WORLD HERITAGE WORKING GROUP ON ELECTION OF MEMBERS - PARIS

UNCLAS PARIS 001073 FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS STATE FOR IO/UNESCO PASS TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - STEPHEN MORRIS, LYLE LAVERTY AND PHYLLIS ELLIN SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: UNESCO SCUL SUBJECT: WORLD HERITAGE WORKING GROUP ON ELECTION OF MEMBERS - PARIS MEETINGS, MAY 2008 ¶1. (U) Summary: The second session of the Working Group meeting to examine issues concerning the election of members of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) made little progress, as expected, but advanced on defining the key points to consider. End summary. ¶2. (U) The open-ended Working Group of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention met for its second session on 26 May 2008 to discuss the sensitive issues regarding the election of members on the World Heritage Committee (WHC). Ambassador Kondo of Japan again chaired the meeting, with Belgium's Ambassador Kridelka acting as the single Vice-Chair. Hungary's Gabor Soos is the group's rapporteur. The US was represented by Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Lyle Laverty and Stephen Morris, accompanied by US Mission staff. ¶3. (U) Kondo started the meeting by suggesting that the current reduced Bureau (Kondo - Group IV; Kridelka - Group I; Soos - Group II) be continued, and that at the third and fourth meetings, the Vice Chair and Rapporteur be switched to include representatives from Group V(a) and Group V(b). (Note: He made no mention of Group III's participation, but it would likely be proposed for the fourth meeting.) Mr. Soos then read out a summary of the first meeting, which will be scanned and sent to addressees via separate e-mail. Kondo said that he had been able to consult with some of the geographic groups, but still wished to consult with Groups I and III prior to the Quebec meeting, where he is scheduled to give a progress report to the World Heritage Committee regarding the Working Group's efforts to date. Kondo also noted the fact that the Africa Group was not present at the meeting due to a scheduling conflict with the launch of Africa Week activities. (Note: Few African delegations attended either the Working Group meeting or the WH Information meeting held the following day.) ¶4. (U) To launch the discussion, Kondo identified seven points that he wanted to cover during the meetings: 1) gaps between mandates; 2) reserved seats for countries not having any sites or never elected to the Committee; 3) refraining from nominating sites while on the Committee; 4) quotas; 5) groupings; 6) simplification of voting methods; 7) expertise of representatives. Despite his best efforts to control the agenda, almost every delegate spoke on several of the points when given the floor. Several of the issues were touched on only briefly, due to the wide range of subjects. Experts - Setting Criteria ¶5. (U) The Polish Ambassador began the meeting by suggesting that the people named to the World Heritage Committee be "experts". While most speakers agreed that expertise is vital in understanding the issues before the Committee, the room was almost unanimous that it is the sovereign right of Member States to select their representatives, and that the idea of setting criteria would not be acceptable. ¶6. (U) The Belgian Ambassador raised the issue of capacity-building in the context of expertise. He noted that many of the African countries will always be at a disadvantage as they do not have the necessary structures in place to train people in the fields of heritage conservation and management. Gaps Between Mandates to Improve Rotation ¶7. (U) There were several schools of thought regarding the idea of a gap between WH Committee mandates. The current gap of two years was viewed as too short, and does little to improve rotation among the 185 Member States wishing to be elected to the 21-member WH Committee. There was relatively general agreement, among those speaking, that a four year gap would be an acceptable compromise. Some suggested that the term of a mandate match the gap between mandates (e.g., four year term followed by a four year gap). ¶8. (U) Kondo presented some figures to help frame the discussion of rotation: There are now 185 State Parties to the Convention. 77 have been elected to the WH Committee once or more. 108 have never been elected. Of the 108, 71 never presented their candidacies, 37 tried, but lost. 42 have no sites inscribed on the WH List, and only 2 have no sites inscribed, but were elected to the Committee. No Gentlemen Here ¶9. (U) There were several countries that expressed concern that a voluntary gap would not work. India, notably, said that a "gentlemen's agreement" would not work if not everyone was a gentleman. Zimbabwe also agreed that voluntary gaps would not be respected, and that one Member State could cause an otherwise workable system to collapse. The majority present seemed to support the idea of a decision by consensus that would guarantee that all Member States would respect whatever decision was taken. ¶10. (U) The Nordic countries were supportive of longer gaps between service, with Sweden suggesting a minimum of four years, but ideally a break of six to eight years. Norway, however, was by far the most extreme on this point, suggesting that a gap of twelve to sixteen years is the only way to ensure proper rotation, and pushing that we conclude on this point during the upcoming Quebec meetings. The Czech Republic proposed that membership on the Executive Board and the WH Committee should not overlap. Reserved seat for a "no site" State, or "election loser" ¶11. (U) There was a brief exchange on whether one of the 21 seats on the World Heritage Committee be reserved for countries having no sites currently inscribed on the WH List. Most countries indicated their support for this idea. Another suggestion was that a seat be set aside for a country which had tried but failed to get elected to the WH Committee. There was less vocal support for this idea. Refraining from Nominating Sites While on the Committee ¶12. (U) This was a complicated discussion, as perceptions and facts did not always mesh. The widely held perception is that a country's best chance of success in getting a site inscribed on the WH List is while that state is on the Committee. The reality, however, is that many states have had sites inscribed when they were not on the Committee. ¶13. (U) The other point raised on this subject was one of timing. For those countries that already have nominations in the "pipeline", the question came up regarding timing conflicts, nominations, and delays in connection with presence on the WH Committee. ¶14. (U) Some suggested that it is a conflict of interest to actively lobby for a site that a state would be voting on. (Note: The US, in fact, campaigned for the WH Committee with the promise that it would not nominate any sites while it sat on the Committee.) Others said that there is no conflict of interest in nominating sites from your own State while on the Committee. France, for example, suggested that there should be no "blanket ban" on refraining from nominating sites while on the Committee. ¶15. (U) The Legal Advisor was asked to weigh in on the issue, and said that States Parties have a right to submit nominations under the Convention, and it would not be possible to limit that right. Clearly, this issue will be one of the most difficult to resolve in future meetings. Groupings ¶16. (U) This issue also proved to be a difficult one without any resolution. The WH Convention requires that "the election of members of the Committee shall ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures." However, there is no specific language or indication as to whether the same system of geographic distribution used in UNESCO, at the Executive Board, for instance, or elsewhere in the United Nations be the basis for this "equitable representation" by region. ¶17. (U) There were suggestions that Member States could potentially create a whole new system of geographic representation for the purposes of this Convention. Several States suggested that the WH Convention mirror other recent Conventions on this point noting, in particular, the Intangible Cultural Convention. Other countries, including St. Lucia, added the point that the Convention also mentions equitable representation of "cultures", a subject that others quickly dropped, as if any discussion of the subject would be like taking a walk in a diplomatic minefield. ¶18. (U) Strangely, the Member States present reflexively put any discussion into the context of UNESCO's standard and structured six regional Group system. Quotas ¶19. (U) Linked to the issue of groupings, which itself remains unresolved, the question of quotas was raised by Chairman Kondo in a variety of possible scenarios: 1)partial quotas; 2) proportional quotas; 3) minimum quotas; 4) maximum/full quotas. ¶20. (U) On this issue, Norway began the debate by stating that it is not interested in amending the Convention, yet noting that we do not have an "equitable" division today as, for example, Group II is currently not represented on the WH Committee. Norway also stated that we follow the concept of full quotas everywhere at UNESCO, except in the context of this Convention. Several other Member States supported the idea of minimum quotas, with at least one seat reserved for each geographic group. France's new Ambassador Colonna, said that we should be "cautious" on this issue of quotas, and generally advocated a careful and gradual approach on all the issues raised during the meeting. ¶21. (U) Netherlands noted that quotas "do not always work to our advantage", and stressed the necessity for a Convention that stands for "universality, above regional and group interests". Netherlands did, however, support a minimum quota of one seat per group. ¶22. (U) The question of how to divide the 21 seats continues to raise problems. India suggested adopting a "floating seat" that would move among the groups. Others suggested one seat per group, with the rest of the seats be open to free voting, (apart from one or two set aside for countries that do not have a site on the WH List, or a seat for a country that was not successful in its candidature to run for the WH Committee). The Indian ambassador said that for her, quotas are used, citing the US (affirmative action ?) as an example, to help "mainstream those who need help". ¶23. (U) Morocco was concerned that we could introduce too many changes that could destabilize the Convention. Canada stressed the fact that inscription is not the only part of the Committee's work, and that the attention to rotation and quotas is linked to the perception that it is not possible to successfully campaign for a site if a country is not a Committee member. The figures on this point, however, show that many countries, including India, for example, have been able to inscribe many sites (India = 37) despite the fact that it has only had two terms on the Committee. ¶24. (U) The US delegation, led by Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Lyle Laverty and Stephen Morris, made the point that minimum quotas could easily turn in to maximum quotas in the long term, and that we must be cautious of establishing new principles. Moving Forward - Best Approach? ¶25. (U) Chairman Kondo said that clearly, we need to better define what we want to achieve. Secondly, we must then decide how best to put these things into effect. Whether we try to amend the Convention, change the Rules of Procedure, or work through informal understandings and consensus. ¶26. (U) Chairman Kondo asked the Legal Advisor to prepare a written paper exploring the legal elements of each of the seven items that were discussed, indicating which element is linked to the Convention's language, which can be achieved through a change in the Rules of Procedure, or through informal understandings. ¶27. (U) India asked, if the concept of rotation is not accepted by everyone, why then are the WH Committee meetings are rotated to different regions every year? She also questioned why the Moroccan ambassador, during the elections in Christchurch, announced prior to the final election rounds, that Group II was about to be left off of the Committee if, regional groups were not to be considered. India said that "there is nothing sinister in regional groupings". Simplification of Voting Methods ¶28. (U) There were a few comments made supporting the need to simplify voting methods, including instituting electronic voting, but no specific recommendations were forthcoming. General Points ¶29. (U) Senegal, as one of the few African states present at the meeting, said that we should exclude no option at this point. ¶30. (U) Zimbabwe suggested that we should not be afraid of amending the Convention, if need be. This idea, however, had raised concerns during the first meeting about the obstacles in ratification processes in different countries, and the potential nightmare of two concurrent Conventions in effect. India, in an earlier exchange, had suggested that "protocols" could be added to the Convention without any problem. ¶31. (U) Finally, Kondo suggested the creation of a small (3-5 person) drafting group to write down the various comments and ideas expressed during the day-long meeting, but did not propose any concrete steps to launch the group. ¶31. (U) Comment: Overall, the "go slow" message was the one repeated by most delegations during the course of the day. Kondo, clearly made no move to rush things forward, indicating that he expected to hold at least two more meetings on these issues before reporting to the next WH General Assembly in Fall 2009. End comment. -------------- Two additional discussions related to the World Heritage Committee were held: -------------- Dinner at Australian Ambassador's 26 May Spain, UK, Canada, Israel, US, Sweden attending. Pre-selection for Capacity Building? ¶32. (U) It was suggested that one idea to explore would be the pre-selection of Member States, whereby they would begin attending meetings as observers two years prior to taking their seats on the WH Committee, so gain greater expertise regarding the Committee's workings. (Note: Ambassador Oliver later indicated that she did not support this idea, as all countries are now able to sit in on all WH Committee meetings - including Bureau meetings.) Politicization vs. Universality ¶33. (U) Christine Cameron, the Chairman of the Quebec WH Committee meeting, said that she has become concerned by the growing tendency to politicize and even monetize the issues the WH Committee is dealing with, and minimize the spirit of universality and identification of sites with "outstanding universal value" that was behind the Convention. She stated that China, for example, has been extremely active in promoting several dozen new sites for inscription, which she views as a purely economic move to boost tourism. Overload at the WH Center ¶34. (U) There was also concern expressed about the increase in the workload at the World Heritage Center, and the fact that we will soon be dealing with over one thousand inscribed sites. Cameron and Australia want to push the WH Committee to set up a Working Group to consider what kind of issues we will face in administering the Convention over the next 10-15 year period. Will system overload lead inevitably to system failure ? OLIVER