single site instead of as part of a serial
nomination of Caribbean fortifications.
The Committee discussed the application of cultural criterion (vi)
for this site. The Delegate of Thailand noted that the criterion
had not been requested by the State Party. ICOMOS responded that
the Advisory Bodies evaluated properties according to the
procedures set out in the
Operational Guidelines
and
recommended criteria deriving from their evaluations. The Committee
decided to inscribe the property only under cultural criterion
(iv), indicating the possibility of re-nomination of the property
under cultural criterion (vi) at a later date.
Property
The Blaenavon Industrial Landscape
Id. N�
984
State Party
United Kingdom
Criteria
C (iii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (iii) and (iv)
Criterion (iii):
The Blaenavon landscape
constitutes an exceptional illustration in material form of
the social and economic structure of 19th century industry.
Criterion (iv)
:The components of the
Blaenavon industrial landscape together make up an outstanding
and remarkably complete example of a 19th century industrial
landscape.
The Observer of the United Kingdom, representing the Blaenavon
Industrial Landscape, hoped that this decision would encourage
nominations of other industrial sites. At Blaenavon, heritage is
integrated in the development process, in a partnership between
local people, governmental and other organizations, as well as the
private sector.
Property
The Stone Town of Zanzibar
Id. N�
173 Rev
State Party
United Republic of Tanzania
Criteria
C (ii) (iii) (vi)
The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (ii), (iii) and (vi):
Criterion (ii):
The Stone Town of Zanzibar is an
outstanding material manifestation of cultural fusion and
harmonization.
Criterion (iii):
For many centuries there was
intense seaborne trading activity between Asia and Africa, and
this is illustrated in an exceptional manner by the
architecture and urban structure of the Stone Town.
Criterion (vi):
Zanzibar has great symbolic
importance in the suppression of slavery, since it was one of
the main slave-trading ports in East Africa and also the base
from which its opponents such as David Livingstone conducted
their campaign.
The Committee requested the State Party to report to the
twenty-sixth session of the Committee on the progress made in clarifying
the co-ordinating and supervisory role and strengthening of the
Stone Town Conservation and Development Authority.
Property
Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz
Id. N�
885
State Party
Uzbekistan
Criteria
C (iii) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribed this property on the World
Heritage List on the basis of
criteria (iii) and (iv)
Criterion (iii):
Shakhrisyabz contains many fine
monuments, and in particular those from the Timurid period,
which was of great cultural and political significance in
medieval Central Asia.
Criterion (iv):
The buildings of Shakhrisyabz, notably the
Ak-Sarai Palace and the Tomb of Timur, are outstanding
examples of a style which had a profound influence on the
architecture of this region.
Property
Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas
Id. N�
986
State Party
Venezuela
Criteria
C (i) (iv)
The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage
List on the basis of
criteria (i) and (iv)
Criterion (i):
The Ciudad Universitaria de
Caracas is a masterpiece of modern city planning, architecture
and art, created by the Venezuelan architect Carlos
Raúl Villanueva and a group of distinguished avant-
garde artists.
Criterion (iv):
The Ciudad Universitaria de
Caracas is an outstanding example of the coherent realization
of the urban, architectural, and artistic ideals of the early
20th century. It constitutes an ingenious interpretation of
the concepts and spaces of colonial traditions and an example
of an open and ventilated solution, appropriate for its
tropical environment.
C.2
Extension of cultural properties already
inscribed on the World Heritage List
Property
The Monasteries of Haghpat and Sanahin
Id. N�
777 Bis
State Party
Armenia
Criteria
C (ii) (iv)
The Committee decided to approve the extension of the inscribed
property.
Property
The Potala Palace and the Jokhang Temple Monastery, Lhasa
Id. N�
707 Bis
State Party
China
Criteria
C (i) (iv) (vi)
The Committee decided to approve the extension of the inscribed
property of the Potala Palace to include the Jokhang Temple
Monastery.
The Committee decided to retain the name of the city (Lhasa) in the
name of the property.
Property
The Classical Gardens of Suzhou
Id. N�
813 Bis
State Party
China
Criteria
C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
The Committee decided to approve the extension of the inscribed
property of the Classical Gardens of Suzhou to include the
Canglang Pavilion
, the
Lion Forest Garden
, the
Garden of Cultivation
, the
Couple's Garden Retreat
and the
Retreat and Reflection Garden.
C.3
Cultural Properties which the Committee deferred
Property
The Old City of Mostar
Id. N�
946
State Party
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Criteria
C (iv) (vi)
ICOMOS recommended that this property be inscribed under criteria
(iv) and (vi). However, following information received from the
UNESCO Office in Sarajevo concerning the threats to the site due to
uncontrolled building in the old town and its perimeter, the
Committee decided to defer the inscription of this property, in
order to allow the State Party to provide more information on the
protection of the site. Furthermore, the Committee requested the
Secretariat to report on this issue at the forthcoming session of
the Bureau.
Property
The Bolgar Historical and Architectural Complex
Id. N�
981
State Party
Russian Federation
Criteria
C (iii)
The Committee decided that this nomination be deferred to allow the
State Party to provide more detailed information about the
reconstruction of the Great Minaret, confirmation that the
industrial project has been definitively abandoned, and a more
detailed comparative analysis, as requested by the twenty-fourth
session of the Bureau.
C.4
Cultural Property which the Committee did not inscribe
on the World Heritage List
Property
The Abava Valley
Id. N�
997
State Party
Latvia
The Committee decided not to inscribe this property on the World
Heritage List.
XI. INFORMATION STRATEGY
XI.1
The Director of the World Heritage Centre introduced
document WHC-2000/CONF.204/13, describing the Centre's plans for
developing an Information Management Systems Plan. The plan has
been developed based on the work of a Senior Information
Consultant, Ms Gwynneth Martin, who worked at the Centre during a
period of three months. The plan had already been presented by Ms.
Martin to the Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest, 2-4
October 2000.
XI.2
The Director outlined the history of the initiative,
including the early calls in 1998 by the Management Audit and the
Expert Group on Information Management for an Integrated System to
receive, process, and archive large quantities of information in an
efficient and expeditious manner followed by a prototype in 1999.
The plan, recognized the limited capacity of the Centre to
implement such a system, and urged that an incremental approach
should underlie all planning. Plan implementation would proceed in
three stages, as follows:
Stage I
: Design and consolidation (months 1-4) - to produce
detailed system specifications; to begin building capacity in the
Centre and to make better use of existing information technology
facilities;
Stage II
: Development and implementation (months 5-12) - to
acquire and install hardware, to develop, install and test the
system, and to train users; and
Stage III
: Operation and review of an integrated data base
(months 13-14) - to review and assess system operation, and
recommend further developments
XI.3
The Delegate of Hungary welcomed the Plan and said
it formed the first step towards defining an overall information
management strategy for the Centre and for the work of the
Convention. He recalled discussions held during the Special Session
of the Bureau in Budapest (2-4 October 2000) when the Ministry of
Information and Technology of his Government indicated strong
willingness and commitment to support the work of the Centre in
this regard. He urged the Centre to continue the incremental
approach recommended in the Plan with a view towards elaborating
and adopting a fully-fledged Information Management Strategy by the
time of the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in Hungary in
2002. He indicated fully Hungary's willingness to be a strategic
partner in the process.
XI.4
The Observer of Argentina noted the discrepancy
between the total budget indicated for the implementation of the
Plan, i.e. US$ 165,000 and the sum allocated in the budget
proposals for the year 2001 in document WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev.
The Director of the Centre pointed out that the shortfall between
the total amount needed and the amount proposed for the year 2001
would be bridged by funds remaining unspent in the year 2000. He
said that the latter funds are currently being held in order to pay
for the services of a consultant who will commence work before the
end of the year. He also responded to Hungary's points, which he
was in agreement with, namely that the issue had to eventually be
addressed in a wider context. Currently, the focus was on
addressing an immediate problem to do with internal
organization.
XI.5
The Delegate of Greece, echoing another remark of
the Observer of Argentina, noted the importance of coordinating the
Centre's information planning with that of UNESCO and asked if the
Centre was in consultation with the Organization's Informatics
Division. In response, the Director noted that both the consultant
and members of his staff had established these contacts.
XI.6
The Observer of the United Kingdom expressed
satisfaction with the Director's response and also highlighted the
importance of this aspect of the Centre's work and recalled the
fact that his Government, as well as the United States of America
and Finland, have provided support to the Centre's work in this
regard. He supported the views of the Delegate of Hungary about
preparing an Information Management Strategy to be considered in
the year 2002 which should look ahead to the needs of the
Convention over the coming 10 years.
XI.7
The Chairperson concluded discussions on the
subject. The Committee adopted the Information Management System
Strategy as presented by the Centre and endorsed the incremental
approach to its implementation. The Committee however, invited the
Centre to work with Hungarian and other interested delegations to
elaborate an Information Management Strategy that could be adopted
at the time of the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in 2002.
To this effect, he suggested that the Centre should be requested to
submit a progress report on steps taken, to the next session of the
Bureau in 2001.
XII. DOCUMENTATION, INFORMATION AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
XII.1
The Chairperson introduced item 12 of the agenda
concerning documentation, information and education activities and
invited the Secretariat to present the report of activities and the
proposals for the programme and budget for 2001. The Secretariat
emphasized the increasing interest of States Parties in the
activities of Chapter V, and notably with regard to information and
educational activities, a fact demonstrated by an ever-growing
number of international assistance requests for promotional
activities. The Committee was informed that the activities of the
Centre's Documentation, Information and Education Unit and the
promotional activities of UNESCO's Cultural Heritage Division were
now centralised at the World Heritage Centre. The Secretariat also
indicated that this would contribute towards ensuring a better
synergy between the programme activities, optimize the technical,
financial and human resources available and improve the visibility
and impact of the mobilizing messages to be conveyed.
XII.2
The Secretariat emphasized upon the need to seize
the opportunity of the 30th anniversary of the Convention to give
decisive momentum for its promotion amongst the local populations,
young people, universities, decision-makers and public and private
media sectors.
XII.3
The Secretariat then presented the activities
proposed for 2001 and the corresponding budget. It underlined the
need to devote particular attention to the activities developed at
the local and national levels. The need to strengthen efforts for
the management and updating of data bases through the development
of new methods of access to information was also expressed.
Partnerships with the media, the private sector and especially with
the tourism industry, in accordance with the
Operational
Guidelines for the implementation of the Convention
, would be
enhanced to inform the different target groups and ensure a better
comprehension of the objectives of the Convention. With regard to
education, the Secretariat stressed the complementarity of these
activities, more particularly between the Special Project for the
participation of young people and the Forum UNESCO, University and
Heritage.
XII.4
During its presentation, the Secretariat drew the
attention of the members of the Committee to the fact that the
budget for this Chapter had been considerably reduced and
underlined that this decrease could affect the execution and
development of new projects. It stressed the need to reinforce in
the future the information activities and in particular the
production of specific material on technical and scientific
subjects.
XII.5
The Chairperson congratulated the Secretariat for
the quality of its presentation. The Delegate of Belgium
intervened to commend the Secretariat and to indicate the
importance that her country accorded to the questions relating to
the Guidelines and Principles governing the use of the emblem. She
also under-scored the need to put into practice a rigorous
selection process for partners. With regard to the documents
prepared by the Secretariat for the statutory meetings, the
Delegate emphasized the need to ensure the simultaneous
availability of these documents in the two working languages of the
Committee. The Director of the World Heritage Centre responded to
the questions raised and underscored the importance he attached to
awareness programmes, indicating that he had already begun to take
measures to establish linkages with possible strategic partners and
donors. The Delegate of Morocco emphasized the importance of the
UNESCO itinerant heritage exhibitions to different countries and
their presentation at regional events such as those organized by
the OAU.
XIII. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 2001
AND PRESENTATION OF A PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR 2002
XIII.1
The Chairperson presented the following documents
concerning the agenda item 13 :
WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev. and 204/15Corr. which present the
World Heritage Fund, the income and forecasts, the work plan
and the proposed budget. These documents also present the
annual requirements of the advisory bodies as well as the
financial statements and the statement of contributions for
the World Heritage Fund as at 31 December 1999, and the
provisional accounts and income of the World Heritage Fund as
at 31st October 2000.
The Chairperson then reminded the Committee of the actions to be
taken during this session:
Take note of the approved financial statements of the Fund for
the year 1999 and of provisional accounts as at 31 October
2000,
Examine and approve the budget of the World Heritage Fund for
2001, its ceiling and allocation by chapters and components as
well as the indicative budget for 2002.
XIII.2
The Director of the  Centre, Mr
Francesco Bandarin, then presented the documents in three parts,
each part followed by observations, comments and some questions
from the Committee:
Situation of current reserves from States Parties' contributions
and overall justifications for a reduced budget for 2001,
Other available resources for the implementation of the Convention (Regular Programme Budget, extrabudgetary funds),
The budget proposal for 2001, Chapter by Chapter, and provisional
budget for 2002.
XIII.3
In introducing document WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev, the
Director of the Centre, pointed out that the proposed budget of the
World Heritage Fund was considerably reduced compared to previous
years. Expenditures were now nearly 25% more than the income. If
the income-to-expenditure ratio of the Fund is maintained at this
level, it could lead to seriously reduce future budgets, thus
curtailing the number and range of activities which could be
supported. The Director therefore suggested the following :
increase:
voluntary contributions to the Fund;
Regular Programme Budget support from UNESCO;
the percentage of assessed contributions from States Parties to the
Fund;
improve timeliness of payments of dues by States Parties to the
Fund. He noted that 78 States Parties owed the Fund a sum of
US$ 2,198,606 as of 31 October 2000, including 7 Members of
the Committee whose total dues to the Fund amounted to US$
48,988.
The current need to reduce the budget of the Fund for 2001 results
from:
stagnation of income,
a 14% annual increase in the budget between 1996 and 2000,
implementation rates close to 90% between 1996 and 2000,
making the Centre the UNESCO Unit with the highest project
implementation rates, and
a severe decrease in operational reserves as a direct outcome
of increased project implementation rates.
XIII.4
The Chairperson noted that the Director of the
Centre had adopted a responsible attitude to budget planning for
the year 2001. Delegates from Hungary, Canada, Argentina, Thailand
and Finland thanked and congratulated the Director for providing a
clear and concise introduction to factors determining budget
planning for the year 2001. The Delegate of Hungary expressed the
hope that in the coming years the Director would move towards
developing a financial strategy for the work of the Convention.
Delegates of Canada and Thailand recalled the fact that at its
annual session in 1996 (Mérida, Mexico) the Committee had
urged the Centre to reduce the reserves of the Fund to the minimum
required by the financial regulations of UNESCO and use maximum
resources of the Fund for supporting projects and activities. This
strategy of the Committee had led to a reduction in these reserves.
Both Delegates urged the Director to negotiate with the Comptroller
of UNESCO to reduce reserves to a suitable level that would allow
more financial resources for the Centre's annual budget for the
Fund.
XIII.5
The Observer of Argentina noted that the extra-
budgetary resources of the Centre (44%) now exceeded contributions
from UNESCO' s Regular Programme Budget (21%) as well as the World
Heritage Fund (35%). He commented that this situation was not
normal and that the Centre should aim to obtain more funds from
UNESCO' s Regular Programme Budget. He said that given the fact
that the Centre enjoys a certain degree of autonomy, its Regular
Programme Budget should be considered incompressible and budget
cuts should not be permitted. In addition, States Parties to the
1972 Convention could consider requesting through the governing
bodies of the Organization, a larger share of UNESCO's Regular
budget to benefit the work of the Convention. In this context, he
recalled the fact that the Director-General of UNESCO had been an
active Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee in 1998. The
Delegate of Finland noted that the volume of unpaid dues to the
Fund was alarming and that the Committee should call upon all
States Parties to pay their dues urgently.
The Director of the Centre responded to the comments of the
Delegates by reiterating his view that unless there are structural
changes in the management of the Fund through a strong increase in
income resources, the crisis that may result from continued deficit
spending is likely to be unavoidable.
XIII.6
In the second part of his presentation, the Director
of the Centre informed the Committee that he had made all efforts
to meet the requirements of the advisory bodies so that the core
component of the Convention's work, i.e. evaluation of nominations
submitted by the States Parties, would not suffer despite overall
budgetary reductions he has proposed. He praised the constructive
attitude and cordial environment that had marked the negotiations
between the Centre and advisory bodies and said that they have
initiated a new and joint approach to budgetary planning issues.
Referring to extra-budgetary resources available for the work of
the Convention, the Director noted that most donors, including
States Parties to the Convention, preferred supporting project
activities bringing benefits to specific sites rather than other
core activities of the Convention like improving the
representativity of the World Heritage List. He noted that extra-
budgetary contributions to the work of the Convention had risen
substantially, that the UN Foundation (UNF) has become a major
partner and that the Centre will do its best to continue to develop
the co-operation with this important new partner. He said that
Regular Programme Budget of UNESCO met the Centre's staff costs,
costs of statutory meetings and a certain amount of travel and
other operational costs.
He then informed the Committee of estimated amounts of extra-
budgetary resources benefiting each of the five Chapters of the
World Heritage Fund totaling US$ 5,295,280 and distributed as
follows:
Chapter I
US$ 746,630
Chapter II
US$ 809,000
Chapter III
US$ 2,969,650
Chapter IV
US$ 540,000
Chapter V
US$ 580,500
He informed the Committee that UNF was an important donor
contributing towards Chapter II, III and IV for about US$ 3.5
million for 2001; Belgium, China and New Zealand contributed
towards Chapter I activities, whereas Italy supported projects
under Chapter II and Belgium and France projects under Chapter III.
Other than UNF, other contributors of extra-budgetary resources do
not provide overheads to cover the Centre's administrative costs.
While UNF and other co-operation are important for the Centre' s
future, there are serious shortages of human resources to ensure
effective delivery of quality outputs and services demanded by such
donors.
XIII.7
The Director continued with the third part of his
presentation of document WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev. and introduced
the 2001 proposed budget Chapter-by-Chapter.
Chapter I - Implementation of the Convention
The amount proposed for Chapter I was approved: US$ 195,000.
Chapter II - Establishment of the World Heritage List
In presenting Chapter II proposals, the Director pointed out the
increases in the amounts proposed for the Advisory Bodies under
this Chapter fixed on the basis of the consultations held during
the Committee: US$ 430,000 for ICOMOS, US$ 325,000 for IUCN, and
once again reassured Delegates that funds provided to the advisory
bodies are sufficient for them to effectively carry out all
evaluations submitted by States Parties.
The total sum approved for Chapter II amounts to US$ 975,000.
Chapter III - Technical Implementation of the Convention
In the presentation of this Chapter, the Director explained that
the amount for Technical Cooperation was reduced to offset the
increase made to the Advisory Bodies contributions in Chapter II.
This was feasible due to the various extrabudgetary resources
available this year against this budgetary line.
Training: the amount foreseen for ICCROM for training was approved
for US$ 156,000 including ICCROM management costs and coordination
operations for World Heritage (US$46,000), training sessions for
modules testing (US$30,000) and AFRICA 2009 (US$80,000).
The total sum approved for Chapter III amounts to US$ 2,355,000.
Chapter IV - Reactive Monitoring and Submission of Periodic
Reports
For reactive monitoring, ICOMOS and IUCN are attributed the same
amounts as per year 2000.
Support to States Parties for the submission of periodic reports:
Africa will be the region submitting periodic reports in 2001
The total sum approved under Chapter IV amounts to US$ 520,000.
Chapter V - Documentation, Information and Education
The amount for this Chapter was approved without any modification
(US$303.000)
XIII.8
Following this presentation, comments were made by
Committee members on different aspects of the budget.
The Canadian Delegate noted that as the percentage of the
extrabudgetary contributions to the work of the Convention
increased, more external partners were participating the
Convention's projects and activities and the Centre may therefore
need to develop tool-kits to develop standards and guidelines that
could inform such partners on how to carry out the Convention's
work. She also pointed out that the Centre's critical needs for
office space, additional staff and programme resources from Regular
Budget of UNESCO shall be addressed. She suggested that resolutions
to the UNESCO General Conference in 2001 should be tabled in order
to met some of these needs in the 2002-2003 biennium. She also
emphasized the need to adhere strictly to provisions of the
Operational Guidelines
in authorising promotional products
and texts and in the use of the emblem by parties external to
UNESCO involved in the implementation of the Convention.
XIII.9
The Chairperson pointed out that the services
provided by the Centre to the States Parties to prepare nominations
and implement other Convention activities may have to be paid for
in the future under
pay-as-you-go
principle which could
imply some special provisions to exempt or accommodate the needs of
less developed countries (LDC).
XIII.10
The Director acknowledged the need to strictly
follow
Operational Guidelines
paragraphs on the use of the
emblem and that he has recently raised this point with other
UNESCO Units. He noted that the importance of the World Heritage
in UNESCO is not adequately reflected in policy and budgetary
documents. He also committed himself to provide the Committee next
year with estimates of in-kind contributions provided by the Centre
staff's involvement in promoting bilateral and other projects
benefiting the work of the Convention.
XIII.11
The Delegate of Thailand recalled the fact that the
World Heritage Fund resources were once used to pay staff salaries.
The Committee however requested UNESCO to absorb these costs from
the Regular Budget.
The Representative of South Africa pointed out that the Committee
must undertake strong action against States Parties who have not
paid their dues, including preventing the inclusion of sites
nominated by such Parties in the World Heritage List.
The Delegate of the United Kingdom called upon the Committee
Members to ensure consistency in their interventions in inter-
governmental meetings such as that of the World Heritage Committee
and the UNESCO Executive Board. He acknowledged that the protection
of the tangible heritage as promoted by the Convention needs to be
a UNESCO strategic priority; but he pointed out that the recent
strategic priorities established by UNESCO' s Executive Board did
not make sufficient reference to the conservation of tangible
heritage. Committee Members who are also Members of the Executive
Board should send a strong message to the Director General and the
UNESCO Secretariat staff involved in the preparation of the next
session of the Executive Board to raise the profile of the
Convention's work to protect tangible heritage as a strategic
priority of the organization. He also invited the Centre to follow
UNESCO' s shift from inputs-based to results oriented budgeting.
The Director of the Centre agreed to make that shift next year as
the Centre, in accordance with the Committee's decision made at its
current session, will prepare biennial budgets to coincide with
UNESCO biennal programme and budget.
XIII.12
The Chairperson closed the debate on the document
WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev and declared that the budget of the World
Heritage Fund for the year 2001 was approved for four million three
hundred and forty eight thousand US dollars (US$ 4,348,000) and the
Emergency Reserve Fund for six hundred thousand US$ (US$ 600,000).
The provisional budget for the year 2002 was fixed at four million
one hundred thousand US dollars (US$ 4,100,000).
XIII.13
The Committee asked the Chairperson, on their
behalf, to write to the President of the Executive Board and to the
Director-General of UNESCO, requesting that the relevance of the
objectives of the Convention be recognized and resources of the
World Heritage Centre, within the Culture Sector, be enhanced in
the framework of the next biennial exercise. The Committee, after
having approved the content of this letter, suggested that the
Chairperson meet the President of the Executive Board and the
Director-General of UNESCO to discuss these matters in more depth.
It was also suggested that a copy of this letter be sent to all
members of the Executive Board.
The following table provides details of the approved budget by
Chapter and component.
Approved budget for 2001 and provisional budget for 2002
Chapters and components
Approved budget 2000
Approved Budget 2001
Provisional Budget 2002
Chapter I - Implementation of the Convention
Participation at statutory meetings
60 000
70 000
60 000
Reforms Group
20 000
Working group for WH strategic planning
10 000
Working group on revision of
Operational Guidelines
15 000
Development of an Information Management System
114 000
80 000
100 000
Evaluation of International Assistance
40 000
Coordination with other Conventions and Programmes etc...
25 000
25 000
30 000
Sub-total Chapter I
264 000
195 000
190 000
Chapter II - Establishment of the World Heritage List
Global Strategy
278 000
200 000
180 000
Africa
40 000
5 000
Arab States
8 000
20 000
Asia, including Central Asia
50 000
30 000
Pacific
50 000
35 000
Europe & North America
10 000
5 000
Eastern and Central Europe
20 000
20 000
Latin America
25 000
25 000
The Caribbean
20 000
20 000
Thematic studies:
ICOMOS
40 000
30 000
IUCN
15 000
10 000
Advisory services:
ICOMOS
495 000
430 000
400 000
IUCN
355 000
325 000
300 000
Others
20 000
20 000
20 000
Sub-total Advisory Services:
870 000
775 000
720 000
Sub-total Chapter II
1 148 000
975 000
900 000
Chapter III - Technical Implementation of the Convention
Preparatory Assistance
325 000
350 000
300 000
Technical Co-operation
1 245 000
965 000
960 000
Including IUCN/WHC Africa 2003 Nature
60 000
50 000
Training
980 000
960 000
900 000
Including ICCROM
85 000
46 000
Including training activities
107 635
30 000
Africa 2009
80 000
80 000
Including IUCN
30 000
30 000
Support to on-site promotional activities
80 000
80 000
70 000
Sub-total Chapter III
2 630 000
2 355 000
2 230 000
Chapter IV - Monitoring the state of conservation of sites
Reactive Monitoring
262 500
200 000
200 000
Including ICOMOS
60 000
60 000
Including IUCN
56 500
56 500
Including ICSU (monitoring of Kakadu National Park)
61 000
Support to States Parties for the submission of Periodic Reports:
Methodology development
22 500
20 000
Support to States Parties of a Region selected by the Committee (Article 29)
Technical Coordination for Submission
35 000
Africa
77 000
130 000
20 000
Arab States
100 000
20 000
20 000
Asia and Pacific
55 000
80 000
130 000
Europe and North America
15 000
10 000
20 000
Eastern and Central Europe
20 000
20 000
30 000
Latin America and the Caribbean
35 000
40 000
80 000
Sub-total support for periodic reporting
337 000
320 000
300 000
Sub-total Chapter IV
622 000
520 000
500 000
Chapter V - Documentation, Information and Education
Documentation
38 000
38 000
40 000
Information material
140 000
105 000
95 000
Internet and WHIN
70 000
70 000
70 000
Media and Publishers
8 000
5 000
5 000
Education
80 000
85 000
70 000
Sub-total Chapter V
336 000
303 000
280 000
TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET OF WHF
5 000 000
4 348 000
4 100 000
Emergency Reserve Fund
600 000
600 000
600 000
Promotional Activities and services for these activities
305 469
651 272
GRAND TOTAL
5 905 469
5 599 272
4 700 000
XIV. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
XIV.1 Report on the evaluation of international assistance
and prioritization in granting international assistance to
States Parties
The attention of the Committee was drawn to WHC-2000/CONF.204/16,
the Report on the evaluation of international assistance and
prioritization in granting international assistance to States
Parties. The Chairperson recalled that the Committee, at its
twenty-second session decided to carry out an evaluation of
international assistance. The Central Evaluation Unit of UNESCO was
entrusted with this evaluation, which was carried out by a French
company, C3E. The evaluation was undertaken between summer 1999 and
April 2000, through a study of the files of the World Heritage
Centre, interviews with the States Parties, advisory bodies, and
the Secretariat, followed by a meeting with all parties concerned.
The evaluation did not include an impact study to permit the
evaluation of the results of assistance granted to the beneficiary
sites. Similarly, it did not incorporate the results of the
parallel evaluation carried out by ICCROM on international training
requests for cultural heritage, as ICCROM had not completed its
study at the time. The Bureau, at its twenty-fourth session
examined the C3E Report, and a summary of the discussions at the
Bureau is contained in the Report of the Rapporteur of the twenty-
fourth session of the Bureau, WHC-2000/CONF.204/2, paragraphs VII.5
to VII.9.
The Special Session in Budapest in October 2000 did not have time
to discuss the C3E Report. However, the IUCN and ICCROM submitted
comments on the C3E Report, which were made available at the time.
Moreover, there have been substantial discussions for the
improvement of the implementation of international assistance at
the
Task Force on the Implementation of the Convention
Expert Meeting for the Revision of the
Operational
Guidelines
The Committee examined the C3E Report and took note of its
findings.
XIV.2 Requests for International Assistance
The Bureau met during the twenty-fourth session of the Committee
after the budget for Technical Assistance for year 2001 under
Chapter III was approved, to take decisions or recommend decisions
to the Committee concerning international assistance requests. The
attention of the Committee and Bureau was drawn to document WHC-
2000/CONF.204/17 and 6 requests for decision by the Committee and
14 requests for decision by the Bureau were examined and took the
following decisions. All decisions taken by the Bureau and
Committee concerning these requests are listed below:
(i)Preparatory Assistance
Mixed Heritage
No:
2001-444
Philippines
"Regional expert meeting for the preparation of the World
Heritage nomination file of the Batanes Archipelago and Ivatan
Archaeological Landscape in the Philippines"
IUCN's evaluation was favourable and the Bureau approved the
requested amount of
US$ 30,000
to support the proposed
activity, requesting the World Heritage Centre to co-ordinate the
implementation of the activity in close collaboration with the
State Party and the UNESCO Bangkok Office.
New request presented to the Bureau: Kyrgystan
"Preparation of the nomination dossier for the Cholpon-Ata
Petroglyphs in the Issyk-Kul Basin as a mixed property."
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that both ICOMOS and IUCN
reviewed the request favourably, and the Bureau approved the
requested amount of
US$ 23,100
to support the proposed
activity. The Bureau noted with appreciation that this was the
first international assistance request submitted by this relatively
new State Party to the Convention with no property inscribed on the
World Heritage List, and that this activity would eventually lead
to a better representation of the World Heritage List in the
Central Asian Region.
Cultural Heritage
No:
2001-423
Mali
"Preparation of a nomination file for the Askia Tomb in Gao"
The Bureau approved this request for
US$ 30,000
subject to
the State Party paying its dues to the Fund, and requested
the Centre to ask the national authorities to implement the
activity within the framework of Africa 2009.
No:
2001-433
Niger
"Preparation of the cultural nomination for the Aïr and
Ténéré site as a mixed site"
The Bureau approved this request for
US$ 15,000
subject to
the State Party paying its dues to the Fund, and requested
the Centre to clarify with the national authorities the points
raised by the Advisory Bodies before preparation of the contracts.
No.
2001-449
United Republic of Tanzania
Preparation of nomination for the Kondoa Irangi Rock Art
Paintings
The Bureau approved
US$ 30,000
for this activity, which
should be implemented within the framework of Africa 2009,
following the activities implemented in year 2000.
No.
2001-427
Peru
"Background Studies and Preparation of Nomination Dossier for the
Historic Centre of Trujillo"
The Bureau approved
US$ 15,000
for this activity, subject to
the State Party paying its dues to the Fund.
No:
2001-454
Israel
"Meeting for the harmonisation of the Tentative Lists within the
same geo-cultural area"
After discussing this case at length, the Bureau decided to defer
approval of this request, recommending the State Party to
reformulate the request with the agreement of the other Party and
authority concerned (Jordan and Palestine) in the same geo-cultural
region.
The Observer of Israel informed the Bureau that, as a new State
Party to the World Heritage Convention since 1999, his Government
had established a National World Heritage Committee and prepared a
Tentative List. Upon identifying three cultural heritage themes,
his Government had formulated this request for support for the
organisation of a Meeting to harmonise trans-national sites with
other States Parties in the sub-region, and not for preparing
nominations for Israeli sites. The Observer informed the Bureau
that preparatory work has already been achieved with support from
UNESCO and the European Union for the Dead Sea Basin with Jordan
and the Palestinian Authorities. He stated that there continues to
be a need for extending research for the Rift Valley, to be
organised with the Friends of the Earth, an NGO. Finally, stressing
that heritage protection should be undertaken through consensus,
the Observer informed the Bureau that the current climate may not
be the most suitable for implementing the proposed activity, but
called upon States Parties to support this activity when the
climate improved.
(ii) Technical Co-operation
Natural Heritage
No.
2001 - 459
Senegal
"Fight against
Salvinia molesta
in the Delta of the Senegal
River at Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary"
Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved
a sum of
US$ 130,475
for implementing phase 1 of the
3-phased mitigation project under the following conditions:
the States Party pay its dues to the World Heritage Fund;
the State Party provide a detailed budget breakdown for the
sum of US$ 85,715 foreseen as expenditures for clearing the
Lake Lamentin that meets the approval of the Centre and IUCN;
the State Party, Centre and IUCN establish benchmarks and
indicators that can determine success of first phase
mitigation operations and guide planning of future steps,
including any changes in phase 2 and 3 activities as currently
foreseen; and
the State Party, Centre and IUCN develop a plan for financing
activities beyond the first phase attracting resources from
potential donors other than the World Heritage Fund thereby
minimising the demands on the World Heritage Fund for
supporting second and third phase operations.
Furthermore, the Committee decided that this sum of
US$
130,475
be allocated from the emergency assistance budget for
2001 rather than from the technical co-operation allocation for
natural heritage for the year 2001.
No.
2001-461
Costa Rica
"Education and Protection in the Conservation Area of Guanacaste
at the Area de Conservación Guanacaste"
Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved
US$ 40,000
for this activity for covering expenses for
educational (US$ 17,600) and protection (US$ 22,400) activities as
proposed by the State Party.
Cultural Heritage
No.
2001-439
Cuba
"Continuation of the Consolidation and Rehabilitation of the
Ruinous Third Cloister of Santa Clara's Convent of the Old Havana
and its Fortifications site"
Taking into account the previous contribution to the renovation of
the building of US$ 30,000, the Committee approved a contribution
of
US$ 35,000
subject to the State Party paying its dues to
the Fund, following the recommendation of the Bureau.
No.
2001-446
Dominican Republic
"Study on Cultural Tourism in the Historic Centre of Santo
Domingo"
The Bureau approved
US$ 24,207
for this activity subject to
the State Party paying its dues to the Fund and requesting the
State Party to bear the costs of the secretarial costs.
(iii) Training
Natural Heritage
No.
2001-458
Cameroon
"Three fellowships for African specialists in Protected
Area/Wildlife Management for the Academic Year 2001 - 2002"
Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved
a sum of
US$ 45,000
for three fellowships for African
specialists in Protected Area/Wildlife Management for the academic
biennium 2001 - 2003 at the Gaorua School for Training Specialists
in Wildlife, Cameroon.
No.
2001-431
Malawi
"Capacity Building for Lake Malawi National Park"
In accordance with the recommendation of the twenty-fourth session
of the Bureau, the Committee approved a sum of
US$ 37,094
for the proposed activity.
No
. 2001 - 457
United Republic of Tanzania
"Three fellowships for African specialists in Protected
Area/Wildlife Management for the Academic Year 2001 - 2002"
The Bureau approved a sum of
US$ 30,000
for supporting three
fellowships at Mweka College of African Wildlife Management for the
academic year 2001-2002
Cultural Heritage
No:
2001-445
Pakistan
"Training Course for physical, chemical and biological technical
analysis of the problems related to the conservation of brick &
stone archaeological monuments"
The Representative of ICCROM informed the Bureau that the activity
proposed was an important national training course targeted for
professionals. However, the Representative of ICCROM recommended
that the activity proposed be expanded to include participants from
the region, who could benefit from the activity held at World
Heritage sites. She informed the Bureau that ICCROM would be
prepared to provide technical advice for the reformulation of the
programme of the training activity proposed.
The Bureau approved an amount of
US$ 22,000
, subject to the
State Party implementing this activity as a sub-regional activity,
in close co-operation with ICCROM, the UNESCO Bangkok Office and
the World Heritage Centre.
No:
2001-442
Norway
"Culture, Heritage Management and Tourism: Models for Co-operation
among Stakeholders. Workshop to elaborate models of co-operation"
ICCROM informed the Bureau that the request was, in principle,
found to be worthy of support, as the activity proposed would form
a part of the existing activity being implemented by the UNESCO
Regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific under the title
"Integrated Community Development and Cultural Heritage Site
Preservation in Asia and the Pacific Through Local Efforts (LEAP)".
This LEAP project commenced in 1997 based on understanding of the
circumstances and problems in the region and has been achieving
results in the training of regional site managers and their
partners, especially in the awareness-raising aspects of site
management. The programme covers a wide area of conservation issues
from historic areas to cultural landscapes and from site-management
issues to tourism issues. This particular request covers tourism.
ICCROM, while supporting the technical content of the request,
recommended that the contribution from the World Heritage Fund be
restricted to travel costs of participants to the workshop from
developing countries.
The Bureau stated that such requests should be submitted through
the host country or with their endorsement.
The Delegate of China informed the Bureau that his Government, in
principle, supported the activity proposed which appeared to be
well organised and for the benefit of numerous Asia-Pacific States
Parties, and expressed his appreciation for the initiatives taken
by the Government of Norway to strengthen the capacity of site
managers in the Asia- Pacific Region. However, as the potential
host Government of the proposed workshop, the Delegate of China
recommended that his Government and the local authorities of
Lijiang World Heritage site be officially consulted. In addition,
China expressed concern relating to the absence of resource persons
from Asia region It requested that the meeting should be put in
a global rather than regional context.
While the Bureau expressed its appreciation for the initiative of
the Government of Norway and the UNESCO Regional Advisor for
Culture in the Asia-Pacific Region, it requested the host country
to submit the request in consultation with Norway, the UNESCO
Regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific and the World
Heritage Centre.
No.
2001-426
Russian Federation
"International Workshop on the preservation and conservation of
wooden structures on the example of the restoration project of the
Church of the Transfiguration of the Kizhi Pogost"
No.:
2001-460
Russian Federation
"International Training Workshop for decision-makers on the World
Heritage from Eastern and Central Europe"
The Bureau, temporarily waiving the application of
Operational
Guidelines
paragraph 121, deferred examination of the two
requests from the Russian Federation, in view of the outstanding
dues of the State Party since 1992, amounting to US$ 1,514,246.
No.
2001-430
Mexico
"Course on Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites in
the Humid Tropics"
ICCROM informed the Bureau that the request addresses issues of
great importance through an approach which is well designed, has
accurate costs, is committed to post-event dissemination of
training materials, and programmed to strengthen regional exchange
and co-operation. However, ICCROM also noted that it would be
useful to build on lessons learnt in past similar courses in Latin
America, supported by the World Heritage Committee, notably PAT 96
and PAT 99. While this course may well be a pilot experience on the
humid tropics, many of the issues involved are common to management
of archaeological sites everywhere. Indeed, it would be useful to
examine precedents beyond Latin America, in the Cultural Triangle
of Sri Lanka for example, where many innovative approaches to
management of archaeological sites in the tropics have been
developed. Moreover, ICCROM informed the Bureau that it would be
useful to see the nine modules in the proposed course linked within
an explicit framework promoting integrated conservation and
management.
The Bureau approved
US$ 20,900
for this activity,
recommending the State Party to take into due consideration the
comments provided by ICCROM.
(iv) Emergency Assistance
Cultural Heritage
New Request           Pakistan
"Development of a
Rescue Programme
for the Shalamar Gardens,
following the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage
in Danger and Activities for Awareness Raising"
The World Heritage Centre informed the Bureau and the Committee
that it had received on 30 November 2000, a request for Emergency
Assistance, seeking support to elaborate a "rescue programme"
following the recommendations of the UNESCO-ICOMOS Reactive
Monitoring Mission (October 2000), which had been adopted by the
Bureau and Committee. The activity would address the priority
actions aimed to remove the threats facing the site, as recognised
by the Committee at its 24th session. The request amounting to US$
84,724, include funding for
international urban planning expertise US$ 19,692
international heritage management planning expertise US$
18,492
international legal expertise US$ 9,040
national expertise to develop a comprehensive management plan
together with the international experts US$ 8,000
awareness raising meetings for stakeholders and local
communities US$ 7,000
project proposal preparation for seeking other donors as major
works were necessary to remove the threats US$ 2,500
organization of a Youth Forum in Lahore, translation of the
World Heritage Education Kit into Urdu US$ 20,000
The Bureau and Committee were informed that this request would
support specific actions requested by the Committee during its
examination of the state of conservation of the site during its 24th
session, and subsequent inscription of the site on the List of
World Heritage in Danger. Moreover, the activity would lead to the
development of project proposals, which could be utilised to seek
other funding sources for financing the major works necessary to
ensure the conservation and development of this site. Regarding the
funding requested for the organization of a Youth Forum in Lahore,
the Education Sector support the objectives. The organization of a
Youth Forum in Lahore and the translation of the "World Heritage in
Young Hands" into Urdu language were considered important in light
of the impact anticipated from such an activity (Pakistan being an
E9 State). It was noted that, should the Committee support this
sub-activity, new modules for inclusion in the Education Resource
Kit for teachers specifically addressing in-danger listing could be
developed.
The Representative of ICOMOS informed the Bureau that it had not
had sufficient time to examine the request in detail. However, it
appeared that the budget allocation for international experts was
high, and suggested that an international legal expert was not
appropriate as national legal expertise could be found in Pakistan.
The ICOMOS Representative informed the Bureau that it would be
prepared to work closely with the State Party and the World
Heritage Centre to reformulate the request.
After considerable discussion, the Bureau recommended that the
Committee approve an allocation of US$ 50,000, requesting the State
Party to adjust the budget allocation and activity plan in close
co-operation with ICOMOS, ICCROM and the World Heritage Centre,
which should be approved by the Chairperson before contracts were
issued. The Bureau considered that the component related to the
Youth Forum and translation of the Education Kit could be
considered under "Assistance for Educational, Information,
Promotional Activities", and should not be funded under Emergency
Assistance.
Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved
US$ 50,000
, requesting the State Party to adjust the budget
allocation and activity plan in close co-operation with ICOMOS,
ICCROM and the World Heritage Centre, which should be approved by
the Chairperson before contracts were issued.
Special note:
Conditions for the granting of international
assistance. Following a proposal from Thailand, the Committee
agreed that, with respect to countries in arrears, conditions for
granting assistance as set out in
Operational Guidelines
paragraph 121 should be adhered to.
XV. TRAINING STRATEGY
I. GLOBAL TRAINING STRATEGY
XV.1
The Chair stated that this agenda item has two
components, the Global Training Strategy and the establishment of
a Heritage Partnership Programme. The Secretariat presented working
document WHC-2000/CONF.204/18 indicating that there were two
recommendations for adoption by the Committee, the first on a
Global Training Strategy for Cultural Heritage, prepared by ICCROM,
and the second, recommendations for follow-up activities to the
Strategic Action Plan for Training in the Field of Natural
Heritage. The Centre drew the attention of the Committee to the
substantive 66-page document Global Training Strategy for Cultural
Heritage prepared by ICCROM, which is provided in full as
information document WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.16, to complement the
summary of ICCROM's reflection contained in working document
CONF.204/18.
XV.2
The Secretariat reported that the meeting between
the World Heritage Centre, ICCROM and interested States Parties and
other advisory bodies to develop "the Regional Training Strategy
and Programme Matrix and Related Action Plan", which ICCROM
proposed to host was not held due to the Special Session of the
Bureau in Budapest. She emphasized the increasing awareness of the
importance of training, especially national-level capacity building
and how the target audience for training evolved along with the
changed notion of heritage. Stating that training forms an
essential part of UNESCO's fundamental task to support national
capacity building in the fields of competence of the Organization,
the Secretariat informed the Committee of the main orientation of
past and on-going training activities incorporating them in the
heritage conservation supported by UNESCO. Due to difficulties in
obtaining donor support for specialized national and regional
training institutions for heritage conservation, UNESCO shifted its
focus to site-based on-the-job training activities inserted in the
operational projects entrusted to the Organization to coordinate or
execute, and to building partnerships with existing institutions to
insert teaching in heritage management and conservation skills. In
this regard, she expressed the Centre's appreciation for the newly
established world heritage studies programmes at the Technical
University in Cottbus, Germany, Cilento National Park, Italy;
Beijing University, China, Waseda University, Japan, and indicated
that the Francois Rabelais University in Tours, France will soon be
starting a programme on world heritage and cultural landscape.
XV.3
Stressing the need for coherence and complementarity
in the numerous on-going initiatives and activities, the Centre
expressed its appreciation for the collaboration of ICCROM in the
development of this Global Training Strategy for Cultural Heritage
which was fully endorsed by the Centre. ICCROM's newly appointed
Director-General, Dr. Nicholas Stanley-Price, introduced the Global
Training Strategy for World Cultural Heritage and stressed ICCROM's
interest in strengthening its role as an Advisory Body to the World
Heritage Committee. The detailed presentation, made by ICCROM staff
Herb Stovel and Nobuko Inaba, emphasized the importance of bringing
the 6 year development of the Strategy to a close, given the advent
of the periodic reporting process, and its expected strategic
outputs for training. The ICCROM presentation covered historical
development of the strategy as initially requested by the Bureau in
June 1994, a brief review of ICCROM activities in support of the
Convention in 2000, and outlined and elaborated on key elements of
the proposed strategic approach.
XV.4
These key elements included a "framework of
principles" developed in expert discussions over several years and
used to define a "strategic orientation" for the training strategy,
priority actions within international strategies and programmes,
indicative areas of action within regional strategies and
programmes, a funding and implementation strategy and particular
roles and responsibilities within a World Heritage training system.
The funding and implementation strategy proposed included
administrative measures (enhancing use of internal assessment and
periodic reporting review tools), measures concerning more focussed
use of the World Heritage Fund, and measures to attract and guide
external funding. The presentation of roles and responsibilities
within an overall World Heritage training system elaborated on the
role assigned to ICCROM as "priority partner in training" by the
Committee in 1996, stressing ICCROM's co-ordination role, its
quality control role, its role as builder of networks for World
Heritage training, its role in development of training materials
for delivery by others, and the importance of its role in
developing training proposals with the World Heritage Centre.
XV.5
The delegates strongly welcomed the Strategy for
providing a coherent framework, for emphasizing the link to
periodic reporting and for stressing the importance of the
practical guidelines. Some Delegates expressed a feeling that the
existence of three different documents (two working documents and
one information document) rather than a consolidated one, caused
confusion. The Committee asked the Secretariat and ICCROM to
produce one integrated document for consideration by the Bureau at
the twenty-fifth session.
XV.6
The Committee, upon reviewing the actions proposed
by the Centre in document CONF/ 204/18, adopted the following:
For institutional teaching: continue identification of partners
in collaboration with ICCROM, ICOMOS and relevant divisions of
UNESCO; streamline Forum UNESCO network and activities;
For individual scholarships and study tour opportunities: joint
evaluation by ICCROM-World Heritage Centre on UNESCO
fellowship programme and solicit more financial contributions
and institutional partnerships.
For inventory of cultural resources and mapping: to establish
modalities of cooperation with international, regional and
bilateral development cooperation agencies
For conservation of historic monuments and archaeological sites: in
cooperation with national conservation agencies, ICCROM,
UNESCO, Nordic World Heritage Office (NWHO), Nara Cultural
Heritage Protection Office (ACCU/Nara) and Forum UNESCO, to
develop a more systematic approach to identify on-site, on-
the-job training opportunities at World Heritage Sites;
develop a proposal for an international or regional UNESCO-
ICCROM recognized diploma or certificate which would include
on-site training towards these diplomas, and, to identify
means to ensure multi-year funding to stabilize such training
courses.
XV.7
The Committee, upon examining the proposed Global
Training Strategy for Cultural Heritage adopted the following
priority actions:
Strategic orientation
To be most effective, a global training strategy must be
composed of complementary regional training strategies.
Towards this end, continuing attention must be given to
monitoring, updating and refining regional training
strategies.
Training for World Heritage is best improved by strengthening
provisions for conservation training at all levels and in all
related disciplines globally. Training programmes specifically
set up to focus on World Heritage site conservation may cause
unnecessarily duplication of effort. Rather, existing and new
conservation training programmes should be encouraged to
integrate World Heritage components and perspectives.
The Committee, Centre, and Advisory Bodies should ensure
appropriate monitoring and follow-up of training activities
carried out within the Global Training Strategy. Information
on training activities should be archived as a planning tool
for future activities.�
The "checklist and criteria for review of requests of training
assistance" developed by ICCROM should be reviewed and adopted
by the Committee to ensure consistent and transparent review
of training requests.
The "framework of principles" to guide planning and
development of proactive training initiatives should be
reviewed and adopted by the Committee.
Results of the periodic reporting process should be used to
update and adapt, as necessary, the global and regional
training strategies.
The Committee should integrate these results into its overall
strategic planning process
International training perspectives
Challenges:
Training institutions which have already developed World
Heritage components should be utilized by the Committee to the
fullest extent possible to deliver training activities.
In regions where such specialization does not yet exist, the
Committee should encourage leading regional institutions to
develop programmes with significant World Heritage focus.
Training programmes should be linked to the whole process of
World Heritage protection including preparation of tentative
lists, nominations and monitoring after inscription.
Although specific needs can best be addressed by looking at
the local and regional context, the exchange of information
and practices at the international level plays an important
development and testing role for new approaches and ideas.
Priority Actions
Establishment of a network of existing
international/regional/national training institutions
concerned with World Heritage.
Development of a series of off-the-shelf training modules and
supporting materials to improve implementation of the
Convention, particularly in relation to preparing nominations
and to carrying out periodic reporting and related state of
conservation monitoring for sites.
Continued development of the Management Guidelines series published
by ICCROM, UNESCO, and ICOMOS to include areas not yet covered
(e.g., archaeological sites).
Development of simplified "technical notes" and advice, linked to
the above Management Guidelines series, for site managers.
Explore development of a capacity-building programme based on
continuing exchange of teams of professionals, site managers
and national decision-makers from "well-represented" and
"under-represented" countries, which would treat, in line with
regional periodic reporting results, development of draft
tentative lists, nominations, state-of-conservation monitoring
reports, and analysis of best management practices.
Development of trainers' workshops and programmes, intended to
strengthen the capacity of training leaders (including site
managers) to develop and deliver needed training for improved
implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
Natural Heritage
XV.8
The Secretariat introduced the natural heritage
component of the document WHC-2000/CONF.204/18 as reported on pages
13 - 15 of that document.
XV.9
IUCN agreed with the five points of action
recommended by the Secretariat for adoption by the Committee. IUCN
considered training to be an important tool for achieving the goals
and objectives of the Convention and informed the Committee that it
will start discussions with the Centre to find better ways to
implement the Strategic Action Plan for Training Specialists in
Natural Heritage as adopted by the eighteenth session of the
Committee (Berlin, 1995). IUCN also offered to assist the Committee
and the Centre to elaborate a Global Training Strategy for Natural
Heritage similar to that developed by ICCROM for cultural
heritage.
XV.10
The Delegate of Canada encouraged the Committee and
the Centre to accept the offer of IUCN to develop Global Training
Strategy for Natural Heritage. If developed, this natural heritage
component, together with that developed by ICCROM for cultural
heritage, will constitute a complete training strategy for the
Convention.
The Committee requested the Centre to co-operate with IUCN and
other relevant partners in order to:
Re-inform States Parties of the Strategic Action Plan for
Training in the field of Natural Heritage adopted by the
Committee in 1995, stressing that the Plan will determine the
activities eligible for financial support from the World
Heritage Fund beginning from 2001;
Communicate with Regional Training Institutes such as Mweka
College, Tanzania and Garoua College, Cameroon, to review the
annual fellowship-support granted to them so far and initiate
negotiations with them as well as with other new, training
institutes in Africa to redesign training support to African
site personnel using World Heritage Regional Training
Workshops as recommended by Action 2 of the Plan that could
benefit a larger number of personnel each year;
Review links between the Strategic Action Plan for Training in
the field of Natural Heritage and the recommendations of the
CONNECT (Capacity Building for Outreach, Natural Heritage
Networking, Education, Co-operation and Training) Task Force
meeting with a view to design and develop pilot projects and
actions which have significance for natural heritage training,
education and outreach;
Expand partnerships for designing and developing training,
educational, networking and outreach actions benefiting World
Natural Heritage sites and develop pilot initiatives that
could attract financing from both public and private sector
sources other than the World Heritage Fund; and
Report on measures taken to implement the above-mentioned
recommendations, including significant achievements made and
difficulties and constraints encountered and proposals for a
3-year work programme, to the twenty-fifth session of the
Committee in 2001.
XV.11
The Chairperson requested that the Centre should
also, in accordance with the proposal made by the Delegate of South
Africa, place significant emphasis on the Training of Trainers as
a way to ensure sustainability of knowledge and skills transfer and
a more cost-effective use of the limited resources provided by the
World Heritage Fund for training specialists in natural heritage.
II. PROPOSAL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAMME
The Chairperson referred to document WHC-2000/CONF.204/19 on the
Training Strategy: Proposal for the establishment of a Heritage
Partnership Programme. The Committee was informed of the background
for the Heritage Partnership Programme and the close linkages
between this programme and the implementation of the Global
Training Strategy.
In the ensuing discussions, the Delegate of Hungary also pointed
out their interest in developing a broad based partnership related
not only to the implementation of the Global Training Strategy but
also to other aspects of the implementation of the Convention, such
as information management. The Chairperson requested the Hungarian
Delegate, in consultations with the Centre and the advisory bodies,
to prepare a detailed proposal with a budget breakdown on the
implementation of the Heritage Partnership Programme for the
twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.
XVI. DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH ORDINARY
SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
XVI.1
The Committee decided that the twenty-fifth session of
the Bureau would be held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 25 to
30 June 2001.
XVI.2
The provisional agenda of this meeting is attached
in >a href=repcom00-annexes.htm#annex19>Annex XIX
to this report.
XVII. DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA
OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
XVII.1
The Chairperson recalled that at the earlier
sessions, Finland had offered to welcome the twenty-fifth session
of the Committee in 2001. Furthermore, he also recalled that
Hungary and China had proposed to host the Committee in 2002 and
2003 respectively.
XVII.2
The Delegate of Finland confirmed that her
Government would have the honour of hosting in Helsinki the twenty-
fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau from 7 to 8 December 2001
and the twenty-fifth session of the Committee from 11 to 16 December 2001.
XVII.3
A presentation on the World Heritage sites and the
City of Helsinki was made, and the Delegate informed the Committee
that an Internet site has been established to provide information
on the organization of these meetings (
www.minedu.fi/minedu/whmeeting
).
XVIII. OTHER BUSINESS
XVIII.1
The Chairperson informed the Committee that the
Observer of Germany wished to seek clarification concerning the
States Parties to the Convention, not members of the Committee,
attending the session of the Bureau and the Committee. The
Chairperson responded that according to Rule 8.1 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Committee, "States Parties to the Convention which
are not members of the Committee" may attend the sessions of the
Committee as observers. They shall be consulted by the Committee
on all matters in respect of which consultation is prescribed by
the Convention.
XVIII.2
Concerning the document sent by Hungary relating to
its Vision of the Implementation of the Convention, the Chairperson
proposed that this document be studied and transmitted for
discussion at the next session of the Committee.
XVIII.3
Given the various issues relating to the application
of cultural
criterion (vi)
, the Chairperson informed the
Committee that a meeting to discuss all criteria would be held in
Paris during the next Bureau session.
XVIII.4
The Delegate of Australia then paid tribute to Mr
Bing Lucas for his contribution to the work of the Committee since
its creation and drew the attention of the Committee to the fact
that this session would be the last one in which Mr Lucas would
participate with IUCN. The members of the Committee as well as the
Secretariat warmly applauded Mr Lucas.
XIX. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
XIX.1
The Director of the World Heritage Centre, Mr.
Francesco Bandarin, on behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO,
thanked the Traditional Owners for their participation and the
Australian authorities for having organized and provided the
facilities for this session. He thanked the Chairperson and all
delegates for their dedication to World Heritage and for a new
spirit towards the thirtieth anniversary of the Convention. He also
thanked his colleagues for their support. He highlighted the
progress achieved in particular with regard to the new calendar,
the improved documentation and the positive exchange between the
Secretariat and the Committee.
XIX.2
The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee
expressed his gratitude to the Rapporteur for his excellent work
and thanked his predecessor, Mr A. Touri (Morocco) for the guidance
provided. He commended the Secretariats of both UNESCO and
Environment Australia for their hard work, all members of the
Committee and the advisory bodies for their constructive
participation in the debates as well as the interpreters for their
support. He recalled progress made with the new cycle, the budget
approved and the inscription of a record number of 61 new
nominations. He reminded the Committee of the work to be achieved
in 2001 with a Bureau meeting in Paris, a Committee meeting in
Finland as well as the thirteenth session of the General Assembly
of States Parties.
XIX.3
On behalf of all members of the Committee and
participants, the Delgate of Morocco, Mr Touri, thanked the
Chairperson for the results achieved during the twenty-fourth
session, noting in particular his flexible management style which
facilitated new ideas that were brought forward as part of the
reform process launched. He also highlighted the role of the new
Director of the World Heritage Centre as Secretary of the
Committee, to implement the decisions of the Committee during the
year 2001. He also thanked Ms. Lammila (Finland), Mr. Keeffe
(Australia) and Mr. Munjeri (Zimbabwe), the three Rapporteurs of
the Bureau and Committee sessions in the year 2000. He thanked the
Australian authorities and traditional owners for their hospitality
and for providing excellent facilities for the session.
XIX.4
The Delegate of Finland thanked the Australian
Government for having provided such a good model for a Committee
session and invited the Committee to the twenty-fifth session which
would be held in her country in 2001.
XIX.5
The Chairperson then declared the twenty-fourth
session of the World Heritage Committee closed.
Annex I - List of Participants
Annexes II- XIX