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