Number of States Parties present and voting                      25

Number of valid voting papers                                             25

France                                                                                   25 votes

Iran                                                                                       23 votes

Nigeria                                                                                  23 votes

Tunisia                                                                                  23 votes

United States of America                                                     23 votes

Egypt                                                                                     22 votes

Ecuador                                                                                 21 votes

Yugoslavia                                                                             19 votes

Australia                                                                               18 votes

Canada                                                                                  17 votes

Federal Republic of Germany                                              17 votes

Ghana                                                                                   17 votes

Poland                                                                                   17 votes

Senegal                                                                                 17 votes

Iraq                                                                                       15 votes

Jordan                                                                                   14 votes

Switzerland                                                                           14 votes

(a) a brochure in five UNESCO languages (Arabic, English, French,Russian and Spanish) aimed primarily at opinion-makers in States not yet adhering to the Convention, to describe the objectives of the Convention, the criteria for nominations to the World Heritage List, the types of assistance available and the ways of applying for such assistance;

(b) a simple, four-panel leaflet on the Convention and its objectives in all five UNESCO languages for distribution to the general public everywhere on a large scale, to answer inquiries; and

(c) a World Heritage poster.

Item of expenditure / Funds authorized

I. Preparatory Assistance

Preparation of nominations to the World Heritage List and(or) preparation of requests and feasibility studies for technical cooperation projects (provision of experts, equipment or financial grants required for the work foreseen under this item), as provided for
in Articles 13.2 and 21.3 of the Convention / $140.000

II. Technical cooperation

Training (fellowships) for nationals of States Parties to the Convention, as foreseen in Article
22(c) of the Convention / $ 90.000

III. Emergency Assistance (Provision of experts, equipment or financial grants), as foreseen in Article 21.2 of the Convention / $150.000

IV. Programme Support

Technical review of nominations by ICOMOS

For 15 to 30 nominations $300 per nomination
(For up to 15 nominations $450 per nomination) / $9.000

Technical review of nominations by IUCN

For 15 to 30 nominations $300 per nomination
(for up to 15 nominations $450 per nomination) / $9.000

Public information activities / $30.000

// $ 48.000

V. Temporary Assistance for the Secretariat / $ 47.000

Total / $475.000
Contingency Funds (3% of $475.000) / $ 14.250

// $ 489.250

10. The Chairman explained to the General Assembly the procedure to be followed for the election of members of the Committee. As a result of the increase in the number of States having ratified or accepted the Convention, the number of members of the Committee would be increased from 15 to 21. It would therefore be necessary to elect, on the one hand, five members to replace the five members whose term of office was to expire at the end of the 20th session of the General Conference and, on the other hand, six new members whose term of office would be decided by drawing lots. The term of office of two of these States would terminate at the end of the 21st session of the General Conference, that of two other States at the end of the 22nd session of the General Conference, and that of the two remaining States at the end of the 23rd session of the General Conference. The choice by lot would be undertaken by the President of the General Conference, in conformity with Article 9, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

11. Some delegates referred to the terms of the Convention whereby “any State Party to the Convention which is in arrears with the payment of its compulsory or voluntary contribution for the current year and the calendar year immediately preceding it shall not be eligible as a membem of the World Heritage Committee”. In the light of this provision, the delegates of the Federal Republic of Germany and of Costa Rica withdrew their candidature. They explained to the Assembly that the delay in paying their contributions was due to budgetary reasons, but that their governments would take the necessary measures to make the payments very shortly.

12. Several delegates then broached the problem of geographical distribution, making reference to Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention, according to which "Election of members of the Committee shall ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world". One delegate proposed, in view of the practice followed in the elections to other bodies of Unesco, and given the distribution of the 40 States Parties to the Convention among the electoral groups set up for the purpose of elections to the Executive Board, that the 21 seats on the Committee be attributed as follows: 5 seats to Group I, 2 to Group II, 4 to Group III, 3 to Group IV and 7 to Group V. This proposal gave rise to a wide exchange of views on the principles which should govern the distribution of the seats. Some speakers suggested a different distribution among these same groups, or the formation of different groups, while others observed that the procedure could not be the same for elections involving the 145 Member States of Unesco as for the election of members to the Committee, since the Convention had, to date, only 40 States Parties. Many delegates stressed the need to remain flexible, since the number of States Parties was likely to increase, and it would be dangerous to establish rigid principles which would create a precedent for future elections.

13. Taking into account the wish of all those present to reach a balanced geographical distribution, and in order to allow the delegations time to arrive at an agreement, the Chairman proposed that the meeting be suspended. Since it had not been possible to reach an agreement, he suggested the delegates should proceed to vote by secret ballot, bearing in mind the moral obligation to achieve an equitable distribution. In order to help to clarify the situation, the delegate of Poland withdrew his country's candidature, in favour of that of Bulgaria.

14. Other questions concerning more specifically the voting procedure itself were raised and, in particular, as to whether the five States members whose term of office was due to expire at the end of the 20th session of the General Conference could be re-elected to the new Committee. The Deputy Assistant Director-General (Operational Activities) of the Sector of Culture and Communication replied that there was nothing in the Convention that was contrary thereto. One delegate, with the support of many other delegations, proposed that the Assembly should proceed to a single vote for the eleven members to be elected. The five candidates gaining the largest number of votes would be considered as elected in replacement of the five retiring members, and the six candidates with the next highest number of votes would be considered as elected to the six new seats, and their terms of office would consequently be determined by lot. This proposal was accepted by the Assembly.

15. The Chairman then appointed the delegates of Costa Rica and Egypt as tellers, and the General Assembly proceeded to the vote. The results of the vote, which the Chairman announced, were as follows:

Number of votes obtained by the States having obtained the required majority (18 votes):

 16. The five States having obtained the greatest number of votes were declared elected by the Chairman in replacement of the five States whose term of office was to expire at the end of the 20th session of the General Conference. The next six States mentioned above were declared elected by the Chairman as new members of the Committee, with terms of office to be determined by drawing As a result of the choice by lot undertaken by the President of the General Conference on 23 November 1978, the terms of office of the six new members were fixed as follows : Algeria and Sudan until the end of the 21st session of the General Conference, Bulgaria and Nepal until the end of the 22nd session of the General Conference, and Senegal and Switzerland until the end of the 23rd session.

(a) Ecuador

Equipment to enable the authorities to ensure the integrity of tho natural environment of the Galapagos Islands through protective measures.

up to a maximum of $50,000

i) The Convention was now entering its operational phase particularly as regards technical co-operation, emergency assistance and the training of specialists, which implied a considerable increase in the workload of the Secretariat. An amount of approximately $210,000 had been spent by the Unesco Secretariat in 1979 under its Regular Budget for the management of the Convention.

ii) Funds actually obligated in 1979 under the World Heritage Fund for programme support were as follows:

ICOMOS $ 15,600
IUCN $ 6,000
Temporary assistance to the Secretariat $ 59,000
________

$ 80,600

iii) The representatives of ICOMOS and IUCN explained that they had received funds under a lump-sum arrangement depending on the number of nominations examined but that this approach did not enable the Organizations to assure proper processing of the files and their continuous participation in the management of the Convention. They indicated that the direct contributions of their organizations to the management of the Convention could be estimated at $30,000 and $12,500 respectively in 1979.

a) that it was not opportune at the present time to retain a fixed percentage such as 14%, as indicated in paragraph 26 of document CC-79/CONF.003/12, to cover direct management costs of the Convention;

b) to ask the Director-General of Unesco to make additional efforts to provide the Secretariat with an adequate permanent staff to enable it to meet the substantial increase in workload due to the fact that the Convention has now entered its operational phase. Until the Secretariat could be fully constituted and a sufficient number of Member States ratified the Convention, the Committee considered it necessary to continue to provide for temporary assistance for the Secretariat and decided to review this question at its next session;

c) that with respect to temporary assistance and the processing of files by the advisory organizations, only a limited number of files could be processed between two Committee sessions,and therefore no allocation per nomination file should be made.

d) to allocate the following funds for programme support for the implementation of the Convention:

- for the Secretariat: under temporary assistance. .. $ 70,000

of which $40,000 for two consultants each for 6 m/m, one consultant for the cultural part, and one consultant for the natural part, and $30,000 for two(part-time) secretaries-documentalists

for IUCN ..$ 12,000

of which $4,000 for evaluation of files based on approximately 20 files,

$2,500 for travel and per diem costs for participation in meetings of the Bureau,

$2,500 for promotion of the Convention and, if necessary, field visits,

$3,000 for professional experts in the evaluation of the nominations

for ICOMOS ..$ 30,000

of which $20,000 for a part-time co-ordinator to evaluate nominations based on approximately 80 files,

$10,000 for one third of a full-time secretary and miscellaneous secretariat expenditures.

//$112,000

BUDGET (October 1979 - December 1980)

Activities / Brought forward from 1978-1979 / Additional funds allocated / Total funds authorized for period October 78- December 80

I. Preparatory Assistance / $69,234 /$ 80,000 / $ 149,234 (30 m/m)

II. Technical Co-operation / -- / $165,400 / $ 165,400

III. Training / $4,700 / $ 200,000 / $ 204,700

IV. Emergency / $ 70,000 / $ 100,000 / $ 170,000

V. Promotional Activities / $ 500 / $ 36,400 / $ 36,900

VI. Programme Support

- ICOMOS } / $ -3,600 / $ 45,600 / $ 42,000 ($ 12,000 IUCN)
- IUCN }      /  (deficit) /               /              ($ 30,000 ICOMOS)

VII. Temporary Assistance to the Secretariat

                  /      --     / 70,000  / 70,000

                  //140,834 / 697,400 / 838,234

Contingencies: 3% of total funds authorized

1. Having examined Documents WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/3C and WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/INF.3C and WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/INF.3C.Add
2. Takes note with satisfaction of the Report of the Rapporteur of its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004).

1. Having examined Document WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/4B,

2. Recalling Decision 28 COM 13.1, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004)

3. Decides that the Special Meeting of Experts referred to in paragraph 13 of Decision 28 COM 13.1 shall take place in Kazan, as offered by the Russian Federation and thanks the Russian authorities for their offer;

4. Decides that the Special Meeting mentioned above will take place from 6 to 9 April 2005;

5. Requests the World Heritage Centre to prepare a background paper collecting as much as possible relevant information pertaining to the elements referred to in, points a), b), c), and d) of paragraph 13 of the Decision 28 COM 13.1. This document should be considered the reference document for the work of the Special Meeting of Experts and it should also be distributed to all Members of the Committee for information under a circular letter;

6. Requests the Advisory Bodies to present to the Special Meeting of Experts a document on the analysis of the Tentative List, and thematic studies as stated in paragraph 12 of the above-mentioned decision in order to get a clear position concerning the question of the unrepresented and less represented categories of natural and cultural properties on the World Heritage List;

7. Requests the World Heritage Centre to prepare, on the basis of the conclusions and proposals of the Special Meeting of Experts, a document for the consideration by the Committee at its 29th session (Durban, 2005).

First Ballot

Number of States Parties voting                                                                                      117

Number of States absent                                                                                                    36

Number of abstentions                                                                                                         0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                                                            4

Number of votes recorded                                                                                                 81

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected                                      41

States obtaining the required majority of votes:

The Chairman declared elected to the World Heritage Committee after the first ballot the above-mentioned States Parties.

16. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the second ballot was to be limited to those States which had obtained the greatest number of votes, provided that the number of States did not exceed twice the number of seats remaining to be filled. Among the remaining candidates, Cyprus and Finland obtained the greatest number of votes. A second ballot limited to these two States was held.

Second Ballot

Number of States Parties voting                                                                                     117

Number of States absent                                                                                                  54

Number of abstentions                                                                                                        0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                                                           0

Number of votes recorded                                                                                                63

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected                                    32

State obtaining the required majority of votes:

Cyprus                      39

The Chairman declared Cyprus elected to the World heritage Committee after the second ballot.

9. He then reviewed activities since the Committee's eighth session in terms of preparatory assistance, technical co-operation, training and emergency assistance. On the subject of promotional activities, the Secretary said that an exhibit had been produced with the support of the Spanish Ministry of Cultural Properties and shown successively in Madrid, Canada and in the metro in Paris. He called on States to avail themselves of the Secretariat's copy of the exhibit - or to have it reproduced - for circulation in their own countries.

10. The Secretary stressed the excellent co-operation with ICOMOS and IUCN, but emphasized the fact that the Secretariat's workload had increased considerably while the number of staff working for the implementation of the Convention had remained the same since the Convention had become operational. He thanked the Canadian authorities for having provided the Secretariat with the services of an expert for two years.

11. He concluded his statement by underscoring the challenges to be faced at the beginning of the second decade of the Convention - its universality, commitment and mobilization of States Parties, in particular by establishing national structures for the implementation of the Convention, and making the public aware of the need to safeguard the world heritage.

12. In response to the Secretary's report, the Committee expressed the view that the Director-General's attention should be drawn to the situation of the Secretariat and the need to strengthen it. The Chairman of the International Fund for the Promotion of Culture and the representative of ALECSO reiterated their offer to co-operate with the World Heritage Committee.

Number of States Parties eligible to vote                                                                          136

Number of States absent                                                                                                     36

Number of abstentions                                                                                                             0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                                                             3

Number of votes recorded                                                                                                     97

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected                                     49

 No candidate received the required majority of votes, thus no State Party was elected.

16. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the second ballot was to be limited to those States which had obtained the greatest number of votes, provided that the number of States did not exceed twice the number of seats remaining to be filled which was seven seats. The second ballot was thus organized between the fourteen following candidates: Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Guatemala, India, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Mozambique, Niger, Poland, United States.

17. The results of the second ballot were:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote                                                                          136

Number of States absent                                                                                                        43

Number of abstentions                                                                                                             0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                                                             4

Number of votes recorded                                                                                                     89

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected                                     45

States which obtained the required majority of votes were:

Japan:                                    49

France:                                  47

United States:                      46

The Chairman thus declared the above States Parties elected to the World Heritage Committee.

18. Four seats remaining to be filled, the following States, having obtained the greatest number of votes, were maintained as candidates for the third ballot: Brazil, Canada, India, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Niger, Poland.

19. The results of the third ballot were as follows:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote                                                                          136

Number of States absent                                                                                                        43

Number of abstentions                                                                                                             0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                                                             3

Number of votes recorded                                                                                                     90

Number of votes constituting the majority required

to be elected                                                                                                                            46

Niger, having polled 46 votes, was declared elected by the Chairman.

20. Three seats remained to be filled. Amongst the States having obtained the greatest number of votes: Brazil, Canada, India, Italy, Lebanon, Jordan, Poland, the latter two candidates had obtained the same number of votes. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, an eliminatory vote was held between Poland and Jordan.

21. The results of this eliminatory vote were:

Number of States absent                                                67

Number of abstentions                                                     0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                      1

Number of votes recorded                                              68

Poland, having obtained the greatest number of votes (41) , was maintained as a candidate for the fourth ballot.

22. The results of the fourth ballot were:

No candidate having obtained the required majority of votes, no State Party was elected, and a fifth ballot was held with the same candidates.

23. The results of the fifth ballot were:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote                                                                          136

Number of States absent                                                                                                        68

Number of abstentions                                                                                                             0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                                                             1

Number of votes recorded                                                                                                     67

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected                                      34

Italy, having polled 36 votes, was declared elected by the Chairman.

24. Two seats remaining to be filled, the following States, having received the greatest number of votes, were maintained as candidates for the sixth ballot: Brazil, Canada, Lebanon, Poland.

25. The results of the sixth ballot were:

Number of States absent                                                                       77

Number of Abstentions                                                                         0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                            1

Number of votes recorded                                                                      58

Number of votes constituting the majority required                                30

No candidate having obtained the required majority, no State Party was elected, and a seventh ballot was held with the same candidates.

26. The results of the seventh ballot were:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote                                                                         136

Number of States absent                                                                                                        35

Number of abstentions                                                                                                             0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                                                            1

Number of votes recorded                                                                                                  100

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected                                  51

Lebanon, having polled 51 votes, was declared elected by the Chairman.

27. One seat remaining to be filled, the following States, having obtained the greatest number of votes, were maintained as candidates for the eighth ballot: Brazil and Canada.

28. The results of the eighth ballot were:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote                                                                         136

Number of States absent                                                                                                        47

Number of abstentions                                                                                                             0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                                                            2

Number of votes recorded                                                                                                    87

Brazil, having polled 47 votes, was declared elected by the Chairman.

During examination of the accounts, the General Assembly requested the Secretariat to work towards improving the presentation of the budget and the accounts in order to provide greater transparency and clarity, especially with regard to the special voluntary contributions to the Fund and their use. The General Assembly also requested that in the future the accounts up to 31 December carry the visa of the Director of the Centre and the Financial Comptroller.

• in the case of candidates obtaining the same number of votes, deferral of drawing of lots until the sixth ballot;
• replacement of drawing of lots in the case of egality of votes by preference accorded to the State which had not yet been elected to the Committee;
• interdiction of an outgoing Committee member to present its candidature for immediate re-election;
• consideration as^-invalid the ballot papers where the number of States marked is less than the seats to be filled.

Following these discussions, Rules 13.8, 13.9 and 13.10 as amended in the proposal contained in the Document WHC-95/CONF.204/5 were adopted by consensus, and Rule 13.4 was modified as follows:

"Each delegation shall cast its vote by encircling the names of those States for which it.... desires.... to vote."

Number of States Parties eligible to vote                                                                                142

Number of States absent                                                                                                           28

Number of abstentions                                                                                                               0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                                                                 0

Number of votes recorded                                                                                                      114

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected                                             58

Australia, having polled 68 votes, was declared elected by the President.

37. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the second ballot was to be limited to those States which had obtained the greatest number of votes, provided that the number of States did not exceed twice the number of seats remaining to be filled, which was six. The following States obtained the greatest number of votes: Canada, Morocco, Ecuador, India, Benin, Viet Nam, Cuba, Oman, Poland, Lithuania, Zimbabwe, Greece and Malta. These last two candidates having obtained the same number of votes, and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, an eliminatory ballot between these two States was held.

38. The results of the eliminatory ballot were as follows:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote                                                                                142

Number of States absent                                                                                                           26

Number of abstentions                                                                                                               0

Number of invalid ballot papers

Number of votes recorded                                                                                                      114

Malta, having obtained the greatest number of votes (61) was maintained as candidate for the second ballot.

Number of States Parties eligible to vote                                                                                  142

Number of States absent                                                                                                            33

Number of abstentions                                                                                                                0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                                                                  1

Number of votes recorded                                                                                                       108

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected                                              55

States which obtained the required majority of votes were:

Canada                       68

Morocco                     68

Ecuador                      56

Malta                          56

The President thus declared the above States elected.

40. Two seats remaining to be filled, the following States, having obtained the greatest number of votes, were maintained as candidates for the third ballot: Benin, Cuba, India and Viet Nam.

41. The results of the third ballot were as follows:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote                                                                                  142

Number of States absent                                                                                                            29

Number of abstentions                                                                                                                0

Number of invalid ballot papers                                                                                                  1

Number of votes recorded                                                                                                       112

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected                                              57

State having obtained the required majority:

Benin                          61

The President declared this State elected.

42. At the end of the third ballot, with one seat remaining to be filled, the following States having obtained the greatest number of votes were maintained as candidates for the fourth ballot: Cuba and Viet Nam.

Following Viet Nam's announcement to stand down in favour of Cuba, and applause and expressions of gratitude by the General Assembly, the President declared Cuba elected.

43. The Committee agreed that there was a need to ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world, as is stated in Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Convention. It requested the Secretariat to present the Bureau and the Committee with proposals which would respond to this need and which could eventually be adopted by the 7th General Assembly of States Parties in 1989.

27. The results of the first ballot were as follows:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote: 151

Number of voters: 119

Number of abstentions and invalid papers: 1

Majority required: 60

Greece (53 votes); Finland (47); Mexico (40); Portugal (39); Thailand (38); Zimbabwe (36); China (35); Panama (35); Saudi Arabia (34); Egypt (33); Republic of Korea (31); Hungary (30); Tunisia (24); Costa Rica (22); Mali (22); Switzerland (22); Czech Republic (19); Pakistan (18); Vietnam (18); Poland (17); Turkey (17); Bulgaria (15); Guatemala (13); Malawi (13); Yemen (13); Angola (12); Mozambique (11); Guinea (10); Armenia (9); Ghana (9); Slovak Republic (8); Romania (6); Croatia (5).

28. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the second ballot was to be limited to those States having obtained the greatest number of votes, provided that the number of States did not exceed twice the number of seats remaining to be filled, which was fourteen. After discussion, the General Assembly decided to increase this number to sixteen, as Costa Rica, Mali and Switzerland had obtained the same number of votes (22).

The results of the second ballot were as follows:

Number of voters:128

Abstentions: 0

Invalid papers: 1

Majority required: 64

Greece (82); Zimbabwe (74); Finland (61); Thailand (54); Portugal (52); Hungary (51); Egypt (50); Mexico (49); Republic of Korea (48); Saudi Arabia (45); China (44); Panama (40); Mali (35); Switzerland (35); Costa Rica (33); Tunisia (33).

The President of the General Assembly declared Greece and Zimbabwe as elected.

29. Five seats remained to be filled and a third ballot was organized with twice the number of candidate States, ten. The results of the third ballot were as follows:

Number of voters: 124

Majority required: 62

Abstentions: 0

Invalid papers: 2

Finland (61); Hungary (60); Egypt (60); Republic of Korea (55); Mexico (54); Saudi Arabia (53); Portugal (52); China (52); Thailand (49); Panama (35).

            No country was elected.

30. The Delegate of Panama announced the withdrawal of his country's candidature and requested that their votes go to Mexico. The Delegate of Mexico thanked Panama. The Delegate of the Republic of Korea indicated that he wished the names of the States candidates for election to be announced orally, in order to note the position of the Republic of Korea as fourth on the list. Although already indicated on the blackboard, the Director of the World Heritage Centre announced the list of States concerned by the last ballot. The President of the General Assembly then recalled on the one hand that the delegates should encircle five countries from the nine on the voting papers, and on the other, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, only a simple majority was required in the fourth ballot.

The results of the fourth ballot were as follows:

Number of voters: 128

Abstentions: 0

Invalid papers: 0

Elected:

Finland (71); Hungary (63); Mexico (61); Republic of Korea (60); Thailand (54); Egypt (51); Saudi Arabia (49); Portugal (48); China (43).

            The President of the General Assembly declared as elected the following States: Finland, Hungary, Mexico, Republic of Korea and Thailand.

31. The Delegates of the seven elected countries thanked those countries who voted in their favour and promised to work for the World Heritage Convention.

32. The President of the General Assembly then announced the names of the new members of the Committee (Finland, Greece, Hungary, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Thailand and Zimbabwe) as well as the composition of the new World Heritage Committee.

9. The Committee noted that the activities undertaken by the Secretariat since its eleventh session were described in detail in the working documents for the session. It took note in particular of the projects for international assistance financed under the World Heritage Fund which had been approved by the Committee, the Bureau and/or its Chairman since the eleventh session of the Committee and which were presented in Annex IX of document SC-88/CONF.001/7. The Committee was especially satisfied to note that the allocations for technical cooperation and for training under the World Heritage Fund were being put to maximum use by States Parties, which meant that the Convention and its Fund were fully operational. The Committee also drew attention to the fact that although in terms of numbers, the World Heritage List, with only 77 natural or "mixed" sites out of a total of 288, would appear biased in favour of the cultural heritage, the World Heritage Fund was in fact used in a well balanced manner for cultural and natural heritage.

50. The Committee specifically took account of the need to allocate a maximum of resources for technical cooperation and training activities, which were of particular use to developing States Parties. The representative of Yemen drew the Committee's attention to the need to substantially increase the budget allocations for training and technical cooperation in order to ensure the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of the lesser developed countries. The Committee requested the Secretariat to work with States Parties in order to use the resources of the World Heritage Fund as much as possible in a catalytic manner, for example in combining World Heritage projects with those of other international bodies such as UNDP, the World Bank, the World Wide Fund for Nature, etc.

51. The Committee decided that the funds allocated for technical cooperation and training should be used in a flexible manner such that funds could be transferred inbetween these budget lines in order to meet requests from States Parties.

52. The Committee also considered the need to maintain the high quality of the advisory services provided to the Committee by ICOMOS and IUCN, who were increasingly asked to monitor properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and to advise on international assistance requests and their implementation.

53. As regards the allocation for temporary assistance to the Secretariat, the Committee was of the opinion that this budget line should be reduced as much as possible to ensure the maximum use of the World Heritage Fund for the protection of listed properties. In this respect, the former Chairman, Mr. J. Collinson, recalled the decision of the Director-General in reply to his letter dated 17 June 1988 to provide six additional posts under Unescos' Regular Programme to meet the needs of the World Heritage Secretariat. The Secretariat informed the Committee that owing to budget constraints within the Organization, it had not yet been possible to establish these posts but there were indications that this situation could be resolved progressively in the near future, thereby releasing the funds allocated for temporary assistance. The Committee recommended that the Chairman write to the Director­-General to reiterate the Committee's grave concern to establish the Secretariat on a permanent basis under the Unesco Regular Programme and to indicate that an allocation for temporary assistance to the Secretariat would probably not be granted by the Committee in future years.

54. The Committee recommended that a sum of $20,000 be earmarked for the purpose of the global studies recommended by the Working Group of the Committee. The use of these funds would be decided upon by the Bureau at its thirteenth session in 1989.

55. In order to ensure equitable representation of the different regions and cultural areas of States Parties, the Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a proposal for consideration by the Bureau at its next session concerning the possibility of allocating a portion of the Fund which would be used under very strict conditions to support the participation of the experts in cultural and/or natural heritage of the lesser developed States Members at the sessions of the Committee and its Bureau.

56. In accordance with the above considerations, the Committee adopted the following budget for 1989.

ACTIVITY	1989 $
Preparatory assistance	100,000
Technical cooperation*	700,000
Training*	500,000
Emergency assistance	100,000
Promotional activities, including meetings	150,000
Advisory services
IUCN	103,600
ICOMOS	143,600
(Global studies, etc.)	(20,000)
Temporary assistance to the Secretariat	210,700
SUB TOTAL	2,027,900
3% Contingency funds	60,837
SUB TOTAL	2,088,737
Reserve	24,237
TOTAL	2,112,974

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

26. The representative of the Bureau of the Comptroller, after making an oral update of the state of the contributions as at 28 October 1999, indicated that many States Parties had paid their contributions and that other payments were being made and would be accepted until the announcement of the first ballot. The Director of the Centre recalled that the States that were candidate to the Committee should be paid up with their dues.

27. The Delegate of Bolivia, reiterating his country’s candidacy, expressed disappointment that its contribution was not mentioned in the revised document. The President indicated that Bolivia’s contribution has not been received for the current year, and therefore it could not present its candidacy for the Committee.

28. The Delegate of Indonesia was surprised not to see his country on the revised list of States that were not paid up. He declared that Indonesia had recently paid its contribution and, in support of this, presented to the President a letter and a copy of the bank transfer dated 25 October 1999. The President informed the Delegate of Indonesia that, in accordance with the UNESCO Rules and Regulations, his country could only present its candidacy if the amount of this transfer appeared on the Chase Manhattan Bank’s list of amounts received by UNESCO before the first ballot. He also gave him a note from the Bureau of the Comptroller dated 29 October reflecting this position.

Number of States Parties eligible to vote: 156

Number of voters: 134

Number of abstentions and invalid papers:  0

Majority required: 68

Algeria (21 votes); Argentina (49); Armenia (11); Austria (28); Belgium (72); Cameroon (10); China (52); Colombia (86); Egypt (46); Guatemala (42); Italy (53); Jamaica (15); Japan (29); Jordan (14); Lebanon (44); Mongolia (9); Portugal (73); Slovakia (19); South Africa (64); Tunisia (32); Uganda (9); United Kingdom (52); United Republic of Tanzania (16); Vietnam (40).

The President declared Belgium, Colombia and Portugal as elected.

51. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the second ballot was to be limited to those States having obtained the greatest number of votes, provided that the number of States did not exceed twice the number of seats remaining to be filled.

The results of the second ballot were as follows:

Number of voters: 136
Abstentions: 0
Invalid papers: 2
Majority required: 69

Argentina (57); China (74); Egypt (65); Guatemala (49); Italy (69); Lebanon (46); South Africa (85); United Kingdom (61).

The President of the Assembly declared China, Italy and South Africa as elected.

52. One seat remained to be filled and a third ballot was organized with twice the number of candidate States, these being Egypt and the United Kingdom which had obtained the highest number of votes. Before the third ballot, the United Kingdom requested and was granted the permission to make the following statement:

“The UK is very grateful for the considerable support it has received from so many countries towards it candidacy for the Committee. That support has been most generous and gratifying.

The UK, since rejoining UNESCO in 1997, has been a very strong supporter of the Convention and has enthusiastically taken part in the debates which have taken place about the need for greater representativity both in the World Heritage List itself, and in the procedures of the Convention.

The UK has observed that on this occasion three Western European countries have already been selected to the Committee, but only one representative each of Africa, Asia and Latin America, and none from the Arab States.
The UK believes strongly in the need for rotation and a proper balance of representation in the work of the Committee. It accordingly feels that it would now be wrong to press its own candidature further on this occasion. In doing so, it asks all those would have voted for it to instead support the election of Egypt, a country from the Arab States which is well-qualified to serve on the Committee, as this will ensure a better degree of balance in the Committee’s representation.

The UK nevertheless wishes to express its continuing support for the Convention and the important work of the Committee. It hopes to be able to continue to pay a prominent part, even as an observer, and it declares now that it will certainly wish to put itself forward again for election to the Committee on the next occasion.

May I end by thanking all of those whose support for the UK’s candidacy has been so valuable and by asking them to now support the course of action which was believed to be right”.

53. This statement was favourably welcomed by the General Assembly which thus elected Egypt by acclamation. To close this agenda item on elections, the President of the General Assembly congratulated the new members of the Committee (Belgium, China, Columbia, Egypt, Italy, Portugal and South Africa) and announced its new composition.

55. The General Assembly took note of the draft resolution addressed to the Director-General.

«The Bureau of the World Heritage Committee

Noting that the true nature of the functioning of the Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage implies a regular growth in the annual activities relating to its implementation.

Pointing out that the staff of the World Heritage Centre who ensures the Secretariat of this Convention are funded by UNESCO, as well as its operating costs,

Considering that the resources of the World Heritage Centre, notably its staff, have to respond on a regular basis to the workload resulting from its functions relating to the Convention,

Reaffirming the interest of all States Parties to the Convention for its efficient implementation, in conformity with the undertakings of the General Conference of UNESCO and its Director-General,

Taking note of all the efforts already undertaken by the Director-General of UNESCO to secure the necessary resources,

1. Requests the Director-General of UNESCO
   

a) to request the General Conference of UNESCO, during its approval of the Programme and Budget for 2000-2001 of the Organization, to take into consideration the needs and resources of the World Heritage Centre so that it may ensure the implementation of the Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage,

b) to take the above into consideration during the implementation of the approved Budget and Programme.

8. Mr. von Droste stated that three States Parties had ratified the Convention during 1989 and expressed the wish that further efforts be made to encourage the adherence of new States Parties. The Committee noted the work that the Secretariat had undertaken to coordinate efforts to conserve the world's natural heritage with those of other international funds and conventions, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-International) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Committee noted the development of the proposed draft convention on biological diversity, evolving within the scope of Unesco's activities as a member of the Ecosystem Conservation Group (UNEP, FAO, Unesco and IUCN), in order to report back to the Committee's future sessions on the implications for the World Heritage Convention. The Committee also noted the promotional activities briefly described by Mr. von Droste. The Committee noted the different types of international assistance projects approved and implemented during 1989, and took special note of the fact that the demand for assistance for training was growing at a faster rate than other types of international assistance provided from the World Heritage Fund. Several delegates congratulated the Secretariat on the work undertaken. The representative from Canada emphasized that other programmes of Unesco needed to have a better understanding of the work of the Convention and the decision­making role of the World Heritage Committee. IUCN informed the Committee of activities which it had undertaken to promote the Convention. For example, at the Fourth South Pacific Nature Conservation and Protected Areas Conference, held in Vanuatu in September 1989, IUCN had presented a report on the Convention and that as a result, several of the South Pacific countries such as Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea had shown their interest in joining the Convention.

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.}

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.

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.

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).

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.

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."

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1. Takes note of the excellent Progress Report on the Evaluation of Emergency Assistance;

2. Requests the World Heritage Centre to:

a) ensure that, exceptionally, if resources from the World Heritage Fund for emergency assistance are insufficient, properties already inscribed on the World Heritage List receive such assistance on a priority basis,

b) give priority to properties that are on the List of World Heritage in Danger,

c) verify that Emergency Assistance will be used only to address emergency situations strictly relating to the conservation of the World Heritage Site,

d) ensure that decisions on Emergency Assistance are taken in a timely way and that funds are transferred promptly. In the case of funds transferred to a Regional Office, ensure that the office disburses funds in accordance with the Emergency Assistance plan,

e) prepare further concrete proposals on the basis of the recommendations made in the evaluation report, notably in regard to the Emergency Assistance application process, selection process, implementation of assistance, monitoring and reporting requirements to be presented to
the Committee at its 29th session in 2005,

f) develop in the coming year an evaluation of the other components of the International Assistance to be presented to the Committee at its 29th session in 2005,

g) prepare on the basis of the evaluation of Emergency Assistance and the evaluation mentioned in paragraph e) a set of proposals in order to provide a comprehensive framework for optimisation of International  Assistance with special attention to definition of the role and  responsibilities of the World Heritage Committee, Advisory Bodies, World Heritage Centre, Regional Offices, and States Parties so as to ensure adequate transparency, monitoring, and accountability. This would be presented for further discussion to the Committee at its 30th session in 2006 ;

3. Invites the World Heritage Centre, in co-operation with the States Parties, Advisory Bodies, and other international agencies and non-governmental organisations concerned by emergency interventions, to prepare a riskpreparedness
strategy to be presented to the Committee at its 30th session in 2006 ;

4. Recommends that States Parties include risk preparedness as an element in their World Heritage Site Management plans and training strategies.

1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/14B,

2. Notes the oral presentation of the item;

3. Decides to put the item ‘Examination of the Recommendations on International Assistance' on the agenda of its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006);

4. Invites the States Parties to submit written comments on Document WHC-05/29.COM/14B to the World Heritage Centre by to be discussed at its 30th session.

1. Having examined Document WHC-06/30COM/11A.1 and taking note of Document WHC-06/30COM/INF.11A,

2. Recalling Decisions 25 COM VII.25-27 and 7 EXT COM 5A.2, adopted respectively at its 25th session (Helsinki, 2001) and 7th extraordinary session (UNESCO, 2004),

3. Expressing its sincere appreciation for the considerable efforts by all 48 States Parties in Europe in submitting the Periodic Reports for Section I in 2004 and Section II in 2005,

4. Notes the successful use of an electronic tool, the development of an evaluation tool and the storage in a World Heritage Centre database of all information submitted by the States Parties;

5. Thanks the German authorities for hosting a European meeting (Berlin, Germany, 8 - 9 November 2005) on the results of Periodic Reporting Section I and the finalization of Section II, as well as the development of an overall Strategic Action Plan and welcomes the "Berlin Appeal" to enhance cooperation and support by European States Parties and European Institutions on World Heritage;

6. Welcomes with satisfaction the synthesis report of the European Region illustrating a growing co-operation among States Parties;

7. Acknowledges and endorses the Action Plan of the European synthesis report on Section I and II and the sub-regional reports and requests the States Parties to make an effort towards a coordinated approach for its implementation;

8. Requests States Parties to work with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to start implementing the Action Plan for the European Region;

9. Further notes that preparations for the follow-up to the Periodic Reporting results, including name changes, boundary changes and statements of significance have started in some European States Parties, following the Circular Letter of 23 January 2006, and welcomes the meetings offered by the Greek authorities in November 2006, by the French authorities in October 2006 and by the Spanish authorities in January 2007, to ensure a coordinated and systematic approach of these follow-up activities;

10. Notes the importance of management plans for the protection of World Heritage properties and that many European sites reviewed lack this tool, and requests States Parties to prepare management plans for those World Heritage properties that still do not have them;

11. Recognizes the need to avoid the nomination of similar types of properties and encourages States Parties to cooperate in harmonizing their Tentative Lists by sharing information on the sites proposed;

12. Strongly encourages the States Parties in Europe to continue the improved cooperation and requests all States Parties to submit any changes to names, criteria, boundaries and statements of significance in a timely fashion and in accordance with deadlines outlined in the Operational Guidelines;

13. Notes also that such proposals (and the similar ones made in Periodic Reports for other Regions) have considerable resource and workload implications for the Committee, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies as well as for States Parties;

14. Further requests that all European States Parties provide an official letter to the World Heritage Centre by 31 September 2006, indicating their agreement to make the electronic database available for data-sharing with the Council of Europe and other partners as well as on the World Heritage webpage for the general public;

15. Requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to prepare a progress report on the follow-up to the European Periodic Report including time tables, budgetary implications and priorities for examination at its 31st session in 2007.

1. Takes note with satisfaction of the report of the Rapporteur of its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006).

1.  Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/5,
2.  Takes note with appreciation of the report from the World Heritage Centre on its activities and the implementation of the World Heritage Committee's decisions;
3. Requests the World Heritage Centre to support the States Parties of the African, Arab and Pacific regions to establish and update their tentative lists and further improve the management, documentation and conservation of properties already inscribed on the World Heritage List in order to ensure that the outstanding universal value of the heritage of those regions is more fully represented on the World Heritage List.
4.  Also requests the World Heritage Centre to intensify its capacity building activities;
5.  Further requests the World Heritage Centre to make its future annual Reports of activities more results-oriented.

1. Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/5.2,
2.  Recalling the decision adopted by the Executive Board at its 176th session (176 EX/Special Plenary Meeting/Decision), which "requests the Director-General within the framework of the World Heritage Convention, to propose to the World Heritage Committee at its forthcoming session a mechanism to ensure the proper implementation of the World Heritage Committee decisions",
3. Affirming that nothing in the present decision shall affect each State Party's primary duty to ensure the identification, protection and conservation of World Heritage properties, as stipulated in Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention;
4. Adopts with immediate effect, the reinforced monitoring mechanism proposed by the Director-General to ensure the proper implementation of the World Heritage Committee's decisions and requests the World Heritage Centre to refine the operational aspects of this mechanism in close consultation with the Advisory Bodies, and with the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee;
5.  Acknowledges that the verification process under the reinforced monitoring mechanism may be activated in exceptional and specific cases either by the World Heritage Committee or the Director-General and underlines that reinforced monitoring is a constant cooperative process with the State Party concerned, which will always be undertaken in full consultation and with its approval;
6. Calls on the States Parties to contribute to resource mobilization with a view to reinforcing the monitoring of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, as foreseen in the World Heritage Convention;
7.  Requests the World Heritage Centre to present to the World Heritage Committee, at its 33rd session in 2009, a report regarding the implementation of the reinforced monitoring mechanism with a view to assessing the lessons learned during this period, prior to institutionalizing the reinforced monitoring mechanism in the Operational Guidelines.

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/5A,

2. Recalling Decision 33 COM 5A adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009),

3. Takes note with appreciation of the activities undertaken by the World Heritage Centre over the past year in pursuit of the five Strategic Objectives of the World Heritage Committee and of the Global Strategy for a balanced, representative and credible World Heritage List;

4. Welcomes the efforts undertaken to list the World Heritage Committee's decisions in a new database, and calls upon the World Heritage Centre to ensure that the database is made openly and transparently available to all States Parties and observers;

5. Expresses its gratitude to the States Parties of Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, China, Japan, Switzerland, and Thailand for the financial and technical support to the various international expert meetings held in 2009 and 2010, which have contributed to the reflection on the Future of the Convention;

6. Requests the World Heritage Centre to improve the presentation of its report by:

a) Regrouping the activities presented around the five Strategic Objectives;

b) Mentioning the cooperation with UNESCO Bodies, as well as with the partners of civil society,

c) Integrating a general evaluation commentary on the results obtained and the challenges encountered,

d) Describing the criteria by which the World Heritage Centre makes decisions on its activities in conformity with the World Heritage Committee;

7. Invites the Director of the World Heritage Centre to inform the World Heritage Committee of the envisaged and present partnerships, indicating the procedures and conditions of such agreements;

8. Requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre:

a) To conduct an exhaustive inventory of pending decisions and their anticipated date of execution, after the 34th session of the World Heritage Committee;

b) To present to the World Heritage Committee a draft plan of priority activities for the following year, including the formulation of objectives, expected results, and indications regarding the resources anticipated.

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/5C,

2. Recalling its Decisions 31 COM 19, 32 COM 17, 33 COM 5A adopted at its 31st (Christchurch, 2007), 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) and 33rd (Seville, 2009) sessions respectively, as well as the recommendations of the 2007 and 2009 audits,

3. Reaffirming the division of the tasks between the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies on the state of conservation of the properties, International Assistance requests, and the evaluation of nominations for inscription on the World Heritage List;

4. Concerned about ensuring the efficient implementation of the Convention;

5. Invites the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to pursue the analysis of the work load, the division of their tasks and the corresponding financial implications;

6. Takes note of the abovementioned document and refers it to the upcoming meeting, in October 2010 in Bahrain, on decision-making procedures of the statutory organs of the World Heritage Convention;

7. Requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre to report on this item at its 35th Session in 2011.

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/5G,

2. Recalling Resolution 184 EX 8 Part II, adopted by the UNESCO Executive Board at its 184th session (30 March - 15 April 2010),

3. Calls for the urgent implementation of all recommendations made by the External Auditor, inter alia for monitoring of extra-budgetary funds, centralizing of all calls for funds and collection of contributions by the Comptroller and introduction of a results-based management approach (as referred to in Recommendations 7, 8, 10 and 11); and requests the World Heritage Centre to provide a report on the implementation of all recommendations for the 35th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2011;

4. Reiterates its request to quickly finalize the recruitment of a Deputy Director for management at the World Heritage Centre;

5. Expresses its concern on the lack of transparency in the recruitment process of a Deputy Director for Management at the World Heritage Centre according to Recommendation 4 by the External Auditor, and reiterates that the recruitment process should take into account all of the standard UNESCO principles for recruitment, including qualifications and fair geographical representation;

6. Underscores the necessity for private partnerships to be fully compatible with the Convention's provisions, and to ensure balanced commitments for each party, regardless of the conclusions of the Audit decided by the General Assembly of States Parties at its 17th session (UNESCO, 2009);

7. Also requests the World Heritage Centre to provide an annual report on the use of the World Heritage emblem and on the partnerships with private organizations;

8. Expresses the wish that future budgetary documents include a distribution of all expenditures (including staff costs) between the main areas of activities (organization of meetings; preparation and assessment of nominations; conservation, management and monitoring of properties; capacity building activities and public awareness and support).

1. Having examined document WHC-10/34.COM/16,

2. Takes note of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund for 2008-2009 and the situation of the reserves and contributions as at 31 December 2009;

3. Also takes note of the implementation of the budget and the statement of accounts for the World Heritage Fund for 2010-2011 and the current situation of the reserves and contributions as at 31 May 2010;

4. Thanks the States Parties who have already made their contributions and calls upon the other States Parties, who have not yet paid the totality of their contributions, even voluntary ones, where possible, to ensure that their contributions are paid at the earliest convenience;

5. Requests the States Parties in the future to pay their annual contributions by 31 March wherever possible in order to facilitate the timely implementation of the activities financed by the World Heritage Fund;

6. Further takes note of recommendation number 10 of the External Auditor's report on the World Heritage Centre in December 2009 and the decision taken by UNESCO´s Executive Board at its 184th session, and notes with satisfaction that for the first time the Secretariat has, in collaboration with UNESCO Central Services, submitted consolidated financial information on all three funding sources;

7. Also requests the World Heritage Centre to present the information contained in attachment 1 of Document WHC-10/34.COM/16 in a way that clearly indicates the funding (including staff costs) applied to each of the main areas of activities (organization of meetings; preparation and assessment of nominations; conservation, management and monitoring of properties; capacity building activities; and public awareness and support) in the budget presentation for 2012-2013 onwards;

8. Further requests that the World Heritage Centre continue to present the budgetary information aligned to the strategic objectives and expected results for each funding source, and including a global evaluation of the costs of the pending decisions of the World Heritage Committee, inter alia, for the contracts of the Advisory Bodies;

9. Approves an amount of US$40,000 from the International Assistance Budget to cover the cost of the external audit, and to be reflected under the item "evaluation and studies";

10. Also approves an amount of US$83,000 from the International Assistance Budget to cover the cost of the review by the Advisory Bodies of the retrospective Statements of Universal Value for Asia and the Pacific region, and to be reflected under the item "Periodic Reporting - Asia and Pacific";

11. Requests furthermore the World Heritage Centre to present proposals to the 35th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2011 for submission to the 18th session of the General Assembly of the States Parties to the Convention so that the latter can resolve that the treatment of the arrears of Yugoslavia of the World Heritage Fund should follow the same principles as those adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and by the General Conference of UNESCO on this matter.

12. Welcomes the proposed range options for equitable additional voluntary contributions to the Fund with a view to increase activities under the World Heritage Convention, and requests the World Heritage Centre to further develop the proposal through a dedicated special feasibility study to be examined by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session.

1. Having examined Documents WHC-11/35.COM/5A and WHC-11/35.COM/INF.5A,

2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 5A adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3. Takes note of the activities undertaken and of the partnerships established by the World Heritage Centre;

4. Also takes note with appreciation of the concrete contribution of the States Parties and all partners who, through their financial and/or technical support, contributed to the efforts to implement the Convention reported in the document WHC-11/35.COM/5A;

5. Reminds the World Heritage Centre of the necessity to elaborate, at each session of the World Heritage Committee, a report on envisaged and concluded partnerships and requests that it be completed with an evaluation of these partnerships based on relevant tools, in particular on the use of the emblem and the benefits received, in order to ensure strict compliance with the Convention's principles and objectives;

6. Requests the World Heritage Centre to continue improving its report by adding to the Periodic Reports:

a) a general comment on progress made and gaps identified at global and regional levels, at thematic level, at the level of different financing sources, and at the level of financial partners or cooperation with States Parties, other Conventions, civil society and the private sector,

b) a comprehensive inventory of pending decisions and the foreseen dates of implementation,

c) a provisional priority activities plan for the following year including the formulation of objectives and expected results, as well as indications on related resources (human and financial);

7. Takes note of the recommendations of the International Seminar on the Role of Religious Communities in the Management of World Heritage properties, organized in Kiev, Ukraine, in November 2010, and requests the World Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, to elaborate a thematic paper proposing to States Parties general guidance regarding the management of their cultural and natural heritage of religious interest, and in compliance with the national specificities, inviting States Parties to provide voluntary contributions to this end;   

8. Requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre to continue informing it on an annual basis on:

a) authorization granted by the World Heritage Centre on the use of the World Heritage emblem,

b) envisaged and concluded partnerships, with indications on the modalities and terms of such agreements,

and invites the Director to submit a draft of the new PACT Initiative Strategy, taking into account the results of the evaluation of the External Auditor on the PACT initiative for examination at its next session, one of its major objectives being the increase of resources to the World Heritage Fund to the benefit of International Assistance.

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/5C,

2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 5G adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3. Also recalling Decision 184 EX 8 Part II, adopted by the UNESCO Executive Board at its 184th session (30 March - 15 April 2010),

4. Takes note with appreciation of the implementation of the 9 recommendations of the External Auditor, notably the centralisation of all calls for funds and collection of contributions by the Bureau of Financial Management, and the adoption of a result-based management approach;

5. Also takes note of the progress with 6 other recommendations of the External Auditor;

6. Notes with satisfaction the nomination of the Deputy Director for Management for the World Heritage Centre, thus closing the recruitment process for this post;

7. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Internal Oversight Service (IOS), to prepare an audit plan on the Centre for the consideration of the 18th General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention in October 2011;

8. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to pursue the measures outlined in document WHC-10/34.COM/5G and to submit to it a progress report on the External Audit for consideration at its 36th session in 2012.

1. Having examined Documents WHC-11/35.COM/5D and WHC-11/35.COM/12B,

2. Recalling Decisions 33 COM 5A, and 34 COM 5C adopted at its 33rd (Seville, 2009), and 34th (Brasilia, 2010) sessions respectively,

3. Takes note of the above-mentioned documents and further notes the discussions at the expert meeting on decision-making procedures of the statutory organs of the World Heritage Convention (Bahrain, December 2010);

4. Requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to put in practice the mandated roles assigned to each under the World Heritage Convention and the Operational Guidelines and as clarified in the above-mentioned documents to improve the efficiency of the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

Part I

1. Having examined document WHC-11/35.COM/15 Part I on the execution of the Budget 2010-2011,

2. Takes note of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund for 2010-2011 and the situation of the reserves and contributions as at 31 December 2010;

3. Thanks the States Parties, who have already made their contributions and urges the other States Parties, who have not yet paid the totality of their contributions, including voluntary ones to ensure that their contributions are paid expeditiously;  

4. Recommends the General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention to authorize, at its 18th session, the write-off of the arrears of the Former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FFRY) for US$32,794, following the same principles adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and the General Conference of UNESCO on this matter;

5. Also takes note with appreciation of the new mechanism developed by the Bureau of Financial Management to present the status of assessed contributions through the World Heritage Centre website (https://whc.unesco.org) while acknowledgments of receipt can be dispatched upon requests of interested States Parties;

6. Approves to transfer US$60,000 from the "Reinforced Monitoring" budget line to the "Reactive monitoring" one;

7. Also approves the requests from ICOMOS and IUCN for additional funding for the amount of US$90,150 and US$56,035 respectively from the reserve; 

Part II

8. Having examined document WHC-11/35.COM/15 Part II on the preparation of the 2012-2013 Budget proposal,

9. Recalling Decisions 28 COM 11, 32 COM 16B, 33 COM 16B and 34 COM 16 adopted at its 28th (Suzhou, 2004), 32nd (Québec City, 2008), 33rd (Seville, 2009) and 34th (Brasilia, 2010) sessions respectively,

10. Notes that the resources of the World Heritage Fund have not kept pace with the increasing workload under the Convention;

11. Also takes note with deep concern of the decline in the International Assistance budget and the increasing difficulties faced by the World Heritage Fund to meet the actual costs of providing the expert advice that underpins the Convention as a flagship of UNESCO;

12. Taking due consideration of the request from ICOMOS in Annex IV for additional funding allocation to meet costs of services requested by the Committee in the 2012-2013 biennium,

13. Approves the total budget of US$6,608,205 for the World Heritage Fund for the biennium 2012-2013 and its corresponding breakdown as shown in the Annex III;

14. Requests the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to reconsider the detailed budget for ICOMOS in order to determine the unfunded activities;

15. Also requests the World Heritage Centre together with the Advisory Bodies to submit to the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session a proposal to provide for the full range of unfunded activities in the 2012-2013 biennium as necessary;

16. Decides to maintain the Contingency Reserve at US$1,000,000;

17. Accepts to merge for the next biennium the 'Reinforced Monitoring' and the 'Reactive Monitoring' missions under one heading and one budget allocation;

18. Agrees to the proposed presentation of the information contained in Annexes II and III (i.e. without the Tables 1 and 2) for future budget documents;

19. Invites the World Heritage Centre to work with the Advisory Bodies in order to consider the harmonization of the structure and format of their budget proposals;

20. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to present at each session of the Committee an updated financial report of the World Heritage Fund, as well as in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies specific statements of income, expenditure and commitments regarding the agreements signed with the Advisory Bodies corresponding to the report of activities submitted to the Committee;

21. Requests furthermore the World Heritage Centre, in consultation with the Advisory Bodies, to provide to the Committee at each session a list of missions and travel (by the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS, IUCN, ICCROM) completed, still to be achieved, and expected to be undertaken, to be paid through the World Heritage Fund in relation with the past and current biennia decisions of the Committee, including information about their costs;

22. In addition requests the States Parties in the future to pay their annual contributions by 31 January wherever possible in order to facilitate the timely implementation of the activities financed by the World Heritage Fund;

23. Also invites States Parties to make supplementary contributions to the World Heritage Fund with a view to implement activities under the World Heritage Convention;

24. Also requests the World Heritage Centre to provide an analytical report, in full collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, on ways to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation of the World Heritage Convention and sustainability of the World Heritage Fund, including a sustainable funding model and measures to ensure adequate resourcing for Advisory Bodies to meet their responsibilities under the Convention;

25. Finally requests the World Heritage Centre to report on the implementation of this Decision at its 36th session in 2012.

1. Having examined documents WHC-12/36.COM/5A.1, WHC-12/36.COM/INF.5A.1 and WHC-12/36.COM/INF.5A.3;

2. Recalling Decision 35 COM 5A adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3. Takes note with appreciation of the results of the activities undertaken by the World Heritage Centre over the past year in pursuit of its five strategic objectives as presented in document WHC-12/36.COM/5A.1;

4. Further notes the progress report on the implementation of the recommendations by the external auditor on the 2009 audit of the World Heritage Centre presented in document WHC-12/36.COM/INF.5A.3;

5. Welcomes the report on UNESCO Conventions in the field of culture presented in document WHC-12/36.COM/INF.5A.1;

6. Takes note of the consultations between the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies towards the elaboration of a thematic paper proposing to States Parties general guidance regarding the management of their cultural and natural heritage of religious interest, and requests the World Heritage Centre to present to the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session in 2013, a progress report on this activity.

2. Recalling Decisions 34 COM 5A and Decision 35 COM 5A respectively,

3. Also recalling Resolution 18 GA 8 adopted by the 18th General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention by which the recommendations of the External Auditor on the Partnership for Conservation Initiative (PACT) were endorsed,

4. Considering that the open-ended working group in charge of producing an implementation plan for the recommendations of the External Auditor will be meeting prior to the 37th session of the Committee to discuss the recommendations on the PACT Initiative,

5. Mindful that the UNESCO’s Policy Framework for Strategic Partnerships will be presented for consideration to the Executive Board at its 190th session,

6. Takes note of the proposed strategy to improve the development of partnerships for World Heritage with the private sector, their implementation and their evaluation through adequate tools and guidelines, as contained in document WHC-12/36.COM/5A.2;

7. Requests the World Heritage Centre to present, at its 37th session, a revised PACT Initiative strategy that takes into account:

a) the Plan of Action proposed by the open-ended working group on the recommendations of the External Auditor concerning PACT,

b) the decision adopted during the 190th Executive Board session regarding the Organization’s Framework for Strategic Partnerships,

c) the debates of the 36th session of the Committee;

8.Requests the World Heritage Centre to continue to keep it informed with regard to the partnerships in an analytical manner.

1.  Decides exceptionally to adjourn the debate on the agenda item until its next 37th ordinary session of the World Heritage Committee (2013).

 1.  Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/15.Rev,

2.  Takes note of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund for 2010-2011 and the situation of the reserves and contributions as at 31 December 2011;

3.  Recalls its budget decisions adopted since the 28th session of the Committee;

4.  Further recalls its decision at its 35th session to establish a Budget Working Group as a Consultative Body of the Committee in order to examine item 15 of the Agenda, to formulate its recommendations thereon and to report back to the Committee at its plenary session.

PART I

5.  Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/15.Rev Part II on the Budget implementation for the Biennium 2012-2013,

6.   Takes note of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund for 2012-2013 and the current situation of the reserves and contributions as at 31 March 2012;

7.   Recalls that the payment of contributions is an obligation incumbent on States Parties under the Convention;

8.    Expresses its appreciation to the States Parties, who have already made their contributions and reiterates its request to States Parties to pay their annual contributions, by 31 January, and urges States Parties who have not yet paid the totality of their contributions, including voluntary contributions in accordance with Article 16.2 of the Convention, to ensure that their contributions are paid as soon as possible;

9.   Recalls its invitation to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to harmonize the structure and format of their budget proposals;

10.  Approves the revised budget of US$5,208,205 for the World Heritage Fund for the biennium 2012-2013 and its corresponding breakdown as shown in Annex V, and notes that this amount constitutes a 21% reduction in the budget;

11.  Recalls with deep concern the current financial situation of the World Heritage Fund which hampers its ability to provide for activities related to the Convention, including conservation and management of properties, which is a top priority, as well as nominations, and recognizes the necessity to urgently improve the sustainability of the Fund which is required to underpin the Convention as a flagship of UNESCO;

12.  Deeply concerned that the substantial budget cuts to the World Heritage Fund have reduced international assistance and the provision of resources to the Advisory Bodies, which will mean that certain statutory activities such as evaluation and monitoring missions, services in the context of nominations and review of retrospective as well as provisional Statements of Outstanding Universal Value resulting from decisions of the Committee may not be fully undertaken,

13.  Notes that advisory services for the preparation or revision of nominations and increased dialogue between Advisory Bodies and States Parties in the evaluation of nominations are not currently covered by the funds provided to the Advisory Bodies and can only be undertaken if additional funding is made available for such activities;

14.  Also notes that a variety of other priority activities and strategic initiatives adopted by the World Heritage Committee regarding capacity building, upstream processes, and programmes of the World Heritage Centre are at risk without additional funding;

15.  Furthermore notes that the expenses of advisory services to States Parties in the preparation and revision of nominations are to be funded by the States Parties concerned;

16.  Requests concerned States Parties to provide voluntary assistance in covering the travel and accommodation expenses for evaluation and monitoring missions;

17.  Also requests the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to reconsider the detailed budget for ICOMOS in order to address the unfunded activities.

PART II

18.  Notes with concern the impact of the budget reduction of the UNESCO regular budget on programme activities, and appreciates the continuing efforts undertaken to manage and mitigate the challenges brought about by this situation;

19.  Expresses its appreciation to the Director-General for the finances allocated from the UNESCO Emergency Multi-Donor Fund to support the activities under the World Heritage Convention and appeals to the Director-General to consider allocating further resources from the Emergency Fund and other available sources of funding, in order to support the statutory functions of the Convention;

20.  Notes with appreciation the supplementary costs absorbed by the Russian Authorities as host of the 36th session of the Committee in addition to those listed in the Statement of Requirements;

21.  Recognizes that supplementary costs of future sessions of the Committee are reflected, in consultation with the host country, in the Host Country Agreement and the Statement of Requirements for the host country.

PART III

22.   Having examined document WHC-12/36.COM/15.Rev Part III on the sustainability of the World Heritage Fund,

23.   Notes that the World Heritage Fund will not increase significantly in future due to the universality of the Convention and the provisions of the Convention that determines the statutory funding of the World Heritage Fund;

24.   Further notes that due to the universality of the Convention the number of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List will continue to increase;

25.   Considers that without additional contributions being made to the World Heritage Fund, financial resources will not be sufficient to provide for the statutory processes as well as International Assistance, thereby threatening the credibility of the Convention and the fulfilment of its objectives;

26.   Highlights the urgent need to ensure the sustainability of the World Heritage Fund and having considered a range of options to this end, urges States Parties to consider allocating voluntary contributions to the World Heritage Fund, to the extent possible and within their capacity;

27.  Calls upon States Parties to give serious consideration to this appeal in order to ensure the sustainability of the World Heritage Fund as well as the integrity of the World Heritage regime;

28.  Decides that additional contributions received in terms of this appeal be utilized for International Assistance towards conservation and management of World Heritage properties;

29.  Requests the World Heritage Centre to report annually to the Committee on the amounts received as well as the contributors of voluntary contributions;

30.  Decides to review annually the response of States Parties in terms of paragraph 26 and to continue to explore appropriate ways to ensure the sustainability of the Fund;

31.  Further proposes that given the financial constraints on the World Heritage Fund that consideration be given to amending the number of nominations referred to in paragraph 61 b) and c) of the Operational Guidelines by further limiting the number of nominations to be considered annually by the World Heritage Committee;

32.   Decides that future decisions presented for the Committee’s approval that have financial implications not provided for in the approved budget be clearly identified and reflected in the relevant decisions of the Committee, upon adoption;

33.  Recommends that the World Heritage Centre, when preparing the budget for the next biennium (2014-2015), gives priority to conservation and monitoring activities;

34.   Finally requests the World Heritage Centre to report on the implementation of this Decision at its 37th session in 2013.

1.  Recalling its Decision 36 COM 17 , adopted at its 36th session (Saint Petersburg, 2012), which elected its Bureau whose mandate will be until the end of its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),

2.  Decides to elect, in accordance with Rule 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee, its Bureau with the following composition:

a)  H.E. Sheika Al Mayassa Bint Hamad Al-Thani (Qatar) as Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, whose mandate will begin at the end of the 37th session of the Committee (Phnom Penh, 2013) until the end of the 38th session of the Committee (2014);

b)  Senegal,

Japan,

Germany

Colombia and

Algeria

as Vice-Chairpersons of the World Heritage Committee, whose mandates will begin at the end of the 37th session of the Committee (Phnom Penh, 2013) until the end of the 38th session of the Committee ( 2014);

c)  Mr. Francisco J. Gutierrez (Colombia) as the Rapporteur of the World Heritage Committee whose mandates will begin at the end of the 37th session of the Committee (Phnom Penh, 2013) until the end of the 38th session of the Committee (2014);

3.  Also decides that the Bureau of the 39th session of the World Heritage Committee (2015) will be elected at the end of the 38th session of the World Heritage Committee (2014) in accordance with Rule 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Heritage Committee;

4.  Takes note of the invitation by Germany to host the 39th session of the Committee in 2015.

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/18A,

2.  Decides that its 38th session will take place in Doha, Qatar from 15 to 25 June 2014;

3.  Requests the World Heritage Centre to consult with the incoming Chairperson regarding the Provisional Agenda and a detailed timetable;

4.  Adopts the Provisional Agenda for the 38th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2014 as contained in Document WHC-13/37.COM/18A.

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/18B,

2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 12B adopted at its 36th session;

3.  Considering the costs inherent to the holding of an additional ordinary session of the World Heritage Committee and the financial situation that UNESCO, including its World Heritage Centre, is facing;

4.  Decides not to hold an additional ordinary session in October/November 2013;

5.  Requests the World Heritage Centre to re-assess the eventual possibility of holding an additional ordinary session of this Committee in 2015 and to present a report on this issue at its 39th session in 2015. 

1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/5F and its Annexes,
2. Welcomes the findings of the audit and the recommendations offered therein;
3. Takes note that the General Assembly of States Parties decided to establish a sub-account under the World Heritage Fund with regard to recommendation 1(a), to be funded from Voluntary Contributions and to be used exclusively for enhancing the human capacities of the Secretariat, and with regard to recommendation 1(e) to apply the cost recovery policy for the staff time spent in managing the World Heritage Fund within the limit of the funds made available under the sub-account; recalls the invitation of the General Assembly to States Parties to provide voluntary supplementary contributions to the sub-account in the amount of at least US$1,000,000 per year in total;
4. Takes further note that the established practice of the Convention with regard to translation and interpretation of statutory meetings – specifically, that costs of interpretation in languages other than English and French for Committee sessions are borne by extrabudgetary contributions – satisfies Recommendation 1(d);
5. Also welcomes the establishment by the Culture Sector of a Conventions Common Services Unit that aims to support the work of all convention secretariats, as suggested in Recommendation 3, and expects that it will add value and provide cost-effective solutions to the challenges facing the Conventions;
6. Acknowledges the necessity to prioritize the workload of the Secretariat to align it with available resources (Recommendation 1 (b)), while recalling that the Organization is confronting an unprecedented financial situation that demands creative solutions;
7. Considers that the annual frequency of sessions of the Committee is appropriate and welcomes the suggestion in Recommendation 1 (c) to reduce the duration and agenda of the sessions;
8. Takes note of the suggestion to synchronize the meetings of the States Parties to the different Conventions (Recommendation 1 (c)), but considers that this would not be an advantage to States Parties in view of the duration and location of the sessions.

1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/5F as well as the “Evaluation of UNESCO’s Standard-setting work of the Culture Sector: Part III – 1972 Convention,
2. Noting that the present evaluation constitues the first such evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of the World Heritage Convention of 1972,
3. Welcomes the findings of the evaluation and the recommendations offered therein;
4. Takes note that the current periodic mechanism already includes a number of indicators and considers that Recommendation 1, with regard both to the World Heritage Convention of 1972 and the Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage, should be addressed in the framework of the reflection period regarding the implementation modalities of the Periodic reporting exercise, to be launched after the end of the second cycle of Periodic reporting in 2015, thus building on existing mechanisms, avoiding overlap of reporting mechanisms and ensuring greater efficiency;
5. Also takes note, with regard to Recommendation 2, that the Operational Guidelines include a provision (paragraph 172) aiming to prevent negative impact of development projects on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage properties, through a recommendation to States Parties to inform the World Heritage Committee about such projects, and that no distinction between national and international investment projects is made;
6. Calls upon States Parties, with a view to fully satisfy Recommendation 2, to introduce or reinforce existing mechanisms for evaluation of the impact of investment projects, both national and international, on cultural and natural heritage in general, and on World Heritage properties, in particular, and recommends that in this regard they make sustained use of all tools and guidance already developed by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies;
7. Further takes note of Recommendation 3 and decides to seek technical and legal advice regarding resolution of legal disputes pertaining to the meaning of certain provisions of the Convention and about the scope of obligations arising thereunder, on an ad hoc basis, as cases arise;
8. Recognizes that the proposals contained in Recommendation 4 are already being addressed by the Secretariat of the Convention of 1972 and the other cultural conventions secretariats, through the creation of Common Conventions Services Unit and that a process of harmonizing the working methods of the conventions is under way, through the Cultural Conventions Liaison Group (CCLG) and takes note that this is work in progress by the Secretariat towards complying with Recommendation 4;
9. Urges the States Parties to the Convention, in view of complying with Recommendation 4, to enhance coherence in the development of the legal tools that are necessary to make protection of heritage under the relevant UNESCO Standard-setting instruments, effective in their national laws and policies and requests the Secretariat to provide support and assistance to States Parties in this regard, where requested and appropriate;
10. Further takes note of Decision 194 EX/22 (paragraph 6) by the Executive Board of UNESCO concerning actions to be taken towards implementation of the recommendations of the evaluation of UNESCO’s Standard-setting work of the Culture Sector.

1. Recalling its decision 35 COM 12B adopted at its 35th session to establish a Budget Working Group as a Standing Consultative Body of the Committee,
2. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/12,
3. Takes note of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the biennium 2012-2013 and the situation of the reserves and contributions as at 31 December 2013;
4. Also takes note of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the first three months of the biennium 2014-2015 and the situation of the contributions as at 31 March 2014 which indicates a shortfall of about US$ 3 million;
5. Approves the new presentation related to the consolidated table of allotments and expenditures for activities financed by the three sources of funding, as shown at the end of Annex II of Document WHC-14/38.COM/12;
6. Notes with concern the impact of the budget reduction of the UNESCO regular budget on programme activities, and appreciates the continuing efforts undertaken to manage and mitigate the challenges brought about by this situation;
7. Recalls with deep concern the current financial situation of the World Heritage Fund which has hampered its ability to provide for activities related to the Convention, including conservation and management of properties which are a top priority, as well as nominations, and recognizes the necessity to urgently achieve the sustainability of the Fund, which is required to underpin the Convention as a flagship of UNESCO;
8. Notes that the World Heritage Fund will not increase significantly in future due to the universality of the Convention, as well as the provisions of the Convention that determine the statutory funding of the World Heritage Fund, while at the same time the number of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List will continue to increase;
9. Considers that without additional contributions being made to the World Heritage Fund, financial resources will not be sufficient to provide for statutory processes, and also notes that there have already been significant cuts to key Convention processes and activities, such as International Assistance, implementation of the Periodic Reporting, development of thematic studies and capacity building;
10. Recalls that the payment of compulsory and voluntary assessed contributions is, as per the Article 16 of the World Heritage Convention, an obligation incumbent on States Parties having ratified the Convention;
11. Thanks the States Parties, that have already made their contributions and strongly calls upon the other States Parties, that have not yet paid the totality of their assessed contributions, including voluntary assessed contributions in accordance with Article 16.2 of the Convention, to ensure that their contributions are paid as soon as possible, bearing in mind the repercussions for non-payment which include the inability to access International Assistance;
12. Also recognizes that States Parties have an obligation to fulfil the objectives of the Convention and have a responsibility to provide sufficient funding for statutory processes and International Assistance;
13. Strongly encourages the States Parties to contribute to the sub-account for International Assistance and make voluntary contributions by choosing among the options described in Resolution 19 GA 8 as follows:
    
    - Option 1   : Increasing the standard percentage used in the calculation of the contributions to the World Heritage Fund from 1% to 2%,
    - Option 3.1: Increasing the contributions by a flat rate of US$3,300 per property inscribed,
    - Option 3.2: Increasing the contributions by an additional 4% of the current assessed contribution per property inscribed,
    - Option 3.3: Increasing the contributions by an additional amount per property inscribed, according to a percentage increasing with the number of properties inscribed,
    - Option 3.4: Increasing the contributions by an additional amount per property inscribed, according to a percentage decreasing with the number of properties inscribed,
    - Option 4   : Increasing the contributions on the basis of the number of tourists arrivals at World Heritage Sites,
    - Option 5   : Contributing per activity;
14. Expresses its concern at the worsened staffing situation of the World Heritage Centre – as expressed in Decision 37 COM 15.I, staffing is not sufficient to implement the statutory activities required by the Convention – and further notes that the World Heritage Centre is increasingly depending on staff hired for the implementation of extrabudgetary activities to implement statutory work, as well as unpaid overtime to ensure the Secretariat functions;
15. Also strongly encourages States Parties to contribute to the sub-account for “enhancing the human capacities of the World Heritage Centre”;
16. Requests the World Heritage Centre to report annually to the Committee on the amounts of supplementary voluntary contributions received as well as the contributors of such voluntary contributions;
17. Decides to approve the budget adjustment requested by ICOMOS in the amount of US$ 126,908;
18. Also decides to approve the creation of a new budget line for Advisory Missions under the World Heritage Fund (2.0 “Advisory Missions” under “Action 2: Identification, management and promotion of World Heritage”) to be used to the benefit of States Parties falling within the category of Least developed countries, Low-income and Lower middle income countries;
19. Further decides to re-allocate an amount of US$ 80,000 from the Reactive and Reinforced Monitoring Missions Budget to be reflected under the item Advisory Missions;
20. Recalling that the rules of the International Assistance mechanism allow funding to be granted for Advisory Missions or other relevant provision of advice, both for preparatory assistance and state of conservation matters, further encourages States Parties which would wish to use such services and fall within the category of Least developed countries, Low-income and Lower middle income countries, and which could not benefit from the Advisory Missions budget, to make use of the International Assistance mechanism, in compliance with the existing rules, procedure and format as set out in the Operational Guidelines (paragraphs 223-257);
21. Decides furthermore to request the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to prepare a document and to submit it to the Committee for the examination of the role, nature and funding of Advisory Missions, within the framework of the revision of the Operational Guidelines at its 39th session in 2015;
22. Further recognizes the necessity to urgently achieve the sustainability of the World Heritage Fund and calls on the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies to propose, in consultation with States Parties, to the Committee for consideration at its 39th session a comparative analysis of options for further efficiency and cost saving measures and resource mobilization that could contribute to the sustainability of the Fund;
23. Notes with appreciation the supplementary costs absorbed by the Qatari Authorities as host of the 38th session of the World Heritage Committee in addition to those listed in the Statement of Requirements;
24. Finally requests the World Heritage Centre to report on the implementation of this Decision at its 39th session in 2015.

1. Having examined Document WHC/16/40.COM/15 and Document WHC/16/40.COM/13A,
2. Takes note of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund for 2014-2015;
3. Notes with appreciation the supplementary costs covered by the Turkish authorities as host of the 40th session of the World Heritage Committee in addition to those listed in the Statement of Requirements;
4. Recalls that the payment of compulsory and assessed voluntary contributions is, as per Article 16 of the World Heritage Convention, an obligation incumbent on all States Parties which have ratified the Convention;
5. Thanks States Parties which have already made their contributions for 2016 and calls upon all other States Parties, which have not yet paid the totality of their assessed contributions for 2016, including voluntary contributions in accordance with Article 16.2 of the Convention, to ensure that their contributions are paid as soon as possible;
6. Encourages States Parties with arrears to expedite payments of their dues and where a State Party is unable to make a one off settlement, the Secretariat is to, as a matter of priority and urgency, finalize a payment schedule to settle outstanding arrears and further implores States Parties to pay their contributions by 31st January to facilitate the timely implementation of activities financed by the World Heritage Fund;
7. Approves that the operating reserve of the World Heritage Fund cover the request from ICOMOS for additional funding in the amount of US$ 100,839 for 2016, as well as the request of ICOMOS for additional funding in the amount of US$ 158,169 for 2017;
8. Takes note of the cost estimates of nominations to be examined in 2017, which are listed in Annex V of the present document, according to the Document WHC/16/40.COM/INF.8B3;
9. Invites the Secretariat to enhance its efforts to provide a clear holistic overview of the global budget framework of the Convention, including the World Heritage Fund, regular budget and extrabudgetary allotments, in the light of the ongoing process towards UNESCO’s integrated budget framework and structured financing dialogue;
10. Further invites the World Heritage Centre in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies to hold a budget briefing for States Parties during each General Assembly as well as during the information session prior to each session of the Committee;
11. Further requests the World Heritage Centre in consultation with the Advisory Bodies to formulate a proposal for the 2018-2019 budget of the World Heritage Fund, which is sufficient to meet the statutory requirements as much as possible within the existing budget framework;
12. Taking note of the priority placed by the World Heritage Committee on conservation and management through Decision 39 COM 15, recommends that the World Heritage Centre, in the budget for the next biennium (2018-2019) give priority to conservation and monitoring activities, and therefore calls for increasing the proportion of the World Heritage Fund dedicated to conservation;
13. Notes that without supplementary voluntary contributions being made to the World Heritage Fund, the financial resources will be grossly insufficient to provide for the statutory processes as well as International Assistance and Conservation, thereby threatening the credibility of the Convention and the fulfilment of its objectives, as well as the viability of the World Heritage Centre to undertake its operational and administrative functions;
14. Recognizing the urgent need to ensure the sustainability of the World Heritage Fund and having considered the options for voluntary contributions to this end, calls upon all States Parties to commit to consider allocating supplementary voluntary contributions to the World Heritage Fund;
15. Recalling proposals by the Secretariat at the 19th and the 20th General Assembly on voluntary contributions, endorses options 1, 4 and 5 of Resolution 19 GA 8, as they were found applicable alternatives presented to the 19th General Assembly, and also the proposal in the document WHC-15/20.GA/8 presented to the 20th General Assembly;
16. Decides to initiate a consultation process on annual fee for World Heritage listed properties on a voluntary basis and requests the Secretariat to send out a survey to States Parties, in order to verify the possibility of their local administrations in charge of management of inscribed sites, to pay an annual fee to the Fund, depending on their financial autonomy and capacity to pay and report back to the Committee;
17. Expresses its concern that the Cultural and Natural Heritage have come under unprecedented threat and with deep concern for the sustainability of the World Heritage Fund, calls upon the Executive Board and the General Conference in the light of the ongoing preparations of the document C/5 to allocate more resources from the regular budget to meet statutory requirements for more effective implementation of the 1972 Convention;
18. Encourages that as a part of its extrabudgetary funding the Secretariat further bolsters its campaign to attract increased and sustained partnerships with the private sector and individual donors, while mindful that funding should not be sought from entities whose activities are incompatible with the aims and principles of UNESCO;
19. Expresses its concern that the resources of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are not sufficient to implement the statutory activities required by the Convention and decides to continue to explore appropriate ways to ensure the sustainability of the Fund, including through extrabudgetary resource mobilization opportunities and additional fund raising possibilities, in collaboration with the World Heritage Centre, other UNESCO competent services, category 2 centres, the Advisory Bodies, States Parties and other organizations, and to develop recommendations in this regard;
20. Recalls its recommendation to reduce and prioritize the work requested from the Secretariat in view of financial and human resource constraints, and invites the extended ad hoc working group to consider this matter, in accordance with its mandate;
21. In view of optimisation of the use of the resources of the Fund, emphasizes the importance of securing value for money in the commissioning of advisory services and requests the Secretariat to prepare, if funding available, a comparative mapping of forms and models for use of advisory services (such as evaluation, technical services, etc.) by other international instruments and programmes as a means of benchmarking the price of services, including but not limited to UNESCO site-based conventions and programmes, for consideration by the ad-hoc Working Group at the earliest opportunity and examination by the Committee at its 41st session;
22. Recalls Decision 35 COM 12B, that default to a minimum two-year cycle for the examination of State of Conservation reports for individual properties on the World Heritage List, and for the discussion of those inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, is appropriate, except for cases of utmost urgency, as well as Decisions 38 COM 5F.1 and 39 COM 13B, by which the World Heritage Committee “considered that the annual frequency of sessions of the Committee is appropriate” and decides that the option of transferring to a 2-year cycle will not contribute to the credibility and enhancing the impact of the Convention, in addition to not generating any meaningful economy in the World Heritage Fund, and also decides that the annual frequency of sessions of the World Heritage Committee is appropriate;
23. Requests the World Heritage Centre to report on the implementation of this decision at its 41st session in 2017

1. Recalling its Decision 41 COM 16, adopted at its 41st session (Krakow, 2017), which elected its Bureau whose mandate will be until the end of its 42nd session (Manama, 2018),
2. Recalls that the hosting of a World Heritage Committee session by a Committee member is subject to the host country signing a host country agreement in conformity with UNESCO’s rules and regulations and that host country agreements for category II meetings must be signed eight months in advance of the meeting;
3. Also recalls that, pursuant to Rule 44.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee, arrangements by the host country to provide interpretation in another language than the working language of the Committee (English and French), or another official working languages recognized by the United Nations, should be in compliance with UNESCO’s rules, regulations and procedures;
4. Decides that its 43rd session will take place in Baku, Azerbaijan, from 30 June to 10 July 2019;
5. Also decides to elect, in accordance with Rule 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee, its Bureau with the following composition:
   1. H.E. Mr. Abulfaz Garayev (Azerbaijan) as Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, whose mandate will begin at the end of the 42nd session of the Committee (Manama, 2018) until the end of the 43rd session of the Committee (2019),
   2. Norway,
      Brazil,
      Indonesia,
      Burkina Faso and
      Tunisia
      as Vice-Chairpersons of the World Heritage Committee, whose mandates will begin at the end of the 42nd session of the Committee (Manama, 2018) until the end of the 43rd session of the Committee (2019),
   3. Mahani Taylor (Australia) as the Rapporteur of the World Heritage Committee whose mandates will begin at the end of the 42nd session of the Committee (Manama, 2018) until the end of the 43rd session of the Committee (2019);
6. Further decides that the Bureau of the 44th session (2020) will be elected at the end of the 43rd session of the Committee (2019) in accordance with Rule 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Heritage Committee.

1. Having examined Document WHC/18/42.COM/17,
2. Requests the World Heritage Centre to consult with the Chairperson regarding the Provisional Agenda and a detailed timetable;
3. Adopts the following Provisional Agenda for its 43rd session in 2019:

PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE 43rd SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (2019)

OPENING SESSION

1. Opening session
2. Admission of Observers
3. Adoption of the Agenda and the Timetable
   

   3A.          Adoption of the Agenda

   3B.          Adoption of the Timetable
   
   

   REPORTS

4. Report of the Rapporteur of the 42nd session of the World Heritage Committee (Manama, 2018)

5. Reports of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies

   5A.          Report of the World Heritage Centre on its activities and the implementation of the World Heritage Committee’s decisions

   5B.          Reports of the Advisory Bodies

   5C.         World Heritage Convention and Sustainable Development

   5D.         Priority Africa, sustainable development and World Heritage

   5E.          Report on strengthening of dialogue between the Advisory Bodies and States Parties

6. Follow-up to the World Heritage Capacity-Building Strategy and Progress report on the World Heritage-related category 2 centres
   
   

   EXAMINATION OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION

7. State of conservation of World Heritage properties
   

   7A.          State of conservation of World Heritage properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

   7B.          State of conservation of World Heritage properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

   
   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND OF THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER

8. Nomination process
   

   8A.          Tentative Lists submitted by States Parties as of 15 April 2019

   8B.          Nominations to the World Heritage List

   8C.         Update of the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger

   8D.         Clarifications of property boundaries and areas by States Parties

   8E.          Review and approval of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value

   
   GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR A REPRESENTATIVE, BALANCED AND CREDIBLE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

9. Global Strategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List
   

   9A.          Upstream Process

   
   PERIODIC REPORTS
10. Periodic Reports
    

    10A.        Progress report on the follow-up to the Second cycle of Periodic Reporting

    10B.        Progress report on the Third cycle of Periodic Reporting

    
    WORKING METHODS AND TOOLS

11. Policy Compendium
12. Follow-up to Recommendations of Evaluations and Audits on Working Methods and outcomes of the ad-hoc working group
    

    12A.        Follow-up to Recommendations of Evaluations and Audits on Working Methods: outcomes of the ad-hoc working group

    
    

    FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

13. International Assistance
14. Report on the execution of the budget for the biennium 2018-2019, budget proposal of the World Heritage Fund for the biennium 2020-2021 and follow-up to Decision 42 COM 14
15. Other business
    
    

    CLOSING SESSION

16. Election of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons and Rapporteur of the 44th session of the World Heritage Committee (2020)

17. Provisional Agenda of the 44th session of the World Heritage Committee (2020)

18. Adoption of Decisions

19. Closing session