10. The General Assembly then took note of the accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period ending 31 December 1983, the interim statement of the accounts for the period 1984-1985 drawn up as at 31 July 1985, as well as the summary of contributions received from States Parties as at 31 July 1985. The Assembly also took note of the information provided by the Secretariat concerning the contributions received since 31 July 1985.

First ballot

Number of States Parties present and voting                                                        68

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                                               0

Number of votes recorded                                                                                    68

Number of votes constituting a majority                                                                35

States obtaining the required majority of votes

India                                                           49

Canada                                                      47

Yemen                                                       44

Mexico                                                       39

United Rep. of Tanzania                            38

Greece                                                      36

The Chairman declared elected to the World Heritage Committee after the first ballot the following States Parties: Canada, Greece, India, Mexico, United Republic of Tanzania and Yemen.

16. In accordance with the Rules of procedure, the second ballot was to be limited to those states which had obtained the greatest number of votes provided that the number of States did not exceed twice the number of the seats remaining to be filled. Among the remaining candidates, Bulgaria and France had obtained the greatest number of votes, receiving each 25 votes. A second ballot limited to these two States was to be held. However, France withdrew in favour of Bulgaria which was declared elected to the World Heritage Committee.

7. The outgoing Chairman, Mr. J. Gazaneo (Argentina), congratulated the new Chairman and members of the Bureau on their election. He wished to convey some recent information to the Committee and make a few suggestions for the future. Mr. Gazaneo informed the Committee that an international conference, held at Solo (Indonesia), on "Tourism and Heritage in the Pacific", in which he had taken part as Chairman of the Committee. He drew the Committee's attention to the large number of endangered properties in the region and the need for the various organizations concerned to make concerted efforts to safeguard them. He considered, moreover, that the time had come to apply photogrammetry and remote sensing techniques to show the state of sites at the time of their inscription and thus be able to assess their subsequent development.

9. He then reviewed activities since the Committee's eighth session in terms of preparatory assistance, technical co-operation, training and emergency assistance. On the subject of promotional activities, the Secretary said that an exhibit had been produced with the support of the Spanish Ministry of Cultural Properties and shown successively in Madrid, Canada and in the metro in Paris. He called on States to avail themselves of the Secretariat's copy of the exhibit - or to have it reproduced - for circulation in their own countries.

10. The Secretary stressed the excellent co-operation with ICOMOS and IUCN, but emphasized the fact that the Secretariat's workload had increased considerably while the number of staff working for the implementation of the Convention had remained the same since the Convention had become operational. He thanked the Canadian authorities for having provided the Secretariat with the services of an expert for two years.

11. He concluded his statement by underscoring the challenges to be faced at the beginning of the second decade of the Convention - its universality, commitment and mobilization of States Parties, in particular by establishing national structures for the implementation of the Convention, and making the public aware of the need to safeguard the world heritage.

12. In response to the Secretary's report, the Committee expressed the view that the Director-General's attention should be drawn to the situation of the Secretariat and the need to strengthen it. The Chairman of the International Fund for the Promotion of Culture and the representative of ALECSO reiterated their offer to co-operate with the World Heritage Committee.

15. In regard to the Bureau's proposed measures to reduce the number of nominations to be processed each year, the Committee was of the view that it was preferable not to lay down strict rules but rather to appeal to States that already had a large number of properties on the List to restrict their nominations voluntarily. At the same time, the Committee recalled that ICOMOS could evaluate nominations only from States Parties which had submitted tentative lists.

16. On the subject of monitoring the status of conservation of properties on the List, the Committee requested IUCN to report on its system of monitoring the status, not only of natural World Heritage properties, but also of endangered species and natural habitats. The IUCN system is based at the Conservation Monitoring Centre at Cambridge (United Kingdom) and has close links with the Global Environmental Monitoring System of the United Nations Environment Programme. IUCN is assisted by 4000 voluntary correspondents located in 126 countries who report regularly to the Conservation Monitoring Centre. Thus, IUCN is in a position to obtain reliable and up-to-date information on almost all natural World Heritage properties. This year IUCN would be reporting on 12 of the 56 natural World Heritage sites, a task which was assuming larger proportions than that of evaluating new proposals. In general, between 8 and 13 new nominations were examined each year, a number which IUCN considered reasonable. The representative of IUCN underlined the importance of regularly monitoring the quality of World Heritage properties and suggested that the Committee might follow-up the proposals for monitoring made to the Committee at its seventh session in Florence (Italy) in 1983.

17. The Committee acknowledged that a solution should be found to enable the Committee to be kept regularly informed of the status of conservation of cultural as well as natural properties. Such information should be collated at regular intervals, yet to be determined, and could be collected by expert missions, through questionnaires sent out to States, or with the help of ICOMOS national committees. This could only be done, however, if ICOMOS were provided with the necessary funds. In addition, the Secretariat informed the Committee of the forthcoming Unesco publication of a "Manual for the Management of World Cultural Heritage Sites" aimed at the persons responsible for the preservation of these sites.

18. The Committee considered that it was premature to adopt a monitoring system for cultural properties and that possible solutions and their financial implications should first be studied in depth. It recommended that ICOMOS and ICCROM should take the procedures adopted by IUCN for monitoring the status of natural properties as a guide, and make proposals to the Bureau at its tenth session.

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.

300

Canada

C(iv)(vi)

The Mayor of Quebec thanked the Committee for this inscription on the World Heritage List, pointing out that such an event would provide considerable support to the various Canadian authorities concerned, who will pursue their efforts to preserve the site.

351

Cyprus

C(ii)(iii)(iv)

344

France

C(i)(iii)(iv)

The Committee drew the attention of the French authorities to the importance of strictly protecting the site's surroundings.

337

India

N(ii)(iv)

The Committee encouraged the Indian authorities to provide a legal basis to protect the buffer zone south of the Park (Mikir Hills and the Karbi Plateau). The Committee expressed concern over the proposed construction of a railway along the southern boundary of the park and asked that environmental impact studies be carried out.