(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.

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.

43. The Committee agreed that there was a need to ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world, as is stated in Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Convention. It requested the Secretariat to present the Bureau and the Committee with proposals which would respond to this need and which could eventually be adopted by the 7th General Assembly of States Parties in 1989.