SUBJECT: KEY THEMES AT WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 6-

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PARIS 000238 SIPDIS FOR IO/T; PLS PASS TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ATTN: STEPHEN MORRIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SCUL SENV TBIO UN SUBJECT: SUBJECT: KEY THEMES AT WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 6- 11 DECEMBER 2004 MEETING: NATIONAL PRIDE, TOURIST DOLLARS, GOVERNANCE ISSUES ¶1. Summary. The World Heritage Committee ("Committee"), the 21-nation governing body of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, held a 6-11 December special session in Paris. The UNESCO World Heritage List's importance as a symbol of national pride and as a source of tourist revenues was evident throughout the meeting. Discussions covered: Nomination and evaluation procedures for potential World Heritage Sites, a review of Regional periodic reports concerning the state of current World Heritage Sites; Working methods of the Committee, including: Member-state participation in Advisory Body evaluation of their proposed sites; Proposals to refine the Secretariat's workload; Possibilities for additional Committee meetings; and Whether WHC members should refrain from nominating sites during their tenure on the WHC. (The USG, which is not likely to nominate any sites in the near future, is considering standing for election to one of the 12 seats on the WHC which will become vacant in fall 2005); Plans for a special meeting of experts to be held in Russia to examine how the concept of Outstanding Universal Value is being applied in various contexts with a view towards enhancing the representative nature of the World Heritage List; and The interplay between the 1972 World Heritage Convention and more recent UNESCO documents, particularly the 2003 Intangible Heritage Convention. End summary. Introduction -------------- ¶2. The WHC held its 7th Extraordinary Session at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from December 6-11, 2004. The Session was held as a follow-up meeting to the 28th Session of the Committee that was held in China during June and July 2004. The 29th Session of the Committee will be held in Durban, South Africa in July, 10-17 2005. ¶3. The U.S. delegation included US Ambassador to UNESCO Louise Oliver, Department of the Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary Paul Hoffman, Director of the National Park 
SIPDIS Service Fran P. Mainella, National Park Service Acting Chief of International Affairs Stephen Morris and USUNESCO political officer Anne Carson. ¶4. The USG participated as an Observer at this December 2004 session. (Note. The USG is considering standing for election to one of the twelve Committee seats, which will be filled at the General Assembly of States Parties meeting held in conjunction with the 3-21 October 2005 UNESCO General Conference. The USG, which was the first signatory to the World Heritage Convention, has served as an elected member of the Committee during several periods over its approximately thirty-year history. End note.) ¶5. While the interventions of many Committee reps on the finer points of procedure seemed geared toward enhancing the chances for their nation's individual nominations, there seemed to general agreement to preserve the exclusivity and prestige associated with World Heritage Sites. (Note. The interventions, especially those of developing countries, evidenced the importance of inscription of a site on the World Heritage List for national pride and commercial interests. For example, the representative from St. Lucia referred several times to the "elation" in her country when its nominated site was finally inscribed on the World Heritage list. End note.) Nomination and Evaluation Procedures; Review of Reports; Procedural Details -------------- -------------- ¶6. The Committee completed its work on revising its Operational Guidelines by adding some finishing touches and deciding that these Guidelines will be first applied to site nominations submitted in 2007. (Note. Current Guidelines went into effect in 2002. End note.) The finishing touches included: A definition of "transboundary sites" (sites with parts in adjoining countries, whether or not contiguous, and nominated as transboundary sites; not to be confused with multinational serial nominations, with multiple thematically- related sites in different countries); A request to the World Heritage Convention Secretariat to update "tentative" lists submitted by States Parties indicating possible future World Heritage nominations within its territory to reflect any changes in the list (e.g., if a site becomes a World Heritage Site, or if the Member State country removes the site from its list); A specification that the "comparative analysis" required in the nomination dossier must be along the same lines as analyses of similar properties, whether or not on the World Heritage List, both at the national and international levels; and An addition of language encouraging States Parties to grant to UNESCO the non-exclusive right to use photographs, etc., of the World Heritage Sites, with the profits to go to the World Heritage Fund. ¶7. The Working Methods of the Committee (which cover precise points such as timing of submission of various documents and are separate from the "Operational Guidelines") will be reviewed at the July 2005 Durban meeting. ¶8. At this December 2004 meeting, the Committee: Reaffirmed earlier decisions that total nominations may not exceed 45 per year and that each State Party may submit only two nominations in any one year, so long as one is for a natural site, and including any previously submitted nominations that were deferred. Stressed the importance of rigorous adherence to established timetables for the submission of various documents, such as supplementary information to the Advisory Bodies following their examination of the site. Discussed the process by which countries can correct factual errors in the evaluation of their proposed sites by the Advisory Bodies and the mechanics of drafting of proposed decisions by the Secretariat; Discussed proposals to streamline the Committee's consideration of State of Conservation reports; Debated whether there was a need for additional meetings and the possibility that establishing working groups would assist the Committee in accomplishing its goals in a timelier manner; Incorporated the recommendation of the USG rep that new WHC Members and new heads of delegation be afforded the opportunity to attend training and orientation sessions to better acquaint them with the Convention, previous Committee decisions on key issues, the Operational Guidelines, and the Rules of Procedure. (Note. The USG plans to make similar practical recommendations concerning a variety of matters if elected to the Committee.) ¶9. The Committee also reviewed several items pertaining to Periodic Regional reports (the pending report for Europe and North America; action plans following-up on completed reports for the Arab States; Africa; Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America) concerning the state of World Heritage Sites. Based on a recommendation originating with Canada and the USG, the Committee decided to suspend the cycle of Periodic Reporting for one year to evaluate the results of the first cycle and make any necessary changes. ¶10. In an apparent response to some State Party complaints about extensive and sometimes duplicative reporting requirements, the Committee asked the UNESCO Secretariat to present proposals at the July meeting in Durban for better coordination and use of required reports concerning the maintenance of World Heritage Sites. ¶11. In other financial and administrative matters, the Committee: Asked the World Heritage Center director to take appropriate steps to regularize the use UNESCO World Heritage Emblem under intellectual property law; Reviewed some aspects of the Partnership for World Heritage Conservation (PACT); and Approved the agenda for the July 11-17 Durban meeting. (Note. The full text of the Committee's decision is available on UNESCO's web site under 7 WHC-04/7EXT.COM/17. End Note. Should WHC Members Refrain from Nominating Sites While Serving on the WHC? -------------- -------------- ¶12. Continuing discussions from the July 2004 Committee meeting in China, Committee reps from Egypt and Saint Lucia cited statistics showing that the "success rate" for inscription of nominated sites is much higher for the 21 nations sitting on the Committee than it is for the 157 States-Parties not sitting on the Committee. ¶13. There was discussion of an opinion of the UNESCO Legal Advisor, which states that the terms of the 1973 World Heritage Convention do not allow the Committee to prohibit any State Party from making a nomination. The opinion goes on to state, however, that State Party candidates for the WHC may say (i.e., in the nature of a campaign pledge) that they will voluntarily refrain from nominating sites within their countries during their service on the Committee. Some Committee reps expressed the view that allowing such "pledges" could limit a nation's ability to nominate a site and would therefore be inconsistent with both principles of state party sovereignty and with the specific intent of the World Heritage Convention. Discussions on this subject will continue at the July meeting in Durban, South Africa. What Gives a Nominated Site "Universal" Value within the Meaning of the Convention ? -------------- -------------- ¶14. Discussions at previous Committee meetings about a "representative, balanced and credible" list of World Heritage Sites resulted in a decision to convene a meeting of experts to formulate recommendations to assist the Committee develop a strategy to achieve this goal. In particular, the expert meeting is charged with examining the concept of Outstanding Universal Value as it has been applied in different ways by the Advisory Bodies. ¶15. At this December 2004 meeting, the Committee accepted the Russian Federation's offer of Kazan as a meeting site for the March 2005 meeting and specified that the experts' report would be considered at the July 2005 Durban Committee meeting. (Note. The USG has nominated an expert to serve on the 50-member expert group. End note.) Relationship between 1973 World Heritage Convention and other Normative Documents, particularly the 2003 Intangible Heritage Convention -------------- -------------- ¶16. Several Committee rep interventions indicated unwillingness to tie closely the "flagship" World Heritage Convention, with 178 States-Parties, to the 2003 Intangible Heritage Convention, with fewer than ten States-Parties, or to other normative UNESCO documents, such as Man and the Biosphere or the Convention on Biological Diversity, whose substantive provisions are not accepted by many nations. In particular, many Committee members and several observers spoke against the proposed decision to modify the World Heritage Convention's Operational Guidelines to remove a reference to intangible cultural values, as they saw no inherent conflict between the 2 conventions, and thought it inappropriate to subordinate the well-established World Heritage treaty to the as-yet untested Intangible Heritage Convention. ¶17. Some Committee interventions noted that World Heritage Sites include not only impressive edifices, but also natural sites of beauty and locales in which man and nature have achieved an extraordinary degree of functional and aesthetic harmony and necessarily involved principles expounded in other UNESCO normative documents, especially the 2003 Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention. ¶18. The representative from Benin appeared to encapsulate the feeling informing many interventions when he drew an analogy to a father trying to determine how to divide his attentions and riches between a 32-year old eldest unmarried son, still seeking to acquire possessions to demonstrate strength and manhood, and his much younger sons, who still needed care and upbringing. There was no perfect solution, he pointed out. The sons were at different stages of their lives and so could not be treated alike. ¶19. The Committee decision on this point generally noted that there might be some overlapping coverage in UNESCO documents and invited the Secretariat to continue to formulate suggestions for ways to interrelate the documents. Oliver