KONDO WORKING GROUP - FINAL MEETING ON WORLD HERITAGE

UNCLAS PARIS FR 000695 SIPDIS STATE FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STEPHEN MORRIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SCUL UNESCO SUBJECT: KONDO WORKING GROUP - FINAL MEETING ON WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE ELECTION PROCEDURES ¶1. Summary: The open-ended Working Group on the Reflection on the Procedures for the Election of the Members of the World Heritage (WH) Committee, chaired by former Japanese Ambassador to UNESCO Seichi Kondo, met for its final session on 19 May 2009. Kondo won agreement to a three-tiered election system whereby the first ballot for membership on the WH Committee would be by simple majority. Remaining unfilled seats would be filled in a second ballot in which seats would be assigned to those winning the largest number of votes. In the event of a tie in the second ballot, lots would be drawn to decide the winner. End summary. ¶2. Ambassador Kondo's Working Group met in Paris May 19 to finalize its work. It began by turning aside an effort by Afghanistan to reopen the issues decided at the working group's earlier meetings. (The Afghans wanted to reserve a seat for a state that had never previously served on the World Heritage Committee. They also pressed again to reserve seats for members of each regional group.) Most member states, however, considered these issues settled and refused to support the Afghans. Instead, they approved the report of their previous session on February 10, noting five main elements: -- i) The introduction of a voluntary four year gap between mandates, to achieve greater rotation among the 186 States Parties on the 21-member WH Committee. (Note: The WH Convention text allows for 6 year terms. End note.) -- ii) To report to the WH Committee that no consensus had been reached on the proposal to have Member States refrain from presenting nominations to the WH List during their mandates. (Note: The U.S. had campaigned for its seat on the WH Committee with this promise. End note.) -- iii) Ensuring at least one seat per geographic electoral group by ensuring a special ballot for a seat for any electoral group that risked not being represented on the committee. (Note: In practice, this means, there would be a ballot for a seat for any group not currently represented on the committee. As long as it is clear that all groups will be represented on the committee, there will be no need to have a special ballot. End note.) --iv) Faster voting mechanism. (Note: Previously each vote required several rounds due to the requirement to be elected by absolute majority. End note.) The Working Group determined that for elections, a three-tiered procedure would be put into effect in the future. (See para. 5 below). --v) Capacity building and the role of Observers. (Note: Although this was not specified as part of the Working Group's mandate, there was consensus that these elements are strongly tied to the States Parties decision to stand for election to the WH Committee. End note.) ¶3. The main debate at this final meeting centered on the method of election to be used to fill the various seats. It was decided that the same method should be used for all elections, with several delegates making the point that we must not create a lesser category of WH Committee member by electing Members through different methods of voting. ¶4. The Working Group reached consensus on a three-tiered method of balloting: In the first round, winners would have to receive a majority (half of those present and voting, plus one). In the second round, a seat or seats would be determined by greatest number of votes received. If, in the event a third round would be required due to a tie vote, lots would be drawn to determine the winner. ¶5. India raised the question of giving a greater role to observers at World Heritage Committee meetings. The U.S. supported the idea. Working Group members, however, feared that they would be going beyond the Working Group's mandate if they discussed this issue in detail. It was agreed that this point should receive more discussion in an effort to encourage more "active" observers. ¶6. While there was a general sense of moving forward to resolve certain problems, there were also some who felt that we should be cautious in making too many changes to the operational guidelines and rules of procedure of the Convention. France, in particular, noted that the WH Convention has given good results to States Parties and to UNESCO since 1972, and that we should not "unravel a system that works". It did allow, however, that "if we find small improvements which could better the system, we should examine such recommendations together." The WH Secretariat was charged with finalizing the language for a draft recommendation to be approved by the WH Committee and ultimately adopted by the WH General Assembly. ¶7. Just before closing the meeting, the Brazilian delegate, Antonio Ricarte, raised an objection to the Working Group presenting any language to the WH General Assembly, saying that its role was simply to report to the WH Committee. The Dutch delegate initially supported the Brazilian, but relented when she saw that the other SIPDIS STATE FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STEPHEN MORRIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SCUL UNESCO SUBJECT: KONDO WORKING GROUP - FINAL MEETING ON WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE ELECTION PROCEDURES delegates preferred to move the project forward with language ready for consideration, rather than delay for another year. Kondo gaveled the point down quickly, and the draft language (yet to be finalized by the Secretariat),was accepted in principle. ¶8. At the end of the Working Group, Ambassador Kondo announced that the WH Director, Mr. Bandarin, would send a letter to States Parties alerting them of the Working Group's recommendations regarding electoral procedures, noting specifically that it is intended to have these proposals, if accepted, be put into effect immediately for the WH elections to be held during the WH General Assembly this October. ¶9. Kondo also announced that his introductory letter forwarding the Working Group's report and draft recommendations will reflect the context of the debate. He said that he will also relay separate comments regarding the linkage between the modified electoral procedures and the issues of capacity building and increasing the role of observers to prepare States Parties for WH Committee participation, which fall outside of the Working Group's formal mandate. ENGELKEN