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.