UNESCO 181ST EXECUTIVE BOARD: FIRST STEPS TOWARD NEW

UNCLAS PARIS FR 000693

SIPDIS

STATE FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STEPHEN MORRIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO 181ST EXECUTIVE BOARD: FIRST STEPS TOWARD NEW
RECOMMENDATION ON CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC URBAN LANDSCAPES


1. UNESCO's Executive Board at its 181st session in April 2009 took
a decisive step toward future adoption of a new UNESCO
Recommendation (or non-binding standard-setting instrument) on
conservation of the historic urban landscape. The Board proposed
that the 35th session of UNESCO's General Conference in October 2009
"take action aimed at drawing up" such a Recommendation. The
decision did, however, not propose or set any explicit or target
deadlines for completion of the drafting process.


2. While there was substantial support for a new Recommendation on
this subject, the decision was reached only after a spirited and
constructive (by UNESCO's standards) debate over both the need for
such an instrument and its added value to the international
community. For example, the Spanish Ambassador said it should
reflect best practices based upon experience in all (emphasis on
all) countries and should follow a truly international
consultation/negotiations process. India's Ambassador said "this
issue needs to be looked at very sensitively and cautiously." India
noted that the term "urban landscape" is an amorphous one in places
like India and Indonesia. Brazil and Germany said that, while
action needed to be taken in this area, already existing instruments
on this subject needed to be organized more coherently (something
which the U.S. had also said). China's Ambassador emphasized the
impact of globalization, climate change, and the need to reconcile
urban development and conservation; new policy guidelines were
needed in this regard. Similar themes were echoed by Morocco,
Tanzania, and Cuba.


3. The U.S. called attention to the more than one dozen instruments
already touching on this field (some adopted as recently as 2005 and
2008); stressed the importance of limiting any standard-setting
instrument to a Recommendation only, and not an international
convention; noted the lack of clarity in the preliminary study as to
whether the new Recommendation would replace or supplement existing
instruments; underlined the need for further study as to what the
real problems were; and highlighted the need for an approach that
enables prior consultations with local urban authorities and
communities for their input in formulating such an instrument.


4. The U.S. Delegation, when intervening in the debate on this
issue, drew substantially from the guidance and talking points
provided by the State and Interior Departments. We were
unsuccessful in convincing the Board to accept one or two aspects of
that guidance, such as our view that there are no new challenges to
policy-makers in this field, only the same problems that present
themselves more frequently and on a larger scale. However, we were
able to re-shape the wording of the draft decision in important
respects. For example, we were able to get the wording of the
decision changed (in paragraph 3) so that it now says that existing
standard-setting instruments "may not" adequately address modern day
concerns rather than (as originally worded) "do not" adequately
address those concerns. Similarly, we persuaded the Board to remove
the erroneous reference (in paragraph 4 of the decision) to the
other existing urban landscape documents as "existing legal
instruments." Instead, paragraph 4 now refers to updating "the
existing UNESCO standard-setting instruments on this matter."
Moreover, we were able to insert language into the decision that
instructs the UNESCO Director-General to submit not just the
preliminary study on this instrument to the 35th General Conference
but also the "relevant observations" concerning it that arose during
the course of the Board's debate at its 181st session.


5. Comment: Sentiment in favor of a new Recommendation was too
strong for us to stop it entirely. We succeeded in slowing the
momentum towards a new Recommendation, however, and in highlighting
cautionary markers. It is likely that the General Conference, when
it meets in the fall of 2009, will approve at least in concept the
idea of eventually adopting a new Recommendation on conserving the
historic urban landscape. This is not certain, however. The voices
of caution from both developed and developing countries at the just
finished Executive Board session could become more numerous at the
General Conference, where all 193 Member States, rather than the
Executive Board's 58 Member States, will be the final
decision-makers. The U.S. will need to monitor closely the
evolution of this Recommendation process to ensure that it does not
become an intrusive instrument that seeks to constrict and dictate
urban land use policy-making in countries like the United States.
To prevent such an instrument from being adopted, the U.S. will need
to maintain active involvement in the negotiations that will shape
the scope and content of the new Recommendation. An added reason to
do so is that, once it is adopted, the U.S., like all other UNESCO
Member States, will become legally obliged (under the UNESCO
Constitution) to submit periodic reports to UNESCO on its
implementation.
ENGELKEN