FEBRUARY 2009 FUTURE OF WORLD HERITAGE EXPERTS MEETING

UNCLAS PARIS FR 000370

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

STATE PASS TO DEPT OF INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ATTN: STEVE
MORRIS AND JONATHAN PUTNAM

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL UNESCO
SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 2009 FUTURE OF WORLD HERITAGE EXPERTS MEETING


1. (SBU) Summary and comment: A disconnect between theory and
reality marked the February 2009 experts meeting on the World
Heritage Convention's future. With the WH List continuing to grow
at a rapid rate, resources static, and the conservation of WH sites,
d the Convention's prime purpose, almost treated as an afterthought
by some, there was a lack of focus that could threaten the future of
the Convention. The Spanish chairperson's attempt to identify and
prioritize the problems was less than stellar, and suggests that she
will be hard-pressed to propose recommendations and drive the WH
Committee to reach any clear solutions during its meeting in Seville
this June. End Summary and comment.


2. (U) Three meetings were held at UNESCO headquarters (24-27
February) in an attempt to prepare the ground for the upcoming World
Heritage (WH) Committee meeting in Seville, June 22-30, 2009.
Half-day meetings were held regarding the use of the WH Emblem, and
another on the WH budget. (See septels). The main meeting of the
week was a two and a half-day gathering on the Future of the WH
Convention, bringing together WH experts from many of the States
Parties. The U.S. was represented by Steve Morris and Jonathan
Putnam from the National Park Service at the Department of the
Interior. David Ostroff accompanied them from the U.S. Mission
staff.

The Future of World Heritage


3. (U) The key meeting of the week focused on the future of the WH
Convention, and was designed to identify and prioritize issues to
set the stage for further debate and decisions in Seville. WH
Center Director Bandarin opened the discussions by noting that 44
countries out of the 186 signatories had submitted comments in
response to the Secretariat's request for input. It was not clear
how many countries had experts present at the meeting, though it was
well attended. The comments served as the framework for an extended
debate, with the experts present splitting into three separate
discussion groups, each covering the same topic at the same time:
A) Values, messages and image of the Convention; B) Conservation and
Sustainable Development; and C) The World Heritage System.
Rapporteurs from each discussion group gave a summary of the
debates, which served as a launch pad for further discussion.
Despite efforts to keep the discussions on theme, the experts felt
no compunction to limit their comments, leaving the moderators
perplexed and adding to the overall sense of "nothing is ever going
to get decided" during the meeting. No final declaration was
proposed, but WH Committee Chair, Spanish Ambassador Maria San
Segundo, announced that a summary would be prepared by the
rapporteurs, Chairman, and Secretariat staff for presentation to the
WH Committee in Seville.

Spain launches Prehistory as a new WH Theme


4. (U) Ambassador San Segundo took the opportunity to introduce
plans for a new theme on "WH and Prehistory" that would run
throughout the year of Spain's chairmanship, adding that Spain would
be sponsoring four meetings on the subject in 2009: One on
prehistory in general; one on human evolution; one on rock art; and
one regarding prehistoric WH sites. San Segundo noted that the
theme has strong links to Science, and would bolster the
participation of Caribbean, African, and the Pacific States Parties,
as they all have strong links to prehistory in relation to WH sites.
She also took the opportunity to remind participants about the
creation of new regional centers for WH that will be opened in the
Nordic countries, China and Bahrain, all of which will center on
capacity building and conservation.

Back to Basics or the Risk of Implosion


5. (U) Former Chair of the WH Committee (for the 2008 meetings in
Quebec),Dr. Christina Cameron, launched the debate on the Future of
the WH Convention with a short speech, reminding the States Parties
that the original signers of the Convention would never have
imagined the size and complexity we face today with a WH List of 878
sites and growing. She warned that the Convention risks imploding
under the weight of its own success. Cameron told the assembly that
the credibility of the Convention is endangered by its search for
"representivity." She reminded the gathering that the original
concept was to create a "select list" of the most outstanding sites
in the world, not one that is geographically balanced. She also
warned against the List veering increasingly towards negativity
(politicization) and nationalism. (Comment: Later in the meeting,
comments on the growing politicization were much sharper, with
several experts noting that what had been subtle lobbying in the
past has now become harassment and unbearable pressure. End
comment). She noted that the Danger List is not being used as
originally intended, and that it has become perceived as a "black
mark", rather than as a rallying point to help countries having
serious problems maintaining their sites.

Shocking Time Management - 12 Minutes per Site

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

STATE PASS TO DEPT OF INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ATTN: STEVE
MORRIS AND JONATHAN PUTNAM

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL UNESCO
SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 2009 FUTURE OF WORLD HERITAGE EXPERTS MEETING



6. (U) Cameron went on to complain that the time management problem
the WH Committee faces each year is a disaster in the making.
Noting that in Quebec, the Committee was obliged to make an average
of five decisions per hour, Cameron said that given the years
devoted to the preparation of each dossier, the twelve minutes given
to examine each nomination was not credible, and not sustainable.
(Comment: Chairman San Segundo's inability to manage time during
the three meetings was egregious, and guarantees that Seville will
suffer the same or worse fate in terms of dealing with substantive
decisions in unacceptably short blocks of time. End comment).

Debates - New Ideas Surfacing


7. (U) While much of the two and half day discussion on the future
of the WH Convention was connected to recurring themes, including
budget, the over-worked Secretariat, "representivity" and improved
efficiency, other ideas surfaced that were worth noting, and will be
interesting to follow should they gain traction in the coming
months.

Adding a Second WH Committee Meeting per Year


8. (U) Several experts suggested that a second meeting of the WH
Committee be held in Paris each year, providing a means to ease the
pressure caused by the heavy agenda at the annual WH Committee
meeting. Different ideas were floated about how the work could be
split up to improve time management and potentially slow the number
of inscriptions. They included restricting discussions on
inscriptions to every second year, which would permit more time to
focus on the problem of conservation during the year in which
nominations are not considered. Others suggested that inscriptions
and management issues be separated out into two different meetings,
as well. (Note: see para 12 below: "Division of Work"). Chairman
San Segundo is a strong advocate of holding a second meeting per
year, but Secretariat personnel are concerned that organizing a
second meeting per year will severely cut into their ability to do
their "real work." The question of the cost of a second meeting was
not broached, but must be considered before any recommendations are
made to the WH General Assembly.

Inscriptions - A Finite or Infinite List?


9. (U) Despite clear warnings from Christina Cameron and others
about placing more strain on the system, some experts, with Kenya
being particularly vocal, insisted that more sites need to be added
to the List. (Note: Bandarin has been quoted as saying that new
inscriptions are the life-blood of the Convention). When some
experts raised the idea of a moratorium or capping the List, others,
notably from Africa and Brazil objected strenuously. During the
discussion, the idea of a moratorium seemed to be more of a straw
man to be knocked down, rather than a serious proposal. The U.S.
strongly backed the idea that we need to concentrate more on
conservation, and reiterated the option of self-imposed limits,
noting the U.S. as an example of self-restraint in making
nominations. India, for example, suggested the solution is to
increase resources to handle the increased volume. As the question
of adding to the List was raised, Brazil and others took the
opportunity to again point out existing problems regarding
geographic balance and proportionality being handled by former
Japanese Ambassador Seichi Kondo's Working Group on procedures for
election to the World Heritage Committee, which is due to report to
the Seville meeting, as well. Others expressed the idea that some
countries were unable to nominate sites due to their lack of
expertise, to which Brazil announced that it would assist States
Parties, both financially and in terms of technical expertise, to
present credible dossiers for nominations. There was no consensus
on the idea of capping the List, with many States Parties clearly
supportive of continuing to add to it, providing what they see as
greater "balance" to the List. Brazil commented that we are not
building a Convention for the "short-term", but rather we are
constructing a List that could "go on for centuries," adding that
"we cannot have a list that is based on the past."

U.S. Help in Capacity Building?


10. (U) In an effort to brainstorm on ways the U.S. might assist in
capacity building, U.S. expert, Steve Morris, mentioned privately to
other U.S. delegation members that his office is in the first phase
of reflection on a possible initiative to assist States Parties that
lack sufficient management expertise to run their own WH Sites.
Morris is considering a "World Heritage Scholarship" program where
visiting WH administrators or staff would be trained at U.S.
National Park/WH Sites for periods up to 6 months.

Cooperation Among UNESCO Conventions


11. (U) One subject that came up frequently was the idea, promoted
by both Chairman San Segundo and ADG Culture Riviere, that there

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

STATE PASS TO DEPT OF INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ATTN: STEVE
MORRIS AND JONATHAN PUTNAM

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL UNESCO
SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 2009 FUTURE OF WORLD HERITAGE EXPERTS MEETING

must be a greater level of cooperation among the seven "culture"
Conventions under UNESCO's responsibility. Norway, for example,
lamented that the WH Convention "lives in splendid isolation", and
urged a "holistic review" of the Conventions which will strengthen
them all. Another expert suggested that reducing "compartmentalism"
between instruments would allow greater complementarity, e.g.,
between natural sites and biodiversity issues. Others suggested
that better coordination would avoid any duplication of effort among
Conventions.

Division of Work


12. (U) Another issue that was raised by several experts regarded
the division of labor between the WH Committee and the WH General
Assembly. While the workload of the WH Committee continues to
increase, many complained that the WH General Assembly does nothing
more than elect the WH Committee membership. It was suggested that
many issues that are clearly of a more substantive nature should be
dealt with by the WH General Assembly, leaving the decisions of a
more technical nature to the WH Committee. Norway, in particular
noted that the WH Committee has become "a political battleground,
not the sober and professional body it should be." The idea of
reinstituting a WH Bureau to take on decision making was quickly
shot down, as former WH Chair Vera Lacoeuilhe (Saint Lucia)reminded
experts that it had been tried and failed. Another point raised
regarding division of labor was the current imbalance between the
Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies, with a suggestion that the
Advisory Bodies be given even more work, freeing up the Secretariat
to better manage the Convention as a whole.

Definition of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)


13. (U) There was renewed debate about not having clearly defined
the concept of OUV in the WH Convention. In the same vein as the
Supreme Court Justice who, when asked to define pornography said, "I
know it when I see it..." the simple and powerful concept of OUV is
an evolving and dynamic process, mirroring shifts and changing
values in time. In the context of conservation, the definition of
OUV is key to understanding why a particular property is worthy of
our care and attention. In the various debates regarding
conservation, it was expressed that while OUV may be linked to
ideas, ultimately OUV is linked to each property. The U.S. expert
described the "statement of OUV" as part of the contract between the
State Party and the WH Committee about how the site will be
maintained. It was, therefore, suggested that a statement of OUV be
assigned for every site, helping guide future decisions about
conservation, providing a better understanding of what values drove
the WH Committee, at a particular point in time, to inscribe the
site on the List.

Selling the WH Brand


14. (U) A short, but interesting intervention during the meeting
came from Mr. Tim Heberden from the Australian firm, Brand Finance,
specializing in "brand economics". His comments on the World
Heritage "brand" were surprising, with Heberden saying that he
doesn't understand why the clear partnership between the
multi-billion dollar tourism industry and the WH Center aren't
better exploited. He said that he would give the World Heritage
"brand name" recognition an indicative "BBB" (or average) rating,
and believes that the "brand value" for World Heritage, if properly
managed, could be in the neighborhood of $500 million.


15. (U) Despite the mediocre rating given by Mr. Heberden, some
experts held to their arguments that devaluation of the brand is not
possible, no matter how many sites are ultimately put on the list.
Brazil, saying "gold is gold, no matter how much you have", was
notably out of synch with the branding expert on this point.

Fly-Over Tourist Dollars


16. (U) Another subject that came up frequently was the problem of
tourists visiting WH Sites, paying for their trips in their home
country, and leaving little or no "trickle-down" money in the
country where the site is located. Some solutions suggested special
taxes earmarked for conservation of WH sites, compulsory surcharges,
or voluntary contributions at the time of payment. Several experts
suggested that these taxes and surcharges be levied on tour
operators, while others felt that individuals might be more
charitable, given that the monies would be used to help improve
conservation of WH Sites.

WH Convention to Alleviate Poverty?


17. (SBU) One subject that came up several times during the meeting
was that the WH Convention somehow has a role to play in alleviating
poverty in the developing world. This was mentioned notably by a
representative from the African WH Fund, who spoke of "squalor and
poverty" in or near WH Sites in Africa. Linking conservation,

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

STATE PASS TO DEPT OF INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ATTN: STEVE
MORRIS AND JONATHAN PUTNAM

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL UNESCO
SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 2009 FUTURE OF WORLD HERITAGE EXPERTS MEETING

tourism and sustainable development together provided some experts
with a sturdy enough soap-box to climb up on and urge the gathering
to look at ways for the WH Convention to benefit local communities.
Kenya, referring to the U.S., accused us of "purist thinking"
regarding the Convention, adding that conservation without people is
wrong. ICOMOS's president, Mr. Araoz, notably suggested that the WH
Convention develop a "major role" in community building. (Comment:
Crossing the finely drawn lines between WH Committee issues and
questions of national sovereignty could be very problematic if this
highly political subject is not approached with caution. End
Comment.

Far from Conclusions


18. (U) WH Center Secretary Bandarin proposed that a global survey
be undertaken to determine how the public sees the World Heritage
Convention as it reaches its fortieth anniversary, and to help
define what function it can have in the future. On the subject of
sustainable development, Bandarin said that the Secretariat will
work on some ideas regarding "best practices" to recommend to the WH
Committee. ADG Riviere mentioned the idea of having a short list of
"WH Centers of Excellence" which would provide clear examples of OUV
and best practices for conservation. She said that the WH Center
should become, in this regard, a center for knowledge management.
(Note: Brazil, in particular, commented on the fact that the
Secretariat is increasingly taking on responsibilities beyond its
mandate).


19. (U) The other key point that surfaced during the meetings was
the increased need to focus on the problems of conservation and
capacity building, with several experts suggesting that we need to
be more pro-active and less reactive on these points. The U.S.
clearly stated that the Convention is about conservation, and that
we must be cautious about discussing development issues, adding that
for many sites, (including natural sites),no development would be
appropriate. Riviere mentioned the idea of creating "autonomous"
centers for WH training, (like Category II centers),to build on
cooperation and partnership. Brazil announced, without adding any
details, that it plans a regional center in Rio for WH Management.
Overall, most experts seemed to agree on the fact that any
structural solutions to improving the workload problems will fall on
the Secretariat, and will require greater resources, while
acknowledging that the system, as it exists today, is under great
stress. The U.S. made the point that the World Heritage Centre's
role as a Secretariat seems to be taking a back seat to its
technical assistance work and its efforts to convene expert meetings
on various themes, activities that might be better carried out by
the Advisory Bodies, if they were appropriately funded.


20. U.S. World Heritage Nominations

In side conversations with staff from the World Heritage Centre, the
U.S. representatives were informed that both of the two U.S. World
Heritage nomination dossiers submitted in January
2009(Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and Mount Vernon)
were certified by the Centre as being "complete," meaning that they
will now be forwarded to the Advisory Bodies for evaluation. They
will be considered for inscription at the 2010 Committee session.


21. (SBU) Comment: While Chairman San Segundo announced her overall
goal at the start of the meeting was to prioritize issues for
consideration, it is clear that the gathering failed to even
identify all of the problems facing the WH Convention at this
crucial point in time. How she will shape the discussions, with the
help of the rapporteurs and facilitators, remains to be seen, but
will surely not satisfy certain experts should their particular
concerns not be highlighted. End Comment. ENGELKEN