World Heritage Centre http://whc.unesco.org?cid=305&l=en&action=list&searchDecisions=&search_theme=3&index=41&maxrows=20&mode=rss World Heritage Centre - Committee Decisions 90 en Copyright 2019 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:14:26 EST UNESCO, World Heritage Centre - Decisions http://whc.unesco.org/document/logowhc.jpg http://whc.unesco.org 13 COM XII.33-37 Situation of the World Heritage Fund and Budget for 1990 33. The Committee examined document SC-89/CONF.004/8 presenting the status of contributions to the World Heritage Fund for the years 1981-83, 1984-85, 1986-87 and 1988­-89, the status of implementation of international assistance projects approved in 1988 and 1989, as well as a statement on the use of the budget approved by the Committee at its 12th session for 1989.

34. The Committee noted that there continued to be certain delays in the payment of obligatory and voluntary contributions and encouraged the Secretariat to continue its efforts to obtain the outstanding payments, which were usually for very modest amounts for each State Party. In this respect, the Committee recalled Article 16(5) of the Convention whereby "States Parties which are in arrears with their payments for a given year and the calendar year immediately preceding it shall not be eligible for elections to the Committee in that year". This mechanism had served in general as a stimulus for timely and full payments. The Committee decided that henceforth, this principle should apply to States Parties requesting international assistance under the World Heritage Fund: States Parties in arrears with their voluntary or obligatory payments for the biennium in question would not be in a position to obtain international assistance under the Fund, except in exceptional or emergency instances. The Committee requested the Secretariat to modify the Operational Guidelines to reflect this decision.

35. The Committee furthermore considered that States Parties having opted for making voluntary contributions under Article 16(2) of the Convention, should re-consider their position in order to make obligatory contributions.

36. The Committee took note as at l December 1989, the cash-in-hand available in the World Heritage Fund amounted to approximately $2.5 million. The Committee decided to base the 1990 budget on this amount such that outstanding contributions received during the year would add to the "Reserve" put aside to ensure a certain financial security and to accrue interest.

37. The Committee followed the recommendations of the Bureau which had met previously to discuss this matter and decided to adopt the following budget for 1990, which included an allocation to enable experts from the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) which are States Members of the Committee to participate at sessions of the Committee and the Bureau:

 

ACTIVITY

US$

Preparatory assistance and regional studies

150,000

Technical cooperation*

700,000

Training*

550,000

Emergency assistance

100,000

Promotional activities including meetings

200,000

Advisory services

 

IUCN

105,000

ICOMOS

145,000

Global Study

50,000

Travel for experts of LDC's of Committee

20,000

Temporary assistance to the Secretariat

135,000

SUBTOTAL

2,155,000

3% Contingency funds

65,000

SUBTOTAL

2,220,000

Reserve

280,000

TOTAL

2,500,000

* The funds for technical cooperation and training can be used in an interchangeable manner.

 

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2017 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 11 Dec 1989 00:00:00 EST
13 GA 48-51 Situation of the state of contributions of States Parties

49. The Delegate of Thailand referred to the last page of document WHC-2001/CONF.206/3b, State of contributions as at 31 August 2001, and requested clarification regarding the minimum level of voluntary and compulsory contributions for 2001. The representative of the Comptroller confirmed that the calculations were based, in both cases, on 1% of the contribution of each State to the UNESCO budget, and that the minimum contribution was $27 for 2001, and that the figure indicated was correct.

50. The representative of the Comptroller then informed the General Assembly of other contributions received as at 30 October 2001 amounting to US$ 61,826. The Delegate of Bangladesh intervened to announce that his country had paid its contribution for 2001. The representative of the Comptroller confirmed that Bangladesh had indeed paid on 13 September 2001.   He indicated that some payments were being processed and would be accepted up until the announcement of the first round of voting so that candidate States to the Committee could regularize their contribution.

51. The General Assembly took note of these documents.

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6482 wh-info@unesco.org Tue, 06 Nov 2001 00:00:00 EST
14 GA 2 Election of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons and Rapporteur of the General Assembly 1. Elected H.E. Mr Ahmad Jalali (Islamic Republic of Iran) as Chairperson of the 14th General Assembly,
2. Elected Ms Alissandra Cummins (Barbados) as Rapporteur of the 14th General Assembly,
3. Elected France, Nigeria, and Uganda as Vice-Chairpersons of the 14th General Assembly.]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/73 wh-info@unesco.org Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 EST
14 GA 5 Report of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee on the activities of the World Heritage Committee
1. Having examined the financial situation of the World Heritage Fund and the contribution of UNESCO to the activities of the World Heritage Centre as planned in the 32 C/5,
2. Recognizing the need to increase the financial resources from the UNESCO Regular Budget for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention,
3. Recalling Decision 27 COM 11 of the World Heritage Committee at its 27th session (Paris, 2003),
4. Recalling its wish that the 32nd General Conference allocate an additional US$ 1 million for activities directed at the implementation of the World Heritage Convention,
5. Invites the World Heritage Centre to inform the World Heritage Committee at its 28th session (Suzhou, China, 2004), as to the use of the referred additional amount, based on Main Line of Action 2 of Sub-programme IV.2.1 of document 32 C/5, according to Decision 27 COM 11.3,
6. Recommends that, when preparing the draft document 33 C/5, the Director-General explore additional resources for the activities of the World Heritage Centre from the Regular Budget of UNESCO, in consultation with the World Heritage Committee;
7. Further recommends that when preparing the draft document 33 C/5 the Director-General also seek additional extrabudgetary resources for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention;
8. Acknowledges and expresses thanks to those donors who have supported the activities of the World Heritage Centre.]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/78 wh-info@unesco.org Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 EST
14 GA 6 Examination of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund, including the status of the States Parties' contributions
1. Having examined the accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period ending 31 December 2001 (see Section I of document WHC-03/14.GA/INF.6) in conformity with the Financial Regulations of the World Heritage Fund that stipulate that the accounts of the Fund shall be submitted to the General Assembly of the States Parties to the Convention (Article 6, paragraph 6.4),
2. Approves the accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period ending 31 December 2001;
3. Takes note of the accounts of the World Heritage Fund for 2002, approved by the Comptroller (see Section III of document WHC-03/14.GA/INF.6)]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/79 wh-info@unesco.org Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 EST
14 GA 7.1 Determination of the amount of the contributions to the World Heritage Fund in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the World Heritage Convention
1. Decides to set at 1% the percentage for the calculation of the amount of the contributions to be paid to the World Heritage Fund by States Parties for the financial period 2004-2005;
2. Invites the Director-General to encourage States Parties to supplement their contributions to the World Heritage Fund with voluntary donations.]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/80 wh-info@unesco.org Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 EST
14 GA 7.2 Contributions of States Parties The General Assembly,

  1. Recalling Decision 27 COM 11.3 of the World Heritage Committee which urges States Parties in arrears to pay their overdue contributions to the World Heritage Fund and invites the Director-General to report to it on this matter,
  2. Takes note of document WHC-03/14.GA/INF.7 Rev. on the Statement of compulsory and voluntary contributions to the World Heritage Fund.
]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6474 wh-info@unesco.org Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 EST
16 GA 7 Examination of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund, including the status of the States Parties' contributions The General Assembly

  1. Having examined the accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period ending 31 December 2005 approved by the Comptroller (see Section I of the Document WHC-07/16.GA/INF.7) in conformity with the Financial Regulations of the World Heritage Fund that stipulate that the accounts of the Fund shall be submitted to the General Assembly of the States Parties to the Convention (Article 6, paragraph 6.4),
  2. Approves the accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period ending 31 December 2005 (see Section II of the Document WHC-07/16.GA/INF.7);
  3. Takes note of the accounts of the World Heritage Fund for 2007, established by the Comptroller (see Section III of the Document WHC-07/16.GA/INF.7).
]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6458 wh-info@unesco.org Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:00:00 EST
17 COM VII.9-12 Management, Administration and Staffing of the World Heritage Centre VII.9 The Committee discussed further the management and staffing of the World Heritage Centre after having taken note of the proposal prepared by the working group consisting of China, Colombia, France, Germany, Italy, Senegal, Thailand and the United States of America. Based on the conclusions of this working group, the Committee agreed on the importance of the World Heritage Centre as a unified body within the Secretariat of UNESCO. Furthermore, the Committee underlined that the determination of needs on staffing and funding levels can only be reached based on a clarification of the role and functions of the Centre. Having adopted the proposal of the Delegate of Colombia to delete the word "systematic" in the third point of item 1 (d), and to add "States Parties" in the same sentence so as to read: "coordination of monitoring of World Heritage sites carried out by the States Parties, the advisory bodies and other institutions, as requested by the Committee", the Chairperson declared the text of the working group adopted as amended by the proposal of Colombia.

VII. 10 The committee requested the chairperson to transmit to the Director-General of UNESCO the proposal as it now reads:

"Based on the conclusions of the working group, consisting of China, Colombia, France, Germany, Italy, Senegal, Thailand and the United States of America, the Committee agrees on the importance of the World Heritage Centre as a unified body within the Secretariat of UNESCO. The Committee believes that the determination of needs on staffing and funding levels can only be reached based on a clarification of the role and functions of the Centre.

1. The Committee believes the role and functions of the Centre are as follows.

The Centre should:

(a) fulfill the function of Secretariat to the organs of the 1972 Convention;

(b) act as a clearing house for the purpose of coordination and information-sharing between the Committee and other conventions, programmes and international organizations related to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage, as requested by the Committee;

(c) oversee the implementation of training, monitoring, and technical assistance by the States Parties, the intergovernmental body ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN and other NGOs, and cooperate with other units of UNESCO and its Field Offices, as requested by the Committee;

(d) be the primary instrument for facilitating the implementation of the decisions of the committee and in this regard should be the primary contact with the States Parties on all technical aspects of the Convention, including:

(i) coordination of the inscription process;
(ii) assistance to and coordination of requests by States Parties for training and technical assistance, including evaluation of the results;
(iii) coordination of monitoring of the World Heritage sites carried out by the States Parties, the advisory bodies and other institutions, as requested by the Committee;
(iv) organization of regular meetings and other meetings as requested by the Committee;
(v) preparation of reports as directed by the Committee;
(vi) development of draft proposals for technical guidelines to improve the effectiveness of the Convention as requested by the Committee;
(vii) preparation of the budget for the Committee's approval;
(viii) disbursement of funds in a timely manner.

(e) implement plans and seek partnerships to increase materials promoting the Convention, as directed by the Committee and in accordance with the goals and policies of UNESCO.

2. Therefore, the Committee expresses its strong concern that every effort be made to secure funding and staff necessary to perform adequately the above tasks. The Committee requests the Director-General to take this concern into consideration for further action."

VII.11 The Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO, thereupon made a statement emphasizing that with respect to the document presented by the working group, it had to be clearly stated that the Director-General of UNESCO is bound to abide strictly to the provisions of the 1972 Convention. Article 14, para. 1, of the convention provides that "a Secretariat appointed by the Director- General of UNESCO" shall assist the Committee and that UNESCO will continue to do so. The Convention also provides in para. 2 of Article 14 that "the Director-General of UNESCO utilizing to the fullest extent possible the services of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the World Conservation Union (IUCN), in their respective areas of competence and capability, shall prepare the Committee's documentation and the agenda of its meetings and shall have the responsibility for the implementation of its decisions". Accordingly, he pointed out, the UNESCO Secretariat - of which the World Heritage Centre is a part - will work closely, as it had done in the past, with the intergovernmental organization ICCROM, the NGOs, such as IUCN, ICOMOS and others, in the implementation of the decisions of the Committee. In this regard, UNESCO is bound also to respect the directives issued and the decisions taken by the General Conference of UNESCO. Concluding his statement, Mr Bouchenaki underlined that the Director-General and the Secretariat of UNESCO, both at Headquarters and in the field, will make every effort - as they have done for World Heritage sites in the past - to harmonize contributions from various partners such as the UNDP, FIT, voluntary contributions, associate experts, and bilateral inputs.

VII.12 Upon the proposal of the Delegate of Japan, the above statement of the Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO was to be included in the Final Report of the session.

 

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3253 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 1993 00:00:00 EST
18 COM VIII.1-10 Strengthening of the World Heritage Centre in 1994 and its Further Development VIII.1 This item was discussed first by the Work Group 1, and then by the Committee on the basis of the proposals made by the Work Group. Some of its points were already raised, however, in the presentation by the Director-General's Special Adviser when presenting his recommendations on fund-raising and marketing (summarized in section XV of this report).

VIII.2 Although the shortage of time did not allow a real debate on this item, a number of speakers in Work Group 1 referred to work Document WHC-94/CONF.003/5. The Delegate of Italy reiterated his Delegation's statement, previously expressed at the plenary, that their legal experts had examined carefully the proposals contained in this Document and found them unacceptable. Recalling that the Centre had been established only two years ago and that its competences were regulated by Articles 14, 15 and 18 of the Convention, he reminded that the Centre was meant to be simply a Secretariat for coordination, monitoring of the Convention's implementation, information and cooperation with the States Parties in order to assure follow-up actions. The proposal put forward in the above-mentioned document, however, seems to lead on the contrary to a full autonomy of the Centre by giving it functional and administrative autonomy. The Italian Delegation is opposed to this for philosophical/political, juridical and administrative reasons. As regards the philosophical/political concerns, he said, all actions of UNESCO need to be united in order to achieve a major impact, and to allow better linkage among the great themes it is committed to, including the protection of cultural and natural heritage. To detach the Centre from UNESCO would weaken it precisely at a time when UNESCO's mandate and its message of peace, fraternity and mutual understanding needs to be strengthened in a world which is going through a difficult phase of transition, the breakdown of the previous sense of balance, and the precarious way to a new international order. Explaining the juridical implications, the Delegate of Italy reminded that according to Articles 3, 4 and 14 of the Convention, the Committee should express its advice on this matter. Furthermore, the examples given in the above-mentioned document, i.e., the institutional set-up of the International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP) and the International Bureau for Education (IBE), do not seem appropriate, as these have been established within the General Conference of UNESCO, which means that all Member States of UNESCO are included, and not just some, as is the case with the Centre. Moreover, the internal structure is quite different: the IIEP and IBE have each an administration council which, however, does not exist in the case of the Centre, as this is directly under the Director-General of UNESCO and is, as such, a simple Secretariat. Regarding the administrative aspects, the document compares the Intergovernmental Oceanographic commission (IOC) to the Centre, forgetting that this commission deals with oceans, which are beyond the States' sovereignty, while the Centre is responsible for the protection of cultural and natural heritage which is a matter of the States' sovereignty. In conclusion, he reiterated that the Centre belongs to the UNESCO Secretariat and serves as the Secretariat of the Committee. The Centre was created by the Director-General in order to facilitate better implementation of the Convention. In Cartagena, the Committee expressed its wish to have a stronger Centre, and nothing more than that. On that occasion the Committee stated that it would achieve better its goals by relating its activities to those stemming from other legal instruments and other UNESCO competent services. The Centre should therefore continue to: (i) coordinate the actions decided by the Committee with other related actions in UNESCO and other organizations, and (ii) ensure within this framework the services of the Secretariat of the Committee and of the General Assembly of the States Parties.

VIII.3 The Delegate of China stated that his country was in favour of a strengthened World Heritage Centre, and was therefore pleased with the Director-General's intention of giving functional autonomy to the Centre, and giving it support through a 'financial allocation', as expressed at the 145th session of the Executive Board. He felt that there need be no fear that the Centre may disassociate itself from UNESCO, since it would remain an integral part of UNESCO just like the case of IIEP and IBE.

VIII.4 While expressing his regret that such an important item was discussed only in the Work Group, and having endorsed the statement made by the Delegate of Italy, the Delegate of France said that his country is also in favour of a strong World Heritage Centre, but that this should by no means be understood as creating a unit which might lead to a separation from UNESCO, or to a modification in the terms of the 1972 Convention which foresaw the provision by UNESCO of a Secretariat to the World Heritage Committee. The evolution of the Centre should be administrative and structural within the Organization. Projects such as the Centre's current project on World Heritage education, which is carried out in collaboration with other units, is an example of intersectoral activities which should be encouraged. However, a private foundation cannot be created in the shadow of a Convention between States Parties, which is what appeared to be envisaged.

VIII.5 The Delegate of Germany also spoke in favour of a strong Centre, underlining however that the spirit and letter of the Convention must be fully respected.

Expressing his view that the statements made by Mr de Haes and Mr Badran on this matter gave conflicting messages on what the Centre's autonomy would imply, he reminded that the Committee cannot decide by itself on issues which may perhaps entail modifications of the Convention.

VIII.6 The Delegate of Japan expressed his support for an increased 'functional effectiveness' of the Centre, but felt that the Committee needed more information in order to decide about a future 'functional autonomy' of the Centre. He also wished to know how the Centre would cooperate in the future with other units within UNESCO should autonomy be granted, and what the UNESCO Legal Adviser's view on this were. Finally, he suggested that a detailed study on this matter be prepared for the Committee.

VIII.7 The proposal made by the Delegate of Japan was endorsed by the Delegate of Spain, stressing the comments made previously by the Delegates of France and Italy concerning the legal and institutional aspects of functional autonomy.

VIII.8 Replying to the debate, the Director of the World Heritage Centre reassured the speakers that the Director-General laid great stress on coordinating the Centre's activities with those of other units in the Organization. He reminded that the Director-General had created to that effect a Steering Committee, chaired by the Assistant Director-General for Culture in the absence of the Director-General, the purpose of which is to provide guidance to the Centre and other units in matters of heritage protection. The Centre is under the authority of the Director-General and its staff is appointed by him in conformity with Article 14 of the Convention. Should there be any changes, these can be carried out only in strict respect of the Convention. He confirmed readiness to prepare an in-depth study on the question and proposed to contact the Representatives of, for example, Italy, France, China and the United States of America, in order to see how the Centre's functioning could be improved. He also suggested that the Centre prepare a detailed document which would express the different views expressed by the States Parties. Finally, Mr von Droste reiterated that the Centre has been created within UNESCO to coordinate World Heritage activities, and that some progress has been achieved in this sense. What is now important is that the General Conference at its 28th session approves a staffing table for the World Heritage Centre which would make it unnecessary to use the World Heritage Fund for supporting staff positions.

VIII.9 Following this statement, the Chairman of the Work Group, Mr Rob Milne, proposed that the Group express its appreciation to the Director-General for having strengthened the staff of the Centre in response to the Committee's request expressed last year at the session in Cartagena.

VIII.10 The Committee addressed this item in plenary when discussing the proposals made by Work Group 1. The Italian Delegation, endorsed by many other delegations, underlined that it was favourable to the strengthening of the Centre, provided that it is kept in mind that its autonomy is already defined by the World Heritage Convention, which expresses the sovereign will of the States Parties.

Arguments of legal, administrative and philosophical nature can be made against the 'proposal for the Centre's future as defined, among others by items 8 and 15 of the Agenda. However, given the time constraints, the Delegation of Italy expressed in plenary only the juridical (legal) aspects. In order to define the status of the Centre and the Secretariat one has to consider the following elements: creation, composition and functions. The Delegate of Italy then stated the following:

- "Foremost, Article 14 of the Convention affirms that the Committee is assisted by a Secretariat appointed by the Director-General of UNESCO;

- Secondly, the Centre, created at a later stage by the Director-General in order to assure the functions of the Secretariat to the Committee, has been made up of staff coming from two UNESCO sectors (Science and Culture) which are already entrusted the responsibility of the Convention's implementation;

- Finally, the same Committee has entrusted its Secretariat, through the World Heritage Centre, to ensure the coordination and information between the Committee and other UNESCO conventions concerned with the conservation of cultural and natural heritage.

The above-stated three elements reveal that the Centre is an integral part of the organization and of the Secretariat of UNESCO, and that any change of its legal status requires a new manifestation of the States Parties' will, which must be embodied in a new international agreement for the revision of the Convention.

A decision by the Committee therefore cannot be regarded as sufficient."

 

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3125 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 12 Dec 1994 00:00:00 EST
18 COM XVI.1-3 Organization of the General Assembly of States Parties in 1995 XVI.1 The Committee took note of document WHC-94/CONF­003/14 which reported on the deliberations of the eighteenth session of the Bureau with regard to a proposal for the modification of paragraphs 8 and 12 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly.

XVI.2 The Delegations of Italy and France presented the following proposal for an amendment to the Rules of Procedure:

"The proposal of the Bureau to simplify the procedures of the election of the Committee is certainly to be supported. However, we believe that a shift from the absolute majority to a simple majority after only two ballots may be an obstacle to the aim of obtaining the necessary consensus.

Therefore, it is proposed to shift to the simple majority after four ballots and that the proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly (Arts. 13.8, 13.9 and 13.10) be modified in this way."

This proposed amendment was endorsed by the Committee.

XVI.3 It was noted from the Chair that the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly could be changed only by the General Assembly itself. Therefore the Committee's proposal would be presented to the General Assembly for its consideration.

 

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3247 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 12 Dec 1994 00:00:00 EST
21 COM V Report on the Work of the Committee's Consultative Body on the Overall Management and Financial Review of the Administration of the World Heritage Convention V.6 The Committee decided to prolong the work of the Consultative Body, to be chaired by the President of the World Heritage Committee, Professor F. Francioni (Italy). The Delegate of Australia stated that the Director of the Centre should also be closely involved in the work of the Consultative Body. It was decided that the Consultative Body would report initially to the twenty-second session of the Bureau and then to the twenty-second session of the Committee. The Committee asked that the Consultative Body analyse the Management Review Report, further study the use of the emblem and fund-raising guidelines and investigate the balance between the Centre's work on promotion compared to that on the management of World Heritage properties.

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2807 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 01 Dec 1997 00:00:00 EST
22 COM II.1 Adoption of the Agenda and Timetable II.1 Upon the conclusion of the opening remarks, the Chairperson requested the Committee to adopt the Provisional Agenda and Timetable. At the request of the Delegate of Canada, the Committee agreed to include two additional matters under Item 9: the Green Note of the Director-General concerning the organization of the World Heritage Centre, and the workload of the Committee. It was agreed that the increasing number of nominations and state of conservation reports the Committee is expected to evaluate each year requires a review of its working method. The Agenda and Timetable as amended were adopted.

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2713 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 30 Nov 1998 00:00:00 EST
22 COM III.1-3 Election of the Chairperson, Rapporteur and Vice-Chairpersons III.1 As proposed by the Delegate of Thailand, and endorsed by the Republic of Korea, Morocco, Zimbabwe, Benin, Canada, France, Australia, United States of America, Italy, Ecuador and Finland, Mr Koichiro MATSUURA (Japan) was elected as Chairperson by acclamation. The following members of the Committee were elected as Vice-Chairpersons by acclamation: Benin, Cuba, Italy, Morocco, and Republic of Korea, and Mr Janos Jelen (Hungary) as Rapporteur. It was mentioned that Cuba, Republic of Korea and Hungary would be members of the Bureau for the first time.

III.2 The Committee warmly thanked the out-going Chairperson, Mr Francesco Francioni for the excellent leadership he provided the Committee during the past year which had resulted in closer working relations between the Committee and the Secretariat. The newly-elected Chairperson, Mr Koichiro Matsuura, expressed his appreciation for the remarkable manner in which Mr Francioni carried out his functions as Chairperson of the Committee.

III.3 In assuming the Chair of the Committee, Mr Matsuura stated that the process of globalization occurring in almost all domains, has made the preservation of cultural diversity even more important. The fostering of understanding and respect for all cultures, each for its specificity, is essential and is part of the fundamental mission of UNESCO to promote mutual understanding and co-operation between all countries in the building of peace. In this regard, the World Heritage Convention, since its adoption a quarter of a century ago, has played a vital role. He identified three main issues that he felt required the continued attention of the Committee: the question of geographical imbalance, the concepts of authenticity and integrity taking into consideration the different cultures, and lastly, the relationship with UNESCO. He concluded by indicating the importance of the venue of this session of the Committee, as the City of Kyoto, established more than 1200 years ago and designed to be in harmony with its natural surroundings has always placed culture as the goal of its development. Requesting the support of all present at this session to enable him to fulfill the important tasks before him, Mr Matsuura reiterated his firm commitment to the ideals of the World Heritage Convention. (His speech is included as Annex II.6 to this report).

 

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2714 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 30 Nov 1998 00:00:00 EST
22 COM IX.4 Role and Functions of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre Role and functions of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre

IX.25 At its twenty-second session, the Bureau requested that the Director-General of UNESCO provide a report outlining "the tasks and functions of the World Heritage Centre as Secretariat to the Convention".

IX.26 At the request of the Committee, the Green Note entitled the 'Preservation and Presentation of Cultural and Natural Heritage' issued by the Director-General of UNESCO on 23 November 1998 was presented to the Committee in Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/11.Add.

IX.27 During a lengthy discussion, which focused on the future of the World Heritage Centre and the replacement of the Director of the Centre following his retirement, the Committee acknowledged that the Green Note was an internal document and does not constitute the report requested.

IX.28 The Committee highlighted the important contribution of the Centre to the work of UNESCO, the Convention and the Committee. The Delegate of Canada described the Centre as reflecting the genius of the Convention in expressing the continuum between nature and culture.

IX.29 The Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO stated that,

'The Green Note is not the report requested by the Bureau and the Consultative Body from the Director-General. As you know, the World Heritage Committee has, itself, reaffirmed year after year, that the World Heritage Centre, created by the Director-General, should be considered as a unit of the Secretariat.

Consequently, it remains the prerogative of the Director- General to take, in particular by a Green Note, as he does for all units of the Secretariat, the measures he deems necessary for the organization and the functioning of the World Heritage Centre.

For the internal organizational questions of the Secretariat, the Director-General refers to procedures established by the General Conference and the Executive Board of UNESCO, which he has to consult.'

Subsequently, the Committee debated how best to express the vision they have for the future of the Centre. The Delegate of Thailand urged that the "distinct identity of the World Heritage Centre in UNESCO but outside the traditional sectoral structure" must be retained. The Delegate of Italy suggested alternative wording that was subsequently adopted (see paragraph 2 below.) The Committee adopted the following decision:

1. The Committee expressed satisfaction and appreciation of the work of the World Heritage Centre under the direction of Mr von Droste, successfully bringing together work on the protection of both cultural as well as natural World Heritage.

2. The Committee is convinced that the World Heritage Centre should remain a unit specifically dedicated to provide Secretariat services to the World Heritage Convention under the direct authority of the Director- General.

3. The Committee believed that the recommendation of the twenty-second session of the Bureau in June 1998 addressed to the Director-General remains valid. Therefore, the Committee kindly requested the Director-General of UNESCO to prepare a report on the following points:

  •  
    • the tasks and functions of the World Heritage Centre as Secretariat to the Convention;
    • the modalities for intervention and co-operation with other specialized sectors of UNESCO in the field of World Heritage;
    • the modalities for co-ordination of the other sectors with the World Heritage Centre;
    • the way in which decisions are adopted and applied on the use of the funds related to the implementation of the World Heritage Convention;
    • the tasks and functions of the World Heritage Centre with respect to the use of funds as Secretariat to the Convention.

The report is requested in due time for the twenty-third session of the Bureau to consider it and provide recommendations, if necessary, to the twenty-third session of the Committee.

The Centre is asked to circulate the report to all members of the Committee as soon as it becomes available.

IX.30 The Representative of the Director-General stated that the Director-General has no intention to change the status of the Centre as a unit of UNESCO not forming part of the sectoral structure and under the direct authority of the Director-General.

IX.31 The Delegates of Thailand and the United States of America asked that the report on this agenda item note that the Representative of the Director-General had affirmed in his statement, that the Centre would remain a distinct unit within UNESCO specifically assigned to work as the Secretariat of the Convention and would not be part of the traditional sectoral structure.

 

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2788 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 30 Nov 1998 00:00:00 EST
23 COM XVI.1-3 Date, Place and Provisional Agenda of the Twenty-Fourth Session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee XVI.1 The Committee decided that the twenty-fourth ordinary session of the Bureau would be held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, France, from 26 June to 1 July 2000. The Committee adopted the provisional agenda for the session (Annex X), including the item proposed by the Delegate of Greece (training of personnel).

XVI.2 Several delegates noted that the follow-up to the General Assembly should be included in the agenda of the Bureau and that the discussion on this agenda item should be given enough time and attention. The Delegate of Hungary informed the Committee about the Resolution Number 40 of the thirtieth session of the General Conference dealing with the proposed World Heritage Fellowship Programme. This item should be included in the agenda of the Bureau meeting in order to prepare a report to be brought to the 160th session of the Executive Board. The Rapporteur asked for clarification whether this resolution was adopted by the Plenary session of the General Conference and whether this involved financial implications.

XVI.3 The Director of the Centre informed the Committee that, indeed, such a proposal was submitted for an amount of US$ 200,000 and that the Programme Commission IV of the General Conference of UNESCO took note of it, but that no budget allocation was made available. As a number of fellowships programmes already exist, the Centre will study the question and will report back to the next session of the Bureau. The Delegate of Thailand noted that no funds were provided for such a programme and that the Committee should not make any commitment at this stage but look further into this matter. The Delegate of Hungary noted that the resolution was adopted by the Plenary Meeting of the General Conference and that the Secretariat has to do the follow-up work and that at this stage it would not involve financial implications. He also recalled that this proposal was first presented at the session in Kyoto and is included as Annex II.4 of the report. The Delegate of Benin suggested that the Committee mandate the Chairperson to closely examine this question together with the Secretariat, and decide whether it should be studied by the Bureau as an aganda item, and that eventually an information document be prepared on the follow-up of the General Conference Resolution. This proposal was endorsed by the Chairperson and approved by the Committee. The Chairperson decided to request the Secretariat to review the situation and to report back to the next session of the Bureau.

 

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2709 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:00:00 EST
23 COM XVII.1-7 Date and Place of the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee XVII.1 The Chairperson recalled that the Australian Government had invited the World Heritage Committee for the year 2000 during the twentieth, twenty-first and twenty-second sessions of the Committee, as indicated in the respective reports. He also referred to official letters of invitation by the authorities of Australia and of Hungary to the Director-General of UNESCO on this matter.

XVII.2 The Delegate of Hungary announced that his Government is withdrawing its invitation to the Committee for the year 2000 and supports the Australian invitation, and that the Hungarian authorities wish to invite the World Heritage Committee for the year 2002, taking into consideration the invitation from Finland in 2001. His full statement is included in Annex XI.

XVII.3 The Delegate of Australia warmly thanked the Hungarian authorities for their understanding, and he reiterated that it would be an honour for his country host the Committee in Australia in November/December 2000. His full statement is included in Annex XII.

XVII.4 The Chairperson emphasised the immense work of the Secretariat, and suggested that two days between the extraordinary session of the Bureau and the twenty-fourth session of the Committee would allow the Secretariat to conclude its work on the Bureau and the preparations for the Committee session.

XVII.5 The Committee decided that the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau would be held in Cairns, Australia, from 23 to 24 November 2000, followed by the twenty-fourth session of the Committee, from 27 November to 2 December 2000.

XVII.6 The Delegate of Benin noted that the reports of the sessions could be much shorter and should just reflect decisions made by the Committee. The Rapporteur welcomed any suggestions to improve the quality of the reports. She noted that the actual reporting system was far from being perfect and indeed many improvements could be made in that respect. She recalled the ongoing process of improving the working methods of the Committee and its Bureau, which would bring modifications to the actual reporting system. This issue merits a thorough reflection and thus it could be referred to the task force chaired by the Delegate of Canada. The Delegate of Hungary, in highlighting his experience as Rapporteur, noted that the World Heritage Committee and Bureau reports are important documents, as they are the only ones that are available to the public. He stated that the Committee should be very careful and not introduce changes to the actual reporting system without having reflected upon it.

XVII.7 The Delegate of China informed the Committee that his Government wishes to host one of the sessions of the World Heritage Committee session, in 2003, taking into consideration the earlier invitations from Australia, Finland and Hungary. The Delegate of Benin wished that in the future there would be no misunderstandings concerning the invitations to host Committee meetings and that the Committee members would be reminded of the invitations at each of its sessions. The Chairperson thanked the Delegate of Benin for his remarks and noted that the order of invitation should be respected.

 

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2710 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:00:00 EST
23 COM XVIII.1-3 Other Business XVIII.1 The Chairperson informed the Bureau that an Algerian non-governmental organization, "Algerie 2000", volunteered to assist in the Periodic Reporting of the Maghreb region and that this NGO has experience, in particular in the restoration of the Kasbah of Algiers. The Committee expressed its appreciation by acclamation.

XVIII.2 The Observer of Uganda informed the Committee that the question of the involvement of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) should be reviewed, in particular with regard to the movable heritage, in particular with regard to moveable heritage and the serious problem of illicit traffic in Africa.

XVIII.3 The Observer of Poland underlined the importance of a pluridisciplinary approach in the safeguarding of heritage. The criteria of the World Heritage Convention should respect the wealth of regional diversity.

 

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2711 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:00:00 EST
24 COM XI.1-7 Information Strategy XI.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre introduced document WHC-2000/CONF.204/13, describing the Centre's plans for developing an Information Management Systems Plan. The plan has been developed based on the work of a Senior Information Consultant, Ms Gwynneth Martin, who worked at the Centre during a period of three months. The plan had already been presented by Ms. Martin to the Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest, 2-4 October 2000.

XI.2 The Director outlined the history of the initiative, including the early calls in 1998 by the Management Audit and the Expert Group on Information Management for an Integrated System to receive, process, and archive large quantities of information in an efficient and expeditious manner followed by a prototype in 1999. The plan, recognized the limited capacity of the Centre to implement such a system, and urged that an incremental approach should underlie all planning. Plan implementation would proceed in three stages, as follows:

Stage I: Design and consolidation (months 1-4) - to produce detailed system specifications; to begin building capacity in the Centre and to make better use of existing information technology facilities;

Stage II: Development and implementation (months 5-12) - to acquire and install hardware, to develop, install and test the system, and to train users; and

Stage III: Operation and review of an integrated data base (months 13-14) - to review and assess system operation, and recommend further developments.

XI.3 The Delegate of Hungary welcomed the Plan and said it formed the first step towards defining an overall information management strategy for the Centre and for the work of the Convention. He recalled discussions held during the Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest (2-4 October 2000) when the Ministry of Information and Technology of his Government indicated strong willingness and commitment to support the work of the Centre in this regard. He urged the Centre to continue the incremental approach recommended in the Plan with a view towards elaborating and adopting a fully-fledged Information Management Strategy by the time of the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in Hungary in 2002. He indicated fully Hungary's willingness to be a strategic partner in the process.

XI.4 The Observer of Argentina noted the discrepancy between the total budget indicated for the implementation of the Plan, i.e. US$ 165,000 and the sum allocated in the budget proposals for the year 2001 in document WHC- 2000/CONF.204/15Rev. The Director of the Centre pointed out that the shortfall between the total amount needed and the amount proposed for the year 2001 would be bridged by funds remaining unspent in the year 2000. He said that the latter funds are currently being held in order to pay for the services of a consultant who will commence work before the end of the year. He also responded to Hungary's points, which he was in agreement with, namely that the issue had to eventually be addressed in a wider context. Currently, the focus was on addressing an immediate problem to do with internal organization.

XI.5 The Delegate of Greece, echoing another remark of the Observer of Argentina, noted the importance of coordinating the Centre's information planning with that of UNESCO and asked if the Centre was in consultation with the Organization's Informatics Division. In response, the Director noted that both the consultant and members of his staff had established these contacts.

XI.6 The Observer of the United Kingdom expressed satisfaction with the Director's response and also highlighted the importance of this aspect of the Centre's work and recalled the fact that his Government, as well as the United States of America and Finland, have provided support to the Centre's work in this regard. He supported the views of the Delegate of Hungary about preparing an Information Management Strategy to be considered in the year 2002 which should look ahead to the needs of the Convention over the coming 10 years.

XI.7 The Chairperson concluded discussions on the subject. The Committee adopted the Information Management System Strategy as presented by the Centre and endorsed the incremental approach to its implementation. The Committee however, invited the Centre to work with Hungarian and other interested delegations to elaborate an Information Management Strategy that could be adopted at the time of the twentysixth session of the Committee in 2002. To this effect, he suggested that the Centre should be requested to submit a progress report on steps taken, to the next session of the Bureau in 2001.

 

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2512 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:00:00 EST
28 COM 10A.3 International Assistance Requests
1. Authorizes the World Heritage Centre to transfer from the budgets relative to Promotional and Educational International Assistance and World Heritage Education the amounts of US$10,000 and US$15,000, respectively, to the pertaining budget item to enable the funding of the request presented by Argentina: " Ninth International Seminar of Forum UNESCO - University and Heritage: 'Heritage and Management Centre and Periphery".]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/24 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:00:00 EST