51. The Committee congratulated the Greek and Bulgarian experts for their in-depth treatment of the areas in question and thanked them for their participation in the study, which was described as being of high quality and, indeed, of elegance.

52. Frameworks for national historic monuments had been developed in the U.S.A. and Canada and one of the delegates offered to make these frameworks and some account of their methodology available to the Secretariat. Another delegate commented on the importance of having a mixed temporal, cultural and thematic approach. It was suggested that the global study should include landscapes.

53. Another delegate, in expressing appreciation of the work done, said that her country would seek to contribute to the study in its future elaboration. The Secretariat explained that it intended to proceed by establishing the framework first with the assistance of experts and it was noted that an amount had been included in the budget from the various regions for this purpose. The possible contribution of expertise by States Parties was warmly welcomed and, where such contribution may not be possible, the Secretariat would in any case appreciate the names of appropriate experts whom the Secretariat could approach to work on the project.

54. Another delegate emphasized that it was not just a question of providing the framework but that it should be a carefully considered one. Due allowance should be made 'for the time and cost of such studies which should not be expected to be done in haste without adequate reflection: Furthermore, it is important that experts in the States Parties Provide information for the study since there is much available in languages which are not so easily accessible.

55. Another expert suggested reference to a specialist in the Institut de l'Afrique Noire and the Secretariat mentioned that there had already been discussion with Mr. Konare, President of ICOM, a historian and archaeologist, about the project.

56. The Committee thanked the Secretariat for the work done on the project.

57. The Committee also noted that the study of geological sites conducted jointly by the Unesco International Geological Correlation Programme and the International Union of Geological Sciences has resulted in a preliminary global tentative list of geological sites of outstanding universal value. This list was to be revised early in 1991 by a team of experts meeting at Unesco headquarters. The results of the study would then be finalized and made available for the next session of the World Heritage Committee.

58. The Committee considered the document on Equitable Representation (CC-90/CONF.004/INF.4). The Secretariat noted that it had followed this question closely over years and that it was difficult to make any more suggestions since ultimately this was a decision for the Committee. 

59. In respect of paragraph 5(iii), the Secretariat emphasized that it could be difficult for States to indicate at the time of their candidature the names of experts who would represent them for the duration of their term of office. Recognizing this problem and the need for the system to remain flexible, the Committee decided to submit to the General Assembly the proposals contained in paragraph 5 with the exception of that relating to the names of experts.

Information on Berinq Region

60. The representative of the United States of America called the attention of the Committee to the establishment by the Governments of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of a Working Group on Heritage Conservation and Management. The Working Group had completed a joint report on the significant shared natural and cultural heritage of the Bering Region, copies of which were provided to the Committee.

61. The Report was endorsed by the Presidents of the USA and the USSR in June 1990 with a statement calling for continued co-operation towards a US-Soviet International Park.

62. Recalling the IUCN General Assembly Resolutions of 1988 and 1990, encouraging both governments to also consider a joint World Heritage nomination of the area, the representative of the USA and the observer from the USSR confirmed their governments continued interest in a possible joint nomination.

63. The Committee commended both governments for this initiative.

Other matters

64. The Committee instructed the Secretariat to prepare its report to the General Conference. This report will be submitted to the Bureau, which is authorized to approve it, at its fifteenth session.

65. The Bureau held a special session during the Committee meeting and met four times to examine nominations which had been referred back to the nominating State for additional information, to examine requests for technical assistance and the budget for 1991.

66. The Secretariat drew the Committee's attention to a decision made

at the Committee's thirteenth session, to the effect that "States Parties that are behind in their payments for the biennium considered would not be able to obtain international assistance financed by the Fund, except in unusual circumstances or emergencies." The Committee had asked the Secretariat to amend the Operational Guidelines accordingly. The Secretariat explained to the Committee that it had intentionally not done so, since experience during 1990 had shown that the Committee's decision as it had been worded was too ambiguous to allow clear interpretation and implementation. The Committee admitted that this problem must be resolved as soon as possible, with the understanding that consistent measures must be implemented without penalizing sites endangered by emergencies. The Committee therefore asked the Secretariat to prepare a proposal in this regard, which the Bureau will use as a basis for discussion at its next session.

67. The Committee wished to confirm its 1989 decision to finance attendance at sessions of the Committee and the Bureau by experts from least developed countries (LDCs) who are members of the Committee. The Committee wished to specify that this decision should be very strictly applied and that assuming the costs could be justified only for attendance at sessions of natural and cultural conservation experts.

68. The representative of Canada informed the Committee of the problems that could be posed by the inclusion of an already listed site within a larger site. For instance, such was the case in Canada, with regard to the Burgess Shale site, whose scientific importance was universally recognized. Now part of the Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks World Heritage site, it is no longer identified as the Burgess Shale site on the List. The Committee recalled that this has also arisen with respect to other properties, the value of which had nonetheless been enhanced by the change.