Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06PARIS7455
2006-11-20 11:09:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Paris
Cable title:  

UNESCO: AMBASSADOR MEETS WITH WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Tags:  AORC SCUL MEPP UNESCO 
pdf how-to read a cable
null
Lucia A Keegan 11/28/2006 10:03:36 AM From DB/Inbox: Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text: 
 
 
UNCLAS PARIS 07455

SIPDIS
cxparis:
 ACTION: UNESCO
 INFO: DCM POL SCI ECON AMBU AMB AMBO

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: CHARGE:AKOSS
DRAFTED: SCI:NCOOPER
CLEARED: AMB:LVOLIVER

VZCZCFRI747
RR RUEHC
DE RUEHFR #7455/01 3241109
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 201109Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 3227
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 007455 

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS

FOR IO/UNESCO CHAD ABEL-KOPS, KELLY SIEKMAN
DEP. PASS DEPT OF INTERIOR PARKS SERVICE FOR DAS TODD WILLENS, STEVE
MORRIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC SCUL MEPP UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO: AMBASSADOR MEETS WITH WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
CHAIR TO COUNTER "POLITICIZATION" OF CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
DECISIONS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 007455

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS

FOR IO/UNESCO CHAD ABEL-KOPS, KELLY SIEKMAN
DEP. PASS DEPT OF INTERIOR PARKS SERVICE FOR DAS TODD WILLENS, STEVE
MORRIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC SCUL MEPP UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO: AMBASSADOR MEETS WITH WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
CHAIR TO COUNTER "POLITICIZATION" OF CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
DECISIONS


1. Summary: The November 7 meeting of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee focused on the agenda for the Committee's June
23-July 2, 2007 meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand. The Bureau
heard progress reports from the WH Secretariat on a policy paper on
the effects of climate change on World Heritage Sites (para 5) and
on the management audit of the World Heritage Center (para 6).
Bureau members reviewed the schedule of technical preparatory
meetings leading up to the Christchurch conclave (para 14). The
Bureau decided not to adopt Israel's proposal that the World
Heritage Committee consider site nominations in groups sorted
according to "typology" rather than by region. Eliminated from the
agenda of the Bureau meeting was an item on "politicization" of
World Heritage meetings. But before the Bureau meeting, Ambassador
Oliver met with the Chair of the World Heritage Committee (New
Zealand) and his team, to discuss means of reducing the
"politicization" of the process by which World Heritage sites are
chosen by the Committee for inscription on the World Heritage List
(paras 2 and 3). The thorniness of these choices springs from the
fact that developing countries are keenly engaged with the World
Heritage site nomination process; they view it as an essential boost
to tourism, and thus to the economies of their countries. End
Summary.
Ambassador Oliver Meets with New Zealand Chair: Laying the
Groundwork

2. On November 7, Tumu Te Heu Heu (New Zealand) chaired his first
meeting of the Bureau (steering committee) of the World Heritage
Committee. In advance of this meeting, Te Heu Heu consulted
individually with some members of the committee, according special
importance to his November 6 meeting with Ambassador Oliver. At the
meeting, both sides expressed concern about the "politicization" of
the WH committee in considering sites nominated for inscription on
the list of World Heritage sites. Te Heu Heu stressed that New
Zealand shares the U.S. concern. The New Zealand approach will be
to favor "dialogue" and have as few votes as possible on

nominations. But they agreed that any votes should be done via
secret ballot in order to make political lobbying ineffective. The

SIPDIS
New Zealanders also said that they wanted "community" to be the
theme of the meeting, and to add this fifth "C" to the Committee's
four strategic objectives: credibility, conservation, capacity
building, and communication and awareness rising. New Zealand's
chief objective for the Christchurch meeting will be to "bring the
committee together"; they agreed with the Ambassador that committee
members should not support sites that may not be of top quality
simply because of regional solidarity.

3. Ambassador Oliver and Te Heu Heu agreed on the importance of the
management audit of the World Heritage Center, and that there should
be ample time at the Christchurch meeting to discuss it, and that
discussion on this agenda item should take place relatively early in
the meeting; they also agreed that adequate time should be devoted
to discussion of the finances and administration of the WH Center.
It will be key to decide on the timetable of the Christchurch
meeting far enough in advance to ensure that delegations include
experts who can deal with management and financial issues, not just
conservation experts.
World Heritage Bureau Meeting: Inclusive not Exclusive

4. Thanks to the good relations that the Mission has developed with
World Heritage Center Director Bandarin, the Mission was invited to
attend as an observer the meeting of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee (composed of representatives of the six regional
groups). Tumu Te Heu Heu, who is also Paramount Chief of Ngati
Tuwharetoa (a Maori tribe) opened by stressing his hope that the
next meeting of the World Heritage Committee be "inclusive, not
exclusive, and promote harmony, not polarization, as well as
transparency and accountability in the World Heritage Program."
Progress Reports: Climate Change and Management Audit

5. Kishore Rao, the Deputy Director of the World Heritage center
reviewed progress on two items discussed at the last meeting of the
World Heritage Committee in Vilnius. On climate change, Rao noted
that the World Heritage issue was featured at the recent Nairobi
conference on climate change. The Vilnius meeting had endorsed the
experts' report, and asked for follow-up actions. These included a
paper that would appear in January-February 2007 as part of the
World Heritage series that would compile case studies detailing the
impact of climate change on World Heritage sites, to contribute to
"awareness raising". The Secretariat will circulate case studies
of specific sites cited in the paper for review by the concerned
states parties. In Vilnius, the Committee also asked the advisory
bodies and the World Heritage Center to present a policy paper at
the Christchurch meeting that will be finalized at the meeting of
the World Heritage General Assembly. This report will focus on
guidance on issues that were not addressed in the experts' report:
legal issues, danger listing, and synergies with other "climate
change mechanisms." The plans to circulate the draft widely, Rao
explained, beginning at a February 5-6 meeting with Stakeholders --
including regional organizations, advisory bodies, and
representatives of other conventions - that will formalize a draft.
No funds were allocated for this effort, Rao noted, but the
government of the Netherlands has contributed funds for the February
meeting. Norway (the Group I representative on the Bureau) stressed
that given the "tendency towards confrontation" engendered by the
issue of the causes of climate change, it was decided at Vilnius to
put the accent on coping with the effects of climate change on
cultural heritage. Rao responded by drawing a distinction between
mitigation efforts - for which there are other international
"mechanisms" - and site level impact and adaptation. The report
currently underway will focus sharply on sites, and on means of
creating awareness of what is happening, as well as on policy
options.

6. On the management audit, which Rao described as "comprehensive"
and "completely" external, terms of reference had been prepared in
consultation with the bureau and some WH committee members, and
approved by the President of the WH Committee. Rao also outlined
the process by which the auditor would be selected. Rao expressed
the hope that the audit would be completed within three-six months;
it is crucial that the audit be completed in time for the next WH
committee meeting. (Note: the U.S. played a lead role in gaining
acceptance of the management audit at the Vilnius meeting, and in
reviewing the draft terms of reference. Rao later reported to the
Mission that Deloitte had been chosen to do the audit, and would
present an audit plan by the end of November. End Note.)

Outstanding Value, Election Rules, a Fifth "C"?


7. Bureau members reviewed the draft agenda for the Christchurch
meeting which was identical to that approved in Vilnius; Norway
stressed that it would still be possible to add agenda items if they
were very important. Describing it as a "heavy" agenda, Norway said
it would be important to examine the timetable, to ensure that
appropriate focus would be given to conservation. He agreed with
the Secretariat's suggestion that all agenda items relating to the
2007 Assembly meeting be grouped together, including discussion on
how to make Assembly meetings more strategic in focus.


8. In response to Norway's question, the Secretariat confirmed that
discussion on outstanding universal value (OUV) and the
Cairns-Suzhou decision would come after consideration of
inscriptions on the WH list, because any decisions taken would not
apply to sites considered at Christchurch. In response to Japan's
query on the amount of time to be devoted to discussing outstanding
universal value, Bandarin estimated two hours, so that more time can
be devoted to consideration of nominated sites and the budget
("which will take at least three hours"). In response to Norway's
advice that discussion of outstanding universal value at
Christchurch not be just "another open-ended exchange", the
Secretariat said that the discussion would center on analysis of

SIPDIS
past WH Committee decisions on this issue, based on an advisory body
paper. Training material on OUV would also be examined.


9. The Chair of the World Heritage Committee signaled New Zealand's
intention to propose adding a fifth "C" - for "community" -- to the
Committee's strategic objectives. This strategic plan was adopted
via a 2002 declaration and its implementation will be reviewed at
the Christchurch meeting. New Zealand said that it would prepare a
paper in advance of the meeting on its proposal.


10. The WH Secretariat noted that it would prepare a document on
procedures for elections to the WH Committee to be considered at
Christchurch. WH Center Director Bandarin noted that this exercise
would require consultation with UNESCO's regional electoral groups,
and study of other electoral models within UNESCO. Creation of
regional electoral groups within the WH Committee would eliminate
multiple rounds of voting, simplifying the procedure governing
elections, which take place at the WH Assembly (coinciding with the
UNESCO General Conference). Bandarin concluded that the WH
Committee would make the final decision, noting that "change may be
difficult. The devil we know is sometimes better."

Housekeeping Issues: Number, Order of Nominations


11. Order in which Nominations should be considered: WH Center
Director Bandarin presented two proposals put forth by Michael
Turner, the Israeli representative to the WH Committee, who was not
present at the Bureau meeting. In a letter, Turner proposed that
when nominations are considered, they should be grouped by type or
category -- rock art sites, or modern heritage sites -- as opposed
to by region, as is currently the case; this is to allow for more
consistent decisions, and more focus on outstanding universal value.
He also requested a study be drafted on modern cultural heritage.
Morocco, the first to speak on this item, criticized the proposal as
having impact on the Committee's discussion of sites in Jerusalem"
"it is not for us, a technical committee" to make political
decisions relating to borders. Benin and Norway questioned the need
to change the current way of doing business, given the difficulty of
arriving at a consistent typological system for classing WH sites;
Norway added that the idea of ordering a paper on modern cultural
heritage could be considered at a future point.


12. Number of nominations to be considered: WH Center Director
Bandarin drew attention to the fact that the center was slated to
consider 44 sites at the next WH Committee meeting, including
extensions to existing sites, new sites, and nominations referred or
deferred at past meetings. Given that a limit of 45 sites had been
set by the Cairns-Suzhou decision, what would the Committee's
reaction be if additional nominations deferred at past sessions were
to move forward? Norway responded that it was likely that out of
the 44 sites currently on the slate, several would be withdrawn. In
any case, there are clear criteria in the Cairns-Suzhou decision
outlining which sites are to be given priority; the Secretariat must
apply these rules. Bandarin demurred, saying that while some of the
criteria are easy to apply -- those giving preference to sites
nominated by states parties who currently have no or few sites on
the WH list -- others are less so. He concluded by saying the
Bureau could consider the issue in the future.

Getting Ready for Christchurch: Prep Meeting Schedule


13. On preparatory meetings leading up to the next WH Committee
meeting in Christchurch, The Secretariat noted that a working group
on indicators to be used in periodic reporting on World Heritage
sites had met the day before, and that an information meeting on
periodic reporting would begin the following day (November 8-9, to
be reported septel).


14. The secretariat announced that in 2007 the following meetings
are scheduled:
Working Group on Indicators, January 22-23, 2007; Periodic Reporting
Reflection Year, January 24, 2007; Advisory Bodies Meeting, January
20-25, 2007; Climate Change and World Heritage, February 5-6, 2007;
Information Meeting, May 29, 2007. The May meeting, Te Heu Heu
explained, would be an informal meeting in Paris at which WH
Committee members could review the agenda; his suggestion that a
similar meeting take place in April was also approved by Bureau
members.
KOSS