WORLD HERITAGE WORKING GROUP ON ELECTION OF MEMBERS - PARIS

UNCLAS PARIS 000216 FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS STATE FOR IO/UNESCO PASS TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - STEPHEN MORRIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: UNESCO SCUL SUBJECT: WORLD HERITAGE WORKING GROUP ON ELECTION OF MEMBERS - PARIS MEETINGS, FEBRUARY 2009 ¶1. (U) Summary: The third meeting the Kondo working group on the reform of procedures for election to the World Heritage Committee (WHC) ended leaving several loose ends to deal with in May, and some recommendations that will guarantee future debates on the subject of equitable representation on the World Heritage Committee. It proposed to solve the problem created by the failure of any Group II (Eastern Europe) state to win election to the WHC by creating a special ballot to elect a state from any regional group that risks not being represented on the committee. End summary. ¶2. (U) The third session of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Reflection on the Procedures for the Election of the Members of the World Heritage Committee, chaired by Japan's former ambassador to UNESCO, Seiji KONDO, in his personal capacity, met on 10 February at UNESCO headquarters. Kondo opened the meeting by explaining that the recommendations of the Working Group would be forwarded to the next World Heritage Committee in Seville in June 2009 to "inform" members, and then would be offered for consideration by the World Heritage General Assembly in October 2009, thus bringing the Working Group's recommendations back to the body that had established it and set its mandate. Expanded Bureau ¶3. (U) Given the overall goal of equitable representation on the World Heritage Committee, Kondo proposed that the current Bureau of the Working Group (Group I - Belgium; Group II - Hungary; Group IV - Japan),be expanded to include representatives from the Group V(a) (Africa); Group III (GRULAC); and Group V(b) (Arab states). Zimbabwe and Grenada were selected to represent the first two groups, with the Arab states deciding to wait to determine which country would be selected to join the Bureau. Consensus - Indian style ¶4. (U) Before adopting the draft report of the last meeting, held in May 2008, a debate over the definition of the word "consensus" took place. France objected to the draft report's characterization that a consensus existed that each regional electoral group should be guaranteed a seat on the WHC. While many states had supported the idea, others had objected. The Indian ambassador, Ms. Bhaswati Mukherjee, then told the Working Group that "consensus exists when an overwhelming majority supports something." Both France and the US took the floor to contest her definition, saying that a majority notwithstanding, consensus is not reached when there are Member States present that dissent. (Comment: Mukherjee attempted to use the same definition during a debate at the World War II cultural property meeting last month. End comment). The decision was made to "take note" of the minutes, avoiding the need to agree on every element of the text. No Gentlemen Here ¶5. (U) India and Afghanistan raised concerns about making certain actions, like respecting a gap between mandates, or refraining from nominating sites for inclusion while sitting on the WH Committee voluntary. They both indicated that "gentlemen's agreements" simply don't work, and cannot be counted on to keep Member States in check, given their experience. One Seat Safety Net ¶6. (U) Group II's absence from the current WH Committee, along with the desire of many countries to see a more equitable representation of Member States among the six geographic groups, resulted in calls for a variety of solutions to the problem. More extreme solutions (Norway called for splitting up the entire 21-member Committee by geographic groupings as defined by UNESCO's General Conference. Other countries, including the U.S., argued against quotas, saying that we could find other ways to ensure balanced representation. Chairman Kondo, sensing a possible blockage, asked the Bureau's rapporteur (Hungary) and members of the WH Secretariat to work to propose draft language. Kondo's efforts paid off when they were able to find a solution that didn't call for quotas, but rather used a three-step voting technique that seemed to resolve the problem. ¶7. (U) The Working Group's three-step voting technique would work as follows: The first ballot would be to elect, if needed, a country from a group that risks not being represented on the Committee. (Note: In a simulation for this October's vote, Group II would be elected, as it is not represented on the sitting WH Committee. End note.) A second ballot would be held for the reserved seat for a country that does not have any properties on the WH List. Finally, a third ballot would be held for the remaining seats. The first round of the third ballot would be determined by majority vote. The second round of the third ballot or, if needed, additional rounds, would be determined by the highest number of votes received. This recommendation would, theoretically ensure that each of the geographic groups would have at least one seat on the WH Committee. Several countries indicated that they would have to consult with their capitals in order to get approval for the recommendations. In any case, this recommendation will be discussed at the next meeting of the Working Group in May, and at the WH Committee meeting in June, before being brought to the WH General Assembly in October. Length of Mandates ¶8. (U) The other points were covered without too much debate in this third meeting of the Working Group. It was determined by consensus that everyone agreed to the four year voluntary mandate (versus the six years as originally set in the Convention). Gap Between Mandates ¶9. (U) Again, after a relatively short debate, the Working Group reached consensus that a voluntary four year gap between mandates should be recommended. India again raised the problem of a gentleman's agreement and the difficulties when it is not respected. The problem of finding a way to make non-binding language binding remains to be resolved at the next Working Group meeting. The Legal Advisor did note that if the General Assembly determines that there is unanimous agreement on a point, the Rules of Procedure may be amended without having to modify the Convention itself. Rotation ¶10. (U) The Working Group believes that with the steps it has proposed, specifically regarding a voluntary gap between mandates, and with a broader and more equitable representation, the concerns about adequate rotation should be resolved. It is hoped that a better system of rotation will improve the chances of the 186 States Parties to get elected to the 21 member WH Committee. Experts, Capacity Building and Observers ¶11. (U) India commented on the perception that developing countries are reluctant to run for the WH Committee, and feel "intimidated" because their experts "don't measure up" to their counterparts from the developed world. This subject had come up in earlier meetings, with some countries suggesting training periods for new WH Committee members. There were several responses to India's concerns, including the fact that countries are free to participate as observers at the WH Committee meetings, and learn how it operates during its sessions. A number of delegations noted that there should be a "larger role" for observers at the WH Committee meetings. Canada noted that capacity building, for Africa in particular, and other regions, is something that can be developed through active participation by observers. Refraining from Nominations ¶12. (U) There was clearly no consensus on the question of whether States Parties should voluntarily refrain from making nominations for the WH List while serving on the WH Committee. (This was a campaign promise of the U.S. when we ran for the WH Committee). Some delegations suggested that one solution might be to give a "low priority" to those nominations should the Member State choose to push it through despite being on the Committee. Serbia said that there is an assumption of "bad faith" if a Member State makes such a nomination, and added that "that's not necessarily true." Another Member State used the phrase "conflict of interest," while another said it is normal to try to use the opportunity to lobby for their nomination while on the Committee. ¶13. (U) India was the most vocal on this point, saying that they have "strong reservations" about any attempts to force them to refrain from making nominations, which they claim as a sovereign right, based on the Convention. Ambassador Mukherjee said that should any language be proposed on this subject, she would ask that it be immediately bracketed. Chairman Kondo cut off the debate, stating clearly that there was "no consensus" on this point, and that it would require further study. ¶14. (U) Comment: While Chairman Kondo managed to advance much further than expected, there are still a number of serious problems that will require a great deal of discussion before any recommendations are brought before the WH General Assembly in October. It might be useful for the Interior Department to be represented at the next Working Group meeting in May. While there has not yet been a date set, it will likely be latched on to a planned Information Meeting in late May, in preparation for the Seville WH Committee meeting in June. End comment. ENGELKEN