(i) States Parties may propose in one single nomination several individual cultural properties, which may be in different geographical locations but which should:

-be linked because they belong to the same historico-cultural group, or
-be the subject of a single safeguarding project, or
-belong to the same type of property characteristic of the zone.

the geographical zone in which these properties are situated should be delimited and the cultural properties individually described and also precisely localized.

Each State Party submits only the cultural properties situated on its territory (even if these properties belong to an ensemble which goes beyond its borders) but it may come to an agreement with another State Party in order to make a joint submission.

(ii) In its justification of the outstanding universal value of the property nominated, each State should, whenever possible, undertake a sufficiently wide comparison;

(iii) The Committee should not take into consideration nominations of immovable property which are likely to become movable.

(iv) The authenticity of a cultural property remains an essential criterion.

(v) Particular attention should be given to cases which fall under criterion (vi) so that the net result would not be a reduction in the value of the List, due to the large potential number of nominations as well as to political difficulties. Nominations concerning, in particular, historical events or famous people could be strongly influenced by nationalism or other particularisms in contradiction with the objectives of the World Heritage Convention.

"In cases of migratory species, integrity will require critical areas necessary for the survival of the species to be included in the nomination. States which are parties to the Convention are requested to seek the co-operation of other States which contain seasonable sites for populations of World Heritage species so as to ensure that these species are protected throughout their full life cycle. Agreements of this nature should be noted in the nomination".

19. The Committee then discussed in detail the Revised Operational Guidelines and made the following modifications:

a) Chapter I, section A, paragraph 5 (ii) should read :

Because of the educational and public information purposes of the World Heritage List, the criteria for the inclusion of properties in the List have been elaborated with a view to enabling the Committee to act with full independence in evaluating the intrinsic merit of a property without regard to any other consideration (including the need for technical co-operation support).

b) Chapter I, section A, paragraph (iii) should read :

The Committee considers it highly desirable for each State Party to submit a tentative list of cultural and natural properties situated in its territory and suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List to enable it to evaluate within the widest possible context the outstanding universal value of each property nominated to the List.

c) In order to facilitate the implementation of the provision set out in Chapter I, section A, paragraph 5 (vi), ICOMOS and IUCN were invited to present in their future evaluations a brief description of the principal characteristics for which a specific property is recommended for inclusion in the World Heritage List.

d) Chapter I, section B, paragraph 6, second line, the word "provisional" is to be replaced by the word "tentative".

e) Chapter I, section B, paragraph 13 should read :

States Parties may propose in a single nomination a series of cultural properties in different geographical locations, provided that they are related because they belong :

(i) to the same historico-cultural group or

(ii) to the same type of property which is characteristic of the geographical zone and provided that it is the series as such and not its components taken individually, which is of outstanding universal value.

f) Chapter I, section C, paragraph 16 should be amended as follows

The criteria for the inclusion of cultural properties in, the World Heritage List should always be seen in relation to one another and should be considered in the context of the definitions set out in Article 1 of the Convention, the full text of which will be inserted at the beginning of this paragraph.

g) Chapter I, section C, paragraph 16 (a) (vi) : the following should be added :

The Committee considered that criterion (vi) should justify inclusion in the List only in exceptional circumstances or in conjunction with other criteria.

h) In Chapter I, section C, paragraph 16, a sentence will be inserted in order to stress that reconstruction is only acceptable if it is carried out on the basis of complete and detailed documentation on the original and to no extent on conjecture.

i) Chapter I, section C, paragraph 17 (a) should read :

The property, including its state of preservation should be evaluated relatively, that is, it should be compared with other properties of the same type dating from the same period both inside and outside the state party's borders.

j) In Chapter I, section D, paragraph 18, the full text of the definition set out in Article 2 of the Convention will be quoted at the beginning of this paragraph.

k) Chapter I, section D, paragraph 18 (i) should read :

be outstanding examples representing the major stages of the earth's evolutionary history.

l) Chapter I, section D, paragraph 18 (ii) should read :

be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man's interaction with his natural environment. As distinct from the periods of the earth's development, this focuses upon ongoing processes in the development of communities of plants and animals, landforms and marine and freshwater bodies.

m) Chapter I, section D, paragraph 18 (iii) should read :

contain superlative natural phenomena, formations or features or areas of exceptional natural beauty, such as superlative examples of the most important ecosystems, natural features, spectacles presented by great concentra- tions of animals, sweeping vistas covered by natural vegetation and exceptional combinations of natural and cultural elements, or

n) Chapter I, section D, paragraph 18 (iv) should read :

contain the most important and significant natural habitats where threatened species of animals or plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation still survive.

o) Chapter I, section B, paragraph 19, sub-section (a) (v) should read :

In the case of migratory species, seasonal sites necessary for their survival wherever they are located, should be adequately protected. The Committee must receive assurances that the necessary measures be taken to ensure that the species are adequately protected throughout their full life cycle. Agreements made in this connection, either through adherence to international conventions or in the form of other multilateral or bilateral arrangements would provide this assurance.

p) A new sub-section (b) should read :

The property should be evaluated relatively, that is, it should be compared with other properties of the same type both inside and outside the state party's borders, within a biogeographic province or migratory pattern.

q) Chapter I, section F, paragraph 29 (iv) should read : State of preservation/conservation - Diagnosis - Agent responsible for preservation/conservation - History of preservation/conservation - Measures for preservation/conservation (including management plans or proposals for such plans) - Development plans for the region.

r) Chapter I, section F, paragraph 30 should read :

Each nomination should be accompanied by a two-page summary which will be translated and reproduced by the Secretariat for distribution to members of the Bureau and the Committee.

s) Chapter I, section G, paragraph 31, 2) (b) should read :

undertakes a professional evaluation of each nomination in terms of the criteria adopted by the Committee and transmits their evaluation to members of the Bureau of the Committee, to the States Parties to the Convention which are concerned and to the Secretariat ;

t) Chapter I, section G, paragraph 31, (June-July), should read :

The summaries of nominations and the recommendations of the Bureau are transmitted to all States Parties to the Convention.

u) Chapter I, section G, paragraph 32 should read :

The normal deadlines for the submission and processing of nominations will not apply in the case of properties which, in the opinion of the Bureau after consultation with the competent non-governmental organization, would unquestionably meet the criteria for inclusion in the World Heritage List ] and which have suffered damage from disasters caused by natural events or by human activities. Such nominations will be processed on an emergency basis.

20. Working procedures for the evaluation and presentation of nominated properties were discussed throughout the session and a general agreement concerning the content of such procedures was reached. The following text setting out these procedures was proposed :

The following working procedures should apply to evaluations of proposed nominations and their presentation to and discussion by the Committee :

(i) representatives of a State Party, whether or not a member of the Committee, should not speak to advocate the inclusion in the list of a property situated within the territory of that State except to deal with a point of information in answer to a question ;

(ii) the manner of the professional evaluation carried out by ICOMOS and IUCN should he fully described in all instances ;

(iii) each property should be compared with properties of a similar type or dating from the same period inside and outside the State Party's boundaries, and a comparative justification should be given for its proposed inclusion in the List ;

(iv) it is desirable that wherever possible the professional presentation of the nominated property should include a slide presentation or other graphic presentation. (This is not only useful for making decisions, it also serves an important educational function for members of the Committee since they share responsibility for the propagation of information about properties included in the List).

The Committee asked that the Bureau should examine at its next session these proposals with a view to their incorporation into a forthcoming revision of the Operational Guidelines.

a) to support national efforts towards safeguarding the integrity of a property;

b) to demonstrate to world opinion the reality of the danger threatening a property;

c) to contribute to the effectiveness of international fund-raising campaigns by identifying the property for which the public is being asked to contribute.

He stated that the list was considered as being a short list, thus limiting operations by the international community to a reasonable number. Furthermore, inscription of a property on the list would be an exceptional action for an emergency measure of limited duration.

1. Taking note of the proposal by the Belgian Delegation (presented in Figure 1 of document WHC-02/CONF.202/15) for the preparation of a compilation of World Heritage Basic Texts like the Basic Texts of UNESCO and of the positive comments on this proposal received from States Parties in responses to Circular Letter CL/WHC.12/02 concerning the revision of the Rules of Procedure;
2. Requests the World Heritage Centre, to prepare an outline and publication plan (including budget) for a compilation of World Heritage Basic Texts in English and French (to include the World Heritage Convention, the Budapest Declaration, the Operational Guidelines, the Rules of Procedure of the World Heritage Committee, the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention and the Financial Regulations of the World Heritage Fund) for presentation to the 28th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2004;
3. Further requests the World Heritage Centre, working in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, to present to the 28th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2004 a budgeted proposal for the preparation of guidance documents for the protection of World Heritage properties that would supplement the Operational Guidelines. These could include detailed guidance on the nomination and management of certain types of World Heritage properties, case studies of best practices, or guidance on other particular related issues.

1. Thanking the Drafting Group and all other experts, representatives of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre for work accomplished to date on the revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention;

2. Taking note of the Report of the March 2002 Drafting Group on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines presented as document WHC-03/6 EXT.COM/INF.5A;

3. Considering that the 3rd Draft Revised Operational Guidelines presented in document WHC-03/6 EXT.COM/INF.5B represents a substantial effort, but that further work is required to reflect the recent decisions of the Committee (in particular Decisions 6 EXT.COM 3 and 6 EXT.COM 4 and 6 EXT.COM 7) and to make them more userfriendly;

4. Recalling the decision of the 25th session of the Committee to allocate US $ 50,000 from the World Heritage Fund in 2003 for the revision of the Operational Guidelines and the subsequent decision 26 COM 24.2 (paragraph 3) to reduce this amount to US $ 22,000;

5. Taking into account decision 6 EXT COM 5.2 relating to the preparation of a volume of the Basic Texts of the Convention;

6. Requests the World Heritage Centre, working in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, to carry out the tasks itemized below in the Technical Annex in order to present revised user-friendly Operational Guidelines to the World Heritage Committee for adoption at its 27th session (Suzhou, China 29 June-5 July 2003);

7. Decides to include an item on the adoption of the revised Operational Guidelines on the agenda of the 27th session of the Committee (Suzhou, China 29 June-5 July 2003).

TECHNICAL ANNEX FOR THE REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES

 (with reference to the third draft Revised Operational Guidelines, document WHC-03/6 EXT.COM/INF.5B)

THROUGHOUT THE TEXT

1.1       Revise the text to take into account the discussions and many suggestions for drafting changes made during the plenary at the 6th extraordinary session of the World Heritage Committee (17-22 March 2003) as reflected in the record of the meeting (WHC-03/6 EXT.COM/INF.8).

1.2       Revise the text on the basis of the following decisions taken by the 6th extraordinary session of the Committee:

6 EXT.COM 3 (Revision of the Rules of Procedure of the World Heritage Committee);

6 EXT.COM 4 (Policy/Legal issues); and

6 EXT.COM 7 (Nominations to be examined by the World Heritage Committee in 2004).

1.3       Prepare a clear document, finding a balance between the inclusion of obligatory texts and the removal of text that is not relevant (see Decision 6 EXT.COM 5.2.).

1.4       Check that the provisions of the revised Guidelines are capable of implementation, consistent with the Convention, do not include information that is not relevant, avoid reproducing the Convention and other existing texts and clarify all references to the Bureau.

1.5       Improve the presentation of the revised Guidelines, ensure consistency of language and check concordance between the English and French texts, finalise references and cross-references, paragraph numbering and ensure that there are no contradictions.

1.6       Define and be consistent in the use of the terms:

• "conservation" and "protection";
• "outstanding universal value", "criteria",          "values", "attributes",    "qualities" and        "characteristics;
• "management approach", "management system", "management plan" and              "management and/or planning control";             and
• "property" and "site".

1.7       Integrate references to the Budapest Declaration (2002) and, replace when appropriate, references to the Strategic Orientations (1992).

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION

2. Maintain paragraphs 122-125 on the World Heritage Fund of the July 2002 Operational Guidelines.

SECTION II: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

3.1       Amend section II.B "Tentative Lists" to

1. a) provide greater clarity as to the purpose of Tentative Lists, the purpose and process for harmonizing Tentative Lists at a regional level and,
2. b) make a clear distinction between the "comparative analysis" to be prepared by States Parties and included in their nominations and the "comparative studies" prepared by the Advisory Bodies and other experts that are used as comparative context for the evaluation of properties nominated for inclusion in the World Heritage List.

3.2.      In section II.C “Criteria for the inclusion of properties on the World Heritage List”:

 a) combine the six cultural and four natural criteria previously included in paragraphs 24 (a) and 44 (a) respectively, into a single list of criteria (i) to (x) reordering them so that the former natural criterion (iii) becomes criterion (vii);  

1. b) revise criterion(v):

 "(v) is an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change";

1. c) revise criterion (vi):

"(vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance" The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria.

3.3       Amend paragraph II.C.3 to read:

"Properties nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List must satisfy the conditions of authenticity and/or integrity.

3.4        Maintain text from paragraph 25 of the July 2002 Operational Guidelines stating that "Nominations of immovable property which are likely to become movable will not be considered".

3.5        Maintain elements of paragraphs 44(b)(v) and 44(b)(vi) of the July 2002 Operational Guidelines (relating to operational plans, boundaries that may coincide with existing or proposed protected areas and multiple management zones) as appropriate.

 3.6       Amend paragraph II.C.11 to read:  

“ Examining the conditions of integrity, therefore  requires assessing the extent to which the property :

• includes all elements necessary to express its outstanding universal value;
• is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance;
• suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect."

 3.7       Revise paragraph II.C.13 as follows: 

"II.C.13            For all properties nominated under criteria (vii) to (x), bio-physical processes and landform features should be relatively intact. However, it is recognized that no area is totally pristine and that all natural areas are in a dynamic state, and to some extent involve contact with people. Human activities, including those of traditional societies and local communities, often occur in natural areas.  These activities may be consistent with the outstanding universal value of the area where they are ecologically sustainable.”

3.8       Consider the proposal made by the Delegation of Belgium to reorder the Nomination Format referred to in paragraph II.D.1 in the following way:

1. Identification of property
2. Description of property
3. Justification of outstanding universal value, and identification of its indicators
4. Justification of criteria of authenticity and/or integrity, and identification of its indicators
5. Constraints and factors that are affecting or could affect the property, and identification of its indicators
6. Protection and management systems
7. Documentation
8. Contact Information
9. State Party's Signature

3.9       Introduce in paragraph II.D.5 the following timetable for the receipt of nominations:

30 September        Voluntary deadline for receipt of draft nominations from States Parties by the World Heritage Centre

15 November        World Heritage Centre to respond to the nominating State Party concerning the completeness of the nomination, and, if incomplete, to indicate the missing information required to make the nomination complete.

1 February            Date by which nominations must be complete and  received by the World Heritage Centre to be transmitted to ICOMOS and /or IUCN for evaluation.

3.10      Clarify the procedures, timeframe and requirements for the content, submission and processing of nominations on an emergency basis.

3.11      Clarify the procedures, timeframe and requirements for the content, submission and processing of renominations of existing properties using new criteria, as well as for referred, deferred and withdrawn nominations.

3.12      Ensure that a clear indication of what is a "complete" nomination is provided.

3.13      With reference to decision 6 EXT.COM 3, include a mechanism by which the Advisory Bodies, through the World Heritage Centre, can obtain additional information from a State Party between two Committee sessions, during the process of evaluation of a nomination of property for inscription on the World Heritage List.

SECTION III: PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES

 4.1       Amend paragraph III.A.3 to read:

 "World Heritage properties may support a variety of ongoing and proposed uses that are ecologically and culturally sustainable. The State Party and partners must ensure that such sustainable use does not adversely impact the outstanding universal value, authenticity and integrity of the property." 

4.2       Move the text on Periodic Reporting to a new section of the Operational Guidelines to clearly differentiate day-to-day management and monitoring by the State Party and reactive monitoring from the six-year cycle of Periodic Reporting for which States Parties are requested to prepare reports on their overall implementation of the Convention as well as on their World Heritage properties.

SECTION IV: INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

5.1       Revise the text with reference to decision 26 COM 25.3 and the need to ensure interaction and complementarity of Regional Programmes as follow-up to the Periodic Reports whilst maintaining for the time being the existing types of International Assistance with the addition of "Research" to "Training Assistance."

5.2       Revise paragraph IV.B.4 (d) to read:

"Legislative, administrative and, wherever possible, financial commitment of the recipient State Party to the activity;"

SECTION V: MOBILISATION OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT IN FAVOUR OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION

6. Move the text on "Information" (paragraphs V.V.1 to V.B.6) to a separate sub-section. Integrate in this new sub-section, all necessary provisions concerning information and documentation (including II.H on "Archiving and documentation of nominations") and make cross-references as appropriate.

ANNEX 1: WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 

7. Delete this Annex. Organize joint distribution of the Convention and the Operational Guidelines (see also decision 6 EXT.COM/5.2)

ANNEX 2: MODEL INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION/ACCEPTANCE AND ACCESSION

8. Maintain this Annex until all countries have joined the World Heritage Convention.

ANNEX 3: TENTATIVE LIST SUBMISSION FORMAT

9. No changes foreseen.

ANNEX 4: GUIDELINES ON THE INCLUSION OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF SITES IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST 

10.1      No changes foreseen pending the preparation of updated guidelines in the future.

10.2      Explain the difference between a mixed cultural and natural heritage property and a cultural landscape.

ANNEX 5: AUTHENTICITY IN RELATION TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION

11. Include references to expert meetings on authenticity held before and after the Nara meeting in 1994.

ANNEX 6: GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF NOMINATIONS OF PROPERTIES FOR INCLUSION ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

12.1      Written comments on this Annex can be provided to the World Heritage Centre by States Parties by 7 April 2003.

12.2      Move all guidelines concerning the nomination of properties for inclusion in the World Heritage List to Section II "Establishment of the World Heritage List" and only keep the Nomination Format in Annex 6.

12.3      Change the title of the Annex to "Format for       nominations for inclusion in the World Heritage List".

12.4      Enhance the presentation of this Annex.

12.5      Consider reordering the Nomination Format as indicated by the Delegation of Belgium (see paragraph 3.8 above)

12.6      Ensure that the references to management requirements and monitoring are consistent with the text in paragraphs II.C. 23 and 24. 

ANNEX 7: EVALUATION PROCEDURES OF ICOMOS AND IUCN 

13. No changes foreseen.

ANNEX 8: PROCESS OF PERIODIC REPORTING AND FORMAT AND EXPLANATORY NOTES 

14.1      Move guidelines concerning Periodic Reporting to the main text of the Guidelines and keep only the Format in Annex 8.

14.2      Change the title of the Annex to "Format for the Periodic Reporting on the application of the World Heritage Convention"

ANNEX 9: INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

15.1      Increase the budget ceiling of the requests for the approval of the Chairperson to that which formerly was approved by the Bureau :

            - up to US$ 75,000 for Emergency Assistance,

            - up to US$30,000 for Preparatory Assistance,

            - up to US$30,000 for Training and research assistance, and

            - up to US$30,000 for Technical co-operation.

15.2      Clarify that Emergency Assistance is made available to World Heritage properties. It may be made available, if necessary, to more than one World Heritage property in a single State Party.

15.3      For "Training and Research Assistance" payment of dues to the World Heritage Fund for the previous year is obligatory.

15.4      Indicate which fields in the International Assistance form are compulsory for completion.

15.5      Include the criteria used by the Advisory Bodies to evaluate International Assistance requests.

ANNEX 10:     GUIDELINES AND PRINCIPLES OF THE USE OF THE WORLD HERITAGE EMBLEM 

16. Remove footnote and all references to the proposed user's manual "The World Heritage Visual Identity"  

BIBLIOGRAPHY/SELECT READING LIST 

17. To be added. 

WWW/INTERNET RESOURCES 

18. Websites for UNESCO, World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies to be included in the Bibliography. 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

19. To be included at the beginning of the Guidelines. 

GLOSSARY 

20. To be added.

 INDEX 

21. To be added.

1. Takes note of the list of all nominations received by the World Heritage Centre between 28 January 2002 and 1 February 2003 as presented in document WHC-03/6 EXT.COM/7 Rev;
2. Decides that the 32 new nominations determined by the World Heritage Centre to be complete by 1 February 2003 and four additional nominations for which the Centre had asked for guidance from the Committee be transmitted to the Advisory Bodies for evaluation.
3. Requests the World Heritage Centre to assist States Parties who have submitted incomplete nominations to make them complete for submission in future years.
4. Requests the World Heritage Centre to further develop, for inclusion in the revised Operational Guidelines (see decision 6 EXT. COM 5), an accurate description of the process and the list of requirements to be used by the World Heritage Centre to determine whether a nomination is complete. This revision should build upon text proposed in Paragraph II.E.1 and Annex VI of the 3rd draft annotated revised Operational Guidelines presented in document WHC-03/6 EXT.COM/ INF.5B.

22. Finally, Mr. Chabason felt that the Operational Guidelines of the Convention did not give sufficient guidance to States Parties regarding such "mixed" properties and suggested that, on the occasion of the next Bureau session, ICOMOS and IUCN call a meeting of a group of experts, including geographers, to elaborate a working framework for the identification and nomination of such properties.

23. Several States Members of the Committee expressed their agreement with Mr. Chabason's analysis and proposals. In particular, the representative of Italy described the difficulty of maintaining the traditional agricultural practices of the land around, a given cultural monument. She also referred to the First World Conference on Cultural Parks, organised by the U.S. National Parks Service at Mesa Verde on 16-21 September 1984 and at which there had been a long debate on how to define a "cultural park".

24. Mr. Batisse recalled that the spirit of the World Heritage Convention was to place both the cultural and natural heritage on an equal footing. Accordingly, there should not be a polarisation towards either "culture" or "nature" although there had perhaps been such a tendency in the past as States Parties had initially nominated the properties which clearly met either the cultural or natural criteria. In this respect, the representative of ICOMOS emphasised the influence of the natural environment on the cultures which have built the monuments of World Heritage quality. In his opinion, however, the role of the Convention was not to "fix" such landscapes but rather to conserve their harmony and stability within a dynamic, evolutive framework. IUCN recalled that one of the eight types of "protected area" recognised by their organisation was the "protected landscape" which included, for example, the national parks of the United Kingdom which consist essentially of man-modified and man-maintained landscapes. He warned, however, that care should be taken in the identification of such landscapes to ensure the nomination of only those properties of outstanding universal value. IUCN was to discuss the topic of "mixed" World Heritage properties at the IUCN General Assembly to be held in Madrid on 2-14 November 1984. Accordingly, the Committee requested IUCN to consult with ICOMOS and the International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA) to elaborate guidelines for the identification and nomination of mixed cultural/natural rural properties or landscapes to be presented to the Bureau and the Committee at their forthcoming sessions.

26. The representative of IUCN presented document SC-85/CONF.008/3, which summarized the main points of discussion of the task force and its conclusions, including proposed modifications and additions to the "Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention".

27. The Committee recognized the complexity of the subject and congratulated the members of the task force for their valuable proposals. However, the Committee felt that more time was required to fully examine the implications of these proposals. The Committee, therefore, decided that the Bureau should review this document at its next session and make a recommendation thereon to the Committee. However, in order not to stall the nomination and eventual inscription of rural landscapes or mixed cultural/natural properties, the Committee decided that the Bureau should, if the opportunity so arose, test out the proposals of the task force when examining new nominations which seemed to come into these categories.

28. Finally, the Committee noted with appreciation IFLA's proposal to collaborate with IUCN and ICOMOS in the evaluation of rural landscapes and thanked IFLA for its useful contribution to the work of the task force.

• The ceiling for small-scale technical cooperation requests which can be approved by the Chairman at any time of the year should remain at $20.000 per project. The Chairman could not approve requests submitted by his own country.
• The Bureau should be authorized by the Committee to approve technical cooperation requests amounting to a maximum of $30.000.
• The Bureau would not have the authorization to approve requests amounting to $30.000 presented by States Parties which were members of the Bureau. In such cases, it could only make a recommendation and the request would be submitted to the Committee for approval.
• The Bureau should meet twice a year, once, as before, in May-June of each year and a second time during the Committee session.
• The Bureau should function as the financial committee of the World Heritage Committee having authority to approve requests amounting to $30.000, to review large-scale requests and to make recommendations to the Committee on the budget for the following year.
• Large-scale technical cooperation requests (that is those exceeding $30.000) should be submitted to the Secretariat as early as possible each year. Those received before 31 August will be dealt with by the Committee the same year. Those received after 31 August will be processed by the Secretariat in the order in which they are received and will be considered by the Committee the same year if it has been possible to complete their processing in time.

35. The Committee requested the Secretariat to revise the Operational Guidelines accordingly.

27. It was recalled that States Parties have a responsibility in strengthening promotional activities. Several members of the Committee mentioned the activities undertaken in their respective countries, such as the production of stamps or pamphlets on world heritage sites in Yugoslavia and India, or the publication and sale at news-stands of a series of booklets on world heritage sites in Brazil, or the printing and the distribution of the folding poster on the World Heritage Convention in China. The bulletin produced in the United Kingdom "International Heritage" was also mentioned as a particularly successful type of promotional material which could serve as an example to other States Parties.

28. The Committee requested the Secretariat to ensure that there were close links with the promotion of the international campaigns to safeguard the cultural heritage. The Committee also suggested that better use could be made of technical cooperation activities to make the Convention better known, particularly by systematically marking equipment provided under technical cooperation with the World Heritage emblem. It requested the Secretariat to mention how useful this procedure could be in identifying work carried out thanks to the Convention.

29. The representative of Brazil indicated that there was an error in the siting of a Brazilian property in the World Heritage folding brochure and was assured that this would be corrected in the future.

30. Finally, as concerns the technical cooperation requests for promotional activities, the Committee accepted the Bureau's recommendation whereby the Bureau could consider as receivable only requests aimed at making the Convention better known in general and not for promoting a specific site, and to grant only amounts not exceeding US$5,000 for such requests. However, amounts up to US$10,000 could be granted in exceptional cases on condition that the Chairman of the Committee gave his approval.

The Secretariat was entrusted with modifying the Operational Guidelines to include these points.

In accordance with this decision, the Committee accepted two requests for technical cooperation submitted by Haiti for the production of an audio-visual presentation, and by the People's Republic of China for a contribution to a film on Wordl Heritage, respectively for $6,000 and $10,000.