Manu National Park (Peru): A commercial discovery of natural gas had beenmade next to the park and further exploration work was imminent. This work would bring in many workers and settlers next to the western boundary of the park and could result in encroachments and associated problems. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Peruvian authorities and to seek^* further explanation.

Djoudj National Park (Senegal): The water supply to this park which wasmodified by dam construction was now being assured by a sluice which had been built with the support of the World Heritage Fund. A management plan was also under preparation with funds from WWF. Although there was still a need to improve the management of this site, the Bureau recognized that the main threats were under control and requested the Secretariat to contact the Senegalese authorities with a view to removing this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania): The general situation of this sitehad greatly improved. Equipment had been made available through the World Heritage Fund and IUCN was working to strengthen policy, planning and train­ing activities for the site with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism of Tanzania. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Tanzanian authorities with a view to removing this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

19. The following requests were approved by the Bureau:

1. Consultancy services for the preparation of a plan for Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal) and purchase of equipment for implementing 3 prototype projects recommended by the plan: $30,000

2. Financial contribution to the purchase of a "UNIMOG", an all-terrain vehicle, for use in field training activities at the Mweka College of African Wildlife Management (Tanzania): $30,000

3. Purchase of 2 portable micro-earthquake systems and a micro-climatological device for the Temple of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae (Greece): $30,000

1. Equipment for a visitors' centre and an all-terrain vehicle for Tassili N'Ajjer National Park (Algeria): $53,000

2. Equipment essential for better patrolling the Virunga National Park (Zaire): $40,000

3. Equipment and spare parts for a Toyota vehicle to strengthen anti-poaching measures in Garamba National Park (Zaire): $50,000

22. The Bureau recommended that the Committee be informed of other international assistance projects for these World Heritage sites, such as projects funded by the EEC.

Equipment for restoring the World Heritage properties of Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and Sigiriya (Sri Lanka) and for training activities pertaining to those sites.

1. Urgent measures for strengthening the foundations of the wall and to study methods of reconstructing doors, windows and other wooden elements at Bahla Fort (Oman).

2. Equipment and technical assistance needed for restoration work at Wieliczka Salt Mine (Poland).

9. The Committee noted that the activities undertaken by the Secretariat since its eleventh session were described in detail in the working documents for the session. It took note in particular of the projects for international assistance financed under the World Heritage Fund which had been approved by the Committee, the Bureau and/or its Chairman since the eleventh session of the Committee and which were presented in Annex IX of document SC-88/CONF.001/7. The Committee was especially satisfied to note that the allocations for technical cooperation and for training under the World Heritage Fund were being put to maximum use by States Parties, which meant that the Convention and its Fund were fully operational. The Committee also drew attention to the fact that although in terms of numbers, the World Heritage List, with only 77 natural or "mixed" sites out of a total of 288, would appear biased in favour of the cultural heritage, the World Heritage Fund was in fact used in a well balanced manner for cultural and natural heritage.

Furthermore, he presented the Group's recommendation concerning a global study which might include an international tentative list of references designed to assist the States Parties in identifying their properties and the Committee in evaluating nominations. Finally, the attention of the Committee was drawn to the recommendation of complementary studies of rural landscapes, traditional villages and contemporary architecture.

13. Several members made a point of congratulating the Working Group on the results achieved. The Committee approved the Working Group's recommendations. However, several questions arose with respect to items 4.7 and 4.8 of the Working Group's report (study and global reference list, thematic studies of several categories of properties). The Chairman of the Committee recalled that the Bureau had requested ICOMOS to state its views on these points and invited the representative of this organisation to comment.

14. The proposal presented by the representative of ICOMOS would define the principles of a retrospective and prospective global reflection on the Convention. Within the framework of such a reflection ICOMOS would like to satisfy the wish of the Working Group with a view to establishing lists of examples of cultural properties of countries throughout the world, whether or not they were Parties to the Convention. Research to this effect would allow the identification of entities according to different parameters of coherence - chronological, geographical, ecological, functional, social, religious, etc.

15. The representative of IUCN also stated his views on the global list. He reminded the Committee that in 1982 IUCN had already established a list of this type and referred to its current shortcomings. This list was to be revised in the near future and, in his opinion, was a highly useful working tool. On the other hand, he suggested that an a posteriori review of results achieved during the first twenty years of implementation of the Convention and a projection thereof over the coming twenty years be made in 1992 for cultural properties. Indeed, in 1992 IUCN would be organizing the Fourth World Parks Congress at which it was planned to hold a special session marking the twentieth year of the World Heritage Convention.

16. The repesentative of ICCROM shared the views expressed by the Working Group and ICOMOS as regards a global study. He stressed that cooperation between ICCROM and ICOMOS would be most useful, since this concerned matters of mutual interest. He further stressed the need to conceive an evolutive list which, in particular, should take into account recent progress in the field of conservation doctrines.

17. A member of the Committee raised the question of the budgetary implications of preparing a global list. Another member suggested that it would be possible to call upon ICOMOS experts and the historical monuments services of each country

18. As regards tentative lists, several Committee members noted that these were highly useful instruments and a significant basis for the global survey. A member stressed that tentative lists were of great importance in the context of natural properties as well, since they allowed comparative studies. On the subject of specific studies of rural landscapes, traditional villages and contemporary architecture, a member stated that no deadlines had been set and that it would be proper to define their general outline. The representative of ICOMOS suggested that such studies might be integrated into the global study. Two Committee members voiced their doubts as to the need for a global study and specific surveys. It was therefore suggested that an informal group co-ordinated by the Chairman of the Working Group (Mr. A. Guruge) further examine this matter.

19. This Working Group met twice. Besides already existing documentation, it considered a short reflection note prepared by Mr. J.S. Collinson. Discussions highlighted the need to define a framework and principles prior to any further study, whether for the "global" study or thematic surveys of traditional villages, rural landscapes and contemporary architecture. The Working Group requested that the Secretariat and ICOMOS examine these questions in depth over the coming months and submit a more elaborate proposal to the Bureau in June 1989. Meanwhile, it proposed to include in the 1989 budget an amount of US$20,000 for the purpose of the global study and the thematic studies. The release of these funds would be considered by the Bureau. The Committee agreed to this proposal.

• changes introduced in accordance with the Committee's decisions concerning the monitoring of cultural properties, the procedure for nomination of extensions to World Heritage properties and assistance for promotional activities;
• modifications required to update the Operational Guidelines to make them conform with current practice in the implementation of the Convention (notably the need for a condition of integrity of natural sites relating to the protection and management regime, as well as to requests for training activities financed under the World Heritage Fund);
• changes resulting from the recommendations of the Working Group on the procedures for processing the nomination of cultural properties, for which the implications for the nominations of natural properties had been also taken into account, following the comments and suggestions of IUCN.

21. The Committee noted that the revised version of the Operational Guidelines had been studied in great depth both by the Bureau at its twelfth session in June 1988 and by subsequent meetings of the Working Group set up by the Committee.

22. Several members of the Committee made some suggestions for amendments and clarifications. The Committee requested that paragraph 53 for the July-November period for the timetable of processing nominations should clearly indicate that States Parties should send additional information as requested by the Bureau to the Secretariat no later than 9 weeks before the date of the Committee session to enable it to be sent in adequate time to ICOMOS and/or IUCN and the members of the Committee.

23. One member of the Committee drew attention to the contradiction existing between paragraphs 39 and 42 and the Committee requested the Secretariat to make the necessary modifications.

24. Another member of the Committee noted that paragraph 91(d) concerning the marking of equipment and all products arising from assistance provided under the Fund with the World Heritage emblem and name was missing. The Secretariat assured the Committee that this omission would be rectified in the final version.

25. Several members of the Committee drew attention to paragraph 7 and recalled the need for States Parties to comply with Article 11 of the Convention to provide tentative lists for both cultural and natural properties. Some States members felt that for natural properties a parallel should be made with cultural nominations which the Committee had decided not to consider unless a tentative list had been submitted to the Secretariat. The Committee noted that such a step could in fact have a negative effect and serve to slow down and even discourage the nomination of natural properties. The Committee nevertheless considered it necessary to draw the attention of States Parties to Article 11 of the Convention as concerns natural properties in order to raise awareness of the need to maintain an appropriate balance in the natural and cultural aspects of the work of the Convention, and requested the Secretariat to take the required measures to this end. The Committee requested that paragraph 7 be amended to indicate that priority would be given to the consideration of nominations of natural properties for those States Parties who had submitted a tentative list, unless the State Party concerned had given a specific explanation why such a list could not be provided.

26. Again concerning the nomination of natural properties, the representative of IUCN indicated that the advancement of the deadline for the submission of nominations to the Secretariat to 1 October was more than adequate for IUCN, and suggested that the deadline for natural nominations be fixed at 1 November. The Committee, however, noted that the fixing of two separate deadlines was confusing and was not workable for nominations which were proposed under both cultural and natural criteria.

27. The Committee requested the Secretariat to finalize the Operational Guidelines as indicated in the paragraphs above and decided that this version would be henceforth used by all States Parties.

29. The Committee recalled the inconsistency between the definitions of cultural and natural heritage in the Convention and the criteria laid out in the Operational Guidelines, particularly the fact that Article 2 defining natural heritage did not refer to cultural aspects of such heritage and yet natural criterion (iii) refers to "... areas natural beauty or exceptional combinations of natural and cultural elements".

30. In order to simplify the work of the Committee and its Bureau, the Committee agreed to the procedure whereby the evaluation of nominations with a combination of natural and cultural elements would be made by ICOMOS, which would take account of the cultural criteria (paragraph 24 of the Operational Guidelines) and, in consultation with IUCN, also of natural criterion (iii) relating to natural beauty and the exceptional combination of cultural and natural elements (paragraph 36(a)(iii)).

31. In the same manner, the Committee encouraged States Parties to present the justification for such properties evoking both cultural criteria and natural criterion (iii).

32. The Committee recognized that this procedure constituted only an interim practical measure and did not resolve the issue of all "mixed sites" which were neither specifically foreseen nor excluded in the Convention itself.

The representative of IUCN reported that this property was currently under extreme pressure with the invasion of some 50,000 refugees and settlers into the Reserve. The Committee requested the Secretariat to contact the Honduran authorities to obtain further information and to ask them to consider inscribing this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee was glad to be informed that the conservation status of this property had greatly improved but that the Tanzanian authorities had requested that it be maintained on the List of World Heritage in Danger, particularly in view of the continued threat of poaching. The Committee agreed to maintain this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger but expressed the wish that it be removed from this List in 1989.

The Committee was glad to learn that due in part to assistance provided from the Fund, the conservation status of this property had greatly improved. The Committee decided to comply with the request of the Senegalese authorities to remove this property from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee noted that the natural values of this property had declined due to various illegal activities within the park. The Committee was, however, glad to learn of a forthcoming project financed by WWF, US-AID and possibly with a contribution from the World Heritage which could help mitigate the current situation, and requested IUCN to report back to the Committee at its next session.

The Committee noted that an exceptionally large fire had occurred in the Park during 1988 but that no World Heritage values had been lost. The Committee welcomed the proposal of the representative of the USA to provide further information on the results of the review of the fire management policy for wilderness areas and the restoration/recovery plan aimed at showing visitors how Yellowstone was being "reborn".

34. At the request of the Chairman, the Secretariat informed the Committee of its observations concerning the results at the present stage of implementation of the experimental monitoring system adopted by the Committee at its eleventh session. The attention of the Committee was drawn to the difficulties of a number of States in meeting the deadlines; a modified timetable was suggested, so as to enable both the Secretariat and ICOMOS to process replies and to report to the Bureau before reporting to the Committee. The Secretariat stated that the results obtained were encouraging, but that conclusions would be premature. It therefore suggested that implementation of the system be extended for another year. As requested by the Chairman, ICOMOS then stated that the information provided, although necessary and valuable, was insufficient. Exceedingly brief answers provided little information on the extent of danger referred to and very succinct analyses prevented any serious evaluation of problems raised. He further regretted the lack of information on museum installations on archaeological sites and the lack of data on the environment. To conclude, he stated that procedures could no doubt be improved, either by reformulating the questionnaire or by encouraging States to answer in greater detail.

35. Several members, however, were doubtful as regards the usefulness and efficiency of the questionnaire in its present form. One speaker suggested that it might be considered an aide-memoire to remind the States of the need to present a report on the state of conservation of their properties. He further wondered whether a single questionnaire was applicable to all types of properties and suggested reflection on this matter. He added that it might be proper to distinguish between simple and complex properties, between urban centres and archaeological sites, etc.

36. A member suggested that an explanatory letter be attached to the questionnaire, to explain to States Members as clearly as possible the objectives of the Committee with respect to the monitoring system. Another member backed this proposal and further suggested sending a new letter to the States who had submitted incomplete answers. A member felt that it would be desirable to attach typical examples of satisfactory answers to the questionnaire as models. It was concluded however that the experiment should be pursued and that the state of conservation of the next fifty cultural properties be examined in 1989 (Annex II). The Secretariat would report to the Committee at its next session. This proposal was adopted by the Committee, which further approved the new timetable proposed by the Secretariat.

37. The representative of UNDP expressed to the Committee his views on the monitoring system. In his opinion, monitoring, technical cooperation, planning and evaluation were closely linked in any project. Any efficient monitoring system would require adequate strategies and methodologies. It would have to be a dynamic process, to be initiated and implemented in the field to the extent possible. Monitoring was also a mode of cooperation and therefore an excellent means to link various sectors beyond culture and nature. In this respect, he noted the very close relationship between conservation and the environment. Finally, he stated that he was ready to cooperate with the Secretariat, ICOMOS, ICCROM and governments in all monitoring activities. Several Committee members expressed their appreciation of the UNDP Representative's comment.

38. In the context of the statement of a member of the Committee, the representative of ICCROM drew the Committee's attention to the specific problem of historic towns and to the need to define the principles and objectives of conservation in each case. He confirmed ICCROM's eagerness to co-operate with the Committee in all aspects of monitoring and training. One member of the Committee then underlined the need for joint reflection on methods of intervention and techniques for the restoration of ancient structures. The representative of ICOM, by means of a precise example, drew the attention of the Committee to the importance of museums in the global process of conservation and rehabilitation of historical towns. The Committee took note of these comments.

39. The importance of conserving the environment of cultural properties was stressed by the representative of France, who referred to the problem of Mont Saint-Michel, a site where the environmental issue was particularly crucial. The Committee noted the information he provided on methods of intervention used by the French authorities at this site and strongly encouraged them to pursue such work.

40. The representative of Senegal requested a progress report on the international campaign for the protection of Goree and inquired about the procedures for the inscription of this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Secretariat provided him with the information requested.