15. The Committee was greatly interested in the ideas presented by Mr. Parent, President of ICOMOS, in his report given at the seventh session of the Bureau, notably concerning the difficulties currently encountered in applying the cultural criteria to the nominations of historic towns, cultural properties representative of a series and the criterion of authenticity. After discussion, the Committee stated its full agreement with the ideas expressed by Mr. Parent.

16. The Committee recalled that, as early as 1979 it had recommended to States Parties to draw up tentative lists of cultural and natural properties suitable for nomination to the World Heritage List. In conformity with Article 11.1 of the Convention concerning the presentation of inventories, the Committee requested all States Parties that had not already done so to send this tentative list to the Secretariat during the course of 1984.

17. Should any State meet particular difficulties in rapidly preparing a tenta­tive list, it could request help from ICOMOS or IUCN according to the characte­ristics of the property in question, and if necessary request preparatory assis­tance under the World Heritage Fund.

18. The nominations of cultural properties by States which had not submitted such a tentative list after this time period could not be examined thereafter by ICOMOS. The submission of tentative lists for natural sites is also requested in order to facilitate the evaluation of nominations by IUCN.

19. The Committee, having requested ICOMOS to examine all the cultural nominations in the light of comparative studies, noted that tentative lists are also desirable for the examination of cultural nominations submitted before 1 January 1984.

20. Tentative lists, as their name implies, do not definitely commit the States nor the Committee. They should therefore be treated in a confidential manner. Their aim is to enable the Committee and the non-governmental organization concerned to carry out comparative and serial studies which are necessary for a methodical approach in building up the World Heritage List.

21. Consequently, each State submitting a tentative list should provide the following information for every property on that list:

a) reference as to the category of properties defined in the Convention,

b) reference to the criteria that warrant the nomination:

c) In the case of cultural properties, a reference can be added to the cultural area or to the type of property implicitly concerned, particularly when the reference to the criteria relates to the representativity of a series.

d) Finally, whenever a State includes in its tentative list a cultural property with the intention to associate with it an entire series of other properties similar in character and whose cultural value is due to this multiplicity and similarity, the State should specify this intention and should leave open the alternative of retaining eventually only one or a limited number of such properties as representing the series.

22. States having no need of assistance in preparing tentative lists of cultural properties could submit these lists before 1 June 1984. This would permit a first typological sorting before the next meeting of the Bureau. An account thereof would be given by ICOMOS at the next meeting of the Committee.

23. At the same time, the Committee invites ICOMOS to prepare a preliminary typological study, based on all cultural properties already included in the World Heritage List and on a review of the tentative lists already submitted.

24. As far as a certain number of criteria are concerned which raise problems of interpretation pointed out in Mr. Parent's report, ICOMOS will convene small groups of experts who are specialists in specific fields so that they may, on the basis of the information obtained through the nomination documents of sites already inscribed on the World Heritage List and through the tentative lists already deposited, formulate suggestions towards the interpretation of these criteria which will then be submitted to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee and to the next session of the Committee. This would in particular be the case with regard to:

• "historic cities",
• properties representing events, ideas or beliefs, and
• clarifying the notion of authenticity.

25. The representative of IUCN noted that India had not yet submitted nominations of natural properties although this country had a number of sites which possibly could meet World Heritage criteria. The Committee noted that other States Parties had similarly not yet submitted natural nominations and expressed concern that appropriate balance with cultural properties be obtained on the World Heritage List. In the case of India, the Committee encouraged the Indian authorities to submit a tentative list of natural properties.

26. The Committee expressed its gratitude to both ICOMOS and IUC for their work towards preparing tentative lists of cultural and natural properties respectively.

[...]

20. [...] In this connection, the Committee noted that Bulgaria and France had just submitted tentative lists of natural properties, which supplement those received from Brazil, Canada, Italy, Portugal, USA and Turkey.

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.

XIII.1.1 The Bureau examined document WHC-92/CONF.002/10 in the light of introductory remarks made by the Representative of IUCN and changes proposed by the Delegation of the United States of America. The Committee adopted the revised natural heritage criteria and the conditions of integrity amended in accordance with the proposals made by the United States Delegation. The Committee requested the Centre to revise the Operational Guidelines accordingly and submit them to the Bureau for verification and approval so that the revised criteria for integrity could come into effect by 1 October 1993.

XIII.2 Cultural Criteria

XIII.2.1 The Committee examined document WHC­-92/CONF.002/10Add. As requested by the Committee at its fifteenth session in Carthage, the Secretariat in collaboration with ICOMOS, IUCN and other competent partners, organized an expert meeting on Cultural Landscapes at La Petite Pierre in October 1992 at the invitation of the French Ministry of the Environment.

XIII.2.2 The Representative of ICOMOS reported on the proposed amendments to the six existing criteria for cultural properties and on the recommendations. for the new interpretative paragraphs relating to cultural landscapes which would replace the existing paragraph 34.

XIII.2.3 The Committee adopted the revised cultural criteria which now include outstanding cultural landscapes. Furthermore, the Committee made the following recommendations:

(a) the modified criteria will be applied in identifying and evaluating cultural landscapes for the World Heritage List;

(b) the German proposal for amendments to paragraph 24 (b) (ii) and the new paragraph 37 will be incorporated in the Operational Guidelines;

(c) in view of the relationship of many cultural landscapes to the maintenance of ecosystem processes and biological diversity, the importance of interdisciplinary review of .proposals for inscribing such sites needs to be kept in mind. In this regard, IUCN has offered to assist ICOMOS in landscape evaluations;

(d) it is essential to ensure that cultural landscapes nominated for the World Heritage List meet the highest standards of universal significance and integrity that characterize sites inscribed previously under natural and cultural criteria;

(e) the States Parties should be informed of the new criteria and be asked to submit Tentative Lists of cultural landscapes in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Operational Guidelines;

(f) the Centre is requested to convene a group of experts on the tentative lists and related issues (illustrations, examples and specific revisions requested by these criteria), and report back to the seventeenth session of the Bureau.

XIII.3 Framework Proposal for the Global Study

XIII.3.1 The Committee examined a proposed framework, presented by the Delegation of the United States of America, for the preparation of a global study for cultural properties.

XIII.3.2 After having recalled that the proposal was the outcome of discussions between the Delegations of the United States and Greece, the United States Representative particuarly insisted on the distinction to be made between the indicative lists (prepared and presented by the States Parties from a strictly national viewpoint) and the global study system (which must include the lists prepared by the experts, on a multidisciplinary basis and in line with given universal considerations). Furthermore, he emphasized that the need for a global study has been the object of a consensus for many years and it was now most important to start this study.

XIII.3.3 The Committee took note of the document as well as of the proposal of a study system founded on the basis of a matrix structuring cultural properties into three categories: time, culture and human achievement.

XIII.3.4 To this end, the Committee decided upon the constitution of a working group which, in consultation with ICOMOS and ICCROM and in liaison with the World Heritage Centre, will formulate a report to be presented to the Bureau during its seventeenth session in 1993. The working group will comprise, apart from ICOMOS and ICCROM, experts from Germany, the United States of America, France, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Poland and Tunisia and other interested States Parties.

XV.2 The Committee, however, requested the Centre to study the Canadian proposal in detail, particularly the implications linked to receiving funds from a States Party to implement projects identified by that Party and submit a report to the seventeenth session of the Bureau.

XV.3 As a first step, the Committee approved a contribution of US$ 30,000 towards the organization of a meeting to harmonize tentative lists of heritage-canals from all parts of the world.

678

Vietnam

C(iv)

The Committee inscribed the site on the World Heritage List under criterion (iv), but decided that the inscription would only take effect upon receipt of a Tentative List for Vietnam. By letter of 9 December the Vietnamese authorities provided the requested Tentative List, thus this property was inscribed on the World Heritage List.

XI.4 The Committee took note of the considerations presented by the Secretariat on this issue and of the results of an analysis of the tentative lists that have been submitted by States Parties over the years. The Committee expressed its concern on the small number of tentative lists that meet the requirements as stipulated in the Operational Guidelines, paragraphs 7 and 8, and confirmed the importance of these lists for planning purposes, comparative analysis of nominations and for facilitating the undertaking of the global and thematic studies.

XI.5 The Committee also confirmed that the tentative lists, which are mandatory for cultural properties and voluntary for natural ones, include those properties which the State Party intends to nominate for inscription on the World Heritage List during the coming five to ten years, and that these lists can be amended whenever the State Party concerned considers it opportune. The Committee will consider the necessity of a substantive evaluation of the tentative lists once a sufficient number has been received.

XI.6 The Committee invited the States Parties which have not yet done so, to pursue the preparation of tentative lists according the the Operational Guidelines. The Committee took the following decisions and requested the Centre to ensure their implementation:

• During the next two-year period the highest priority should be given to the establishment and/or revision of tentative lists in accordance with the stipulations in the Operational Guidelines, paragraphs 7 and 8. Active collaboration with the States Parties should be sought and preparatory assistance be provided when necessary and requested by the State Party concerned.
• During this period nominations of cultural properties that are included in any of the tentative lists would be accepted and processed according to the Operational Guidelines.
• As of 1 October 1995 only nominations of cultural properties that are included in tentative lists which meet all requirements as stipulated in the Operational Guidelines would be processed.
• From 1994 onwards, the tentative lists that meet the requirements as stipulated in the Operational Guidelines would be published and presented as an information document to the Committee at its annual meetings.

VIII.2 Upon the proposal of the Delegate of Canada, the Committee decided that the presentation of the cultural sites should include citations, as is the case with the presentation of the natural sites.

X.2 The Secretariat informed the Committee that it had received in the year 2000 six new tentative lists from Australia, Israel, Malawi, Poland, Turkey and Ukraine. It also had received a letter from the Arab League Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO) dated 24 November 2000 transmitting the Declaration of the meeting of Arab Ministers of Cultural Affairs held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 21 to 22 November 2000 concerning the Tentative List of Israel (see Annex XVI to this Report).

X.3 Both the Observer of Palestine and the Observer of Israel presented statements that are attached as Annexes XVII and XVIII.

X.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre indicated that all nominations were included in the Tentative Lists of the country concerned.

1. Having examined Document WHC-08/32.COM/8A,

2.Recognizes the value of the discussions held on issues raised in Document WHC-08/32.COM/8A;

3. Notes that these discussions have not reached an agreed conclusion at the 32nd session;

4. Requests that this item be included on the agenda for its 33rd session;

5. Further requests the Chairperson of the 33rd session to establish a working group to continue the analysis of these issues in order to suggest a solution.

1. Having Examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/8A,

2. Recalling Decisions 31 COM 8.1 and 32 COM 8A adopted at its 31st (Christchurch, 2007); and 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) sessions respectively,

3. Stressing the importance of the process of revision and updating of Tentative Lists, as a tool for the regional harmonization of the World Heritage List and of long term planning of its development;

4. Takes note of the Tentative Lists presented in Annexes 2 and 3 of this document;

5. Also takes note that several States Parties (including, among others, Afghanistan, Brazil, Israel, Libya, Oman, Paraguay, São Tomé e Principe and Uruguay) are currently preparing revised or updated Tentative Lists;

6. Decides to adjourn the discussion on these matters to its 34th session in 2010.

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/8A,

2. Recalling Decisions 31 COM 8A.3, 32 COM 8A and 33 COM 14.A2 Paragraph 14 adopted respectively at its 31st (Christchurch, 2007), 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) and 33rd (Seville, 2009) sessions,

3. Takes note of the Tentative Lists presented in Annexes 2 and 3 of this document.

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/8A,

2. Stressing the importance of the process of revision and updating of Tentative Lists, in conformity with Article 11 of the World Heritage Convention and in consistency with the established World Heritage List;

3. Takes note of the Tentative Lists presented in Annexes 2 and 3 of this Document.

1.  Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decision 35 COM 7A.13, adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3.  Commends the State Party for the progress achieved in the operationalization of the Manas Tiger Conservation Foundation (MTCF) and the implementation of an integrated ecosystem-based monitoring system and the Eastern Swamp Deer recovery plan;

4.  Welcomes the respective and joint initiatives of the States Parties of India and Bhutan to consider an extension of the property, including a transboundary extension, and also welcomes the proposal by the State Party of Bhutan to include Royal Manas National Park on its Tentative List;

5.  Requests the State Party to urgently address the slow release of funds to the property, by approving the direct fund flow from Central Government to the MTCF, or through other appropriate measures, to ensure that the current rate of progress can be maintained;

6.  Urges the State Party to include clear guidelines for tourism numbers and activities in the further development of the comprehensive tourism management plan, in order to ensure that the fragile and recovering Outstanding Universal Value of the property is not negatively affected;

7.  Also requests the State Party of Bhutan to submit a copy of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the proposed Mangdechhu hydro-electric project, including an assessment of potential impacts on OUV and potential cumulative impacts in relation to the existing Kurichu dam, to the World Heritage Centre for review as soon as it is available and prior to making a decision on whether to approve the project, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;

8.  Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property, including a report on the progress achieved in addressing the issue of fund release and the implementation of the other recommendations made by the Committee at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011), as well as on progress in addressing the issues raised above, for examination by the Committee at its 38th session in 2014.

1.   Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/8A,

2.   Stressing the importance of the process of revision and updating of Tentative Lists, as a tool for the regional harmonization of the World Heritage List and of long term planning of its development;

3.   Takes note of the Tentative Lists presented in Annexes 2 and 3 of this document.