Distribution limited WHC-95/CONF.204/8
Paris, 22 November 1995
Original : English/French
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
TENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 2 - 3 November 1995
Room XII
SUMMARY RECORD
1. The Tenth General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention
concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural heritage was
held in Paris at UNESCO Headquarters, on 2 and 3 November 1995, during the
28th session of the General Conference.
2. One hundred and nineteen States Parties to the Convention were
represented at the meeting.
3. Representatives of two non-governmental organizations and the
European Communities Commission attended the meeting as observers. Several
other observers were also present.
4. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly,
the UNESCO World Heritage Centre provided the Secretariat for the Assembly.
Opening of the session
5. In his opening address, the Deputy Director-General, representing the
Director-General, evoked the progress made in the implementation of the
World Heritage Convention to which 143 States Parties now adhered; since
the eighteenth session of the Committee, 440 properties situated in 100
States Parties were now inscribed on the World Heritage List.
He emphasized that the desire to preserve the diversity of cultural
and natural heritage has made it possible to accomplish noteworthy actions
and to strengthen the feeling of belonging to a world community working
towards greater tolerance, solidarity and peace.
*[2] He informed the General Assembly that the Director-General of UNESCO
had signed several Green Notes concerning the role of the World Heritage
Centre and its relations with other units within the Secretariat, in order
to rationalise its procedures and to increase its field of action.
He also requested the States Parties to make an effort to settle
outstanding dues to the World Heritage Fund, now amounting to a total of
more than two million US dollars.
Election of the President, Vice-Presidents and Rapporteur
6. The General Assembly elected by acclamation Mr S. Kronfol (Lebanon)
as President. The General Assembly also elected unanimously
representatives of Brazil, Niger and Japan as Vice-Presidents, and Mr J.
Jelen (Hungary) as Rapporteur.
Adoption of the Agenda
7. After having moved to item 9 of the draft agenda the examination of
new monitoring activities and to item 10 elections to the World Heritage
Committee, the General Assembly adopted its draft agenda.
8. Following a point of order on the part of Slovenia, which recalled a
resolution of the UN Security Council and a decision of the UNESCO General
Conference, and after having heard the advice of the Legal Advisor, the
General Assembly decided that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia
and Montenegro) could not participate in this tenth session.
Report by the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee
9. In accordance with the recommendation made by the World Heritage
Committee at its eighteenth session, the Chairman of the Committee, Dr Adul
Wichiencharoen (Thailand) presented to the General Assembly the report
which the Committee was submitting to the UNESCO General Conference. The
text of Dr. Wichiencharoen's presentation is presented in Annex I to this
document. The General Assembly took note of this report.
Examination of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund
10. The General Assembly examined the Document WHC-95/CONF.204/3
concerning the budgetary situation of the World Heritage Fund, in
accordance with the Financial Regulations of the Fund. The situation
concerning contributions up to 28 October 1995, replacing Document WHC-
95/CONF.204/3 Add., was also distributed during the session. The Assembly
was further informed that the following contributions had been received
since 28 October 1995:
*[3]
State Party Amount (US $) Year of contribution
_______________________________________________________________________
Algeria 10,768 balance 1993, 1994 and 1995
Argentina 129 balance 1995
Guyana 301 part of 1994
India 9,979 1995
Jordan 180 balance 1995
Mozambique 658 balance 1993, 1994 and 1995
Nigeria 19,089 balance 1993, 1994 and 1995
Pakistan 1,878 balance 1994/part of 1995
11. The General Assembly then took note of the statement of accounts of
the World Heritage Fund for the financial period ending on 31 December
1993, the interim statement of accounts for the period 1994-1995, as at 31
August 1995, and the summary contributions received from States Parties as
at 31 August 1995. The Assembly also took note of information provided by
the Secretariat regarding contributions received since 28 October 1995.
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.
Determination of the amount of the contributions to the World Heritage Fund
in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the Convention
12. The General Assembly unanimously decided that the amount of mandatory
contributions to the World Heritage Fund for the period 1996-1997,
calculated in US dollars, would be maintained at 1 percent of contributions
made by States Parties to the Regular Programme of UNESCO, in accordance
with Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention, as had been decided by the
nine previous General Assemblies.
*[4]
Proposed procedural changes for the election to the World Heritage
Committee - Proposed amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the General
Assembly
13. The President then explained for which reasons it was proposed to
simplify the procedure in force for the election of members to the World
Heritage Committee, in order to avoid an excessive number of ballots. This
simplification, contained in the proposed amendments to Rules 13.8, 13.9
and 13.10 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly (cf. Document
WHC-95/CONF.204/5), would comprise four ballots with absolute majority and
at the fifth ballot a simple majority, and in the event of two or more
candidates obtaining the same number of votes, to proceed by drawing lots.
14. The General Assembly rejected several additional amendments proposed
during the session by delegations, comprising:
- 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."
New monitoring activities related to World Heritage sites
15. This agenda item was introduced by the Chairman of the World Heritage
Committee, Dr Adul Wichiencharoen (Thailand), who summarized the contents
of his report on this *[5] subject as reflected in Working Document WHC-
95/CONF.204/7 (see note 1) and the proposed resolution that had been
_____________________________
1 The Rapporteur decided, for the sake of clarity, to re-number the
proposed draft resolutions and revisions to these resolutions submitted to
the General Assembly in their chronological order. All these documents as
well as the Report of the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee for this
agenda item are included among the official documents of the General
Assembly and are included in Annex II. Reference numbers used in this
report are the ones attributed to them by the Rapporteur.
prepared by him for this General Assembly (WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.1). He
recalled that the World Heritage Committee, after a long process of
consultations, discussions and practical experiences in several States
Parties and regions, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean,
decided, at its eighteenth session in December 1994, to introduce a
voluntary system of on-site monitoring of the state of conservation of
World Heritage properties by the States Parties themselves, with a periodic
reporting by the States Parties to the World Heritage Committee. With
reference to specific provisions in the Articles 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 and the
eighth preambular clause of the Convention, the Chairman emphasized that
the Committee considered monitoring and reporting to constitute the
appropriate modern and scientific means to meet the requirements and
responsibilities of the States Parties and the World Heritage Committee as
set out in the World Heritage Convention for ensuring the collective
protection and conservation of properties on the World Heritage List.
Therefore, he concluded, the reporting, i.e. the presentation of periodic
state of conservation reports as proposed by the Committee, is a technical
instrument for the implementation of the Convention and is of a different
order than the reports to the General Conference of UNESCO mentioned in
Article 29 of the Convention.
16. The Delegate of India introduced a draft resolution submitted by her
country together with Indonesia, Jamaica, Oman and the Republic of Korea
(see Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.2 which was replaced by WHC-
95/CONF.204/DR.2.Corr.1). Another draft resolution was also submitted by
India as an amendment to the Chairman's proposed resolution (see Document
WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3). She proposed to use the terminology 'systematic
observation' instead of 'systematic monitoring' in order to avoid any
misunderstanding and misinterpretation. She also pointed out that, in her
country's view and based upon Article 29 of the Convention, reports from
States Parties can only be required by the General Conference of UNESCO and
not by a 'select outside body' such as the World Heritage Committee.
17. The UNESCO Legal Adviser replied to some specific questions that were
raised in the draft resolution DR.2.corr.1. He clarified that the World
Heritage Convention only foresees a reporting by the States Parties to the
General Conference of UNESCO and that no legal basis exists for the
Committee to demand reports on a mandatory basis. The Committee could,
however, request reports as long as this would be done on a voluntary
basis.
18. In reply to a question posed by the Delegate of India, the Chairman
of the World Heritage Committee emphasized that it is the responsibility of
the Committee to make detailed provisions for the implementation of the
different aspects of the Convention which are subsequently reflected in the
'Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention'. In this sense, he repeated that monitoring and reporting were
conceived by the Committee as a technical means of implementing the
Convention and as an effective tool for management and planning remedial
actions by the States Parties themselves and for the Committee to undertake
the tasks entrusted to it in the Convention. He reiterated that the World
Heritage Committee can only undertake its tasks to establish and keep up-
to-date the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger as
well as to provide international assistance for the safeguarding of World
Heritage properties, if it has updated and reliable information on their
state of conservation available.
*[6] 19. In the ensuing debate, the decisions taken by the World
Heritage Committee and the Chairman's proposed resolution WHC-
95/CONF.204/DR.1. were fully supported by the Delegates of Cambodia,
Argentina, Colombia, Netherlands, Croatia, Mexico, Italy, Sweden, Poland,
Cuba, United States of America, Canada, among others, whereas the
resolution WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3 tabled by India was favoured or considered
suitable for revision by the Delegates of Germany, Greece, France, Republic
of Korea, Indonesia, Laos, China, Mali, Sudan, among others. The Delegate
of Germany, however, expressed reservations about the final part of
paragraph 7 of the draft resolution DR.3 and proposed that the text 'on a
totally voluntary basis and without any obligation under the Convention to
do so' be deleted.
20. The Delegate of Canada then pointed out that it seemed that the main
divergence was not on the need for monitoring or reporting on the state of
conservation of World Heritage properties in itself, but on the question if
reports should be submitted to the World Heritage Committee or to the
UNESCO General Conference. Upon her suggestion that reports could be
presented to the General Assembly of States Parties, the President of the
General Assembly decided to adjourn the session to give the delegates the
opportunity to discuss and prepare a consensus resolution. After the
recess, a 'revised amendment' was submitted by India (see Document WHC-
95/CONF.204/DR.3.Rev.1). This document was then distributed to all
delegates.
21. The Delegate of Germany expressed his support for this DR.3.Rev.1,
whereas the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee expressed his strong
opposition towards it. In view of the fact that many delegates wished to
consult with their respective governments on this new text, the President
of the General Assembly decided to defer the debate until after the
elections of the new members of the Committee (item 10 of the agenda).
22. After the conclusion of the elections, the President of the General
Assembly stated that he had received a written statement from the Delegates
of Sweden, Denmark and Finland which supported the resolution DR.1 proposed
by the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee and which proposed specific
amendments to the DR.3.Rev.1 in case the DR.1 were not accepted by the
General Assembly (for the full text of this statement see Document WHC-
95/CONF.204/DR.3.Rev.2). A revision to DR.3.Rev.1 was also submitted to the
President of the General Assembly in a written statement submitted by the
Delegate of Brazil and reproduced in Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3.Rev.3.
The President then proposed to amend DR.3.Rev.1 in the sense that reporting
would take place to the 'General Assembly of States Parties as well as to
the General Conference of UNESCO'. He also proposed amendments to paragraph
4 of the same document regarding the 'prime responsibility' of the States
Parties in the observation of the conditions of World Heritage properties,
and paragraph 5 regarding the role of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and
the advisory bodies in providing expert advice to States Parties (for the
full text of this proposal see Document DR.3.Rev.4).
23. The Chairman of the World Heritage Committee intervened to express
his disappointment that not all members of the World Heritage Committee
openly defended the Committee's decisions. Hereafter, the Delegate of Italy
requested that his country's full support to the Committee's decisions be
recorded in the report of the session. The Chairman, supported by the
Delegates of Italy, Australia and Canada, also raised objections that his
*[7] proposed resolution was not taken as the basis for the discussions.
The President referred to Rules 12.6 and 12.7 of the Rules of Procedure of
the General Assembly to justify his decision to first invite discussions on
the draft resolutions submitted by India (DR.3.Rev.1) and himself
(DR.3.Rev.4).
24. The discussions then focused on the DR.3.Rev.4 proposed by the
President of the General Assembly.
25. The Delegates of Brazil and Italy supported the President's proposal
to bring paragraph 4 of DR.3.Rev.1 in line with Article 4 of the World
Heritage Convention which stipulates that 'the duty of ensuring the
identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to
future generations of the cultural and natural heritage (...) belongs
primarily to that State'. As to paragraph 5 of the President's proposal,
the Delegate of Brazil, supported by the Delegates of Italy, Madagascar,
Australia and the Netherlands, found this too restrictive and proposed to
replace its text by the following: "Emphasizes further that with the
expressed agreement of the State Party concerned, UNESCO, through the World
Heritage Centre and/or the advisory bodies mentioned in Art. 13.7, may
provide expert advice on ...." (see Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3.Rev.3).
The Delegate of Italy questioned the meaning of paragraph 9 of DR3.Rev.3
and DR.3.Rev.4 inviting the World Heritage Committee to explore the
possibility of activating the reporting procedure mentioned in Article 29.
26. The Delegate of Australia expressed the view that the Assembly did
not seem to be close to a consensus on the matter of monitoring and
reporting. In response to the fear he felt among some of the delegates for
excessive bureaucracy and an intrusion on the sovereignty of the States
Parties, the Delegate stated that the World Heritage Committee's decisions
on monitoring and reporting indeed strengthen the role of the Convention
and the Committee but that these are in no way intrusive. Given the fact
that the Convention as such, of course, cannot reflect the experiences
gained since 1972, he felt that there is an important role to play for
UNESCO in setting standards in this field. He concluded that he would not
concur with the President's proposal DR.3.Rev.4.
27. Adding to this, the Delegate of Canada referred to specific articles
in the World Heritage Convention, particularly Article 6, to illustrate the
delicate balance between the sovereignty of the States Parties and the
responsibility of the international community to cooperate in the
conservation of the World Heritage properties, and to the importance of
paragraph 5 (a) of the proposed resolution DR.1. She concluded that both
DR.3.Rev.1 and DR.3.Rev.4 would imply a step back as compared to the
Convention.
28. In response to the President's draft resolution (DR.3.Rev.4), the
UNESCO Legal Adviser remarked that this proposal would encounter the same
legal difficulties as the one proposing reporting to the Committee. He
again recalled that, according to Article 29 of the Convention, it is to
the General Conference of UNESCO to determine the dates and the manner in
which the States Parties to the Convention shall give information on the
legislative and administrative provisions which they have adopted and other
actions which they have taken for the application of the Convention,
together with details of the experience required in this field. He stressed
that Article 29 could be used in a flexible way and that 'the manner'
*[8]
of the reporting could very well be, if the General Conference would so
decide, through the General Assembly or the World Heritage Committee.
29. During the debate, the Delegate of Zimbabwe observed that the
decisions taken by the World Heritage Committee address the concerns of,
what he called, the practitioners and that monitoring is crucial for their
work and that he therefore supported the Committee's position. He also
proposed to mandate the Committee to look again into this matter. The
Delegates of Australia and Austria equally stressed the need to develop, on
the basis of the past experiences, standards for management and monitoring
of World Heritage properties including a format for periodic state of
conservation reports and the important role the World Heritage Committee
and UNESCO, in collaboration with the advisory bodies ICCROM, ICOMOS and
IUCN, should play in this matter.
30. The Delegates of Algeria and Morocco remarked that the positions
defended by the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee and the Delegate
of India differed fundamentally from each other and that more reflection
was needed on this matter. They proposed to defer the discussion and
decision-making to the next General Assembly in 1997. This was supported by
the Delegates of Australia, Canada, Sweden, Malta and Pakistan. As the
discussion continued on various related matters, the Delegate of Sweden
requested the President to bring the proposal to defer the debate to a
vote. The President did so and the proposal was adopted by forty-one votes
in favour. Ten delegates voted for the continuation of the debate and five
abstentions were recorded.
31. As a conclusion, the General Assembly decided to continue the debate
on the systematic monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of
World Heritage properties at the eleventh General Assembly of States
Parties that will be held in 1997. The General Assembly requested the World
Heritage Committee to prepare a report and a proposed resolution for the
eleventh session of the General Assembly of States Parties taking into
account the discussions and experiences gained over the past years as well
as the documents that had been presented to the Tenth General Assembly and
the discussions thereon.
32. The Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Assembly that
the report of the session will be finalized by the Rapporteur and will be
distributed, in english and french, to all States Parties before the
nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee (4-9 December 1995).
Furthermore, he indicated that the item 'the state of conservation of World
Heritage cultural and natural properties' figured already on the
provisional agenda of the nineteenth session of the World Heritage
Committee and that the Committee would certainly examine this matter in the
light of the debate at the Tenth General Assembly very seriously. He
furthermore informed that the Committee will decide whether financial
support will be given to States Parties upon their request, for monitoring
the state of conservation of World Heritage properties and for training of
site managers in this field. He also indicated that guidelines were being
prepared jointly with ICCROM for on-site recording and documentation.
33. Subsequently, upon the proposal made by the Delegate of the United
States of America, the General Assembly thanked the Chairman of the World
Heritage Committee for the work undertaken by the Committee and for his
personal commitment and professional input in the debate at this General
Assembly.
*[9] Elections to the World Heritage Committee
34. Under item 10 of its agenda, the General Assembly was called upon to
elect seven members to the World Heritage Committee, to replace the
following seven members whose mandate would expire at the end of the
twenty-eighth session of the General Conference: Colombia, Indonesia, Oman,
Peru, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic and Thailand. Following the withdrawal
of its candidature by Nigeria, as well as that of Colombia which withdrew
in favour of Ecuador, the list of twenty-eight States Parties having
submitted their candidature was read to the General Assembly: Algeria,
Argentina, Australia, Benin, Cambodia, Canada, Cuba, Ecuador, Ghana,
Greece, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Lithuania, Mali, Malta, Morocco,
Mauritania, Mozambique, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Thailand, Turkey,
Uganda, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.
35. On the decision of the President, the elections were held by secret
ballot. Mr Li Jiangang (China) and Ms A.K. Endresen (Norway) were
appointed tellers.
36. The results of the first ballot were as follows:
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 2
Number of votes recorded 114
Malta, having obtained the greatest number of votes (61) was
maintained as candidate for the second ballot.
*[10]
39. The results of the second ballot were as follows:
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.
*[11]
Other business
43. The Representative of Germany informed the General Assembly that the
nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee would be held in his
country, in Berlin, and invited all States Parties to attend.
44. The Representative of Mexico and the Representative of Italy both
proposed to host in their countries the twentieth session of the World
Heritage Committee. The General Assembly thanked these two States for
their generous invitations and decided that the question would be examined
during the nineteenth session of the Committee.
45. No other question having been raised under the item "Other business",
the President declared the tenth session of the General Assembly of States
Parties to the World Heritage Convention closed.
WHC-95/CONF.204/8 - ANNEX(E) I
REPORT
by
Professor Dr Adul Wichiencharoen
Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee
presented to the Tenth General Assembly of States Parties
to the Convention
Paris, 2 and 3 November 1995
Mr President,
Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates,
I have the honour to submit a report on the activities undertaken by
the Committee in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention for
the two-year period since the ninth General Assembly held in 1993. During
this period the number of States Parties has grown from 136 to 143. The
Committee has held two meetings, the first at the invitation of the
Colombian authorities, from 6 to 11 December 1993, in Cartagena, Colombia,
and the second at the invitation of the Royal Thai Government in Phuket,
Thailand, from 12 to 17 December 1994. The Bureau of the Committee met
twice in 1994. In 1995, the first meeting was held in July and second will
be in December.
On the basis of nominations put forward by States Parties, the
Committee has, since the last General Assembly, decided to add 62 new
inscriptions. The total number of inscriptions on the World Heritage List
is now 440, distributed as follows: 326 cultural properties or sites; 97
natural sites and 17 mixed sites. In drawing up the World Heritage List,
the Committee has been guided by the need to ensure, as far as possible,
the representative nature of the List for all cultural and natural
properties which meet the requirements of outstanding universal value
stipulated by the Convention, and also satisfy the criteria adopted by the
Committee for the evaluation of cultural and natural properties.
*[ANNEX I/2]
The increase in the number of nominations from States Parties has
made it more than ever desirable to draw up tentative lists of properties
which may be nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List, as
provided for in Article 11 of the Convention.
At its eighteenth session in December 1994, the World Heritage
Committee adopted the 'Global Strategy' proposed by a group of experts
convened by the Centre and ICOMOS in June 1994, to define a certain number
of measures to be undertaken to improve the representative nature of the
World Heritage List. In this context, several thematic and regional
meetings were organized in 1994 and 1995 by the Centre, in cooperation with
the advisory bodies and the States Parties.
Thus, a regional thematic study meeting on 'Asia Rice Culture and its
Terraced Landscapes' was held in the Philippines from 28 March to 4 April
1995, and an expert group met in Australia from 26 to 28 April 1995 to
identify and assess World Heritage cultural landscapes (associated
landscapes). Furthermore, two thematic studies were carried out in 1994:
one being the 'Heritage Part of our Cultural Heritage', convened in Spain.
In addition, an international expert meeting on 'Authenticity in relation
to the World Heritage Convention' was held in Nara, Japan, in November
1994, anteceded by a preparatory workshop held in Bergen, Norway, in early
1994. A first meeting on African cultural heritage was held in autumn
1995. Furthermore, studies on twentieth century architecture and
industrial heritage by ICOMOS continue.
The World Heritage Committee, in reviewing the implementation of the
World Heritage Convention, on the occasion of its twentieth anniversary in
1992, recognized monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of
properties inscribed on the World Heritage List as essential functions.
The Committee adopted in December 1994 a text on monitoring and reporting
for the 'Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
*[ANNEX I/3] Heritage Convention'. In so doing, the Committee believed
that the conditions and circumstances that constitute serious dangers
threatening World Heritage properties as to require inclusion in the List
of World Heritage in Danger, under paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the
Convention, can be rescued from such an eventuality if the earlier trends
have been monitored and remedial measures have been taken in time to
prevent the deterioration. Furthermore, the Committee feels that in order
to perform its function effectively in accordance with the provisions in
paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 13, specifically to study requests for
international assistance formulated by States Parties and, bearing in mind
the urgency of the work to be done, to determine an order of priorities of
its operations, the Committee needs to know the varying conditions of the
state of conservation of all the properties under consideration. Thus,
systematic monitoring and reporting is indispensable for international
cooperation and assistance designed to support States Parties to the
Convention in their efforts to conserve World Heritage properties situated
in their territories.
A distinction is being made between reactive monitoring, i.e.
reporting to the Bureau and the Committee on the state of conservation of
world heritage sites that are under threat, and systematic monitoring and
reporting, i.e. a continuous process of observing the conditions of world
heritage sites with periodic reporting on its state of conservation to the
Committee . The Committee noted the positive results of several pilot
monitoring initiatives undertaken by States Parties themselves (e.g.
Norway, Mexico, United Kingdom), as well as the successful conclusion of
the regional pilot programme for monitoring the cultural world heritage
sites in Latin America and the Caribbean undertaken within the framework
of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project for Cultural Heritage.
The importance the Committee accords to the monitoring of the state
of conservation of world heritage sites has made it aware of the dangers
threatening the state of world heritage *[ANNEX I/4] sites and enabled it
to alert the international community to the necessity of undertaking
emergency measures. In 1994-1995, reports of the state of conservation of
all the sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger were
submitted to the Committee and its Bureau. No site inscribed on the Danger
List was removed. On the contrary, the Committee inscribed two additional
properties: Everglades national Park (United States of America); and
Virunga National Park (Zaire). Seventeen properties are at present
inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and special attention, as
well as financial considerations, are accorded to them by the Committee.
At its seventeenth session in December 1993, the Committee approved a
budget of US $ 2,910,000, for 1994, and at its eighteenth session in 1994,
a budget of US $ 2,935,000 for 1995.
For the period 1 January 1994 to 1 May 1995, several types of
international assistance were made available to States Parties under the
World Heritage Fund. For preparatory assistance, which include assistance
for the preparation of tentative lists of cultural and/or natural
properties suitable for inclusion on the World Heritage List, nominations
for the World Heritage List, and for requests for technical co-operation,
funds totalling US $ 257,874 were approved for the following States Parties
: Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Egypt, Gambia, Laos,
Lithuania, Mauritania, Mexico, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Peru, Pakistan,
Philippines, Portugal, Tunisia, Uruguay and Zaire.
The emergency assistance fund of US $ 1 million created from the Fund
reserves made possible several rapid interventions and contributed to
meeting emergency situations in 14 properties totalling US$ 612,910 for the
period January 1, 1994 - May 1995. US$ 440,000 were allocated in 1994 for
training activities, and US$ 452,000 in 1995. The Committee continued to
give priority to group training rather than individual fellowships. The
total cost for the period amounted to US$ 689,050.
*[ANNEX I/5]
Technical cooperation's budgets were of US$ 790,000 for 1994 and US$
750,000 for 1995. Between December 1993, at the Cartagena Bureau and
Committee's meetings, and the Paris Bureau's meeting in July 1994, twenty
two projects were approved. The Chairperson also approved a series of
projects not exceeding US$ 20,000. The total approved for 1994 is US$
743,510. In December 1994 the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau
approved eleven projects, totalling US$ 521,900, whereas the Chairperson
approved from January to May 1995 a series of projects, not exceeding US$
20,000, totalling US$ 99,211. The total as at 1 May 1995 is US$ 621,000.
For promotion and education, the Committee approved a sum of US$
270,000 for 1994 and US$ 268,000 for 1995. These funds were used to
finance activities in the areas as approved by the Committee. The
activities under general heritage information included the development of a
data bank with INTERNET linkage, and production of CD-ROMS, Newsletters,
diaries, photo-exhibits, etc. for a total expenditure as of May 1995 is US$
279,000. The on-site promotional activities in favour of States Parties
amounted to US$ 100,000.
Under awareness building through schools, an interregional pilot
project was launched in 1944 with the Education Sector involving the
Associated Schools in 25 countries in all regions of the world. The
purpose is to assess the results of the experimental phase of the project
and to help elaborate a strategy for World Heritage awareness-building
through schools. The Fund contributed US$ 50,000 to this project over the
two year period, whereas US$ 104,000 were obtained from private funding.
Detailed items of expenditures are contained in the Report by the
Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage on its Activities (1994 - 1995), document 28C/98,
submitted to the General Conference of UNESCO in accordance with Article
29.3 of the Convention.
Mr. President, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, thank you for
your attention.
WHC-95/CONF.204/8 - ANNEX II
Documents regarding item 9 of the agenda: New monitoring activities related
to the World Heritage sites
Contents*
WHC-95/CONF.204/7 Report of the Chairman of the World Heritage
Committee to the 10th General Assembly on the
new monitoring activities related to the
World Heritage sites
WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.1 Proposed resolution on monitoring and
reporting submitted by the Chairman of the
World Heritage Committee, dated 18 October
1995
WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.2 Draft resolution, presented by India,
Indonesia, Jamaica, Oman and the Republic of
Korea, dated 26 October 1995
WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.2/Corr.1 Explanatory note and draft resolution
presented by India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Oman
and the Republic of Korea, dated 28 October
1995
WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3 Draft resolution submitted as amendment to
DR.1 by India, and distributed at the
beginning of the session on 2 November 1995
WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3/Rev.1 Revised draft resolution submitted by India
and distributed during the evening session on
2 November 1995
WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3/Rev.2 Proposed revision of DR.3/Rev.1 by Sweden,
Denmark and Finland submitted to the
President of the General Assembly on 2
November 1995
WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3/Rev.3 Proposed revision of DR.3/Rev.1 by Brazil
submitted to the President of the General
Assembly on 3 November 1995
WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3/Rev.4 Proposed revision of DR.3 by the President of
the General Assembly as read out on 3
November 1995
________________
*
Note : The rapporteur decided, for the sake of clarity, to re-number the
proposed resolution, draft resolutions and amendments to these resolutions
submitted to the General Assembly in their chronological order. Reference
numbers used in the report of the tenth session of the General Assembly of
States Parties are the ones attributed to them by the Rapporteur.
Distribution limited WHC-95/CONF.204/7
Paris, 16 August 1995
Original : English
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
TENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 2 - 3 November 1995
Room XI
Item 10 of the Provisional Agenda : New monitoring activities
related to the World Heritage sites
Contents page
Executive Summary 2
I. Introduction 4
II. Decisions of the World Heritage Committee
with respect to systematic monitoring
and reporting 4
III. Consideration of the issue of systematic
monitoring and reporting by the governing
organs of UNESCO 8
IV. Systematic monitoring and reporting in
the context of the World Heritage Convention 11
V. Procedures for systematic monitoring and
reporting and format for World Heritage
state of conservation reports 14
VI. Concluding remarks 15
*[2]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To ensure the efficient implementation of the World Heritage Convention it
is essential that all the actors involved have access to up-to-date
knowledge on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties. This
is not only true for the national authorities and site managers, in order
to plan for preventive conservation, but also for the World Heritage
Committee and its Secretariat, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, to fulfil
their functions in collaborating in the preservation of properties and
enhancing international solidarity as set out in the World Heritage
Convention. In order to set priorities for international collaboration and
emergency assistance the international community has to be kept informed of
requirements at World Heritage properties.
The World Heritage Committee decided in December 1994 to introduce a system
of monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage
properties by the States Parties themselves. This was the result of a long
process of consultations, discussions and practical experiences in several
States Parties and regions, particularly in Latin America and the
Caribbean, the final report of which was presented to the World Heritage
Committee at its eighteenth session in Phuket in 1994. This process was
initiated in 1982, involving numerous States Parties and experts, as well
as the advisory bodies, and the work subsequently undertaken by the Working
Group of States Parties on Monitoring and Reporting in 1987 and by the
Strategic Planning Meetings held in 1992, constituted the main stages of
this process, which is described in Part II of this document.
Part III of the document describes in which manner the Committee's
discussions and decisions were regularly brought to the attention of the
governing bodies of UNESCO.
The term 'monitoring' does not appear in the World Heritage Convention.
However, the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau considered that there
are several provisions in the Convention which not only make it possible
for the Committee to introduce an adequate monitoring and reporting system,
but which create an obligation for the Committee to do so. References to
these provisions are made in Part IV of this document. In particular, the
Committee considered monitoring and reporting as a scientific and technical
method to undertake the studies and research mentioned in Article 11.7 of
the Convention.
In reaching its conclusions, the World Heritage Committee recognized
explicitly that the responsibility for the preservation of the World
Heritage properties is incumbent upon the States Parties themselves. The
principles of monitoring and reporting elaborated by the Committee rely on
voluntary action of the States Parties which are invited to make the
necessary arrangements for the monitoring of the state of conservation of
the properties on their territory and to report regularly to the *[3] World
Heritage Committee, through the UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
The procedures for systematic monitoring and reporting and the format for
World Heritage state of conservation reports are discussed in Part V.
* [4]
I. INTRODUCTION
1. At its 146th session in May-June 1995 the Executive Board, after
having examined the draft Programme and Budget for 1996-1997 (28 C/5),
recommended the General Conference that
" the proposals concerning the new monitoring activities related to
World Heritage sites should be the object of a consultation process
among States Parties to the World Heritage Convention and submitted
for approval to the General Assembly of States Parties which will be
held in 1995; meanwhile, the activities should be held in abeyance "
(146 EX/Decision 4.2. paragraph 56).
2. Following this recommendation the issue of monitoring and reporting
in the context of the World Heritage Convention was discussed by the Bureau
of the World Heritage Committee at its nineteenth session (Paris, July
1995). The Bureau decided that
" the Chairperson and the Secretariat, in consultation with Bureau
members, should jointly prepare a document (...) as a means to
clarify the principles on monitoring and reporting adopted by the
Committee and as a basis for future discussions at the Conventionžs
and/or UNESCOžs statutory bodies ".
3. Therefore, the present document is submitted by the Chairperson of
the World Heritage Committee as a working document to the Tenth General
Assembly of States Parties to the Convention to be held in Paris on 2 and 3
November 1995.
II. DECISION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO SYSTEMATIC
MONITORING AND REPORTING
4. The issue of monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage
properties has been under discussion in the World Heritage Committee since
the early eighties. On the request of the Committee, IUCN and ICOMOS
started already in 1983 to submit ad-hoc reports on the state of
conservation of individual sites.
5. At its tenth session held in 1986, the Committee " agreed that a more
encompassing monitoring-reporting system was required as an integral part
of the process of maintaining a World Heritage List " and decided that a
Working Group of the Bureau would be set up to " examine procedures,
including reporting, periodicity of such reporting, resources, criteria for
priority setting, and other related issues " (Report of the tenth session
of the World Heritage Committee, Paris, 1986, paragraph 30).
6. The Working Group, composed of representatives of Algeria, Australia,
Bulgaria, India, Mexico and Zaire, held several *[5] meetings in early 1987
under the chairmanship of the Indian Ambassador Ms. A. Ghose. In its report
the Working Group proposed the principles of a system to monitor the state
of conservation of cultural properties included in the World Heritage List
and the procedure to be followed. The Working Group recognized that
" ratification of the Convention by States Parties carrie(d) with it the
obligation of providing information on the status of conservation of the
sites inscribed on the World Heritage list ". It also recognized the
following principles:
a) States Parties should be the primary source and collector of
information on the state of conservation of World Heritage sites and
should have the sole responsibility for reporting to the Committee
thereon;
b) The system should be based on the completion by States Parties of
questionnaires, the purpose of which would be to update the
information provided in the nomination dossier/previous report and to
help States Parties to identify dangers threatening World Heritage
cultural properties;
c) States Parties should be required to prepare reports on each of their
properties every five years.
7. The report of the Working Group was presented to the Bureau and to
the World Heritage Committee at their eleventh sessions in 1987. The
Committee decided to implement the system as proposed by the Working Group,
at least for an experimental period, following which the necessary
adjustments could be made, by means of questionnaires that were to be sent
to the States Parties (Report of the eleventh session of the World Heritage
Committee, Paris, 1987, paragraph 13).
8. The system of questionnaires proved to be less successful than
expected. In 1990 the Committee, while it " congratulated the Secretariat
on the quality of its report on the monitoring of the state of conservation
of world heritage properties ", accepted the Secretariatžs proposals
concerning the dis-continuation of the monitoring system. The mailing of a
third series of questionnaires was thus postponed. (Report of the
fourteenth session of the World Heritage Committee, Banff, 1990, paragraphs
19 and 21). Since then, further discussions and consultations took place as
outlined below.
9. The Committee, at its fifteenth session in 1991, took for the first
time note of two regional initiatives to monitor on a systematic basis the
state of conservation of cultural World Heritage properties: one undertaken
by the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project for Latin America and the Caribbean,
the final report of which was presented to the Committee at its eighteenth
session in 1994, and one undertaken by the United Nations Environmental
Programme (UNEP) for sites in the Mediterranean.
10. In 1991-1992, on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the
Convention, an evaluation was undertaken of the successes *[6] and failures
in the implementation of the Convention. To this effect, a Task Force of
States Parties was established to review the evaluation report and to
design a strategy for the future implementation of the Convention.
Strategic Planning Meetings of this Task Force, composed of representatives
of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Mexico, Tunisia, USA and Zaire, were
held in 1992. It was on the basis of this in-depth evaluation and the
recommendations emanating from it that the World Heritage Committee adopted
in 1992 the following Strategic Goals for the Implementation of the
Convention:
- Promote completion of the identification of the World Heritage;
- Ensure the continued representativity and credibility of the
World Heritage List;
- Promote the adequate protection and management of the World
Heritage sites;
- Pursue more systematic monitoring of World Heritage sites;
- Increase public awareness, involvement and support.
11. The strategic goal to " pursue more systematic monitoring of World
Heritage sites ", called more specifically to " define elements and
procedures for monitoring and [to] cooperate with States Parties and
competent authorities on regular monitoring work " (Report of the sixteenth
session of the World Heritage Committee, Santa Fe, 1992, paragraphs VII.1-3
and Annex II). The Committee's report on its activities in 1992-1993,
submitted to the twenty-seventh session of the General Conference of UNESCO
in 1993, recorded that one of the five main goals defined by the Committee
was to " pursue more systematic monitoring of world heritage sites "
(document 27 C/101, paragraph 20). The General Conference took note of this
report, which was also brought to the attention of the ninth General
Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention in 1993.
12. To implement this goal, the Committee requested the Secretariat to
organize an expert meeting on methodological aspects of monitoring. This
meeting was held in November 1993 in Cambridge, U.K. At its seventeenth
session in December 1993 the World Heritage Committee examined the
conclusions of this expert meeting. The Committee endorsed the
recommendations of the experts and requested the Secretariat to convene a
small working group of experts from States Parties and the advisory bodies
in order, i.a., to prepare a draft text on monitoring and its procedures
for inclusion in the Operational Guidelines (Report of the seventeenth
session of the World Heritage Committee, Cartagena, 1993, paragraphs IX.1-8
and Annex VI).
13. Further discussions took place at the eighteenth session of the
Bureau in July 1994. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to further
consult States Parties, site managers and experts on the *[7] matter
(Report of the eighteenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage
Committee, Paris, 1994, paragraphs VI.2-17 and Annex III).
14. These consultations took place between July and December 1994, among
other things in the form of a Circular Letter to individual experts and all
States Parties (Circular Letter No. 4 dated 14 September 1994) requesting
their comments on the introduction of a systematic approach to monitoring.
Some fifteen States Parties replied. Their comments, as well as the views
expressed by several States Parties during the sessions of the World
Heritage Committee or at other occasions, particularly those emphasizing
the responsibility of the States Parties to take the necessary actions for
the preservation of the World Heritage sites, were brought to the attention
of the Committee at its eighteenth session.
15. The Committee also drew upon the experiences gained in the
implementation of regional and national monitoring programmes and the
different models that had been applied. In some cases for example, the
preparation of the reports was undertaken through United Nations activities
such as the Regional Project for Cultural Heritage of UNDP and UNESCO for
Latin America and the Caribbean, and a UNEP project for the Mediterranean.
In other cases, the States Parties undertook the reporting by themselves
(Mexico, Australia, Bulgaria), or in collaboration with non-governmental
organizations such as ICOMOS and IUCN or ICCROM (United Kingdom, Sri Lanka,
Norway). The Committee examined at various occasions the results of these
programmes and monitoring activities and concluded that they all resulted
in credible state of conservation reports.
16. As a result of the above consultations and practical experiences,
proposals concerning systematic monitoring and reporting were submitted to
the World Heritage Committee at its eighteenth session in December 1994.
The proposals submitted by the Secretariat on the basis of the various
studies and consultations mentioned above were adopted " as the general
framework for monitoring and reporting ". The Committee also approved a
text on monitoring and reporting for inclusion in the Operational
Guidelines. The new provisions reconfirm the responsibility of the States
Parties to observe and record on a regular basis the condition of the
properties (the monitoring of the state of conservation of the properties)
and invite all States Parties to present periodic state of conservation
reports to the World Heritage Committee (the reporting i.e. the
presentation of state of conservation reports on the basis of a five year
cycle). The advice of external experts in this process of monitoring and
reporting would only be made available with the agreement of the States
Parties. (Report of the eighteenth session of the World Heritage Committee,
Phuket, 1995, paragraphs IX.2-11 and XIV.6-7). The full text of the
relevant part of the report of the eighteenth session of the Committee is
reproduced in Annex I.
17. The decisions of the Committee were brought to the attention *[8] of
all States Parties by a Circular Letter (Circular Letter No. 2 dated 13
March 1995). Only positive replies were received from some States Parties.
Furthermore, the Secretariat asked the representatives of twenty-two States
Parties from Latin America and the Caribbean, meeting in Cartagena,
Colombia in early May 1995, their views on the new monitoring and reporting
procedures. They unanimously expressed their agreement with the decisions
of the Committee.
18. Following the recommendation of the Executive Board mentioned in
paragraph 1 above, the Bureau examined at its nineteenth session (July
1995, Paris), in private session, the principles of monitoring and
reporting adopted by the Committee at its eighteenth session. (Report of
the nineteenth session of the Bureau, Paris, 1995, paragraphs VI.2-7). The
full text of the relevant part of the report of the nineteenth session of
the Bureau is reproduced in Annex II.
III. CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE OF SYSTEMATIC MONITORING AND REPORTING BY
THE GOVERNING ORGANS OF UNESCO
19. Article 29 of the World Heritage Convention stipulates that " the
Committee shall submit a report on its activities at each of the ordinary
sessions of the General Conference (...)". The report presented to the
twenty-seventh session of the General Conference in 1993 makes specific
reference to the strategic goals adopted by the World Heritage Committee in
1992, i.a. the (see
paragraphs 10 and 11 above).
20. Article 14.2 of the World Heritage Convention stipulates that the
Director-General of UNESCO shall have the responsibility for the
implementation of the decisions of the World Heritage Committee in
cooperation with the advisory bodies. The decisions of the Committee are,
therefore, necessarily reflected in the UNESCO work plans and programmes.
21. The " Report by the Director-General on the reinforcement of UNESCOžs
action for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage " (140
EX/13) submitted to the Executive Board at its 140th session in October
1992 recorded that the World Heritage Committee
" ha[d] set up a system of monitoring the state of conservation of
property, which enables it to alert the authorities concerned to any
danger threatening the propertyžs integrity and to co-operate with
them in tackling any conservation problems encountered. Reports on
some 40 monitored sites are written each year and the Committee is
developing this activity in a systematic way " (paragraph 32 of 140
EX/13).
22. The report also pointed out that
*[9]
" the World Heritage Committee has a monitoring procedure that
enables it not so much to " inspect " as to co-operate with the
relevant authorities to ensure more effective protection of a
particular component of the world heritage and possibly to finance
the necessary safeguarding measures " (paragraph 58 of 140 EX/13).
23. The report also recalled the recommendations of a committee of
experts which were to serve as a basis for the strategic orientations to be
submitted to the World Heritage Committee at its sixteenth session (see
paragraph 10 above). In its decision 141/EX Decision 5.5.1 (the
consideration of this report had been postponed from the 140th to the 141st
session) the Executive Board noted
" that the Committee [was] undertaking a revision, of the text of the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention,
which do not form part of the Convention but ensure its proper
application, taking into account the strategic orientations adopted
in Santa Fe, United States, in December 1992 " (paragraph 14 of 141
EX/Decisions).
24. The decisions of the World Heritage Committee regarding the
implementation of the Convention and the draft strategy for the future,
adopted by the Committee at its sixteenth session (Santa Fe, December
1992), were reflected in the Programme and Budget for 1994-1995 approved by
the General Conference at its twenty-seventh session (27 C/5 Approved).
Paragraph 03115 of 27 C/5 Approved states that one of the functions of the
UNESCO World Heritage Centre is to encourage the application of the World
Heritage Convention " in States Parties by providing ongoing monitoring of
the sites included on the World Heritage List, and identifying the actions
to be undertaken in order to guarantee their preservation ".
25. With regard to 1996-1997, the " Preliminary proposals for medium-term
planning from 1996 (28 C/4) and the Draft Programme and Budget for 1996-
1997 (28 C/5) " (document 145 EX/5), submitted to the Executive Board at
its 145th session (October-November 1994), stated the following:
" UNESCO bears a very special responsibility for the protection and
conservation of the cultural and natural heritage. It will therefore
... [provide] encouragement for measures aimed at ensuring the long-
term preservation of sites (particularly those on the World Heritage
List, which should henceforth be monitored on a regular basis) ... "
(paragraph 21).
26. Having considered these proposals, the Executive Board adopted the
following recommendation regarding the role of the States Parties in
monitoring (145 EX/Decision 4.1, paragraph 9.II.(b) (xiii)):
" the monitoring of sites on the World Heritage List should be
undertaken in accordance with the Rules of the World *[10] Heritage
Convention and the guidelines that should govern its implementation,
keeping in mind that Member States themselves will undertake the
monitoring of their world heritage sites, in consultation with UNESCO
and other specialized organizations. "
27. The Draft Medium-Term Strategy 1996-2001 (28 C/4) and the Draft
Programme and Budget for 1996-1997 (28 C/5), which will be submitted to the
General Conference at its twenty-eighth session, reflect the decisions
concerning the monitoring and reporting system adopted by the World
Heritage Committee at its eighteenth session in December 1994.
28. As for the Draft Medium-Term Strategy 1996-2001, it stipulates as
follows (paragraph 124):
" States Parties should also be encouraged to set up systematic
monitoring and, to the extent possible, prevention mechanisms for
sites on the World Heritage List. Monitoring requires very close
collaboration with national authorities, who obviously bear the main
responsibility for site conservation ... "
29. The Draft Programme and Budget for 1996-1997 contains the following
proposal (paragraph 03109):
" The [World Heritage] Centre will assist States Parties in
strengthening preventive measures and ensuring timely intervention
with a view to ensuring the integrity and conservation of the world
heritage properties. In close collaboration with the advisory bodies,
UNESCOžs field offices and other specialized institutions, it will
promote monitoring activities endorsed by the World Heritage
Committee and will support national monitoring activities ".
30. During the consideration of the Draft Programme and Budget and of the
Draft Medium-Term Strategy by the Executive Board at its 146th session in
May-June 1995 one Member of the Board questioned the legal basis of the
decisions of the World Heritage Committee to promote monitoring and
reporting activities. As a result of the discussion on this subject the
Board adopted the decision mentioned in paragraph 1 above concerning the
Draft Programme and Budget. With regard to the Draft Medium-Term Strategy
the Board adopted the following recommendation:
" The proposals for the monitoring of the World Heritage Sites should
be reformulated in accordance with the relevant decisions of the 1995
General Assembly of the States Parties to the World Heritage
Convention " (146 EX/Decision 4.1, paragraph 34).
*[11]
IV. SYSTEMATIC MONITORING AND REPORTING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD
HERITAGE CONVENTION
31. It is obvious that neither the physical condition of World Heritage
properties nor the socio-economic circumstances within or surrounding them
remain static. The World Heritage Committee was convinced that the impact
of these changes should be carefully evaluated so that effective decisions
can be taken to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties and to
retain the values on account of which the property was inscribed on the
World Heritage List. Without adequate knowledge of the physical conditions
and the management system of the World Heritage sites it is not feasible
for the Committee to fulfil the responsibilities stated in the Convention
and the Operational Guidelines regarding the establishment of the List of
World Heritage in Danger, delisting of properties from the World Heritage
List, priority setting for international assistance and the mobilization of
extra-budgetary funds, promotion etc.
32. The World Heritage Committee voiced many concerns about the condition
of World Heritage sites and questioned whether the properties inscribed on
the World Heritage List retain their World Heritage values. The question
what actions should be taken to ensure their proper conservation is
increasingly raised by the World Heritage Committee, the scientific
community and the public at large. As a consequence, the Committee has to
examine at its sessions a growing number of reports on the state of
conservation of World Heritage properties when it is reported that
development, natural disasters or armed conflicts threaten their integrity
and/or authenticity. Provisions for this kind of ad-hoc reporting on
properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger and for properties that
were under threat were made already several years ago by the Committee and
prescribed in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention.
33. As a result of various studies and consultations related in Part II
of the present document, in particular of the in-depth evaluation of the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention undertaken in 1992, the
World Heritage Committee decided in 1992, as one of its goals for the
future implementation of the Convention, that a systematic approach should
be developed to review the conditions of all World Heritage properties. At
its seventeenth session in December 1993, it defined " to monitor the state
of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List " as
one of its four essential functions (paragraph 3 of the Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention).
34. On the basis of a series of further consultations and discussions the
Committee established at its eighteenth session in December 1994 the
framework for the voluntary systematic monitoring and reporting of the
state of conservation of World Heritage properties by the States Parties
themselves and adopted *[12] a set of principles of monitoring and
reporting which were included in the Operational Guidelines (paragraphs 69-
76). The principles adopted by the Committee were further substantiated by
the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee at its nineteenth session in
July 1995. The Bureau reviewed all the relevant provisions of the World
Heritage Convention. It concluded that " monitoring and reporting should be
considered as a scientific and technical method to undertake the studies
and research mentioned in Article 11.7 " of the Convention. It further
" emphasized that the principles of monitoring and reporting as defined in
paragraphs 69-76 of the Operational Guidelines fully respect the
sovereignty of the States Parties and that these should be implemented by
the States Parties themselves on a voluntary basis ". (Report of the
nineteenth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, Paris,
July 1995, Annex II).
35. The term " monitoring " does not appear in the World Heritage
Convention. However, the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau, which
examined the issue of monitoring and reporting on numerous occasions,
considered that there is a number of provisions in the Convention which not
only make it possible for the Committee to introduce an adequate monitoring
system but which create a duty for the Committee to do so.
36. In its preambular part the Convention stipulates that " it is
incumbent on the international community as a whole to participate in the
protection of the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal
value " (clause 7) and that the intent of the Convention is to establish
" an effective system of collective protection of the cultural and natural
heritage of outstanding universal value, organized on a permanent basis and
in accordance with modern scientific methods " (clause 8).
37. In reaching its conclusions on the issue of monitoring and reporting
the World Heritage Committee also took into consideration Article 6 of the
Convention which provides that " whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of
the states on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage mentioned
in Articles 1 and 2 is situated, and without prejudice to property rights
provided by national legislation, the States Parties ... recognize that
such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the
duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate ", as well as
Article 7 which stipulates that " for the purpose of this Convention,
international protection of the world cultural and natural heritage shall
be understood to mean the establishment of a system of international
cooperation and assistance designed to support States Parties to the
Convention in their efforts to conserve ... that heritage ".
38. Furthermore, the Committee took account of the various provisions
calling for the undertaking of studies and research needed to further the
objectives of the Convention. Article 5 (c) calls upon States Parties " to
develop scientific and technical studies and research and to work out such
operating methods as will make the State capable of counteracting the
dangers that *[13] threaten its cultural and natural heritage ". Studies
are also mentioned in Articles 11.7, 21.3, 22 (a) and 24. At its nineteenth
session (Paris, June 1995) the Bureau concluded that " monitoring and
reporting should be considered as a scientific and technical method to
undertake the studies and research mentioned in Article 11.7 ".
39. The World Heritage Committee did not overlook the primary and
fundamental responsibility of States Parties enshrined in Article 4 of the
Convention, under which " each State Party recognizes that the duty of
ensuring the conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage
List and situated on its territory belongs primarily to that State ". The
principles of monitoring and reporting adopted by the World Heritage
Committee explicitly underline the sovereignty of the States Parties and
make a clear distinction between monitoring, defined as the assessment of
the state of conservation of the World Heritage properties by the States
Parties themselves, and reporting, which is to bring forward the results of
this assessment to the World Heritage Committee on a voluntary basis. The
monitoring and reporting principles allow the States Parties to define
their own modalities for the implementation of their voluntary monitoring
and reporting activities and to request expert advice if so desired.
40. In defining a set of principles of monitoring and reporting the World
Heritage Committee acted within the scope of the authority which is
conferred upon it by the Convention in Articles 8-26, giving the Committee
a wide range of functions such as to establish and keep up-to-date the
World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger, to define the
criteria for inscription on these lists and to co-ordinate and encourage
the studies and research needed for drawing them up (Art. 11) and to carry
out studies and consultations as it deems necessary before providing
international assistance (Art. 13 and 21.3).
41. Article 29 of the World Heritage Convention states that "The States
Parties to this Convention shall, in the reports which they submit to the
General Conference (...) on dates and in a manner to be determined by it,
give information on the legislative and administrative provisions which
they have adopted and other action which they have taken for the
application of this Convention, together with details of the experience
acquired in this field." This article is in accordance with Article VIII of
the UNESCO Constitution which already requires the Member States to submit
to the Organization reports on the action taken upon the recommendations
and conventions adopted by the General Conference. The state of
conservation reports that the States Parties are invited to submit to the
World Heritage Committee are of a different order and are to be considered
as a scientific and technical method to undertake the studies and research
mentioned in Article 11.7 of the Convention, among others.
*[14]
V. PROCEDURES FOR SYSTEMATIC MONITORING AND REPORTING AND FORMAT FOR
WORLD HERITAGE STATE OF CONSERVATION REPORTS
42. The Committee defined the objectives of systematic monitoring and
reporting as follows: improved site management, advanced planning and
preventive action, and improved World Heritage cooperation and decision-
making. In this sense, monitoring and reporting should be considered as a
dynamic, rather than a linear, process that would involve all institutions,
organizations and people involved in the preservation and management of the
property. It would also mean a continuous reflection on the values of the
property, particularly those on the basis of which the property was
inscribed on the World Heritage List.
43. The procedures to be followed for systematic monitoring and reporting
are laid down in paragraphs 70 to 75 of the new chapter II of the
Operational Guidelines, as approved by the World Heritage Committee at its
eighteenth session (text reproduced in Annex III). This text defines
systematic monitoring and reporting as " the continuous process of
observing the conditions of World Heritage sites with periodic reporting on
its state of conservation ". It emphasizes that " it is the primary
responsibility of the States Parties to put in place on-site monitoring
arrangements as an integral component of day-to-day conservation and
management of the sites ". It invites States Parties " to submit to the
World Heritage Committee through the World Heritage Centre, every five
years, a scientific report on the state of conservation of the World
Heritage sites on their territories ". These reports will be examined
separately by region as determined by the Committee. The choice of the
regions to be examined at the following session will be decided by the
Committee and the States Parties concerned will be informed at least one
year in advance.
44. As requested by the World Heritage Committee, the Secretariat is
preparing jointly with the advisory bodies a revised form for the
nomination of properties for inscription on the World Heritage List, as
well as a form for the World Heritage state of conservation reports which
the States Parties will be invited to present periodically to the World
Heritage Committee. These were examined by the Bureau at its nineteenth
session in July 1995 (Report of the nineteenth session of the Bureau,
Paris, 1995, paragraph VI.9 - VI.13 and its annexes II and III). The
Committee will decide on the introduction of these forms at its nineteenth
session in December 1995.
45. The basic idea is that the information contained in the nomination
dossier, together with the evaluation report of the advisory body(ies) and
the Committeežs statement of the World Heritage values at the moment of
inscription, constitute the baseline information on the site. The periodic
state of conservation report would then carefully review and update
information in the original nomination dossier and would recommend actions
to deal with problems or threats identified. *[15] Both forms would follow
the same structure to facilitate comparison of the data contained in them.
46. Both forms include, in a re-organized way, the items of the
nomination form hitherto in use. Some of them, such as description,
documentation and, in particular, management and legal protection, have
been expanded considerably.
47. A new item called " factors affecting the site " asks to identify
potential threats to the site such as development pressure (encroachment,
agriculture, urbanization), environmental pressure, natural disasters and
preparedness, visitor and tourism pressure etc. It is forward looking and
intends to help to identify from the outset the most appropriate actions
that should be taken to preserve the values of the property. These
" factors affecting the site " and the corresponding responses will be the
main subject matters in the periodic state of conservation reports.
48. Another new item invites the State Party to indicate the
administrative arrangements for the monitoring of the site and to indicate
key indicators for measuring the state of conservation of the property
(such as the number of species or population of keystone species on a
natural site, or the stability or degree of movement in a particular
building). These key indicators would provide the scientific basis for
measuring the state of conservation of the property over time.
49. The state of conservation report will thus verify all information
provided in the original nomination dossier, will identify threats to the
site, recommend actions to be taken and evaluate the impact of past
interventions. It will thus record significant changes in the conditions of
the site, its management structure and legal protection. It will help the
State Party to identify and plan conservation measures and it will help the
World Heritage Committee to assist the States Parties in the efforts to
conserve the World Heritage properties.
50. The Secretariat of the Convention has been requested by the Committee
to collect the site-specific state of conservation reports and to present
them to the World Heritage Committee. This would be done per region on the
basis of a five years cycle. The first of such a regional report, the one
on the Latin American region was presented to the World Heritage Committee
in December 1994.
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS
51. Confronted with a considerable growth in the number of World Heritage
properties the World Heritage Committee defined, in 1992 the observation of
the state of conservation of the World Heritage properties to be one of its
main functions (paragraph 3 of the Operational Guidelines). The decision
taken by the *[16] Committee in December 1994 to introduce a system of
monitoring and reporting by the States Parties to the World Heritage
Committee on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties was the
result of a long process of consultations, discussions and practical
experiences which started in 1982 and in which numerous States Parties and
experts, as well as the advisory bodies, were involved. The work undertaken
by the Working Group of States Parties on Monitoring and Reporting in 1987
and by the Strategic Planning Meetings held in 1992 constituted the main
stages of this process.
52. As reported in Part III above, the various stages by which the
Committee reached this decision were regularly reported to the governing
bodies of UNESCO, in view of the Director-Generalžs responsibility for the
implementation of the Committeežs decisions.
53. In reaching its conclusions the World Heritage Committee recognized
explicitly that the responsibility for the preservation of the World
Heritage properties is incumbent upon the States Parties. The system of
monitoring and reporting elaborated by the Committee relies on voluntary
action of the States Parties which are invited to make the necessary
arrangements for the monitoring of the state of conservation of the
properties on their territory and to report on its results to the World
Heritage Committee on a regular basis.
54. The implementation of the Convention is a dynamic process. Concepts
of World Heritage develop over time, as do the application and the
interpretation of the World Heritage Convention by its inter-governmental
World Heritage Committee. For this reason, the criteria for inscription of
cultural and natural properties are from time to time subject to revision.
The process that is described in this document and which led to the
adoption of the principles on monitoring and reporting by the World
Heritage Committee in December 1994 is very likely to continue as
experiences accumulate. The Committee will be very attentive to these
experiences and will take the necessary decisions to improve and modify
them whenever the need arises.
ANNEX I
Report of the eighteenth session of the
World Heritage Committee
(Phuket, December 1994)
(Extract)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SYSTEMATIC MONITORING AND REPORTING
IX.2 In introducing this item the Secretariat recalled that Article 3 of
the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention stipulates that one of the essential functions of the World
Heritage Committee is to "monitor the state of conservation of properties
inscribed on the World Heritage List." However, provisions had been made
only for regular monitoring of the sites inscribed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger and where sites were threatened. At the request of the
Committee, therefore, the Secretariat and the advisory bodies, in
consultation with the States Parties and individual experts, proceeded to
develop a concept and framework of systematic monitoring and reporting.
IX.3 It was recalled that the initial discussions were held at the
Committee's seventeenth session in December 1993 and that further proposals
were endorsed by the Bureau at its eighteenth session in July 1994. On that
occasion, the Bureau requested the Secretariat to prepare a draft text on
monitoring for inclusion in the Operational Guidelines.
IX.4 The Secretariat presented the Committee, in Working Documents WHC-
94/CONF.003/6 and 003/9Rev., a detailed description of the proposed
systematic monitoring methodology. The draft text on monitoring for the
Operational Guidelines was presented under the corresponding agenda item
(see Section XIV of this report).
IX.5 The Committee commended the Secretariat for the progress made in
defining the framework for the implementation of this important function of
the Committee. It emphasized that one of the principal aims of monitoring
was to assess if the values, on the basis of which the site was inscribed
on the World Heritage List, have remained intact. It also stressed that a
monitoring methodology should be flexible and adaptable to regional and
national characteristics, as well as to the natural and cultural
specificities of the sites. Furthermore, it expressed the need to involve
external advice in the periodic reporting through the non-governmental
advisory bodies and/or the existing decentralized UNESCO structures. The
Delegate of Italy insisted on clarifying that "writing of Reports with the
participation of experts should be finalized in order to ensure better the
monitoring in the management of properties". The Delegate of Italy also
drew attention to the positive experiences in his country in involving the
authorities from different levels and sectors as well as the civic
community in the conservation and management of the sites.
IX.6 The Observer of India informed the Committee of his Government's
position that according to the World Heritage Convention's explicit
stipulation it is the State Party which decides what measures are to be
taken to ensure the preservation and protection of the World Heritage sites
on its territory, and that monitoring procedures should not affect the
decision-making prerogative of the States Parties. He also emphasized that
any involvement of outside agencies in the monitoring process could be done
only on the specific request and consent of the State Party concerned.
IX.7 The Representative of ICOMOS introduced this organization's
experiences in monitoring and offered its assistance in monitoring, World
Heritage information management and the identification of needs for
preventive action and its implementation. He drew particular attention to
the need to develop guidelines for site specific monitoring and the
identification of the World Heritage values of each site. He stressed that
in his opinion the key to meaningful monitoring is the understanding of
what impact time and circumstances have had upon these values.
IX.8 The Representative of IUCN stressed that his organization had been
monitoring World Heritage natural sites since 1983 and that, following the
Operational Guidelines (para. 57), this is one of the functions attributed
to it by the Committee.
IX.9 Following the discussion, the Committee adopted the proposals
presented in Document WHC-94/CONF.003/6, Section A, as the general
framework for monitoring and reporting. The Committee also adopted a text
on monitoring and reporting to be included in the Operational Guidelines.
The adopted text is included in Section XIV of this report.
IX.10In order to implement its decisions regarding systematic monitoring,
the Committee invited the Secretariat to undertake the following actions:
(a) Prepare a revised nomination format for presentation to the
nineteenth sessions of the Bureau and the Committee, so as to
provide adequate baseline information at the time of
inscription of properties on the World Heritage List.
(b) Organize in early 1995, with the participation of the advisory
bodies and other relevant institutions, a meeting of experts on
World Heritage information management, in order to develop
guidelines for the establishment of a World Heritage Data Base.
(c) Inform the States Parties of the decisions of the Committee,
invite them to put monitoring structures in place and to report
on the state of conservation of the property to the Committee
on a 5-year basis.
(d) Prepare workplans for and implement regional programmes to
provide advice and assistance to the States Parties in setting
up adequate monitoring and management systems, to promote the
preparation of 5-year state of conservation reports, to handle
and analyse these reports and to present 5-year Regional State
of the World Heritage Reports to the World Heritage Committee.
(e) Incorporate monitoring as a management tool in World Heritage
training courses and other activities.
(f) Report to the nineteenth session of the Bureau on the
implementation of the decisions of the Committee and on the
application of the new monitoring and reporting procedures.
IX.11Following the recommendations of Work Group 2, the Committee also
invited the Secretariat in collaboration with the advisory bodies, to:
(a) present to the nineteenth session of the Bureau a workplan for the
implementation of regional monitoring programmes so that States
Parties will have sufficient time to prepare the state of
conservation reports;
(b) develop a format for monitoring reporting as an aid to the States
Parties and to facilitate the processing of the reports and the
information contained in them through a computerized data base.
ANNEX II
Report of the nineteenth session of
the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
(Paris, July 1995)
(Extract)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE PRINCIPLES OF MONITORING AND REPORTING AS ADOPTED BY THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE AT ITS EIGHTEENTH SESSION
VI.2 The Bureau examined in a private session the recommendation
made by the Executive Board of UNESCO to the UNESCO General Conference and
the concerns expressed by one State Party to the Convention regarding the
principles of monitoring and reporting that were adopted by the World
Heritage Committee at its eighteenth session.
VI.3 The Bureau recalled that the Committee defined the observation
of the state of conservation of the World Heritage properties as one of its
main functions already at its sixteenth session in 1992 and that this was
reflected in the UNESCO Work Plans for 1994-1995. It also recalled that the
Committee adopted the principles of monitoring and reporting only after a
long process of discussions, consultations and careful consideration of
several practical experiences and with reference to specific articles of
the World Heritage Convention:
1. Bearing in mind the provision of Article 4 of the Convention, under
which "each State Party recognizes that the duty of ensuring the
conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and
situated on its territory belongs primarily to that State", the
Committee was of the view that the establishment of systematic
monitoring, the day-to-day observation of the sites by the States
Parties, in close collaboration with the site managers or the agency
with management authority, constituted a meaningful, active and
effective operational method capable of countering the dangers that
may threaten the cultural and natural World Heritage.
2. Bearing in mind also the provisions of Article 6, which provides that
"whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the states on whose
territory the cultural and natural heritage mentioned in Articles 1
and 2 is situated, and without prejudice to property rights provided
by national legislation, the States Parties to this Convention
recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose
protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole
to cooperate" and Article 7, which provides that "for the purpose of
this Convention, international protection of the world cultural and
natural heritage shall be understood to mean the establishment of a
system of international cooperation and assistance designed to
support States Parties to the Convention in their efforts to
conserve....that heritage", also in consideration of Articles 8, 11,
13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article
29, and in pursuance of the intent of the Convention as reflected in
the preambular clause 8 in "establishing an effective system of
collective protection of the cultural and natural heritage of
outstanding universal value, organized on a permanent basis and in
accordance with scientific methods", the World Heritage Committee
invited the States Parties to present every five years a scientific
report on the state of conservation of the World Heritage sites on
their territories, and decided that, to this end, the States Parties
may request expert advice from the Secretariat or the advisory bodies
and that the Secretariat may also commission expert advice with the
agreement of the States Parties.
VI.4 The Bureau furthermore considered various articles in the
Convention that call for international cooperation and the undertaking by
the Committee of studies and research needed for the drawing up of the
World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger. Monitoring
and reporting should be considered as a scientific and technical method to
undertake the studies and research mentioned in Article 11.7.
VI.5 The Bureau emphasized that the principles of monitoring and
reporting as defined in paragraphs 69-76 of the Operational Guidelines
fully respect the sovereignty of the States Parties and that these should
be implemented by the States Parties themselves on a voluntary basis.
VI.6 The Bureau unanimously decided that the Chairperson and the
Secretariat, in consultation with the Bureau members, should jointly
prepare a document along the lines of the above considerations as a means
to clarify the principles on monitoring and reporting adopted by the
Committee and as a basis for future discussions at the Convention's and/or
UNESCO's statutory bodies.
VI.7 The Bureau also considered whether it would be desirable to
create a consultative body as mentioned in Article 10.3 of the Convention
for the examination of technical matters such as state of conservation
reports, the establishment of which would allow more States Parties to
participate directly in the implementation of the Convention. As no
consensus could be reached, the Bureau requested the Secretariat to look
into this matter in more detail so that the Bureau can discuss it again at
its next session.
ANNEX III
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of
the World Heritage Convention
(WHC/2 Revised, February 1995)
(Extract)
----------------------------------------------------------------
II. MONITORING THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE
WORLD HERITAGE LIST
69. One of the essential functions of the Committee is to monitor the
state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
and to take action thereupon. In the following, a distinction will be made
between systematic and reactive monitoring.
A. Systematic monitoring and reporting
70. Systematic monitoring and reporting is the continuous process of
observing the conditions of World Heritage sites with periodic reporting on
its state of conservation.
The objectives of systematic monitoring and reporting are:
World Heritage site: Improved site management, advanced planning,
reduction of emergency and ad-hoc interventions, and reduction of
costs through preventive conservation.
State Party: Improved World Heritage policies, advanced planning,
improved site management and preventive conservation.
Region: Regional cooperation, regional World Heritage policies and
activities better targeted to the specific needs of the region.
Committee/Secretariat: Better understanding of the conditions of the
sites and of the needs on the site, national and regional levels.
Improved policy and decision making.
71. It is the prime responsibility of the States Parties to put in place
on-site monitoring arrangements as an integral component of day-to-day
conservation and management of the sites. States Parties should do so in
close collaboration with the site managers or the agency with management
authority. It is necessary that every year the conditions of the site be
recorded by the site manager or the agency with management authority.
72. The States Parties are invited to submit to the World Heritage
Committee through the World Heritage Centre, every five years, a scientific
report on the state of conservation of the World Heritage sites on their
territories. To this end, the States Parties may request expert advice from
the Secretariat or the advisory bodies. The Secretariat may also commission
expert advice with the agreement of the States Parties.
73. To facilitate the work of the Committee and its Secretariat and to
achieve greater regionalization and decentralization of World Heritage
work, these reports will be examined separately by region as determined by
the Committee. The World Heritage Centre will synthesize the national
reports by regions. In doing so, full use will be made of the available
expertise of the advisory bodies and other organizations.
74. The Committee will decide for which regions state of conservation
reports should be presented to its forthcoming sessions. The States Parties
concerned will be informed at least one year in advance so as to give them
sufficient time to prepare the state of conservation reports.
75. The Secretariat will take the necessary measures for adequate World
Heritage information collection and management, making full use, to the
extent possible, of the information/documentation services of the advisory
bodies and others.
B. Reactive monitoring
76. Reactive monitoring is the reporting by the World Heritage Centre,
other sectors of UNESCO and the advisory bodies to the Bureau and the
Committee on the state of conservation of specific World Heritage sites
that are under threat. To this end, the States Parties shall submit to the
Committee through the World Heritage Centre, specific reports and impact
studies each time exceptional circumstances occur or work is undertaken
which may have an effect on the state of conservation of the site. Reactive
monitoring is foreseen in the procedures for the eventual deletion of
properties from the World Heritage List as set out in paras. 50-58. It is
also foreseen in reference to properties inscribed, or to be inscribed, on
the List of World Heritage in Danger as set out in paras. 83-90.