15. The Committee was glad to learn of improvements or of a stabilisation in the previously deteriorating situation of certain properties, notably Djoudj National Park (Senegal), Ngorongoro Conservation area (Tanzania) and Garamba National Park (Zaire) (all inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger). Improvements were also noted for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia), Pirin National Park (Bulgaria), Manas Tiger Reserve (India), Niokolo Koba National Park (Senegal) and Aldabra Atoll (Seychelles). The Committee requested IUCN to keep it informed of the conservation status of Iguazu and Los Glaciares National Parks (Argentina), Mt. Nimba (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire) and Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia).

19. In concluding the debate, the Committee decided that the following measures should be taken:

a) that the Chairman would write to the CITES Secretariat to explore the means to use both conventions to mitigate the situation in Selous National Park (Tanzania) and Mana Pools, Sapi and Chewore Reserves (Zimbabwe) in particular, and for combating poaching in natural World Heritage properties in general;

b) the Secretariat should contact the authorities of Tanzania and Zimbabwe (in Paris and in the capitals) respectively to develop, in cooperation with IUCN (and other'appropriate organi­sations and institutions) suitable projects for technical cooperation under the World Heritage Fund, and in parallel, to study the possibility of inscribing Selous National Park and Mana Pools, Sapi and Chewore Reserves respectively on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

21. The President of ICOMOS stressed the importance and urgency of establishing a monitoring system which would correspond to the spirit of the Convention, in order to ensure that the World Heritage List does not become a simple enumeration of sites, the true state of conservation of which would be unknown to the Committee. He added that such a system would allow the systematic collation of irrefutable information on the actual state of all the cultural properties, while respec­ting the sovereignty of States. It would often be very useful to send experts to the spot for this purpose. The speaker also wondered about the possibility of a wider use by States Parties of the procedure for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger. He concluded by indicating that ICOMOS was ready to provide its help in the implementation of a monitoring system.

22. The Committee members who took the floor agreed upon the need for a system of monitoring cultural properties, with several of them stressing the need to delay no further the launching of this activity, even though it may be necessary to make improvements in the method used in the light of experience. Many of them emphasized that the main objective of monitoring was in no way to bring accusations against the States concerned, but on the contrary to encourage and assist their efforts for the preservation of sites, for example by pointing to a possible need for a request for technical cooperation.

23. Several speakers indicated that rather than ensuring the monitoring of a fixed number of properties each year, it would be better to concentrate efforts on those which were threatened by the most serious and pressing dangers. One speaker emphasized that in view of the present context of financial restrictions which Unesco faced and the available resources, the systematic monitoring of cultural properties seemed unnecessary and too expensive, and there was a general expression of concern among members that the system adopted should not be too rigid nor too expensive. It would be preferable to give priority to the monitoring of sites about which disturbing information had been received, as was the practice of IUCN which only reported on sites the preser­vation of which raised problems.

24. Another speaker, drawing attention to the general agreement on the principle of monitoring, suggested constituting a working group. She indicated that the system chosen should be devised essentially with a view to assisting States in their efforts, in particular through questionnaires which would enable them to bring up to date the data on the state of conservation of properties and which could contain criteria to help them evaluate the dangers threatening these sites. The States, on which the prime responsibility for monitoring would lie, should develop their own capacity to enable them to fulfil this task.

25. A Committee member, underlining the positive aspects of the document prepared by the Secretariat, stressed the need to have periodic information, at least on the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Another speaker, recalling the voluntary nature of States' participation in the implementation of the Convention and in nominating properties for inscription, stated that the monitoring system should not be considered as a policing activity but as a means of furnishing the States with advice on the ways of carrying out monitoring. One speaker indicated that he had not been able to consult the authorities o f his country on this document, which had been received shortly before the meeting, and that more time would be necessary to study it. This speaker suggested that the Secretariat consult all the States Parties to the Convention on the question of monitoring, which had numerous legal and financial implications. This sugges­tion was supported by other speakers.

26. Another Committee member also suggested that States Parties be asked to update at least every five years the information concerning the state of conservation of properties, and the justifi­cation of their outstanding universal value, contained in the nomination. In the absence of a reply within two years following the deadline, inscription of the sites concerned on the List of World Heritage in Danger or even their deletion from the World Heritage List could be envisaged. Another speaker indicated that no effort should be spared to avoid a situation in which the exclusion proce­dure would have to be put into effect.

27. A speaker underlined the fact that the question of monitoring was linked to promotional activi­ties concerning the Convention, because it was necessary for the public to feel directly concerned by the preservation of world heritage sites.

28. The Director of the Division of Cultural Heritage pointed out that whenever the Secretariat received alarming information concerning the preservation of a site, it did its utmost, as far as its means allowed, to verify the authenticity of the information and it brought the information to the attention of the authorities concerned. She cited in this connection three examples: Cairo where the proposed construction of a bridge endangering Coptic churches had been abandoned; Olinda, where information concerning the construction o f a bank in a protected area had proved to be incorrect; and Auschwitz where work on converting one of the buildings had been stopped. She emphasized that the Secretariat could contribute to the collation of data on the properties and to the organization of expert missions to the site, in agreement with the States, but it was always confronted with a problem of under staffing.

29. Summarizing the debate and underlining the points on which there could be general agreement, the Chairman noted that the Committee members were for the most part in agreement on the need for a system of monitoring cultural properties. Taking into account the available resources, which did not allow the systematic examination of the state of conservation of all the properties, an order of priorities must be established, the monitoring of the most threatened properties being the most urgent. The main responsibility for monitoring lay with the States concerned but the Committee and Unesco also had the responsibility of helping States in this task. The monitoring system should not be inquisitorial, but should help the States to identify the dangers threatening the sites; it could also serve to determine the assistance which the Committee could provide to help solve these problems. He emphasized the fact that a future questionnaire sent to the States could contain criteria to help the States collect and evaluate information on the perils threatening the sites. He added that the available resources should be allocated with a certain amount of flexibi­lity, taking into account the needs of the Secretariat, of ICOMOS and IUCN. Finally it would be useful to consider the experience of the data network organized by IUCN. As the Committee did not wish to defer any longer a decision on this question, the Chairman suggested that a working group be constituted.

30. The Committee agreed that a monitoring-cum-reporting system was required as an integral part of the process of maintaining a World Heritage List but noted that one State Party was not in a position at this stage to fully concur with this view. It was further agreed that the primary responsibility for monitoring the status of sites inscribed on the List lay with the States Parties themselves. This implies a procedure under which the State Party responsible for the property is recognized as the primary source and recipient of information concerning it. Since a variety of views were expressed on the form the monitoring mechanism should take, it was decided that the Chairman would set up a Working Group of the Bureau which would examine procedures, including reporting ("questionnaires"), periodicity of such reporting, resources, criteria for priority setting, and other related issues, with a view to recommending a system to the Bureau at its next meeting. The system envisaged would be both flexible and effective and would enable the Committee to keep itself informed of developments in the field on the one hand and, on the other, be in a position to respond to requests for technical or emergency assistance from States Parties when this is called for. The Working Group will examine methodologies and models developed by international non-governmental organisations in the field of cultural and national heritage preservation as part of its study.