Manu National Park (Peru): A commercial discovery of natural gas had beenmade next to the park and further exploration work was imminent. This work would bring in many workers and settlers next to the western boundary of the park and could result in encroachments and associated problems. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Peruvian authorities and to seek^* further explanation.

Djoudj National Park (Senegal): The water supply to this park which wasmodified by dam construction was now being assured by a sluice which had been built with the support of the World Heritage Fund. A management plan was also under preparation with funds from WWF. Although there was still a need to improve the management of this site, the Bureau recognized that the main threats were under control and requested the Secretariat to contact the Senegalese authorities with a view to removing this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania): The general situation of this sitehad greatly improved. Equipment had been made available through the World Heritage Fund and IUCN was working to strengthen policy, planning and train­ing activities for the site with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism of Tanzania. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Tanzanian authorities with a view to removing this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee was glad to be informed that the conservation status of this property had greatly improved but that the Tanzanian authorities had requested that it be maintained on the List of World Heritage in Danger, particularly in view of the continued threat of poaching. The Committee agreed to maintain this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger but expressed the wish that it be removed from this List in 1989.

The Committee was glad to learn that due in part to assistance provided from the Fund, the conservation status of this property had greatly improved. The Committee decided to comply with the request of the Senegalese authorities to remove this property from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee noted that the natural values of this property had declined due to various illegal activities within the park. The Committee was, however, glad to learn of a forthcoming project financed by WWF, US-AID and possibly with a contribution from the World Heritage which could help mitigate the current situation, and requested IUCN to report back to the Committee at its next session.

The representative of IUCN reported that this property was currently under extreme pressure with the invasion of some 50,000 refugees and settlers into the Reserve. The Committee requested the Secretariat to contact the Honduran authorities to obtain further information and to ask them to consider inscribing this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee noted that an exceptionally large fire had occurred in the Park during 1988 but that no World Heritage values had been lost. The Committee welcomed the proposal of the representative of the USA to provide further information on the results of the review of the fire management policy for wilderness areas and the restoration/recovery plan aimed at showing visitors how Yellowstone was being "reborn".

34. At the request of the Chairman, the Secretariat informed the Committee of its observations concerning the results at the present stage of implementation of the experimental monitoring system adopted by the Committee at its eleventh session. The attention of the Committee was drawn to the difficulties of a number of States in meeting the deadlines; a modified timetable was suggested, so as to enable both the Secretariat and ICOMOS to process replies and to report to the Bureau before reporting to the Committee. The Secretariat stated that the results obtained were encouraging, but that conclusions would be premature. It therefore suggested that implementation of the system be extended for another year. As requested by the Chairman, ICOMOS then stated that the information provided, although necessary and valuable, was insufficient. Exceedingly brief answers provided little information on the extent of danger referred to and very succinct analyses prevented any serious evaluation of problems raised. He further regretted the lack of information on museum installations on archaeological sites and the lack of data on the environment. To conclude, he stated that procedures could no doubt be improved, either by reformulating the questionnaire or by encouraging States to answer in greater detail.

35. Several members, however, were doubtful as regards the usefulness and efficiency of the questionnaire in its present form. One speaker suggested that it might be considered an aide-memoire to remind the States of the need to present a report on the state of conservation of their properties. He further wondered whether a single questionnaire was applicable to all types of properties and suggested reflection on this matter. He added that it might be proper to distinguish between simple and complex properties, between urban centres and archaeological sites, etc.

36. A member suggested that an explanatory letter be attached to the questionnaire, to explain to States Members as clearly as possible the objectives of the Committee with respect to the monitoring system. Another member backed this proposal and further suggested sending a new letter to the States who had submitted incomplete answers. A member felt that it would be desirable to attach typical examples of satisfactory answers to the questionnaire as models. It was concluded however that the experiment should be pursued and that the state of conservation of the next fifty cultural properties be examined in 1989 (Annex II). The Secretariat would report to the Committee at its next session. This proposal was adopted by the Committee, which further approved the new timetable proposed by the Secretariat.

37. The representative of UNDP expressed to the Committee his views on the monitoring system. In his opinion, monitoring, technical cooperation, planning and evaluation were closely linked in any project. Any efficient monitoring system would require adequate strategies and methodologies. It would have to be a dynamic process, to be initiated and implemented in the field to the extent possible. Monitoring was also a mode of cooperation and therefore an excellent means to link various sectors beyond culture and nature. In this respect, he noted the very close relationship between conservation and the environment. Finally, he stated that he was ready to cooperate with the Secretariat, ICOMOS, ICCROM and governments in all monitoring activities. Several Committee members expressed their appreciation of the UNDP Representative's comment.

38. In the context of the statement of a member of the Committee, the representative of ICCROM drew the Committee's attention to the specific problem of historic towns and to the need to define the principles and objectives of conservation in each case. He confirmed ICCROM's eagerness to co-operate with the Committee in all aspects of monitoring and training. One member of the Committee then underlined the need for joint reflection on methods of intervention and techniques for the restoration of ancient structures. The representative of ICOM, by means of a precise example, drew the attention of the Committee to the importance of museums in the global process of conservation and rehabilitation of historical towns. The Committee took note of these comments.

39. The importance of conserving the environment of cultural properties was stressed by the representative of France, who referred to the problem of Mont Saint-Michel, a site where the environmental issue was particularly crucial. The Committee noted the information he provided on methods of intervention used by the French authorities at this site and strongly encouraged them to pursue such work.

40. The representative of Senegal requested a progress report on the international campaign for the protection of Goree and inquired about the procedures for the inscription of this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Secretariat provided him with the information requested.

42. As regards the site of Goreme in Turkey, the Secretariat informed the Committee of an ICOMOS report indicating two serious problems concerning the environment of this site. The Turkish authorities advised the Committee of the intent of their government to take all measures required for the protection of this vulnerable site.

43. The case of the Studenica Monastery was also submitted to the Committee. To evaluate the impact of the possible construction of a dam some ten kilometres from this property, Unesco had asked ICCROM, at the request of the Government of Yugoslavia, to investigate the situation. The Chairman invited the ICCROM representative, who had been part of the investigating team, to report on the matter. He stated that there did not seem to be technical grounds for preventing the dam project as presently contemplated. However, the ethical problem of protecting cultural and historical values linked to the Studenica valley, eponym of the monastery, was highly important and should be taken into account. He also advised the Committee as to the possibility of alternative although more costly dam locations much farther away from the monastery. The main purpose of constructing the dam was to ensure the water supply of a region where other rivers are already polluted. This raised the basic problem of protecting the environment, underlying other equally essential matters. Finally, the question was whether it was indeed necessary to sacrifice the admirable Studenica site since there were alternative in order to improve economic and social conditions in Serbia. The Committee took note of the report and requested the Secretariat to convey its concern to the Yugoslav authorities.