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 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 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 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.

42. As regards the site of Goreme in Turkey, the Secretariat informed the Committee of an ICOMOS report indicating two serious problems concerning the environment of this site. The Turkish authorities advised the Committee of the intent of their government to take all measures required for the protection of this vulnerable site.

43. The case of the Studenica Monastery was also submitted to the Committee. To evaluate the impact of the possible construction of a dam some ten kilometres from this property, Unesco had asked ICCROM, at the request of the Government of Yugoslavia, to investigate the situation. The Chairman invited the ICCROM representative, who had been part of the investigating team, to report on the matter. He stated that there did not seem to be technical grounds for preventing the dam project as presently contemplated. However, the ethical problem of protecting cultural and historical values linked to the Studenica valley, eponym of the monastery, was highly important and should be taken into account. He also advised the Committee as to the possibility of alternative although more costly dam locations much farther away from the monastery. The main purpose of constructing the dam was to ensure the water supply of a region where other rivers are already polluted. This raised the basic problem of protecting the environment, underlying other equally essential matters. Finally, the question was whether it was indeed necessary to sacrifice the admirable Studenica site since there were alternative in order to improve economic and social conditions in Serbia. The Committee took note of the report and requested the Secretariat to convey its concern to the Yugoslav authorities.

45. Several members of the Committee referred to promotional activities undertaken or planned in their countries, such as the setting up of a National Committee in charge of coordination of implementation and promotion of the Convention in France; placing of plaques on World Heritage sites in France and Mexico; issuing of a series of postage stamps in Brazil, production of leaflets on the Convention and sites inscribed on the World Heritage List in India, Australia and Canada; publication of a series of 60 booklets on World Heritage sites, of which 300,000 copies were sold at news-stands in Brazil; or events organized during the World Heritage Day and those planned for the World Heritage Week in India.

46. The representative of the United Nations Development Programme informed the Committee on the positive results of a press seminar he had organized in Salvador, Bahia (Brazil), with assistance from the World Heritage Fund. He further stressed the complex relationships between development, tourism and heritage; it would, he felt, be appropriate to reflect on the drafting of clear principles on the problem of tourism and heritage.

47. The Committee accepted the activities for 1989 proposed by the Secretariat, which highlight the wish to increase knowledge of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, through preparation of information sheets on such sites, new publications and a series of films for the public at large. A member of the Committee requested that co-publishers be sought for Arabic editions of such publications.

48. Finally, the Committee recommended the creation and strengthening of national bodies designed to act as relays for the Secretariat's activities. In this respect, it noted that assistance was now available for this purpose pursuant to paragraph 87 of the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the Convention.

50. The Committee specifically took account of the need to allocate a maximum of resources for technical cooperation and training activities, which were of particular use to developing States Parties. The representative of Yemen drew the Committee's attention to the need to substantially increase the budget allocations for training and technical cooperation in order to ensure the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of the lesser developed countries. The Committee requested the Secretariat to work with States Parties in order to use the resources of the World Heritage Fund as much as possible in a catalytic manner, for example in combining World Heritage projects with those of other international bodies such as UNDP, the World Bank, the World Wide Fund for Nature, etc.

51. The Committee decided that the funds allocated for technical cooperation and training should be used in a flexible manner such that funds could be transferred inbetween these budget lines in order to meet requests from States Parties.

52. The Committee also considered the need to maintain the high quality of the advisory services provided to the Committee by ICOMOS and IUCN, who were increasingly asked to monitor properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and to advise on international assistance requests and their implementation.

53. As regards the allocation for temporary assistance to the Secretariat, the Committee was of the opinion that this budget line should be reduced as much as possible to ensure the maximum use of the World Heritage Fund for the protection of listed properties. In this respect, the former Chairman, Mr. J. Collinson, recalled the decision of the Director-General in reply to his letter dated 17 June 1988 to provide six additional posts under Unescos' Regular Programme to meet the needs of the World Heritage Secretariat. The Secretariat informed the Committee that owing to budget constraints within the Organization, it had not yet been possible to establish these posts but there were indications that this situation could be resolved progressively in the near future, thereby releasing the funds allocated for temporary assistance. The Committee recommended that the Chairman write to the Director­-General to reiterate the Committee's grave concern to establish the Secretariat on a permanent basis under the Unesco Regular Programme and to indicate that an allocation for temporary assistance to the Secretariat would probably not be granted by the Committee in future years.

54. The Committee recommended that a sum of $20,000 be earmarked for the purpose of the global studies recommended by the Working Group of the Committee. The use of these funds would be decided upon by the Bureau at its thirteenth session in 1989.

55. In order to ensure equitable representation of the different regions and cultural areas of States Parties, the Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a proposal for consideration by the Bureau at its next session concerning the possibility of allocating a portion of the Fund which would be used under very strict conditions to support the participation of the experts in cultural and/or natural heritage of the lesser developed States Members at the sessions of the Committee and its Bureau.

56. In accordance with the above considerations, the Committee adopted the following budget for 1989.

ACTIVITY	1989 $
Preparatory assistance	100,000
Technical cooperation*	700,000
Training*	500,000
Emergency assistance	100,000
Promotional activities, including meetings	150,000
Advisory services
IUCN	103,600
ICOMOS	143,600
(Global studies, etc.)	(20,000)
Temporary assistance to the Secretariat	210,700
SUB TOTAL	2,027,900
3% Contingency funds	60,837
SUB TOTAL	2,088,737
Reserve	24,237
TOTAL	2,112,974

_{* The funds for technical cooperation and training can be used in an interchangeable manner.}

noted that the Bureau had examined in detail the requests presented in document SC-88/CONF.001/6 and /6.Add ;

noted that a number of modifications for certain requests had been received by the Secretariat since the document had been prepared;

also noted that the requests from Algeria, Ecuador, Sri Lanka and Zaire had already been recommended for approval by the previous Bureau at its twelfth session in June 1988.

59. In accordance with the procedures for granting international assistance set out in the Operational Guidelines adopted by the Committee (WHC/2 Revised, December 1988), the Committee approved the following requests:

A. Technical cooperation

1) Tassili N'Ajjer (Algeria)

Equipment and a financial contribution to improve visitors' services and protection of the cultural and natural heritage: $53,000

2) Sao Miguel das Missoes (Brazil)

Financial contribution for the inventory of the documentation on the site: $10,000

3) Talamanca-La Amistad (Costa Rica)

Equipment and financial contribution for strengthening the conservation of the Pacific sector of the site: $30,000

4) Galapagos Island (Ecuador)

Purchase of 2 boats for strengthening the protection of the site: $54,000

5) Temple of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae (Greece)

Purchase of a portable micro-earthquake monitoring system for the Temple of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae (also for use at other Greek World Heritage properties): $30,000

6) Bahla Fort (Oman)

Financial contribution to works and training for safeguarding the property: $50,000

7) Anuradhapura, Polonnaruva and Sigiraya (Sri Lanka)

Equipment for conservation and restoration of monuments (see also training below): $25,500

8) Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania)

2 vehicles (one tipper truck and one 4x4 pick-up) for constructions aimed at strengthening anti-poaching measures: $50,000

9) Durmitor National Park (Yugoslavia)

Purchase of equipment to investigate the causes of the decline in the size of population of some birds species and tree death (N.B. the Yugoslav authorities are encouraged to undertake this work as appropriate in cooperation with WMO concerning research on air pollutants. Following the work in Durmitor, all efforts should be made by the Yugoslav authorities to make the specialized equipment purchased under the Fund available for other World Heritage properties in the region. Finally, the Yugoslav authorities are requested to provide a report to the Secretariat on the use of all the research equipment provided under the Fund for this project): $38,000

10) Garamba National Park (Zaire)

2 vehicles to continue the activities of the WWF/Frankfurt Zoological Society/World Heritage consortium to combat poaching: $50,000

11) Virunga National Park (Zaire)

Equipment to improve protective measures in the Park: $40,000

 
TOTAL: $430,500

B. Training activities

Sri Lanka

Training component of the technical cooperation request for the cultural triangle (n°7 above): $33,500

International Course on the Technology of Stone Conservation (ICCROM)

Financial contribution to cover costs of the participation of fellows from developing countries which are States Parties to the Convention: $37,500

TOTAL: $71,000

62. There are now 315 properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and 7 properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

XIV/I. Nominations of natural properties

63. The Secretariat introduced document SC-88/CONF.001/9 and informed the Committee of the following points:

- by letter dated 29 November 1988, the Hungarian Permanent Delegation to Unesco had withdrawn the nomination of Hortobagy National Park;

- in accordance with the suggestion of the Bureau at its twelfth session, Unesco will convene a working group particularly to study petrified forests involving the Intergovernmental Geological Correlation Programme (IGCP) of Unesco, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) and IUCN. Once the results of this study were available, the Bureau could then examine the nomination of the Petrified Forest of Lesbos submitted by Greece.

486

Australia 

N(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)

In accordance with the wishes of the Bureau at its last meeting in June 1988, the Committee noted that the Bureau had re-examined this nomination taking into account the revised evaluation of IUCN and additional information provided by Australia, as requested by the Bureau. Following this re-examination, the Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List. It recommended that an appropriate management regime be established. The Committee furthermore recommended that IUCN continue to monitor the status of conservation of this property and report back to the Committee in the next 2 to 3 years.