Click here to get the PDF file of this report PDF version (164K)

World Heritage

24BUR (SPE)

Distribution limited

WHC-2000/CONF.202/4 Rev.1 (SPE)
Paris, 16 January 2001
Original: English/French




UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Special Session
Budapest, Hungary

2 - 4 October 2000

REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR








 TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. OPENING SESSION

  2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND THE TIMETABLE

  3. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE BUREAU, TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE 24TH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

    1. STATUTORY MEETINGS, STRATEGIC PLANNING, THE PROPOSAL FOR A SUB-COMMITTEE SYSTEM AND EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION IN THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

    2. REPRESENTIVITY OF THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

    3. INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT

    4. OTHER MATTERS

  4. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
ANNEXES

  1. List of Participants

  2. Address by Professor Zsolt Visy, the Deputy Secretary of State, Hungarian Ministry of Cultural Heritage

  3. Speech of the representative of the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Assistant Director-General for Culture a.i

  4. Opening remarks of the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Mr Francesco Bandarin

  5. Speech of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Mr Abdelaziz Touri (Morocco)

  6. Proposal of the United Kingdom for a sub-committee system




I. OPENING SESSION

I.1 The Special Session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee was held in Budapest, Hungary from 2 to 4 October 2000. The session was attended by the seven members of the Bureau: Australia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Mexico, Morocco and Zimbabwe.

I.2 With the agreement of the Bureau at its twenty- fourth session in June/July 2000, and at the invitation of the Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Abdelaziz Touri (Morocco), the following individuals attended the meeting in their personal capacity:

I.3 Representatives of the advisory bodies to the World Heritage Committee attended: International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN).

I.4 The full List of Participants is attached (Annex I).

I.5 Professor Zsolt Visy, the Deputy Secretary of State, Hungarian Ministry of Cultural Heritage, welcomed the Bureau to Budapest (Annex II).

I.6 Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Assistant Director-General for Culture a.i., delivered the opening remarks on behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO (Annex III).

I.7 Mr Francesco Bandarin, the newly-appointed Director of the World Heritage Centre, shared his initial reactions and impressions on the subject of reform (Annex IV).

I.8 The Chairperson informed the Bureau that the position of Rapporteur was vacant as Mrs Anne Lammila, the former Rapporteur of the Committee had finished her term as Deputy Permanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO and had returned to Finland to take up new duties. The Bureau applauded the valued work of Mrs Lammila as Rapporteur and expressed their best wishes to her in her new role. In accordance with Rule 15.2 of the Rules of Procedures, the Chairperson called on Australia to provide a replacement Rapporteur for the Special Session of the Bureau and the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau in Cairns (23-24 November 2000). Mr Kevin Keeffe, nominated by the Delegate of Australia as Rapporteur, was accepted by the Bureau.

I.9 The Rapporteur proposed that, consistent with the recommendations of the Task Force on the Implementation of the Convention, the report of the Special Session be simple, concise and provide a general summary of discussions. The Bureau noted that the report of the Special Session should be read in conjunction with an updated version of the collated recommendations of the Task Force, Working Groups and Expert Meeting (WHC- 2000/CONF.203/3 (SPE)) to be presented to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee in Cairns as WHC-2000/CONF.204/5.

II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND TIMETABLE

II.1 At the suggestion of the Chairperson, the Bureau agreed to focus their discussions on four main issues and amended the Agenda and Timetable accordingly (WHC-2000/CONF.202/1 Rev. (SPE) and WHC- 2000/CONF.202/2 Rev. (SPE):

  1. Statutory meetings, strategic planning, the proposal for a sub- committee system and equitable representation in the World Heritage Committee

  2. Representivity of the World Heritage List

  3. Information and document management

  4. Other matters
.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE BUREAU TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (27 NOVEMBER - 2 DECEMBER 2000)

III.1 The Chairperson gave an overview of the background to the Special Session (see Annex V). He then recalled that the twenty- fourth session of the Bureau (27 June - 2 July 2000), had agreed that during the next extraordinary session of the Bureau there will be no presentation or discussion on nominations which have been deferred or referred back. Nominations will be sent directly to the World Heritage Committee for consideration. The Chairperson informed the Bureau that following discussions between the Secretariat, IUCN and ICOMOS only one nomination, that of Shey Phoksundo National Park, a mixed cultural and natural property from Nepal, would be examined at the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau in Cairns (23 - 24 November 2000). An evaluation of this nomination had not been presented to the last Bureau session due to climatic conditions.

III. (A) STATUTORY MEETINGS, STRATEGIC PLANNING, THE PROPOSAL FOR A SUB-COMMITTEE SYSTEM AND EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION IN THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Proposed sub-committees

III.2 The Chairperson recalled that the Task Force chaired by Dr C. Cameron (Canada) had recommended the establishment of sub- committees to replace the system of the Bureau in the preparation of the work of the Committee (issue 1.2 in WHC-2000/CONF.202/3 (SPE)). The ensuing debate focused on the initial United Kingdom proposal (WHC-2000/CONF.202/INF.6 (SPE)) of five sub-committees (SC1: policy and strategic issues, SC2: nominations, SC3: state of conservation, SC4: budget and SC 5: World Heritage Fund and international assistance) and the revised United Kingdom proposal resulting from discussions with the Secretariat (SC1: nominations, SC2: state of conservation, SC3: budget, World Heritage Fund and international assistance) (see Annex VI). The following points emerged:

Conclusion: it was recognized that, allowing for the possible retention of the existing Committee and Bureau system and before acceptance of the principle of the sub-committee system, a feasibility study is needed for consideration by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth extraordinary session in Cairns, and for precise recommendations to go to the Committee. It was agreed that the deadline for the Centre to submit feasibility study to the Committee would be two weeks prior to the session.

Resolution:

"The Special Session of the Bureau requests the Secretariat, with the help of the States Parties nominated by the Chair (Australia, Belgium, Benin, Hungary and United Kingdom), to prepare a paper for discussion at the Cairns meeting of the World Heritage Bureau and Committee on the feasibility and implications of the introduction of a sub-committee system. The paper should reflect the key elements of the discussion of this issue at the Special Session of the Bureau. In setting out the options the paper should draw on the following:

The Bureau adopted the resolution and agreed that a feasibility study should analyse alternative models and transition arrangements for a sub-committee system to achieve the following objectives:

Terms of reference for the Feasibility Study on the proposed sub-committee system:

It was agreed that simulations on external costs (direct costs, eg. travel/per diem, etc) and internal costs (indirect costs, eg. human resources, documentation etc) would be determined, for costing purposes only, on the basis of the following hypothetical assumptions and with reference to Paragraphs 133 and 134 of the Operational Guidelines ( "Participation of experts from developing countries"):

In addition, the feasibility study should identify:

Pending issues requiring further consideration:

Equitable Representation in the World Heritage Committee

The Bureau discussed the three recommendations of the Working Group on the Equitable Representation in the Committee chaired by H.E. Mr J. Musitelli (France) (WHC-2000/CONF.202/11), notably the following points:

  1. to reduce to four years the current six year term of office of the Members of the World Heritage Committee
  2. to increase at the same time to twenty-eight the current number of members of the World Heritage Committee
  3. to allocate a fixed number of seats to groups of States Parties under-represented on the World Heritage List, while leaving a number of seats open to election on a free basis.

The Bureau also referred to the proposals from Belgium to reform the election procedure at the General Assembly (WHC- 2000/CONF.202/INF.3 (SPE)).

The Bureau endorsed the spirit of the report of the Working Group and the Belgian proposal noting that :

However, the majority of members of the Bureau stated that they were not in favour of increasing the number of members of the Committee as this would, inter alia, require amending the Convention which would be a long complex and potentially risky option.

The Bureau recognized the need for the Committee at its twenty- fourth session in Cairns, (Australia) to make specific recommendations for improved representation in the World Heritage Committee to be subsequently presented to the 13th General Assembly of States Parties in 2001.

The Bureau agreed that a set of proposals should be prepared by the Rapporteur (in consultation with the Secretariat and an informal working group of States Parties -- France, Belgium and the United States of America) for consideration by the twenty-fourth Committee session in Cairns and subsequent transmittal to the thirteenth General Assembly. It was agreed that the deadline for the Centre to submit the proposals to the Committee would be two weeks prior to the session. The paper should give precise recommendations for Committee consideration.

The specific proposals to be considered by the Committee would aim to achieve implementation of the intent of the Resolution of the Seventh General Assembly of States Parties (1989)*, and the recommendations of the Working Group on Equitable Representation in the Committee and specifically to:

The proposals should consider and legally assess all options and tools available to the Committee for enhancing the representivity of the Committee without the necessity for changes to the World Heritage Convention, including amending:

The informal working group would, after consideration of the legal advice, provide a revised set of specific proposals to the Committee in Cairns.

III. (B) REPRESENTIVITY OF THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

III.3 After having examined and discussed the recommendations of the Working Group on the Representivity of the World Heritage List chaired by Ambassador Yai (Benin), the Bureau recommended that the World Heritage Committee consider the following recommendations. The Bureau recommended that any Committee decision be implemented immediately.

1. Respecting the Convention

The Committee, reaffirms the Convention for the Protection of the World Natural and Cultural Heritage as an instrument of consensus, cooperation and accord between States Parties and takes particular note of Articles 6 (1) and 6 (2) and Article 11 (1):

  1. 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 right 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 co-operate (Article 6 (1)

  2. The States Parties undertake, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, to give their help in the identification, protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage -- if the States on whose territory it is situated so request (Article 6 (2).

  3. Every State Party to this Convention shall, in so far as possible, submit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory of property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage, situated in its territory and suitable for inclusion in the list ... (Article 11 (1).

Decisive cooperative action is required by the Committee and States Parties to ensure that the World Heritage List is fully representative of the world's natural and cultural heritage.


2. Tentative Lists

  1. The tentative list of cultural and natural sites should be used, consistent with Article 11 in the future as a planning tool with a view to reducing any imbalances in the World Heritage List. States Parties are reminded of the invitation to submit tentative lists in conformity with Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee should revise paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Operational Guidelines to extend to natural sites its decision not to examine nominations of sites for inscription if the property does not appear on a tentative list.

  2. The advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre should proceed with an analysis of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and the tentative list on a regional, chronological, geographical and thematic basis. This analysis should be undertaken as soon as possible, taking into account the workload on advisory bodies and the financial implications of this work, particularly in regard to the large number of sites on the tentative list. For this reason, the work should be undertaken in two parts, sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and sites on the tentative list. The analysis will provide States Parties with a clear overview of the present situation, and likely trends in the short to medium term with a view to identifying under-represented categories.

  3. The advisory bodies should take into account in their analyses:

    • The diversity and particularities of natural and cultural heritage in each region,
    • The results of regional Periodic Reporting, and
    • The recommendations of the regional and thematic meetings on the harmonisation of tentative lists held since 1984 and those on the Global Strategy organised since 1994.

  4. The World Heritage Centre and advisory bodies should communicate the results of the analyses to the World Heritage Committee and, following the Committee's examination, the results should be conveyed to States Parties to the Convention, together with the Committee's recommendations. This will allow them to prepare, revise and/or harmonise their tentative list, taking into account, where appropriate, regional considerations, and to take the results of the analyses into consideration for the submission of future nominations.

3. Nominations

  1. In order to address the issue of representivity, and at the same time to promote effective management of the increasing size of the World Heritage List, the Committee at each ordinary session will set the maximum number of nominations to be considered. In the first instance, it is proposed that as of the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in 2002 the number of nominations examined by the Committee be limited to a number of sites to be determined by the Committee. All nominations received will be placed on a list for consideration in sequence. Such a list will be prepared by the World Heritage Centre in consultation with the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, and approved by the Bureau (or appropriate sub-committee). The list shall be based on the following factors and in the priority order indicated:

    1. Nominations of sites whose values are threatened (on an emergency basis according to Paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines).

    2. Nominations of sites from any State Party that illustrate un- represented or less-represented categories, as determined by analyses prepared by the Advisory Bodies, and reviewed and approved by the Committee.

    3. Nomination of a site submitted for the first time by an un- represented State Party, listed in date order, where the operative date is the date when the nomination is received.

    4. Nominations by other less-represented States Parties, to be listed in date order, where the operative date is the date when the nomination is received.

    5. Nominations deferred from previous meetings.

    6. Nominations from less-represented regions to be listed in date order, where the operative date is the date when the nomination is received.

    7. Joint or "sister" nominations of a common topic, including at least one nomination from a less-represented State Party.

    8. Nominations by those States Parties substantially represented in the List that have abstained from nominations (including those whose nominations have been deferred from previous annual cycles), with priority ranking given to those from States Parties that have abstained from nomination for the greatest number of years.

    9. Nominations submitted in previous cycles and falling outside categories (a) to (h) above, not considered because they did not achieve sufficient priority at previous meetings, to be included in date order, when the operative date is the date when the completed nomination is received.

      It is recommended that the priority listing proposal outlined above apply to nominations received by the World Heritage Centre after 1 July 2001 in order for progress to be made reasonably quickly towards achieving enhanced representivity in the World Heritage List.

    4. Resolution of the Twelfth General Assembly, 1999

    The Bureau particularly recommended that the Committee call on States Parties concerned to inform the Committee with a minimum of delay, of measures taken in the implementation of the clauses of the Resolution adopted by the Twelfth General Assembly (Paragraph B) that invites all States Parties that already have a substantial number of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List to:

    1. Apply paragraph 6 (vii) of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention:

      1. by spacing voluntarily their nominations according to conditions that they will define, and/or

      2. by proposing only properties falling into categories still under- represented, and/or

      3. by linking each of their nominations with a nomination presented by a State Party whose heritage is under-represented, or

      4. by deciding, on a voluntary basis, to suspend the presentation of new nominations.

    2. Initiate and encourage bilateral and multilateral co-operation with States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented in the List within the framework of the preparation of tentative lists, nominations and training programmes,

    3. Give priority to the re-examination of their tentative lists within the framework of regional consultations and to the preparation of periodic reports.

    5. Capacity Building for Under-represented Regions

    The Bureau recommends that cooperative efforts in capacity-building and training are necessary to ensure that the World Heritage List is fully representative and agrees that:

    1. The World Heritage Centre should continue to promote training programmes, preferably at the regional level, aimed at allowing States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented to be better versed in the Convention and to better implement the measures under Article 5. These primarily concern the identification, management, protection, enhancement and conservation of heritage. Such programmes should also assist States Parties to acquire and/or consolidate their expertise, in the preparation and harmonisation of their tentative lists and the preparation of nominations.

    2. The advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre should use the opportunity of evaluation missions to hold regional training workshops to assist under-represented States in the methods of preparation of their tentative list and nominations. Appropriate financial and human resources should be provided through the World Heritage Centre budget process to undertake such workshops.

    3. Requests by States Parties whose heritage is non- represented or under-represented should be given a high priority when the portion of the World Heritage budget relating to Preparatory Assistance in preparing nominations is developed.

    4. The order of priorities for the granting of international assistance, as defined in paragraphs 91 and 113-114 of the Operational Guidelines, should be revised in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the International Expert Meeting on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines (Canterbury, United Kingdom) to improve the representivity of the World Heritage List and to be coherent with the Global Strategy. Beyond the conditions provided for by the Convention, and subject to the conclusions of the evaluation of international assistance, the new priority order should take into account:

      • The necessity of encouraging the beneficiary countries to develop measures for the implementation of the Convention in their country,
      • The order of priority for the examination of the nominations for inscription,
      • The state of preparation of the beneficiary countries, and
      • The necessity of giving priority to the least developed countries (LDCs) and countries with a low revenue.

    5. Regional Plans of Action should be updated and developed within the framework of the Global Strategy. These should specify for each targeted region and State Party, the objective, action needed, responsibility, timetable for adoption, state of play and a mechanism to report on progress in implementing these at each session of the World Heritage Committee. In order to underline their incentive nature, the Plans of Action should highlight the actions by the States Parties concerned, notably in application of Article 5 of the Convention, and should mention the bilateral or multilateral co-operation programmes in the field of heritage in general, for the elaboration in particular of nominations.

    6. The next UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy should stress the necessity of adopting an intersectoral policy aimed at better implementing the Convention. From the 2002-2003 biennium, an intersectoral project should be developed and implemented to encourage the States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented to reinforce their capacity to protect, conserve and enhance it.

      The Bureau noted the Hungarian authorities had prepared a proposal for the establishment of a Heritage Partnerhsip Programme to be examined by the Committee at its twenty-fourth session in Cairns (WHC-2000/CONF.204/19).

      III.4 The Bureau recommends a review of the implementation and effectiveness of such measures not later than 2003.

      III.5 Nominations (Issue 2.3 of WHC-2000/CONF.202/3(SPE))

      Preparation and assessment of nominations

      The Chairperson recalled that the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau had

      recommended further examination by the Special Session of the Bureau in October 2000 as to whether the results of advisory bodies' evaluations of nominations should be made available, in a timely manner, to the nominating State Party, whether or not they are members of the Committee (ITF 2.3.3 and OG 65). It was agreed that if this recommendation is adopted by the Committee, it would be the role of the World Heritage Centre, and not the advisory bodies, to provide the evaluations to the State Party.

      Bureau members commented that only Committee members receive the evaluations and therefore only they have the opportunity and time to react to the recommendations of the evaluations. Non-Committee members do not have this opportunity.

      The Bureau recalled that this issue had been discussed at the twenty-second and twenty-third sessions of the Committee and at the Expert Meeting on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines in Canterbury, United Kingdom in April 2000.

      As no clear consensus emerged on this issue, the Bureau recommended that the twenty-fourth session of the Committee not be asked at this stage to decide on any change to Paragraph 65 of the Operational Guidelines. Any change would be subject to the possible future establishment of a sub-committee system and overall revision to the Operational Guidelines.

      III.6 Inscription on the World Heritage List (Issue 2.4 of WHC-2000/CONF.202/3(SPE))

      The Chairperson recalled that the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau had

      recommended that further consideration by the Special Session of the Bureau in October 2000 be given to grouping the presentation of and decisions on nominations according to similar nominations, themes and/or region and with reference to those sites already on the World Heritage List (ITF 2.4.1).

      The Bureau recalled that this recommendation had grown from a realisation that the evaluations of similar kinds of sites were being presented to the Bureau and Committee in isolation. The Task Force on the Implementation of the Committee had recommended that it would be easier to group similar properties together to facilitate comparison and better understanding of the sites being nominated.
      Several Bureau members agreed in principle to the grouped presentation of evaluations according to categories or themes and regions. It was thought that such a change in the presentation could lead to a greater appreciation of the World Heritage List as a list of the common heritage of humanity rather than as a list of the sites of different States Parties.

      The Representative of ICOMOS suggested categories that could be used for this purpose to be used as a working tool with a flexible approach adding new categories if required.

      IUCN noted that for natural heritage nominations, comparisons with other sites were included in IUCN's evaluations.

      The Bureau did not agree on what categories or themes should be used to group similar nominations. However, it was suggested that ICOMOS and IUCN could test the proposal on a trial basis for grouping similar nominations in presenting their advice to the next meeting of the World Heritage Committee.

      III.7 Reporting on the State of Conservation (Issue 2.5 of WHC-2000/CONF.202/3(SPE))

      The Chairperson recalled that the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau had

      recommended further examination by the Special Session of the Bureau (October 2000) as to whether documents on monitoring should be made available, in a timely manner, to the State Party concerned, whether or not they are members of the Committee (ITF 2.5.1. CANT 4.6g and OG 68).

      The Bureau recommended that the Committee decide that it would be useful for States Parties to have reactive monitoring reports in sufficient time prior to their presentation to the Bureau or Committee. This would allow States Parties to provide more information if necessary and for the Committee to make a decision based on all the available information.

      The Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO agreed and noted that the provision of such reports was one of the responsibilities of the World Heritage Centre but questioned whether this should be done once or twice per year.

      III. (C) INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION MANAGEMENT

      III.8 The Chairperson welcomed the High Commissioner of the Prime Minister for Information Technology, Mr. Zoltán Sík, and thanked the Government of Hungary for its generous invitation. The Chairperson praised Hungary, as one of the most dynamic States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, working actively with the Secretariat and the World Heritage Committee. On behalf of all the delegates, the Chairperson thanked the Minister and invited him to take the floor.

      III.9 The Minister explained to the members of the Special Bureau the importance Hungary attaches to the World Heritage Convention and its successful implementation throughout the world.

      III.10 Stating that the advancement in information technology permits its use as an important tool in the preservation and presentation of cultural and natural heritage, he offered the expertise of the Government of Hungary in supporting the efforts of UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee in its development of an Information Strategy.

      III.11 In his final remarks, Mr Zoltán Sík thanked the Bureau and expressed his certainty that with international co-operation the World Heritage sites would flourish and not encounter the same fate as all but one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

      III.12 The Chairperson recalled that a Status Report on the Information Management Systems Initiative in the World Heritage Centre had been presented to the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau (WHC-2000/CONF.202/INF.12). He also recalled that the Bureau session in June had requested that:

      the strategy and budget for the Information Management System (IMS) needed to be discussed further. It was agreed that the special session of the Bureau to be held in October would set aside enough time for this discussion to bring together on-going work and to prepare a focused and budgeted proposal providing direction for the Information Management Strategy, including IMS (Information Management System).

      III.13 The Chairperson requested Ms Gwynneth Martin (an information systems consultant who has been working with the World Heritage Centre) to present her report on the development of an Information Management Systems Plan (WHC-2000/CONF.202/INF.5 (SPE)).

      III.14 In her presentation, Ms Martin outlined:

      • the background to the creation of this Information Management System Plan
      • strategies adopted for implementation of systems in the Centre
      • the essential requirement for inhouse expertise
      • the structure of the system envisaged
      • a three-stage plan for implementation with timelines and milestones
      • the estimated resource requirement.

      The curent status of the budget was summarized as follows:

          World Heritage Fund (WHF):      1999         US$  60,000
                                    2000         US$ 114,000
                                    2001         US$ 100,000 (provisional)
    Extrabudgetary funding (EXB):                US$  59,000

    Expenditures (and commitments): 1999         US$ 60,000 (WHF) and US$ 29,000 (EXB)
                                    2000         US$ 46,000 +

      The Bureau thanked Ms Martin for her excellent presentation and,

      • noted the value of an effective information management system for the effective protection of World Heritage properties particularly over the medium to long term.
      • recommended that the report on the development of the information management systems plan and the indicative budget for 2001 (noting that it may be moderately revised upwards depending upon further analyses) be endorsed by the twenty-fourth session of the Committee
      • endorsed the overall strategy of an incremental approach using appropriate technology
      • welcomed the fact that ICCROM agreed with the proposed approach and suggested that the design stage should consider linkage with existing data bases held by advisory bodies
      • noted that the IMS implementation will take advantage of existing infrastructure and development within UNESCO.

      III. (D) OTHER MATTERS

      Role of the Advisory Bodies and the Centre

      III.15 Referring to WHC-2000/CONF.202/3 (SPE) issue 4.1 on the Role of the Advisory Bodies and the Centre and issue 4.2 on Contract Development and Management, the Chair invited the representatives of IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM to present the issues and new developments. The debate which followed resulted in the following:

      Consensus:

      • Recognition of the complementary but separate roles of the Advisory Bodies and the Centre in supporting the work of the Committee and the States Parties,
      • Recognition that current procedures for state of conservation reporting of properties on the World Heritage List could be improved through a better exchange of information between Advisory Bodies, the Centre and States Parties and such information could be compiled in a single working document for the Committee,
      • Need to enhance cooperation in the identification of experts most technically qualified to undertake reactive monitoring missions, follow-up and reporting to the Committee,
      • Recognition that positive steps had been achieved in improved communication and management
      • That the Secretariat should prepare a paper in collaboration with the advisory bodies defining the relative roles and responsibilities of the Centre and the advisory bodies for consideration by the Bureau 2001 (June).

      Pending issues requiring further management action:

      • ICOMOS expressed concern over the Centre's increasing recourse to experts and institutions other than the Advisory Bodies, notably to bilateral co-operation agencies and non-governmental organisations which impose the involvement of national experts which may not necessary be perceived to be "independent".

      • The Secretariat stated that it considered amongst its fundamental role, the mobilization of both technical and financial resources to assist States Parties requiring international co-operation, particularly aimed for national capacity building. The Secretariat referred to the successful record in negotiating UNESCO Funds-in- Trust projects financed by Member States and in the mobilization of bilateral co-operation of substantive and long-term activities tangibly supporting the implementation of the Convention.

      III.16 In recalling Article 13.7, Article 14.2 and the general spirit of the Convention based on international solidarity and co- operation, the Chair and the Bureau stressed the importance of the advisory role of IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM, and the role of the Centre in the mobilization of international co-operation. The Chair affirmed that despite some specific problems, the advisory bodies had the full confidence of the Committee. The Bureau concluded this debate by reiterating that the challenge of World Heritage required synergy among the States Parties, the Committee, the advisory bodies and the Secretariat, and expressed confidence that better communication would dissipate outstanding problems.

      III.17 Concerning problems on contract development and management, ICCROM stated that relations have considerably improved in the past months and that the recent appointment of a focal point at the Centre responsible for relations with ICCROM should further improve working relations. IUCN however, expressed the need to maintain this point on the agenda of the Committee as problems on delayed issuance of contracts and payments still exist.

      III.18 ICOMOS stated that despite past efforts in drafting a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), in view of improved working relations, they questioned the need to proceed with this matter.

      Education, training and research

      III.19 The Bureau noted that the recommendations on education, training and research, along with many other recommendations, presented in WHC-2000/CONF.202/3 (SPE), relate to proposed revisions to the Operational Guidelines.

      Document management

      III.20 The Bureau agreed that the volume of documents presented to the sessions of the Committee and Bureau need to be significantly reduced. Ms Christina Cameron (Chair of the Task Force on the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention) expressed her disappointment that this measure as well as other priority practical measures agreed by the Bureau at its twenty- fourth session in June had not been implemented.

      III.21 It was decided that representatives of the World Heritage Centre and the incoming Chair, Australia, would meet on the margins of the Special Session of the Bureau to decide on ways to reduce the number of documents for the twenty-fourth session of the Committee in Cairns, Australia. The Director of the Centre informed the Bureau of changes to document presentation that would be introduced in Cairns on a trial basis.

      Revision to the Operational Guidelines

      III.22 The Bureau recommended that once the new overall framework for revised Operational Guidelines (WHC-2000/CONF.202/9) had been approved by the Committee, details of new text could be finalized. The Bureau agreed that the production of revised Operational Guidelines, incorporating proposed changes be considered by the Committee as a high priority. The Bureau agreed that the revision of the Operational Guidelines would require teamwork on the part of the Secretariat, advisory bodies and representatives of States Parties.

      IV. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

      IV.1 The Rapporteur reported on his meeting with the Director and Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre on the subject of document management for the forthcoming Committee session in Cairns. He noted that amongst the constructive suggestions that had been agreed were the grouping of agenda items and relevant documents according to subject headings, the preparation of a "map" to guide the Committee in its deliberations and the preparation of a CDrom containing all documents for distribution to Committee members at the end of the session.

      IV.2 The Bureau warmly applauded Mounir Bouchenaki for having stepped in as Director of the World Heritage Centre from 1999 through to September 2000.

      IV.3 Mounir Bouchenaki, representing the Director-General of UNESCO, thanked the Bureau for their constructive work and thanked the Hungarian authorities for having generously hosted the Special Session. He paid tribute to the work of the former Rapporteur of the Committee, Mrs Anne Lammila (Finland) and of the new Rapporteur, Mr Kevin Keeffe (Australia). He thanked all his colleagues in the World Heritage Centre who had worked as a team during a period of transition in the Centre. He also thanked the Committee and the Advisory Bodies for the spirit of openness and co-operation that had marked the last few years.

      IV.4 In closing the session, the Chairperson sincerely thanked the Bureau, Task Force, Working Groups and Expert Meeting for their work. He asked the World Heritage Centre to do its utmost in cooperation with States Parties to put into practice the recommended priority practical measures agreed by the Bureau and advance the collated recommendations when considered by the Committee as rapidly as possible. He thanked the Bureau, the invited participants and the advisory bodies for having contributed to the success of the Special Session by working in a climate of effective and constructive cooperation which he had been proud to chair. He expressed his sincere thanks to the Hungarian hosts whose hospitality and efficient meeting organisation had contributed to such a successful session and had given an opportunity for deep reflection.


      ANNEXES

      ANNEX I List of Participants

      ANNEX II Address of Professor Zsolt Visy, Deputy Secretary of State, Hungarian Ministry of Cultural Heritage

      ANNEX III Speech of the representative of the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Assistant Director-General for Culture a.i

      ANNEX IV Speech of the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Mr Francesco Bandarin

      ANNEX VSpeech of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Mr Abdelaziz Touri (Morocco)

      ANNEX VIProposal of the United Kingdom for a sub- committee system






      ANNEX I


      BUREAU DU COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL /
      BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

      Session Spéciale/Special Session
      Budapest, Hongrie / Hungary
      2-4 octobre/October 2000

      LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS / LIST OF PARTICIPANTS


      I. ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU / MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU


      AUSTRALIE / AUSTRALIA

      H.E. Mr Matthew PEEK
      Minister
      Permanent Delegate
      Permanent Delegation of Australia to UNESCO
      UNESCO House
      1, rue Miollis
      75732 PARIS Cedex 15

      Mr Bruce LEAVER
      First Assitant Secretary
      Australian and World Heritage Division
      Department of the Environment and Heritage
      GPO Box 787
      Canberra ACT 2601

      Mr Kevin KEEFFE
      Assistant Secretary
      World Heritage Branch
      Environment Australia
      Department of the Environment and Heritage
      GPO Box 787
      CANBERRA ACT 2601

      FINLANDE / FINLAND

      Ms Taina KIEKKO
      Ambassador
      Pemanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO
      1, rue Miollis
      UNESCO House
      75732 PARIS Cedex 15

      Mr Henrik LILIUS
      State Archaeologist
      Director General of the National Board of Antiquities
      National Board of Antiquities
      P.O. Box 913
      FIN-00101 HELSINKI

      Ms Margaretha EHRSTROM
      Researcher
      The National Board of Antiquities
      P.O. Box 913
      FIN- 00101 HELSINKI

      GRECE / GREECE

      Mme Hélène METHODIOU
      Conseiller pour la Culture
      Délégation permanente de la Grèce auprès de l'UNESCO
      Maison de l'UNESCO
      1, rue Miollis
      75732 PARIS Cedex 15

      HONGRIE / HUNGARY

      Mr Zsolt VISY
      Deputy Secretary of State
      Hungarian Ministry of the Cultural Heritage
      Chairman of the Hungarian Committee of the World Heritage
      Wesselényi u.20-22
      BUDAPEST, H-1077

      H.E. Ambassador János JELEN
      Ministry of Foreign Affairs
      Department of Culture, Science and Information
      Nagy Imre ter 4.
      BUDAPEST, H-1027

      Dr Janos TARDY
      Deputy Secretary of State
      Ministry of the Environment
      Hungarian Committee of the World Heritage
      Költo u.21
      BUDAPEST, H-1121

      Mr Ferenc NEMETH
      Head of the Secretariat
      Secretariat of the Hungarian Committee of the World Heritage
      Ministry of Cultural Heritage
      Szinhaz utca 5-0
      BUDAPEST, H-1014

      MAROC / MOROCCO

      M. Abdelaziz TOURI
      Président du Comité du patrimoine mondial
      Secrétaire général
      Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication
      1, rue Ghandi
      RABAT

      H.E. Mme Aziza BENNANI
      Ambassadeur
      Délégué permanent
      Délégation permanente du Maroc auprès de l'UNESCO
      Maison de l'UNESCO
      1, rue Miollis
      75732 PARIS Cedex 15, France

      MEXIQUE / MEXICO

      Dr. Francisco LOPEZ MORALES
      Expert
      Institut national d'Antropologie et d'Histoire (INAH)
      Cordoba 45 1er. Piso
      Colonia Roma
      MEXICO D.F. CP 06700

      ZIMBABWE

      Mr Dawson MUNJERI
      Executive Director
      National Museums and Monuments
      Penrose Hill, 107 Rotten Row
      Box CY 1485 Causeway
      HARARE

      II. ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF /
      ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN ADVISORY CAPACITY

      CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS) /
      INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)

      M. Jean-Louis LUXEN
      Secrétaire général
      ICOMOS
      49-51, rue de la Fédération
      75015 PARIS, France

      Mr Henry CLEERE
      World Heritage Coordinator
      ICOMOS
      49-51 rue de la Fédération
      75015 PARIS, France


      UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE (UICN) / THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)

      Mr Rolf HOGAN
      Programme on Protected Areas
      Programme Associate for World Heritage
      IUCN - The World Conservation Union
      Rue Mauverney 28
      CH-1196 GLAND, Switzerland

      CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM) /
      INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY (ICCROM)


      Mr. Joseph King
      ICCROM
      Via di San Michele, 13
      00153 ROME, Italy

      Mr Herb STOVEL
      ICCROM
      Via di San Michele, 13
      00153 ROME, Italy


      III. PERSONNALITES INVITEES A TITRE PERSONNEL / INDIVIDUALS INVITED IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITY

      BELGIQUE / BELGIUM

      Mme Bénédicte SELFSLAGH
      Ministère de la Région Wallonne
      Relations Internationales
      Direction générale de l'Aménagement du Territoire du Logement et du Patrimoine
      Division du patrimoine
      c/o 30 avenue Junot
      75018 PARIS, France

      BENIN

      S. Exc. Monsieur Olabiyi Babalola Joseph YAI
      Président du Groupe sur la représentativité sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial
      Ambassadeur
      Délégué permanent
      Délégation permanente du Bénin auprès de l'UNESCO
      Maison de l'UNESCO
      1, rue Miollis
      75732 PARIS Cedex 15, France

      CANADA

      Mme Christina CAMERON
      Présidente de l'Equipe spéciale sur la mise en oeuvre de la Convention du patrimoine mondial
      Directeur général, National Historic Sites
      Parcs Canada
      25 Eddy Street 25-5-N
      Hull, QUEBEC, K1A 0M5, Canada

      ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE / UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      Ms Karen T. KOVACS
      Rapporteur, International Meeting on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
      Senior Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
      U.S. Department of the Interior
      1849 C Street, NW
      WASHINGTON, DC, 20240, USA

      FRANCE

      S. Exc. Monsieur Jean MUSITELLI
      Président du Groupe sur la représentation équitable au sein du Comité du patrimoine mondial
      Ambassadeur
      Délégué permanent
      Délégation permanente de la France auprès de l'UNESCO
      Maison de l'UNESCO
      1, rue Miollis
      75732 PARIS Cedex 15

      ROYAUME-UNI DE GRANDE- BRETAGNE ET D'IRLANDE DU NORD / UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

      Mr Christopher YOUNG
      Chairman, International Meeting on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
      Head of World Heritage and International Policy
      English Heritage
      23 Savile Row
      LONDON WIX IAA
      United Kingdom

      IV. SECRETARIAT DE L'UNESCO / UNESCO SECRETARIAT

      M. Mounir BOUCHENAKI
      Sous-Directeur général a.i. pour la culture

      Centre du patrimoine mondial / World Heritage Centre

      M. Francesco BANDARIN
      Directeur

      Mme Minja YANG
      Directeur adjoint

      Mme Sarah TITCHEN

      Mme Jane DEGEORGES
      Mme Marianne RAABE
      M. David MARTEL

      Consultants:
      Mme Gwynneth MARTIN
      M. Bernd PAULOWITZ





      ANNEX II


      Address by Professor Zsolt Visy, Deputy Secretary of State,
      Hungarian Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Hungary

      A Hungarian World Heritage Vision


      After 28 years, it is clear that the captain of the World Heritage Flagship should consider how to change direction since the iceberg of an ever-increasing number of inscribed sites without a proper management is clearly rising on the horizon.

      Hence the Hungarian vision -- hopefully shared, and surely built on the views expressed by the majority of the member states -- is divided into two phases: the phase of adjustment and then taking the new direction together.

      Adjustment means correcting the balance of the List, make the necessary decisions for a more equitable representation within the Committee, finish the analysis of the recommendations emerging from the first cycle of the periodic reporting, harmonize the regional and thus the global tentative lists, finally adopt the new Guidelines and approve the first Strategic Plan, including a new fundraising, capacity building (i.e. international assistance) and information strategy. All that could be accomplished within two years.

      The new direction, as Hungary sees it, would mean a much more prominent role given to the tentative lists on each -- national, regional and global -- level. Actually the Committee, supported by the General Assembly, could give a clear indication that being on the approved national tentative list is an internationally acclaimed status in itself. To choose a site for the Tentative List depends on a whole set of criteria to be further refined during the adjustment phase.

      Nevertheless, the act of choosing for the List ought to become a major professional decision to be taken by the Committee, certainly based on the recommendation of the Advisory Bodies and the Secretariat.

      That choice should mean a lot. That decision could direct and focus the necessary resources for those who most need it to accomplish what should be accomplished for the successful nomination. That choice would help to scrutinize those sites that are clearly creating a missing piece of an earlier already determined puzzle in an otherwise well-represented country.

      In short: our vision is the creation of a clear global picture painted and approved within an exact timeframe and scrutinized or adjusted under fixed conditions. Hence, a deductive, rather than the existing inductive approach could prevail during the next thirty years.

      "A vision without a task is but a dream
      A task without a dream is a drudgery
      A vision with a task is the hope of the World."


      Budapest, October 2, 2000






      ANNEX III



      Opening Remarks by the Assistant Director-General for Culture a.i., UNESCO
      Mounir Bouchenaki


      Professor Visy,
      Mr Nemeth,
      Mr Chairperson
      Members of the Bureau
      Members of the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee
      Distinguished invitees

      On behalf of the Director- General of UNESCO Mr Koichiro Matsuura, I would like to welcome you to this Special Session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.

      The Director-General is deeply grateful to Hungary for having offered to host this important meeting. It will be a pleasure for us to work here within the splendour of the Buda Castle, right in the midst of one of Hungary's five World Heritage sites.

      At the outset I would like to introduce you to the new Director of UNESCO's World Heritage Centre -- Mr Francesco Bandarin.

      Mr Bandarin, who began work as Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and Secretary to the World Heritage Committee on 20 September, holds degrees in architecture and city and regional planning from the University Institute of Architecture of Venice and the University of California, Berkeley, USA, respectively. He has extensive experience working with both public and private research centres and institutions in the fields of planning and maintenance of built heritage, cultural heritage conservation plans and programmes, environmental heritage, architectural design, urban planning and management, and development planning. I would like to add that a good basis for friendship and cooperation has already been laid.

      Mrs Minja Yang, who is also here with us for this Special Session, will be working with the new Director as Deputy Director of the Centre. Mrs Yang brings with her many years of experience in the UN system and considerable experience in World Heritage conservation through her role over the past years in directing the Centre's work in the Asia-Pacific region and historic cities projects. The existing good working relations and excellent team spirit within the Centre provide an optimal setting to move forward.

      The coincidence of having a new management team in place at the World Heritage Centre at the same time as the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau work through a substantial agenda of reform is opportune. This should create a new synergy for reform, involving the Committee and Secretariat in an effective partnership.

      The appointment of the new management team in the World Heritage Centre has taken place in a broader context of reform within UNESCO.

      In November 1999 Mr Matsuura launched a major programme of reform which is aimed at rethinking UNESCO's priorities and refocusing its action, streamlining its structures and management procedures, remotivating its staff and rationalizing its decentralization policy.

      The ultimate purpose of the reform is to refocus UNESCO's programme in order to enhance its effectiveness and relevance to the needs of the Member States.

      Just as with the reform process underway in UNESCO, the World Heritage Committee's reform agenda, the subject of this Special Session of the Committee's Bureau, will require a reorientation of action through a process of strategic planning as has been suggested recently by the Task Force on the Implementation of the Convention. You will recall that this was also a major recommendation of the Management Review performed in 1998. Through a systematic process of revisiting the Committee's 1992 Strategic Orientations, there could be the opportunity to update and refocus the Committee's actions in relation to substantial issues such as addressing the root cause of threats to World Heritage natural and cultural sites.

      As Mr Matsuura has himself stated, when Chairman of the World Heritage Committee and more recently as Director- General of UNESCO, it is imperative that these root causes be the focus of our attention. This is often neither popular nor easy. The only way we can address the conflicts that do unfortunately arise between heritage protection and conservation on the one hand, and development and modernity on the other, is through political will and courage. We must rely on the key principles of international co-operation and assistance that lie at the heart of the World Heritage Convention and work towards an integration of heritage conservation as part of the development process.

      Returning once again to the process of reform being undertaken by the World Heritage Committee, there will also need to be a new working culture to be embraced by the World Heritage Centre as Secretariat, and by the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee (IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM). The roles of the Centre and the Advisory Bodies may need to be restated to bring greater clarity, efficiency and synergy to our work.

      It may also be necessary to reform the working method and the schedule of Committee and Bureau meetings. Such change will require time to take root. At the same time, for new strategic orientations to bring expected results, we will need reformed implementation "tools" including revitalized and additional human resources and an adequate technical infrastructure and information management system.

      During the last year we have seen the extent to which States Parties want reform to take place. On behalf of the Director-General, I would like to thank you for having devoted your time to this challenge. I would also like to express the commitment of the Secretariat who will make all effort possible to implement the processes of reform to meet the expectations of you as States Parties to the World Heritage Convention.

      Last Saturday I met with the Director-General and he said that he has a personal interest in the important deliberations of the Special Session of the Bureau and asked to be kept informed of the conclusions f the meeting. The Director-General has defined priorities as we move to the next General Conference -- protection of the cultural heritage, tangible and intangible, are of the utmost importance.

      I again thank the Hungarian authorities for this opportunity to focus on the most efficient ways of further developing the Convention. In the past the Bureau sessions were small but this is no longer the case and inevitably they become more difficult to manage and require more efficient working methods to deal with heavy agendas. We must keep in mind that our ultimate goal is to better preserve the cultural and natural heritage. I am confident that with your help this goal will be achieved.

      Thank you.





      ANNEX IV



      Opening Remarks by the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre
      Mr Francesco Bandarin


      Professor Visy, Ambassador Jelen and Mr Ferenc Nemeth,
      Mr Chairperson
      Members of the Bureau
      Members of the advisory bodies to the World Heritage Committee
      Distinguished invitees

      I would also like to start this short address with an expression of gratitude to the authorities of this ancient and noble country for hosting this meeting and for the warm welcome we have all received. As you know, this is a special year for Hungary, as it celebrates its 1000 years of Unity and Christianity. I had the privilege during my previous professional life, working for the year 2000 events for Rome, to develop a fruitful exchange with the Committee in charge of the preparation of these celebrations and I was able to get a feeling of the greatness of the Hungarian history and of the pride of its people. I am delighted that my new activity allows me to keep and extend my connections with this splendid civilization.

      This is the first time I have the honour of taking part in a meeting of the Bureau as Director of the World Heritage Centre and Secretary of the World Heritage Committee. As a freshman, I am certainly inadequate to fulfil the task of performing such a complex work. I am here essentially to learn from you and to know you, so as to be able next time to organize in the most efficient way this important aspect of the activities of the Centre. I am therefore grateful to my predecessor, Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Director of the Division of Cultural Heritage, representing of the Director- General, for providing the effective guidance for the Secretariat's activities. I would like to address to him special thanks for this help and for the extremely useful support he is offering me in this new and challenging task. My job as Director of UNESCO's World Heritage Centre began less than 2 weeks ago. In that short period of time I have been immersed in two activities -- the High Level Mission to the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal and preparations for this important meeting.

      I feel privileged to have spent the first days of my new job in the company of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Mr Abdelaziz Touri. During the week we spent together in Nepal, I was able to learn from him the intricacies of the technical and diplomatic aspects of our work, and to know a man of deep culture, technical preparedness and great human understanding. The mission also provided the opportunity for me to spend a long and fruitful time with the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Hendrik Lilius, who shared with me, often in my own language, his great experience. This mission allowed me to accelerate my training for the job, but most of all allowed me to acquire two new friends. I now have the opportunity to spend a few days working with you, the Bureau members and other key figures involved in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. I will try to profit from this time to further accelerate my training in the task of servicing the World Heritage Convention.

      I would like now to share with you briefly some of my initial reactions and impressions on the work of the next three days. I know I cannot provide extensive experience, and for this I ask for your understanding, but perhaps sometimes a fresh look at old problems can be of use.

      I think that there is quite a degree of clarity as to what the main problems are that require fundamental reform. I would like to direct my comments to the two main issues you are confronting today: the Representivity of the World Heritage List and the Representation in the World Heritage Committee.

      It is clear that on the one hand we have an ever increasing number of nominations for inclusion on the World Heritage List. On the other hand, the representivity of that List, regionally and in terms of types, categories or themes of heritage, is being seriously questioned. This juxtaposition is difficult to address from both the technical and political points of view. I have carefully read the Resolution of last year's General Assembly on this issue and am impressed by the way it seeks a proactive, rather than reactive, approach by the States Parties, the advisory bodies, the World Heritage Committee, the Secretariat and the international community at large.

      During the next three days, you will discuss the most appropriate ways of increasing the representivity of the List. I am sure that in this discussion, whatever the outcome will be, all of you will look at the Convention and to its inspiring principles, and I make here special reference to Articles 1 and 2, dealing with the universal value of the sites to be nominated.

      The growth in the World Heritage List has led, without question, to an exponential increase in the work load of the Committee, its Bureau, the advisory bodies and the Secretariat. For what concerns my role at the table, I have noticed that, in recent years, the activity of the Centre as Secretariat of the Committee has increased remarkably. This trend, if not corrected, would limit the ability of the Centre to perform its other tasks in the promotion of the Convention and in assisting States Parties.

      In recent years, the work of all of you has become bogged down with too many documents and Operational Guidelines that are out of step with the realities of implementing the Convention. With such problems of process and decision-making, how can we address the real conservation problems at the World Heritage sites and the promotion of the spirit of the Convention?

      During its 28 years of existence, the Convention has been very successful: it has now 160 States Parties. However, only 21 States Parties have the opportunity to participate as members of the World Heritage Committee. The question is how to achieve greater representation and participation by more States Parties within the existing legal framework and within the current administrative and budgetary context. This issue is not an easy one to solve. But certainly a solution cannot be found other than in a simplification of the decision- making process and in the goodwill of all States Parties in cooperating.

      I apologise again for my inadequacy in providing this advice and I wish you all well in your deliberations.

      Thank you.





      ANNEX V



      Speech of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee,
      Mr Abdelaziz Touri (Morocco)

      Enjeux de la Session spéciale


      La Session spéciale constitue une étape cruciale dans le cadre du processus de réformes pour améliorer la mise en oeuvre de la Convention du patrimoine mondial. Ce processus a débuté en 1996 lors de la 20ème session du Comité. Je voudrais rappeler qu'un Organisme consultatif qui avait été créé à Mérida, avait demandé une évaluation du fonctionnement du Centre du patrimoine mondial. Quatre ans plus tard, il nous faut impérativement et tout simplement passer de «l'action à la pratique». Une gageure qui n'est pas toujours facile à tenir.

      Depuis la 23ème session du Comité à Marrakech , tout au long de l'année 2000, un processus de réflexion sur les réformes nécessaires a été mené par quatre groupes composés de membres du Comité, de représentants d'Etats parties, et d'experts, en vue :

      • D'améliorer les méthodes de travail des partenaires (Organes statutaires, Organismes consultatifs, Secrétariat) et les modalités de fonctionnement de la Convention de 1972 en tenant compte de ses impératifs. C'était le mandat de L'Equipe spéciale sur la mise en oeuvre de la Convention, présidée par Mme Cameron ;

      • De proposer une révision des Orientations afin de clarifier et de préciser le modus Operandi de la Convention à ses utilisateurs. C'é tait le mandat de la Réunion d'experts internationaux sur la révision des Orientations, présidée par M. Young ;

      • De proposer, après la XIIème Assemblée générale des Etats parties, des voies et des moyens d'améliorer la représentativit&ea cute; de la Liste. C'était le mandat du Groupe de travail, dont les membres ont été élus, et qui était présidé par Son Excellence l'Ambassad eur Yaï ;

      • De proposer, après la XIIème Assemblée générale des Etats parties, des voies et des moyens d'atteindre une représentation équitable au sein du Comité. C'était le mandat du Groupe de travail, dont les membres ont été élus, et qui était présidé par Son Excellence l'Ambassad eur Musitelli.

      Les recommandations des groupes abordent l'ensemble des problématiques de la Convention afin d'éviter qu'elle ne soit, comme on l'a souvent répété, victime de son succès.

      Le second enjeu est de préserver l'esprit du texte fondateur qui déf init la Convention comme un organisme de coopération internationale, bien au- delà des intérêts nationaux ou des revendications des groupes géo-culturels, qui ne s'inscriraient pas dans ce contexte bien plus large.

      Le troisième enjeu est de présenter les résultats de cette session, de manière claire et concise, à la 24ème session du Comité en décembre 2000, qui sera appelée à prendre des décisions, de garder présent à l'esprit les préparatifs de la XIIème Assembl&ea cute;e générale des Etats parties en 2001, et, au-delà, avec l'adoption de la révision des Orientations, de permettre aux divers partenaires engagés dans la mise en oeuvre de la Convention de mettre en pratique ces résultats.

      Résultats attendus de la Session spéciale du Bureau

      Les enjeux, que je viens de définir, me permettent donc d'identifier les résultats que nous devrions atteindre, au terme de nos travaux, de manière consensuelle.
      Il s'agit :

      • De cerner, de manière pré cise, la structure des réformes proposées pour les organes statutaires en vue d'améliorer leurs méthodes de travail, et d'assurer une représentation plus équitable au sein du Comité. La nouvelle proposition présentée par le Royaume-Uni en vue de créer un système de sous- comités, qui a été examinée par le Secrétariat, sera discutée.

      • De tirer au clair le consensus et les divergences de vue sur les recommandations du Groupe de travail sur la représentativit&ea cute; de la Liste, question de la plus haute importance. Vous le savez, la XIIème Assemblée générale des Etats parties, a adopté par consensus une résolution, en raison de la nécessité de préserver l'autorité conférée à la Convention de 1972, ratifiée par 160 Etats.

      • De mettre au point le document de travail qui sera examiné par le Comité à sa 24ème session, et qui devra préciser l'état d'avancement du processus de réformes. Ce document devra exposer les principes directeurs des réformes proposées et les recommandations qui en découlent, selon un calendrier qui identifiera les actions prioritaires.

      Déroulement des travaux

      Comme vous le savez, en juin dernier, malgré un ordre du jour extrêmement chargé, nous avons consacré deux jours pleins à discuter des recommandations des quatre groupes. Ces discussions sont reflétées dans le document WHC-2000/CONF.202/3(SPE).

      • Les orateurs sont donc appelés à ne pas revenir sur des remarques ou considérations déjà consignées dans ce rapport ; mais de nous faire part, si besoin est, des résultats de leurs réflexions depuis juin, quand on abordera chaque point pour lequel une recommandation est requise.

      • Les documents de référence vous seront communiqués lors de l'examen de chaque point.

        Ils sont nombreux et se complètent. Je voudrais demander à chacun d'ent re vous de préciser la cote et le paragraphe du docum ent lors de chaque intervention.

      • Pour éviter des malentendus, d'un commun accord avec le Rapporteur, nous avons précisé au Secrétariat le format de présenta tion du rapport de cette session, et moi-même je préciserais, à chaque fois, la décision adoptée sur chaque point. Le Rapporteur vous précisera dans un instant la trame du rappo rt.

      • Notre tâche est complexe, gardons à l'esprit l'importance des enjeux qui engagent le futur de la Convention, ainsi que les résultats attendus que je viens de définir après avoir procédé à des consultations. Je sais pouvoir compter sur chacun d'entre vous et d'avance je vous en remercie.






        ANNEX VI

        PROPOSAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM FOR A SUB-COMMITTEE SYSTEM




        Resolution of the Seventh General Assembly of States Parties (1989)
        [ CC-89/CONF.013/6 ]

        "The General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,

        Recalling Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention which stipulates that 'Election of members of the Committee shall ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world';

        Considering that for this purpose it is important to observe the practice of rotation in the representation of States Parties on the Committee;

        Invites the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, whose mandates on the Committee expire, to consider not to stand for re-election during an appropriate period;

        Requests the Chairman, at each election, to invite States Parties to take account of this Resolution:

        Invites the President of the World Heritage Committee to do everything in his power to encourage the States Parties, whose mandates on the Committee have just expired, to remain closely associated with its work for a period of four years, in conformity with Article 8.1 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure;

        Invites the World Heritage Committee to give further consideration at its meetings in the next two years to additional procedures, such as regional quotas, to ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world, as required by Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

        Invites furthermore the World Heritage Committee to formulate proposals in view of financing, in whole or in part, travel and sojourn expenses for the members of the Committee representing the least developed countries."