 PDF version (1.2 mb)
| 
FRENCH VERSION |
World Heritage |
26 COM |
| Distribution limited |
WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.15
|
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
30th Anniversary
1972-2002
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-sixth session
Budapest, Hungary
24 - 29 June 2002
SUMMARY RECORD
The decisions adopted by the 26th session of the World Heritage Committee
are available as document WHC-02/CONF.202/25. This document is the
Summary Record of the debates of the session.
Please note:The World Heritage Committee and the Secretariat are working to improve reporting methods. For this session:
|
||||||||||||
1. The 26th session of the World Heritage Committee was held in Budapest, Hungary, from 24 to 29 June 2002. It was attended by the 21 members of the World Heritage Committee: Argentina, Belgium, China, Colombia, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Hungary, India, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Oman, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Zimbabwe.
2. Sixty States Parties to the World Heritage Convention who are not members of the Committee were represented as observers: Afghanistan, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Gambia, Germany, Grenada, Holy See, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Yemen and Yugoslavia. The Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to UNESCO also participated at this session as an observer.
3. Representatives of the Advisory Bodies to the Committee, namely the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of the Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) also attended the meeting.
1. The 26th session of the World Heritage Committee was opened by Mr Henrik Lilius, Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, in the presence of Mr Lászlo Kocsi, Political Secretary of State of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage of Hungary and Mrs Mária Kóródi, Minister for Environment and Hydrology of Hungary.
2. The Chairperson welcomed Mr Lászlo Kocsi and invited him to deliver his address.
3. Mr Kocsi, the Political Secretary of State of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage of Hungary, presented the following speech:
"Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, dear participants,4. The Minister for Environment and Hydrology, Mrs Mária Kóródi then delivered her address:I am pleased to welcome you to Budapest on behalf of myself and the Government of the Republic of Hungary, on the occasion of the meeting of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee held on the 30th anniversary of the execution of the World Heritage Convention. For a small central- European country that has always been proud of her culture, it is always a great pleasure to host the members of the Committee arriving from 21 different countries and all the observers participating in the meeting who arrived from almost 150 countries.
It is a great honour for us that this festive meeting takes place, and the declaration that determines the Committee's further work and tasks will be passed by the festive meeting here in Budapest. It is a special privilege that we may salute here the highly esteemed Mr. Koïchiro Muatsuura, Director-General of UNESCO, who I will have the opportunity to have discussions with.
It makes almost 15 years now that Hungary has joined the family of countries having World Heritage sites, and one of the first sites included in the list was the banks of the Danube in Budapest. Since then our country proudly possesses seven World Heritage sites that attract many guests year by year, but at the same time burden the government with several tasks and responsibilities.
In 1987 when the Committee passed its decision on the inclusion of the first two sites, we started to learn how to take care of such sites and what does it mean that a property is declared to be a part of the world heritage. I think that the fact that this jubilee meeting takes place in Budapest means that we have already passed the elementary school and by now there might be some things we could show to others.
If we just have a look on our architectural heritage sites, more specifically on their manifoldness, it can be seen that our country endeavours the preservation of multicoloured cultural values. The first two World Heritage sites of Hungary are two spots greatly differing from each other, namely the banks of the Danube in Budapest, a metropolis gaining its present view in the 19th and 20th centuries, on the one hand, and Hollókþ, a small village of the Slovak minority, on the other hand. These two sites, whilst they are intrinsic with our close ties to the universal and within that primarily to the Pan-European culture, highlight the importance of the preservation and development of the culture of countries and within them that of the minorities within a world that is going global. These minority cultures form integral part of the culture of a country, such as Hungary, and without these the majority culture could not become what it has during the centuries.
Two other sites are the thousand-year old Benedictine Abbey in Pannonhalma, which stands on the top of a lonely hill and catches the eyes from kilometres; and the ancient Christian catacombs in Pécs with the Mediterranean city embracing them, which symbolise a European Hungary. The 1000-year history of Hungary can be a good example, especially today, when our close neighbourhood - hopefully together with us - will become integral part of Europe. The example of our first king Saint István shows that there are historical situations when the survival of a people, a nation depends on whether they are able to become part of a common culture whilst maintaining their own culture. Whether they are able to preserve their uniqueness and therefore their identity, it was with Saint István's historic act that he decided on the conversion from the tribal cults to Christianity and made this decision in such manner that the Hungarian characteristic were not lost either. This was the way the Hungarians claiming their origins from Emese, the legendary ancestress, became a Hungary, a country of the Blessed Virgin, Mary.
The agenda of the committee meeting suggests to me that in the following couple of days, besides the work you ought to do, you will have some possibilities to see some sites in Hungary and make a decision on what our country does for the preservation of her cultural heritage. I hope that your experiences will be satisfactory from the professional aspect, and at the same time these excursions will enable pleasant relaxation after hard work.
Until then, despite the high heat waves outside, I wish wise and successful discussions for all participants."
"Mr. Chairman, Mr. Director, Members of the Committee, dear guests,5. Mr Henrik Lilius, the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee presented the following speech:I am very pleased to welcome you in Budapest on the occasion of this extraordinarily important meeting.
I was asked to pass you greetings from the Government of the Republic of Hungary.
It is a great honour for us to welcome you here.
We hope that we could effectively contribute to the success and the results of the work you perform whilst staying with us.We also hope that despite the workload you undertook you may have the possibility to better understand the cultural and natural values of Hungary, our hospitality, objectives and enforcements.
Meanwhile, in addition to bringing you the greetings from our Government I have another and extremely important mission. When it has became known that in my capacity as the minister of environment protection and water management affairs I might address you, I received several telephone calls. Many of my environment and nature conservationist friends and colleagues called me. They asked me to tell you that your presence in Budapest is not only a joyful occasion but even a real festivity. We deem the possibility of hosting you here as an honour and an encouragement.
I was asked to tell you that the Hungarians - the simple citizens feeling responsibility for the common cultural treasures of the world as well as the internationally esteemed experts, governmental people, civil activists - consider you as important allies, allies from whom we have learned a lot, and will learn more in the future. Since the common cultural treasures and natural values of mankind can be preserved together, in the frames of an alliance, it is true in Hungary as well as in any other parts of the world.
Hungarian environment and nature conservationists asked me to make another important point. They would like me to let you know that we Hungarians deem co-operation as the most important factor in the preservation of our cultural and natural heritage.
It is very obvious that we must co-operate with persons of particular localities and their local governments, national authorities, governmental and non-governmental organisations. We Hungarians have already understood that we have to co-operate on regional or on global level.
Let me give you an example: more than 90% of the subsurface waters in Hungary come from across the borders. The conclusion we arrived at on that basis is that the protection of our waters, and in general conservation of the Hungarian environment and nature could really be efficient only if we co-operate with our neighbours.
What is more, we seek regional or international co-operation. Because of our geographical circumstances and history, we were among the first ones to understand the truth in the "think globally, act locally" principle.
That fact that co-operation for us is not only a word but rather a daily routine cannot be better evidenced than by our co-operations with Slovakia and Austria concerning the Aggtelek-Slovak Karsts, and Ferto Lake.
Also, in the framework of international co-operation we try to make the protection of our newest National Park, the þrség National Park inaugurated at the beginning of the year, more comprehensive.
We Hungarians agree that the conservation of the cultural and natural treasures is a joint responsibility of mankind. The term "joint responsibility", however, could be interpreted in two ways.
The first one is a seductive interpretation. It says that a small country could do just a little for the preservation of the global cultural and natural heritage. A small country has limited capacities, restricted interrelations and constrained room for action in any international organisation.
This is, however, not the way we interpret the issue of "joint responsibility". Instead of such a seductive one we endeavour a comprehensive and more driving interpretation. We believe that a country like ours, where in a small territory unequalled values can be found, is forced to take into consideration both of these reasons.
The first thing we must do is the preservation of the local values and (where necessary) reinstate, develop and publicise them.
The second (and this does not mean time sequence or order of importance, but coequality) is the declaration of our responsibility for the conservation of values located anywhere else in the world.
If we assent that the world would be poorer without the values to be found in our country then we should assent that we will be the lesser if the cultural heritage of mankind be damaged or washed away.
We all remember the silent astonishment when the world mourned the Buddha-statues destroyed by the Taliban. But I could give a similarly painful example much closer in space to us, we had the same feelings when the old bridge of Mostar has been shot to ruins.
It seems that when the moment of loss comes, the majority of mankind can associate itself with the feeling of joint remembrance. However, we, Hungarians would much prefer if joint rejoicing at the conservation of the values preserved could also go global.
But in order that an increasingly bigger part of mankind could feel responsible for our cultural and natural treasures and delight over their existence, these treasures should on the one hand be preserved, and on the other hand made known for the widest possible public.
Here in Hungary we are more and more aware and ready to undertake whatever is needed as part of this responsibility, and this situation has greatly added to by Hungary's joining to the World Heritage Convention in 1985.
I think that the usefulness of the Hungarian activity is well proven by the fact that we have been elected to the World Heritage Committee in 1997 and in 2001 to the Bureau. A consequence of this is that the 30th anniversary meeting is organised in Hungary.
The impact of the very precisely defined professional criteria scheme of UNESCO can more and more be perceived in Hungary. On the cultural side singularity and integrity whilst on the natural side uniqueness and intactness became the main aspects.
Knowing all this (I may easily say) our value awareness or - if you like - proudness increased, since we possess several areas belonging to the above categories.
An overview of our endowments makes me say that we have several areas that may rightfully have your attention. Meanwhile I would like to call your attention to an extremely positive development. As the minister of environment protection I can learn day by day that in Hungary there is a breakthrough in the areas of environment awareness and value conservation.
It seems that it is high time for that, since the environment destroying socialist big industry has been collapsed and then the environment friendly technologies gradually have become more popular.
In parallel with that, the recognition of the natural and cultural values gained more room. And as of today, in consequence of the great economic transformation, increased attention and sensibility, coupled with constantly widening experience as well as gradually increasing resources dedicated to value conservation are available for us.
Thus in the future we may devote outstanding attention to the efficiency of the management plans dedicated to the World Heritage sites. We intend to implement them with caring authoritative work and appropriate professional attention. We will study the foreign examples concerning the impact of gaining the world heritage nomination to the status and conditions of the given values. To what extent is the possible increase of tourism advantageous, where can the eventual adverse impacts be seen and how could they be prevented. We are going to investigate the monitoring methods and the issue of improved information exchange.
Dear guests,
I am sure that if Hungary could manage her treasures and resources properly, and rely more and more on the knowledge, experience and co- operation possibilities that are inherent in our joining the Convention, the values to be found here will become truly the heritage of the world.
There are good chances for that since we have left the turbulent period of the political and economic transformation of the system behind. Today we arrived at a position when the hard and dedicated work in the twelve-year period having passed since the collapse of the dictatorial system produced serious results.
We are committed to perform harder and more persistently until gaining membership in the EU, and also afterwards as full members.
I am sure that this work will produce its results.
In hope of the above I wish you successful discussions and - of course - pleasant enjoyments here in Hungary. I am sure that your staying here will mean not only work for you but also some relaxation and joy. I hope that you will agree that Hungary is a country of people who are proud of and taking care for her values, and, who are meanwhile hospitable, helping and cooperative.
With these expectations I wish you successful discussions."
"Your Excellencies,6. The Chairperson invited the Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Assistant Director-General for Culture, to take the floor. The speech of Mr Bouchenaki appears below:
Members of the World Heritage Committee,
Distinguished Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen,I have the great pleasure to open the 26th session of the World Heritage Committee and the task to chair the first agenda items of this Committee session. I have guided World Heritage during the past 6 month and I can truly say it was a challenge!
We have made a lot of progress for the future of World Heritage and I would like to highlight some of the major issues:
We have gone through some lively discussions during the past Committee and Bureau sessions and I would like to sincerely thank all of you who have made contributions to our common goals. The Convention is there to contribute to a better understanding of the cultural and natural diversity of the world. When I stood before you six month ago, as the new Chair of the World Heritage Committee, I stressed the importance of addressing the problem of heritage protection and conservation following my mission to Kathmandu (Nepal). Proactive measures for preventive action are more needed than ever. If the ultimate goal of heritage conservation is to improve the quality of our collective existence, and to transmit to future generations the diversity of our world, we must ensure that our work is development-oriented and constructive.
- With the last meeting of the drafting group for the revisions to the Operational Guidelines we have made a major step towards a user-friendly format of the main document, which will guide us, and all partners in World Heritage conservation. I sincerely hope that we have paved the way for the new Operational Guidelines to be adopted.
- Concerning the reform process, we have now a World Heritage Committee, which is more representative for all regions and cultures of the world with many of you having a mandate of only 4 years to leave the place for others to come. At the same time we have now with 172 States Parties a truly universally accepted instrument in heritage conservation.
- We have also worked considerably towards a more representative World Heritage List. But there is still much more to be done in this regard and the limitation to 30 sites is at the same time a period of reflection about the categories and types of heritage on the national tentative lists, the World Heritage List and of the potential we have to reveal for the future.
- We have also seen some key actions to preserve the world's heritage, among them addressing the situation with regard to the cultural and natural heritage of Afghanistan. On behalf of this Committee I attended the "International Seminar for the Rehabilitation of Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage" in Kabul, 27-29 May 2002. The report, together its conclusions and recommendations, was prepared for your review and further actions at this session of the Committee.
- We have also seen an increased demand for international assistance, in particular with a high number of cultural heritage technical and training requests from all parts of the world, so that I have to inform you that I was not able to approve all requests as the budget was limited.
Let me also say that I would like to express my sincere thanks to you for your trust and confidence in me during my chairmanship. It was a pleasure for me working with you, the Committee members, its Bureau, the States Parties and advisory bodies in the implementation of such a prestigious instrument as the World Heritage Convention. And finally, I very much appreciated the continuous commitment of UNESCO, its Director-General and the Director of the World Heritage Centre and his staff."
"Excellence, Mr Lázlo Kocsi, Secretary of State for Cultural Heritage7. The Chairperson read out the names of the organisations that had requested to attend the meeting as observers.
Excellence, Mme Maria Korodi, Minister for Environment and Hydrology
Mr Henrik Lilius, Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee
Distinguished Chairpersons of earlier sessions of the Committee
Ladies and Gentlemen, Members of the Committee and Observers
Lades and Gentlemen, Representatives of IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM,
Ladies and Gentlemen,In the name of Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO, I welcome you all to the 26th session of the World Heritage Committee.
Allow me to thank the Government of Hungary for its generosity in welcoming, here in Budapest, this session of the Committee. I feel that it is especially appropriate that this session, which marks the 30th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention and the United Nations Year of Cultural Heritage, is held in the city that symbolises the symbiosis of cultural development with the natural environment. I am sure you will agree that the cultural splendour of Budapest would not have been the same without the Danube to inspire creativity and facilitate communication between civilizations.
In thanking our Hungarian colleagues for their magnificent work in the preparation of this session, I would like to pay tribute to our dear Ferenc Nemeth, whose untimely death last year was a shock to us all. In fact, I had the pleasure of being accompanied on my last visit to Hungary for the inscription ceremony of the City of Pecs by H. E. Ambassador Fasang and Ferenc. I can still hear her jovial laugh, and her commitment to conservation will always remain with us. On behalf of my colleagues of the World Heritage Centre and myself, allow me to have a special thought for Mme Nemeth and her two daughters.
It is for the second time in less than two years that a certain number of you are here in Budapest again. It is recalled that a special session of the Bureau of the Committee for the revision of the Guidelines was organized here in September 2000.
The Director-General, who will arrive on Friday for the 30th anniversary celebrations, requested me to convey his regret that he is unable to participate in the work of the Committee. He considers this session of particular importance in the history of the Convention, because many substantial issues are on the table for discussion and your decision.
One of them is the procedure for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger. This issue is fundamental for the entire conservation process, and even for the credibility of the Convention. Following the request of the Belgian Delegation made during the Cairns session in December 2000, the UNESCO Secretariat carried out a legal analysis.
The second is the revision of the Guidelines. Thanks to excellent co-operation between the members of the new and previous Bureau, and the Centre, Sections I to V of the Guidelines, as well as their ten annexes, are now ready for your decision. This is the result of much hard work, which began two years ago during the expert meeting in Canterbury. I would like to thank the United Kingdom and its experts for the launching of this process, as well as the representatives of many States Parties for their continued support to the Secretariat throughout this exercise.
Although the revision of the Guidelines cannot be fully completed until certain points have been clarified, the Director- General would be particularly pleased to learn of the adoption of the sections already finalised. It is essential that a new version be distributed to States Parties so that they may become familiar with the new calendar, as well as the new requirements for the nominations for inscription and the requests for international assistance.
The third issue awaiting your examination and decision is that of the need or not to pursue the experiment concerning the limitation of new inscriptions to one per year by State Party. Some States Parties, particularly those among the "big" countries, in terms of size and population, with multi-ethnic and multi-religious communities, have expressed their dissatisfaction in this regard. I would therefore like the Committee to keep in mind during their deliberations on this subject, that one of the reasons that led us to make this limitation was primarily to allow the Secretariats of the Advisory Bodies and the Committee to manage the workload for which they are responsible.
In this respect, allow me to say that the limitation on the number of proposed nominations for inscription accepted each year has enabled the Secretariat to improve the technical examination process. It has also improved co-operation between IUCN, ICOMOS and the Centre, by guaranteeing correctly documented proposed nominations for inscription, with better defined protected areas, and more specific management mechanisms. Hence, I hope that a rigorous technical examination can be maintained, to the satisfaction of the States Parties.
I take this opportunity to thank the Advisory Bodies for their co- operation in this effort.
I would like to point out here that there is not one natural site proposed for inscription in this session. This poses a problem and it is evident that a particular effort is needed to reduce the imbalance between the cultural and natural sites on the World Heritage List, without, of course, going into inappropriate considerations of comparability.
In this context, the progress report on the work concerning the analysis of the World Heritage List and the national tentative lists was prepared by IUCN and ICOMOS for your consideration. UNESCO, the Centre first and foremost, will summarize this analysis study, at the regional level, taking into account the observations of the Committee regarding these studies.
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,This brings me to another important matter that requires your discussion. This is on working methods and time management. Despite the repeated call by the Committee to rationalize and reduce documents, the ever- growing demand by the Committee for studies, reviews and activities are resulting in precisely the opposite. There were 46 working documents and 23 information documents prepared for the 26th session of the Bureau held in April and for this current session of the Committee. Not only is this indigestible to the Members of the Bureau and the Committee, but it also presents an unsustainable situation for the staff of the Centre, many of whom have been obliged to work 70 hours a week, which has meant working late into the night and over the weekends.
This situation is not only for the few weeks before the Bureau and Committee but throughout the year. The volume of work in the preparation of the working documents of the Committee, has meant that the work in following-up on Committee decisions has had to be done in a shorter period of time. These follow-up activities include assistance to States Parties in the preparation of their tentative list, their nomination files and the site management plan, and in the organization of training activities and in meeting emergency situations. I would like to request that the number of agenda items be kept at a manageable level and that the Centre be provided with the human and financial resources required to meet the needs of the Committee and the growing number of assistance requests addressed to the Centre by States Parties.
The Director-General has already made great efforts to increase the human and financial resources of the Centre and is prepared to continue doing so. However, as those members of the Committee who are familiar with the UNESCO Executive Board and General Conference can attest, with a zero- growth budget and staff cost deficits to be managed, there is a limit to what the Director-General can do. This has meant more and more reliance on extra-budgetary funding to carry out the fundamental tasks of the Centre. The limited level of the World Heritage Fund and the fact that the majority of the UNESCO Regular Programme Budget to the Centre is used to finance the statutory meetings of the Convention, are putting additional pressure on the Centre to raise extrabudgetary funds. This means, practically speaking, preparing project proposals with the States Parties concerned, negotiating with donors, establishing implementation partners etcþall of which require staff time, since funds are insufficient to hire consultants.
This is clearly a situation created by the success of the Convention which now counts 172 signatories with 721 properties. But I would like to point out that there are close to 50 States Parties with no World Heritage sites. Is this because there are no sites of outstanding universal value within their territory ? It is mainly because they do not adequately understand the functioning of the Convention, and also because they lack human or financial resources to establish the laws, management plans and other prerequisites for the nomination. Some States Parties do not have adequate laws and site management plans for the successful inscription of their sites on the World Heritage List.
Partnerships and the creation of synergy with other international development co-operation agencies, both multi-lateral and bilateral, are essential if we are to really succeed in meeting the challenge of World Heritage protection.
The Director-General requests the Committee to look into how the working methods of the Committee can be improved to ensure that your own role in policy orientation, as well as the practical needs of the States Parties can be met.
The reform process initiated by the Committee more than five years ago at the 20th session held in Merida has led to a process of continual review of the working method of the Convention. First, in reviewing the working method of the Secretariat, the Committee developed guidelines on the use of the emblem, particularly in relation to fundraising activities to enable the Secretariat to move forward in relations with the private sector. The Committee also approved the overall strategy for public information, which has enabled the Secretariat to step up its contacts with the international press and media, and to assist States Parties by providing information for use in their national media.
Today, UNESCO's visibility comes in large part thanks to public and media interest in World Heritage. The UNESCO website on the World Heritage is visited by over 3 million hits and 900,000 pages are consulted every month. Both in terms of the number of press and media coverage and website visits, World Heritage is clearly in the lead over other sectors of UNESCO.
Another important task is how best the Committee and UNESCO can meet situations arising from emergencies, both human-made and natural disasters. During this year alone, UNESCO has had to respond to numerous natural disasters, such as the earthquake in Georgia impacting on Tibilisi, the hurricane in La Havana in Cuba, the fire in Lima in Peru, the floods in Goiás in Brazil, strong winds damaging the Churches of Chiloe, among others which have caused significant damages to World Heritage properties.
Continued armed conflict in different regions of the world, sadly, leads to the destruction of cultural and natural heritage. It is hardly necessary to recall that the fundamental aim of the 1972 Convention is the protection, conservation and preservation of humankind's heritage of outstanding value. Heritage of the Near and Middle East is extraordinarily rich and diverse and as we know, very many examples of this outstanding heritage are already inscribed on the List. It is from this heritage that the most significant testimonies of our history and our culture originate. It bears witness, through its exceptional variety, to the fact that this region was the cradle of extraordinary civilizations - a crossroad of peoples, cultures, languages, traditions - which produced the laws, alphabets, religions, sciences and arts that have spread throughout the entire world.
The protection and preservation of this unique heritage must be, as it is in other regions of the world, a priority in the framework of the mandate of this Committee in order to transmit to future generations the outstanding sites which we ourselves have inherited. In this region, troubled by long periods of conflict, no effort must be spared to attain this objective. The Director-General has expressed on many occasions his concern with regard to cultural heritage in the Palestinian Territories, notably during the last session of the Executive Board.
In fact, it is from the recognition of the diversity of heritage that mutual understanding and acknowledgement is borne. Heritage, in all its forms, studied and utilized, can be a vital element for dialogue, a means of paving the way towards a just and long-lasting peace.
This is echoed by the Decision of the United Nations General Assembly, which proclaimed 2002 the International Year for Cultural Heritage, and having as two major objectives: development and dialogue.
Looting of cultural properties, poaching of endangered species and their illicit traffic are adding to the damage of armed conflict. The ways and means of strengthening the implementation of the ensemble of international treaties for the protection of cultural and natural heritage need to be given direction. The Director-General himself will be sharing with you on Friday, his thoughts on the mutually supporting relationship between the World Heritage Convention and the other cultural conventions of UNESCO, including the newly adopted Convention for the protection of underwater cultural heritage, as well as the elaboration of an international legal instrument for the protection of intangible heritage.
In this regard, you will be examining later this week, the nomination of the Minaret of Jam in Afghanistan. This magnificent edifice of the 12th century has survived into our age despite the centuries of warfare and natural aggression. Helas, the loss of the Bamiyan Buddahs could not be prevented but I hope that the protection of heritage will be an integral part of the national reconstruction process. I will have the opportunity later to report to you about the recent initiatives taken by UNESCO in the protection of cultural and natural heritage in Afghanistan. I would like, once again, to thank His Excellency Mr Mohammed Raheem, Minister of Information and Culture of Afghanistan for joining us here today.
The challenge of heritage conservation in Afghanistan is indeed particular, but the problematic of heritage and development is one that is being faced in many developing countries. What is the role of heritage for the social and economic welfare of the people? How can the much needed improvement of infrastructure and economic activities be carried out without damage to the natural and cultural heritage of the country? These are the realities we face today in our daily work of heritage protection.
I trust that these and the many other issues requiring your policy elaboration and guidance can be addressed one after another. The World Heritage Convention, in 30 years of its history, has made ground-breaking contributions to conservation, at both the international and national levels. My colleagues at UNESCO and I have been privileged in supporting the efforts of the Committee in this endeavour, and we stand ready to continue serving you in the future for this great cause.
Last but not least, on behalf of the Director-General, my colleagues of the Centre, and on my own behalf, I would like to thank our friend, Mr Henrik Lilius for the tremendous work he did as Chair of the Committee over the past six months since the session in Helsinki and for the years before as Committee member. We will continue to count on you in the future.
I wish you every success in the deliberation of this important session of the Committee.
Thank you for your attention."
8. Later in the morning, the Delegate of Egypt asked the Chairperson to again read the list of those organizations and to clarify the procedure allowing observers to attend the meetings of the Committee. He recalled that organizations need to have a verifiable link with the Convention or properties inscribed on the World Heritage List.
9. The Chairperson informed the Committee that a written request for observer status was required. He then declared the list of observers adopted (decision 26 COM 1). (The list of participants is included as Annex I to the Report (list of Decisions) of the session, document WHC-02/CONF.202/25)).
2 REPORTS ON 30 YEARS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
1. This agenda item was initially scheduled for Friday 28 June 2002. Due to time constraints (see also item 26 and the debate relating to the workload during the Committee sessions), the Committee decided not to open this agenda item (decision 26 COM 2).
3 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND TIMETABLE
| Documents: | WHC-02/CONF.202/1 Rev.3 WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.1 Rev.2 |
1. The Committee noted the very heavy agenda for its session and made a number of suggestions for managing the agenda and improving its working methods.
2. The Delegate of Lebanon requested that agenda item 7 (Report of the Secretariat on the activities undertaken since the 25th session of the Committee) be examined later in the week in order to give time to the delegates to examine the document.
3. The Delegate of Belgium supported the proposal made by the Delegate of Lebanon and requested all documents, including Information Documents, notably the Report of the Secretariat (WHC- 02/CONF.202/INF.6), be made available in both working languages, English and French.
4. The Delegate of Saint Lucia requested that in the future the origin of items on the Agenda be indicated with the originator of the item (Committee or Bureau member, the Director-General of UNESCO, Secretariat etc.) shown in parentheses. She proposed to postpone discussion on Item 19 (Revision of the Rules of Procedure).
5. With reference to Item 29 (Adoption of the Report of the session), the Delegate of the United Kingdom proposed that in order to improve Committee procedures and follow-up to its decisions, the report to be adopted by the Committee should comprise only the decisions. There should be a separate summary record of the discussions circulated as an information document. This would be comparable to the practice adopted by UNESCO's Executive Board.
6. The Director of the World Heritage Centre noted that the proposal made by the Delegate of the United Kingdom had advantages and that it could be implemented starting this session. On the other hand, postponing agenda item 19 would create technical problems in his opinion and he therefore asked the Delegate of Saint Lucia to withdraw her proposal.
7. The Delegate of Saint Lucia clarified that the revision of the Rules of Procedure needed to be examined in a broader context, that other issues than those mentioned in the working document - such as the role of the Bureau - needed also to be examined. For those reasons and bearing in mind that the agenda of this Committee session had so many important items, she maintained her proposal to postpone item 19. She further warmly supported the proposal made by the Delegate of the United Kingdom concerning the presentation of the report.
8. The Delegates of Finland and China also supported the proposal made by the Delegate of the United Kingdom.
9. The Chairperson suggested maintaining agenda item 19 but to limit discussions to the ways to proceed with the revision of the Rules of Procedure, and to postpone agenda item 7 until later in the week. He then declared the agenda adopted as amended (decision 26 COM 3.1).
10. The Director of the World Heritage Centre indicated that the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee would examine the requests for international assistance once the Committee had approved the readjustments of the budget under item 24.
11. The debate on the new format of the report was resumed later that morning after agenda item 5. Having consulted the Secretariat, the newly elected Rapporteur confirmed that the Report (List of Decisions) and the Summary Record would be circulated as two separate documents. She asked the Committee, if necessary, to allow some time to adjust the format of the Summary Record. The Rapporteur suggested that draft decisions be prepared, translated and to the extent possible circulated prior to final amendment and adoption by the Committee at the end of the session. She requested that if Committee members had already prepared draft decisions, that they be provided to the Secretariat for translation and distribution in advance of the relevant agenda item.
12. The Delegate of Thailand approved this working method, recalling that the Summary Record is an information document.
13. The Delegate of Saint Lucia also supported this working method, stressing that the Report with the Committee's decisions was the most important.
14. The Delegate of India, while noting that the proposed working method could be interesting, asked that this proposition be implemented on an experimental basis. She asked for clarification on the modalities, the preparation time, the comments, the finalisation and distribution of the Summary Record.
15. The Rapporteur indicated that such clarifications would be given in due time.
16. The Delegate of Nigeria supported the proposal to focus on decisions and having a Summary Record.
17. The Delegate of India proposed that until the Committee had a clear idea on the new format of the report and its implications, it would work along the existing methods.
18. The Chairperson summarized the debate and suggested that he formulate decisions at the end of each agenda item. He recommended that the proposal of the United Kingdom be implemented by keeping the advantages of the old system whilst seeking improvements. He added that written draft decisions were welcome as they would facilitate the debate and the decision-making.
19. On the final morning of the meeting, the Rapporteur informed the Committee that, as requested by the Committee, the Report of the present session would consist of a complete set of decisions, including those taken that morning. A first draft of the Summary Record would be distributed at the end of the session; due to the fact that the last working session was held on that same morning, it would only be a preliminary and incomplete draft. She then invited the Committee to comment on the two draft decisions 26 COM 3.2 and 26 COM 3.3 that had been circulated, the latter containing details related to the procedures for finalizing both documents.
20. The Delegate of Lebanon questioned whether it would not be more appropriate to delete 'to the extent possible' in the first paragraph of draft decision 26 COM 3.2.
21. The Chairperson noted that it was understood that when closing an agenda item, a formal decision was required.
22. The Delegate of the United Kingdom asked to add "for correction of their own interventions" in paragraph 3 of draft decision 26 COM 3.3.
23. The Delegate of India again requested that the new reporting be adopted on an experimental basis. She questioned whether corrections to the Summary Record should be limited to one's own interventions only.
24. The Delegate of Lebanon noted that the Committee had already taken a decision and that the debate should not be reopened at this stage.
25. The Delegate of Saint Lucia recalled that the Summary Record was for information and that the proposed working method was the same as for the Executive Board of UNESCO where Delegates could only correct their own statements.
26. The Delegate of India thought that a decision on this matter had not yet been adopted. In her opinion, the working methods of the Committee were different from those of the Executive Board of UNESCO. She emphasized that summaries of the debates were important for administrations and site managers in the countries. Good reporting procedures were important, she noted.
27. The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had agreed upon the new format for the report on an experimental basis.
28. The Observer of Australia asked that paragraph 3 of draft decision 26 COM 3.3. be amended to include the Observers.
29. The Delegate of Nigeria supported this proposal while expressing concern whether this would be manageable.
30. The Delegate of Saint Lucia noted, with a view to keeping procedures simple and manageable, that translation at each stage of the procedure, before the Summary Record was complete, was not necessary.
31. The Delegate of the United Kingdom asked whether the Summary Record could be published in less than three months.
32. To those who were concerned by possible delays in finalizing the Summary Record, the Rapporteur recalled that this was due to the fact that the session was extended to Saturday morning. If there were good reasons for continuing the work on Friday and Saturday, the Committee had to understand that this had implications for the preparation of the Report and the Summary Record.
33. The Delegate of Lebanon proposed to adopt the draft decision with the amendments of the United Kingdom and Australia.
34. The Delegates of Thailand and Nigeria agreed.
35. The Delegate of India said she was not opposed to the draft decisions but noted that the Rapporteur had informed the Committee on issues needing further reflection. In her opinion the procedures were not entirely clear and thus she emphasized that the system could only be implemented on an experimental basis. The Summary Record would be of limited use if it would only be available six months after the meeting.
36. The Secretariat informed the Committee that it might not be possible to publish the Summary Record in less than three months, given the (summer) holidays. According to the Secretariat, as the Summary Record was not finalized during the session due to time constraints, the work would have to be completed by the Secretariat and translators on their return to Paris. The Secretariat indicated that there would be some time management and human resource implications as this work was usually completed during the Committee session. The Secretariat indicated that as the complete draft of the Summary Record could not be provided at the session, they would do their best to dispatch a copy of the completed document to participants so they have the opportunity to check their interventions. The Secretariat indicated that the clear decisions adopted by the Committee would greatly assist the Secretariat in ensuring appropriate follow-up to each decision and expressed their commitment to improving the working methods of the Committee.
37. The Delegate of the United Kingdom commended the Secretariat for its efforts to implement the new format starting this session, acknowledging that some difficulties were inherent to any change. He was confident however that the new format would improve efficiency of the Committee's and Secretariat's work, for the benefit of all concerned by the Convention.
38. The Delegate of India expressed her concerns following the intervention of the Secretariat, notably concerning the remark about the human resources. She insisted that the Summary Record should have been available at the end of the session.
39. The Rapporteur drew again the attention of the Committee members to the fact that all agenda items had led to substantial debates, notably item 12 (policy and legal issues), 21 (state of conservation reports) and 23 (new nominations) and the Committee had also extended the session with meetings on Friday afternoon and Saturday morning which had never happened in the past. She noted it was unreasonable to expect in those circumstances that a complete Summary Record would be distributed in two languages only some hours later; she asked the Committee to understand this. She added that thanks to the new format of the Report, there would be no problem to submit the complete list of decisions for adoption by the Committee later that day.
40. The Delegate of India declared that she would join the consensus.
41. The Chairperson declared draft decisions decision 26 COM 3.2 and decision 3.3 adopted, the latter with the amendments proposed by the Delegate of the United Kingdom and the Observer of Australia. He suggested that the deadline for checking the interventions of the Summary Record would be 10 days maximum.
42. Following the adoption of the decisions, the Delegate of India expressed her reservation.
43. During the adoption of the report (item 29) it was agreed that the decision should specify that the Summary Record would be provided "for information".
4 ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON, VICE-CHAIRPERSONS AND RAPPORTEUR
Document: WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.3
1. The Chairperson invited the Committee members to nominate a new Chairperson.
2. The Delegate of Egypt, on behalf of the Committee, thanked Mr Henrik Lilius (Finland), the outgoing Chairperson for his commitment and his contribution to the work of the Committee. He then proposed Mr Tamás Fejérdy (Hungary, Director of the State office for Cultural Heritage) as new Chairperson. Mr Fejérdy, he recalled, has an extensive record in cultural heritage conservation and is experienced in international work, including at the Council of Europe and UNESCO.
3. The Delegates of Korea, Finland, Greece, South Africa, Nigeria and the Russian Federation supported his proposal.
4. The Chairperson further invited the Committee to designate a new Rapporteur.
5. The Delegate of Zimbabwe commended the work of the outgoing Rapporteur, Mr Lopez Morales (Mexico) and proposed that Ms Bénédicte Selfslagh (Belgium, Heritage Division of the Walloon Region, Chair of the Steering Committee for the Cultural Heritage of the Council of Europe) be his successor. Ms Selfslagh is well known for her contributions to the work of the Committee and would be committed to implement the new format of the report as proposed by the Delegate of the United Kingdom.
6. The Delegates of Saint Lucia, Lebanon and Argentina supported this proposal.
7. The Chairperson then invited the Committee to elect five Bureau members.
8. The following nominations were made: China as proposed by the Delegate of Thailand, Greece as proposed by the Delegate of Mexico, South Africa as proposed by the Delegate of Nigeria, Egypt as proposed by the Delegate of Oman and Mexico as proposed by the Delegate of Saint Lucia.
9. The Chairperson noted the consensus and declared the new Bureau elected (decision 26 COM 4).
10. The newly-elected Chairperson then delivered the following speech.
"Excellencies
Honourable delegates of the World Heritage Committee,
Ladies and Gentlemen,It is an exceptional privilege for me to chair, in the name of my country, Hungary, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Thank you for the support and confidence with which you have honoured me in entrusting these functions to me for a period of one year. It is a mission to be accomplished and I will do my utmost to do so in accordance with its importance. Naturally, I will do my best and will devote all my energy and efforts to rise to the occasion and assume this heavy responsibility.
To continue the words of welcome and thanks, allow me to address a few words to Professor Henrik Lilius, my predecessor to the role of Chairperson. I would like to express my compliments and sincere thanks for the work and the task that he has accomplished with as much scientific rigour as precision focused on efficacy which is reflected by the results. In comparison to previous Chairpersons' mandates and those that will follow that of Mr Henrik Lilius, the length of his Chairmanship was only half of that of the other mandates. However, we all know very well that that shortened Chairmanship period, due to the modification in the annual work cycle of the Committee, was of great importance in the life of the World Heritage Committee. Professor Lilius, may I also thank you personally for your work. You have succeeded in significantly promoting numerous strategic processes which have greatly facilitated the work of the next Chairperson.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a very special pleasure for me to welcome you in the year of the 30th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention. I fully realize the large number and importance of the tasks for which we are responsible; we are together here to work. All the same, the 30th anniversary of the Convention, like the anniversary of an adult, should not go by unacknowledged. Thirty years is the period of a whole generation, "the age of man" - as the Hungarians say. It is over just such a period that successive generations -- grandfather-son-grandchild -- evoke the continuity of the transmission of life and all that is linked to it, including culture and heritage.
Thirty years of the Convention has proved and continues to prove today its actuality; it has gone even further, it has visibly flourished both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The application of the Convention, the fundamental objectives of which are based on the protection of humankind's cultural and natural sites, also highlights the wealth, breadth, the fantastic extent and depth of these properties. They reveal marvels that some of us suspected even before the mirror of World Heritage had identified them.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The wealth and diversity of world heritage, the successive emergence of new 'types' and the enthusiasm that impregnates the tentative lists of properties should not distract us from the fragility and vulnerability, sometimes tragic or moving, of these properties and of the special and universal responsibility entrusted to States Parties, signatories of the Convention. Working to know the sites, so as to better recognize their World Heritage values is marvellous, but one must never forget that the protection and preservation of these sites for the future generations is a primordial task.
Alas! There are more than enough to preserve and conserve!
It is not only natural disasters, difficult or impossible to avoid, that threaten these sites common to all humankind. The macro-economic mechanisms and economic processes do not take into account the principles of sustainable development. The so-called development programmes, the aims of which are the relentless exploitation of values, and which reflect a short-term philosophy totally lacking in professional competenceþ poverty, profit seeking and negligence -- all harbour the seeds of decline. And we have not yet spoken of deliberate destruction, acts of vandalism, as inconceivable as it may seem, but real. Sadly, studies concerning the state of conservation of World Heritage sites, regularly discussed during the annual Committee sessions, provide us with many examples.
A more rigorous management of the state of the World Heritage sites could be one of the more urgent tasks demanding decisions which would open new perspectives for the future period in this millennium.
According to the original philosophy of the Convention, the strength of the Convention emanates from the fact that the States Parties assume a common responsibility with the State Party whose site is in danger. If that desire to preserve the values had more margin for manoeuvre and means, better co-operation or assistance could be achieved, which would of course, be characterised in each of the cases by the solidarity of equal partners.
Furthermore, - and this does not only concern sites in danger - means for the management of World Heritage sites respecting the principle of sustainable development must be found. In this field, the programmes that take into account the large-scale co-operation of partners will have a more important role and the elaboration of principles and relevant fields of application can no longer be deferred.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Although the agenda of our meeting is very heavy, I am not sorry that the documents of a strategic and decisive nature for the future of the Convention are being discussed here in Budapest. I hope that we will adopt some of them, but at least some will be prepared and ready for adoption at the next Committee meeting.
Budapest, the host city of this meeting, also has a World Heritage site, of which it is very proud. It was the first site that the Committee inscribed on the List in 1987 following the adhesion of Hungary to the Convention, in 1985. I hope that in spite of the heavy workload you will have a little time to discover the beauties and value of this city. In any event, you will certainly share my opinion in saying that Budapest, as all historic cities, is a living example of the integrated synergy of tangible and intangible heritage, and the interaction of all these elements that it presents to us in all the layers of its past, present and future. Pest, Buda, and Obuda are historic sites whose origins go back to olden days but which at the same time had a brilliant although somewhat turbulent history from the Middle Ages to modern times. Budapest, as you see it today, this metropolis on the two banks of the majestic Danube, historically speaking is a young city of just 130 years. I would say that this ambiguity, viewed from the world heritage perspective is symbolic, it is the symbol of the younger generation that will have to be responsible for the preservation and the development of the heritage. It is "in the hands of the youth" that the heritage becomes the best means of knowing oneself and mutually understanding each other.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The message of the spirit and the application of the World Heritage Convention and the primary task which derives from it indicates that the preservation of sites is indispensable, and especially for the individuals and the communities who have created and preserved them, so that these sites and wealth may contribute, in their turn, to the creation of other sites and other communities who will encourage improvement in the quality of life.
In conclusion, following these thoughts, I promise to accomplish the tasks of Chairperson with great zeal and perseverance, in the service of this eminent Committee and the World Heritage Convention. If the implementation of the objectives of the Convention, as much the quantitative as qualitative aspect is more especially the responsibility of the Committee, it is also so that, and I am certain, the Chairperson of the Committee can always count upon your co-operation and assistance to promote our cause. May I also say that I depend upon you and thank you in advance for your support."
5 REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR ON THE 26TH SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Document: WHC-02/CONF.202/2
1. The outgoing Rapporteur, Mr Francisco Javier Lopez Morales (Mexico),
presented the Report of the 26th session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee, of which the Committee took note (decision 26 COM 5).
2. The Secretariat recalled that interpretation was provided from Spanish into the two working languages thanks to the generous support of the Spanish authorities.
6 PROTECTION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE IN THE PALESTINIAN
TERRITORIES
| Documents: | WHC-02/CONF.202/3 WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.16 |
2. The Chairperson then invited the Observers of Israel and Palestine to make a statement if they so wished to do.
3. The statement made by Mr Michael Turner, Observer of Israel appears below:
"... In the first part and looking at the Item 6 of the Agenda, I would like to congratulate the Committee for the changes which have been introduced since the Bureau Meeting in April, and the recent developments which have taken place. They do reflect the results of an understanding of what really happened at the Church of the Holy Nativity. They allow us to have a little more perspective, and I would like to thank specifically our Chairman and the Delegate of Greece for their efforts and their understanding in trying to reach a consensus among the Committee members. But unfortunately, I have to make three reservations.4. The Observer of Palestine, Mr Ahmad Abdelrazek then made the following statement:
It feels very much like the situation former Prime Minister Ehud Barak must have been in at the final discussion with Chairman Arafat and President Clinton - almost getting there and suddenly finding the solution not clinched; these changes might deal with packaging, but Israel considers them very important, though not necessarily affecting the content on cultural heritage which we support and respect.
- The first paragraph "recalls all the United Nations resolutions". Like all of us, I must admit I am not really able to recall all the U.N. resolutions so I find great difficulty in accepting them! We should concentrate and relate specifically to those resolutions which are indicated and that relate to the issues of cultural heritage.
- In the note taken of the Executive Board decision, the paragraph on "deplore the destruction and damage caused to the cultural heritage in our region" should be deleted.
- The resolution refers to "Palestine", and on this point we have to relate to the Palestinian Authority or the Palestinian Territories. We all hope that there will be two States very soon, but, till then, it creates a misnomer in the present situation.
I would like to add a quotation from the letter which was sent on the 22 April 2002 by our Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mr Shimon Peres, to Mr Matsuura, the Director-General of UNESCO in relating to the events which were taking place at the time of the siege of the Church of the Nativity:
"On its part, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has made every effort to safeguard this important Christian site and has refrained from entering the Church by force, seeking to resolve the issue through a compromise, with a view to protecting both the site and the clerics in it. Moreover, I was personally involved with seeking a solution, (and was already in touch with the Vatican to this effect). Israel has been careful to avoid, as far as possible, damage to the property and innocent individuals, as a matter of policy, especially in populated areas, at the cost of a high casualty rate among its forces. I would like to reassure you, Dear Mr. Matsuura, that Israel is very conscious of how important it is to protect and preserve monuments of cultural and religious value, for the benefit of generations to come."This is the point where I would like to move on to the second part and perhaps change hats, and here I am having to look at the final draft proposal for the first time like you all.
Please move down to the penultimate paragraph "Appeals the concerned parties to co-operate with the Director-General þþ". Well, I would like to say that I'm here, you don't have to appeal to a lot of people because I'm here, I have been here with you for two years and I stand up before you. Now, I would also like you to recognize our colleague, the Palestinian Observer. I think we can all relate to something which is missing, and basically missing, in this document. My basic approach as the Chairman of the Israel World Heritage Committee, and it might be a difficult thing to say, is that we cannot change our past but we can change our future. We, in the field of cultural heritage, have this amazing capability of being able to learn from that past, because when we start arguing about that past and at what point we start the accounting, we will only create problems for ourselves. What is missing in my mind, and I would like to add this in my support of a resolution, which I expect to be annexed with the approval of the Chair, are the two words - that of courage and that of co-operation.
On the next item of the agenda, we are going to speak about 'partnerships', and for those of you who know, I have been trying at many times to contribute as an observer to move forward with ideas of partnership. This is because cultural heritage is the consensus and not the casus belli. It is the sharing and harmonisation of ideas because what we are looking for is the poetry of place as these become the Epochs of History. They are the celebration of discoveries, the manifestation of ideas, ideals and beliefs all intertwined into the physical fabric of monuments and sites. Francis Bacon wrote that these monuments were the shipwrecks of time and I think that therefore we should be looking at world sites in national heritage and not the national sites in world heritage. This is the meaning that asks us then to re-establish and re-look at what we are doing as States Parties and individuals.
I have spoken about courage, because I honestly feel that it is at the time of difficulty when we need courage - this is where we need the co- operation. At times when things are going well, I don't need that courage - I can do quite well, thank you very much! And this is the time when I'm asking you, members of the World Heritage Committee here in Budapest, to actively generate those actual projects of partnership. Now I believe that co-operation is going to be very important and therefore I would like to relate to the paragraph calling "for consultation with the Chairman of the Committee". I would like to commend and extend this wording to the "parties concerned" because by moving into the consultation with the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee, it brings the dialogue within the realm of professionalism and academia of the World Heritage. I think in this way that we are going to move forward and reflect the spirit of the D-G note 02/13 of 31 May 2002 on the UNESCO Contribution to Reconstruction and Reconciliation in the Middle East.
So let me then say what I have been doing since the Bureau Meeting in April - although perhaps my wife and bank manager have not been too happy about my orphaned office. What I have been doing is to try and find those projects which bring us together within those Epochs of History. There are three activities which the Committee is supportive of us in Israel. The first one is the "Experts Meeting on the Great Rift Valley". This really is an Epoch of History both natural and cultural - I have called it "Bridging the Rift" because it shows the natural and cultural heritage movement from Africa with the hominid sites continuing through the Fertile Crescent linking the empires of the Pharaohs and Meroe in Greater Egypt and the Axumite Empire in Ethiopia to the Greek/Persian Empires and the Roman Mediterranean - Mare Nostrum - which we all share through the writing of Fernand Braudel. But it is also the cradle of the three monotheistic religions and the concept of peace.
Therefore this first project is, in fact, the spirit of what we are saying - it is the courage needed; not "oh, we can't do it now". I would like to hear from everybody in this room "we can do it now", and at that Experts Meeting in October this year I personally invite the representatives of all neighbours to come along and join us to deal with what I believe is the most incredible thematic and serial nomination of the World.
And the second activity which I want to discuss, which came to me because of the problem of the Church of the Nativity, are the sites of Christianity. The sites of 'Jesus and the Apostles' appear in the Tentative List of the State of Israel. These are obviously only the sites within our territory. We have had a proposal by the Delegate of Greece and the Delegate of Saudi Arabia at the Executive Board of UNESCO, to inscribe the Church of the Nativity on the World Heritage List in Danger!!! I find this quite amazing because I believe we should be doing something positive and not just looking at dangers. I discovered that Christianity, as an Epoch in History, does not appear on the World Heritage List. [Please will those friends and colleagues from the East excuse me in that I will relate to the perspectives of the part of the world I understand.] And so, therefore, for our next proposal, and this is being discussed in gentle discussion and with the Delegates of Greece and of the Holy See, I call upon you to join all the relevant countries together to begin to understand what really is World Heritage. These are those Epochs of History - the cultural roots, the meanings, the beliefs, the ideals - in essence "criterion (vi)". In this way we will be able to bring together not just the Church of the Nativity but the Desert Monasteries of Byzantium, those incredible monasteries in the Judean Desert which are something very special, the Jewish Synagogues of the Hebron Hills and Jericho together with the Ommayad Palaces and the Palestinian Arab Hill Villages. Truly becoming the Cultural Heritage of our common geo-cultural region.
The third and last project which I want to mention is the support we need for a proposal put together at the School of Architecture of the Bezalel Academy, where I teach in Jerusalem, with a parallel proposal, which was prepared at the same time when the political weather was a little better, at the Al Quds University, to generate a dialogue of discussion in the studies of urban design and conservation. These activities have been supported by the Department of Cultural Heritage at UNESCO and ICCROM and they have unfortunately been cut off. Where is the courage? They were not cut off by myself. Once again we are looking for this courage so that these three projects move ahead positively at the first opportunity and in spite of everything.
If we want to share them we can then move ahead in peace, and if we honestly believe that cultural heritage is that point of consensus to which we are coming together in this, the 30th year of the Convention in our Budapest Declaration, then I think that we will be able to bring together the spirits of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, and to peace.
Thank you."
"Mr Chairperson,5. Following their interventions, the World Heritage Committee agreed upon the proposal of the Chairperson to include both statements in extenso in the Summary Record (decision 26 COM 6.3).First and foremost, I wish to thank you all, those who have worked on this consensus text and who have worked very hard during three days to achieve a positive spirit and a constructive text, and I hope that this will be an example to follow in the future.
I would first like to say that I very much appreciate Mr Michael Turner, as a person. I have known him for several years; he is a man of peace, a constructive man, in fact he is always very cooperative - and I appreciate his proposals. But, unfortunately, listening to him, I have the impression that there, where he lives, in Tel Aviv, he is light-years away from Naplouse, Bethlehem and Hebron, because apparently he has not seen, or has not managed to see, or does not want to see, what is really happening. And, sadly, I cannot fail to mention this because you all know, you have all seen the pictures, the reports of the massive destruction. Historic monuments are damaged, and sometimes destroyed, cultural activity centers have been bombed following the re-occupation by the Israeli army of the Palestinian Territories.
We have tried not to bring this picture into our discussions here, but the fact that the Representative of Israel has made little of the sufferings of the Palestinian people has obliged me to recall this fact, because it was an act of a government official of a recognized country and member of the United Nations, and it is normal that the World Heritage Committee be alarmed, and express its disapproval and I thank the Committee for recognizing the Palestinian cultural heritage, and for its interest in safeguarding it, as this heritage does not only belong to the Palestinians.
This heritage belongs to 2/3 of humanity because Palestine has always been a melting pot and passage of civilizations and religions. And, furthermore, most of you have a link somewhere somehow with this land. So as not to make my intervention too lengthy, I would say that we have always called for co-operation; but to cooperate, there must be mutual respect. From the moment one recognizes that the other exists as an equal to oneself, co-operation becomes possible. As you know, until today, as I am talking to you, all the Palestinian towns are occupied by the Israeli tanks. In spite of this situation, in spite of the suffering, our vision is always directed towards the future and we hope that this will be a constructive future; we always have the hand stretched out towards the Israeli people for co-operation, but in respect and dignity; the relationship between a master and a slave cannot be called co-operation. It is not possible. So, when you see more clearly, we have the hand stretched out, and once again I call upon the Representative of the State of Israel to co-operate with the Committee for the future and for construction.
And why was there an appeal to the Director-General for co-operation, since, let me remind you, until now and for three years, Israel has refused all the emissaries sent by the Director-General. One cannot say 'I am here, I am ready to co-operate', and at the same time, officially, refuse that co-operation.
With the Director-General - it is recorded by the Executive Board - this request has been reiterated several times by the Executive Board and by the General Conference. So, one cannot simply utter words of peace and co-operation without being really sincere. But we, we repeat, in spite of all sufferings, in spite of this tragic situation, we are ready, for the future of our children, and for the good of humanity, and especially for World Heritage, to cooperate together with the Committee to succeed in the task of safeguarding the heritage of humankind.
Thank you."
Document: WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.6
1. According to decision decision 26 COM 3.1, this agenda item was scheduled later in the week. Due to time constraints (see also the debate relating to items 26, 27 and the workload during the Committee sessions), the Committee decided to defer the discussion of this agenda item to its next ordinary session in 2003 (decision 26 COM 7).
8 PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PREPARATION OF THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF
THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
Document: WHC-02/CONF.202/4
Part I - International Congress "World Heritage 2002: Shared Legacy, Common Responsibility"
1. Support for the Congress, a major event amongst others organized within the framework of the 30th anniversary, was expressed by all speakers who noted the progress made in its preparation. The Delegates of Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Mexico, Oman and Zimbabwe stressed the importance of the event as it is an opportunity to give visibility to the World Heritage Convention, through media involvement, thus reinforcing aspects of its implementation and encouraging the involvement of a growing number of World Heritage actors. It was also noted that the technical workshops organized prior to the Congress could lead to interesting results.
2. Some delegates (Argentina, Belgium, South Africa, Greece) requested clarification on the following issues:
- The participation of representatives of States Parties in the
International Congress;
- The role of the Committee if it was to participate in the
International Congress;
- The objectives of the Congress;
- The status of the proceedings prepared as a result of the Congress
and how the results of the Congress could be transmitted to the
Committee;
- The participation of governmental experts in the workshops.
4. The Delegate of Greece noted that in the context of a category IV meeting, the Committee could not participate as such in the International Congress nor approve its objectives. She thus asked for clarification by the Legal Advisor.
5. The Legal Adviser clarified that, in the context of a Category IV meeting, participants could be invited to attend directly; representatives of Government bodies, National Commissions or learned societies, however, would all participate in their personal capacity. Therefore, it would not be possible for the Committee to participate as an intergovernmental body. Members of the Committee could, however, attend in their personal capacity.
6. Furthermore, the Secretariat confirmed that the proceedings of the International Congress could be presented by the Director-General to the Committee, for it to decide on any appropriate action it may wish to take once the results were examined. The Committee would however not be obliged to take the results of the International Congress into consideration.
7. The Delegate of Colombia thanked the Italian Government for taking this initiative. She asked the Secretariat to consult the Committee in the future on such events.
8. The Delegate of Saint Lucia supported the previous speaker. Considering that it was a major opportunity, the Committee should thank the Italian authorities for offering to host and participate in the funding of the Congress. The Committee should formally authorize the use of the World Heritage Emblem for the Congress and take note of its objectives. Finally, the Committee should invite the Director-General to submit at an initial stage for the Committee's approval both the programme of such events and the request for the use of the World Heritage Emblem.
9. Following this debate, the Delegate of the United Kingdom proposed that the key elements suggested by the Delegate of Saint Lucia be reflected in the Committee's decision.
10. The Chairperson integrated these suggestions in his conclusions and his proposed draft decision was adopted by the Committee ( decision 26 COM 8.1).
11. The Observer of Italy expressed his satisfaction that the Committee had overcome some reservations related to the form and content of the Congress. He assured the Committee of the commitment of his Government, the Veneto Region and the town of Venice that the Congress would have a rigorous scientific profile and be highly visible.
Part II - List of events co-organized or supported by UNESCO
1. The Delegates of Argentina, Chile, Korea and Mexico provided information about initiatives being implemented in their countries during the 30th Anniversary year.
2. The Delegate of Saint Lucia asked for information on the type of financial assistance, if any, that could be made available for activities to promote the Convention in the regions and States Parties.
3. The Delegate of India stressed the importance of encouraging and supporting regional initiatives.
4. The Delegate of Korea stressed the importance of consultation with the Committee and different sectors within UNESCO.
5. The conclusions of the debate as proposed by the Chairperson were adopted (decision 26 COM 8.2).
Part III - Publication project to mark the 30th Anniversary of the
World Heritage Convention
1. Several delegates (Belgium, Colombia, Egypt, Greece, India, Lebanon, Mexico, Saint Lucia, Thailand and Zimbabwe) took the floor on this part of the document to raise issues relating to the content of the publication, its format, target group, schedule for its preparation and its funding.
2. The Delegates of Egypt and Thailand asked for clarification on the linkages it would have with the International Congress, World Heritage 2002: Shared Heritage, Common Responsibility. The Delegate of Egypt referred to the need to ensure that no overlaps were created between the Congress proceedings and a publication for the 30th Anniversary of the Convention.
3. Several delegates (Belgium, Saint Lucia, Thailand and Zimbabwe) stated that if the publication was linked to the International Congress, its funding should be provided by the organizers of the Congress. If not, the Committee had to consider, during the discussion on the budget, whether this was a priority.
4. The Delegate of Greece underlined the importance of the preparatory work for any publication and the implication in terms of human resources.
5. The Secretariat confirmed that this publication was not intended to duplicate the work of the International Congress and that it was to address a wide audience of readers interested in the main issues of heritage conservation. The Secretariat further specified that additional funding would be required to develop and implement this project and that this would be done in close collaboration with the Advisory Bodies.
6. The Chairperson summarized the debate and his proposed draft decision was adopted by the Committee (decision 26 COM 8.3).
7. During the adoption of the report (item 29) it was agreed that the decision should specify that the funding sources to be identified for the publication should be "extrabudgetary".
9 BUDAPEST DECLARATION ON WORLD HERITAGE
Document: WHC-02/CONF.202/5
1. The Chairperson explained that the Bureau at its 26th session (April 2002) had prepared a draft version of the Budapest Declaration for World Heritage. He affirmed that the best way to proceed, in order for the Committee to adopt the Declaration, would be to create an open- ended working group entrusted with the final drafting of the Declaration. The Committee agreed with this proposal.
2. The Delegate of the United Kingdom suggested that the working group be requested to prepare a concise but strong declaration, focusing on a limited number of key issues.
3. The Chairperson agreed and noted also the support of the Delegates of Nigeria and India for this proposal.
4. At the invitation of the Chairperson, the working group was chaired by the former Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Henrik Lilius. The following delegates and observers contributed to its work: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Egypt, France, India, Israel, Lebanon, Netherlands, Nigeria, Santa Lucia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom and the Advisory Bodies.
5. A new draft of the Budapest Declaration prepared by the working group, was circulated on Friday morning, 28 June and the Chairperson asked whether the Delegates had any comments.
6. The Delegate of Thailand asked to use the full title of the Convention in paragraph 3.1.
7. The Delegate of Lebanon recommended not to repeat endlessly "universal exceptional value".
8. Noting the consensus, the Chairperson declared the Declaration of Budapest adopted with the suggested amendments (decision 26 COM 9). He stated that this was a major contribution to the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention.
9. Later that morning, as part of the celebratory events for the 30th Anniversary of the World Heritage Convention, the Chairperson warmly welcomed the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Koïchiro Matsuura and invited him to address the World Heritage Committee. The Director- General's speech appears below:
"Your Excellency, Mr Lászlo Mandur (Deputy Speaker of the Parliament),10. The Chairperson then invited Mr Lázlo Mandur, representative of the Hungarian government (Deputy Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament) to address the Committee. The text of Mr Mandur's speech appears below:
Mr Tamás Fejérdy (Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee),
Members of the World Heritage Committee,
Distinguished former Chairpersons of the World Heritage Committee,
Representatives of the Advisory Bodies (ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN),
Ladies and Gentlemen,I am very pleased to be with you today and to have this opportunity to address you. I trust that you have all had a productive week of work. I would like to thank all of you for your dedication.
We are gathered to mark and celebrate the 30th anniversary of what is probably UNESCO's most successful convention - the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. This celebration is also taking place in the context of the United Nations Year of Cultural Heritage (2002), for which UNESCO has been designated the lead agency by the UN General Assembly in order to mobilize and coordinate activities around the world.
The Convention is now being implemented almost universally, with 172 signatory countries and the inclusion of more than 730 sites on the World Heritage List. I would like to sincerely thank all States Parties to the Convention, the Advisory Bodies to the Committee (ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM) and the many organizations and individuals around the world who have made a significant contribution to this global movement for World Heritage conservation begun 30 years ago.
Here in Hungary, the World Heritage Convention is being celebrated with this important 30th anniversary session of the World Heritage Committee. The number of remarkable World Heritage sites here pays tribute to the implementation of the Convention in this country. Indeed, the venue for our meeting, so generously hosted by Hungary, is in fact a World Heritage site. I also offer my sincere congratulations to our Hungarian hosts for your successful organization of this meeting and my thanks for your kind hospitality. In this regard, I extend my special thanks to Madam Szili, the Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament.
At this point, I would like to warmly congratulate Mr Tamás Fejérdy of Hungary on his election as the new Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee. Having been a former Chairperson of the Committee myself, I understand the special honour and responsibility conferred by this international role.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is important that we place the World Heritage Convention in the context of UNESCO's unique responsibility within the UN system for the totality of culture and cultural heritage. Therefore, it is incumbent upon UNESCO to make sense of the totality, to draw connections between key developments in the sphere of culture, and to promote the safeguarding of all aspects of tangible and intangible heritage.
Today, we are being invited to reflect upon what we have traditionally done regarding heritage and what are the needs of the future. Currently, we find ourselves in the midst of a transition. We must re-position ourselves and find our way forward. In the brief exploration that follows, I shall focus on certain key aspects of the Convention and emphasize the importance of meeting fresh challenges.
In regard to the 1972 Convention itself, key questions arise concerning how we can ensure that the World Heritage List is credible and that the designation of a site as 'World Heritage' is meaningful in terms of its future management and protection. The credibility of the List depends very much on achieving a delicate balance. The List must be maintained as a select global inventory of heritage properties of 'outstanding universal value', as described in the Convention. At the same time, we should try to build, to the extent possible, a List that is balanced and representative of the different geo-cultural regions. It should also express the diversity of types of cultural and natural heritage.
Some criticize the List as being too elitist while others say that the List is growing too large! The real task, however, is to ensure that the List is more than just an honour list. Sites should be awarded World Heritage status for a reason. They must be guaranteed of protection to the highest possible standards, with assistance being provided from the international community as required.
The Convention provides the Committee with a number of mechanisms to ensure the protection of World Heritage sites under threat, namely, the List of World Heritage in Danger and the possible deletion of sites from the World Heritage List. I believe that more could be done to use these mechanisms to their full potential. After all, some sites have been on the List of World Heritage in Danger for decades without receiving the special attention they deserve. I therefore urge you to make full use of the protective capacity of the World Heritage Convention in this regard.
Our primary partners in our collective work to protect World Heritage are, of course, the States Parties to the Convention. I therefore call on you all to ensure World Heritage properties become examples of effective management and conservation. It is your responsibility to ensure that World Heritage properties do not suffer either direct or indirect damage.
In addition to States Parties, UNESCO looks to other actors with whom we can address the challenges of world heritage conservation. We must foster and build a partnership approach to our work. Co-operation agreements on World Heritage have now been signed with Italy, France, the Netherlands and, most recently, Spain and Australia. My thanks go to these States Parties for demonstrating their commitment to World Heritage through the signing of these agreements and the provision of technical and/or financial resources to our work.
I have also negotiated closer relationships between other UN and regional bodies, with the World Bank and other financial institutions, and between bilateral development co-operation agencies and UNESCO. The World Heritage Centre is actively consulting with a number of major bilateral and multilateral development co-operation agencies. I am pleased to report on an important multilateral action: in consultation with UNESCO, the World Bank has revised its Policy Guidelines and Operational Framework in order to include cultural heritage impact assessments in the design of its projects. Meanwhile, a significant bilateral step forward arises from the fact that the approval procedures of Japan's Cultural Grant Aid and the Japan Bank for International Co-operation (JBIC) loans now recommend "non-objection from UNESCO" with regard to sites on the World Heritage List and the tentative lists.
This year, the building of new and long-term partnerships for World Heritage conservation is being given special emphasis. Reaching out to the people, the civil society through all its sectors is today, not only a duty in the name of democracy, but also a necessity to meet the challenge of heritage protection. Partnerships with the private sector, notably those drawing benefit from cultural and natural resources, such as the tourism and mining, among others, must be negotiated. We are supported in this effort by foundations and NGOs.
An example of this is the special relationship UNESCO has developed with the United Nations Foundation (UNF). This partnership promotes the conservation of potential and designated sites of biodiversity of outstanding universal value. In connection with the 30th anniversary of the Convention in November, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and UNF are in the process of negotiating an expansion of this relationship to include key international conservation NGOs such as the World-wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Conservation International (CI). It is hoped that this new relationship could further increase the resources available at the country and site levels for World Heritage conservation.
The benefits of partnership also arise in relation to the preparation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg in just a few weeks' time. Shortly before the World Summit, a workshop on "African Heritage and Sustainable Development" will be held in Pretoria, South Africa. The workshop is being organized by the South African Department of the Environment and Tourism in co-operation with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, IUCN and ICOMOS. In addition, several of UNESCO's partners are launching initiatives and actions during the World Summit that will attract attention to the importance of the World Heritage Convention. For example, the Equator Initiative, linking UNDP, UNF, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada, and other partners, will recognize and reward successful campaigns and efforts to link resource conservation and sustainable development. The Equator Initiative Awards will recognize partnership between communities, NGOs, the private sector, government and other groups. During the Summit, a special recognition prize will be awarded to a World Heritage site (from a shortlist of 22 sites) for the successful integration of conservation and local livelihoods.
Notwithstanding these worthy initiatives, we must ask ourselves whether we could have done more to link the World Heritage Convention to global partnerships in the implementation of the Agenda 21 adopted in Rio ten years ago for the protection of our common future.
Ladies and Gentlemen
As you know, the World Heritage Convention has always been complemented by other treaties. In the area of natural heritage, the Convention has made important contributions to the global conservation effort in association with such conventions as those addressing biological diversity and wetlands protection. You have designated, for example, about 3 per cent of the world's tropical forests as World Heritage. Let us consider increasing this percentage in the future, and further protect our important marine and other ecosystems.
There are other international conventions that complement the World Heritage Convention. For example, the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970) is a crucial international instrument to stop the illicit traffic of cultural objects. I am very happy to note that three important countries - Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Japan - are proceeding towards ratifying this convention. Another important treaty affecting cultural heritage protection and conservation is the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954) and the First and Second Protocols of 1954 and 1999 respectively. There is still scope for more Member States to ratify both the Convention and the related Protocols in order to achieve fuller protection.
Recent events have called into question the adequacy of existing instruments for addressing particular circumstances where cultural heritage is destroyed or damaged. Thus, in response to the destruction last year of the giant Buddhas at Bamiyan, Afghanistan, the UNESCO General Conference has asked me to prepare a Draft Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage. I believe that this Declaration will be a fundamental contribution to the 'toolkit' to be used by the international community to protect our world's heritage.
In this regard, I was very pleased to learn that the Committee inscribed the Minaret of Jam on the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger. In the twenty years since its nomination in 1982, along with other cultural sites in Afghanistan, the escalation of war had a heavy toll on many of these sites. Damages caused by bombs and gunfire, such as in Herat were compounded by those from pillage and illicit excavation for years, and, helas, culminating even to the willful destruction of Bamiyan. All attempts to stop this madness were to no avail.
This tragedy will weigh on our conscious as the world's moral authority and guardian of heritage. This is all the more reason that the decision of the Committee at this session to extend its concern to protect the heritage in the Palestinian territories is so important. The Committee's courage not to allow political and diplomatic considerations to prevent the functioning of this important mechanism for international solidarity gives credibility to the World Heritage Convention. And for this, on behalf of UNESCO, I thank you.
The recent broadening by the General Conference of the range of UNESCO's instruments in the field of cultural heritage protection is most significant. In regard to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001), we are seeking to promote the ratification of this convention by holding a series of regional meetings, the first of which (for the Americas) was held in Jamaica last week. To come into force, this convention needs to be ratified by 20 States. I therefore call upon all States to proceed rapidly with the ratification process so that those countries most vulnerable to the pillage and destruction of underwater cultural heritage sites can get the legal protection they need. Simultaneously, UNESCO will promote improved international collaboration among the different interests involved so that practical solutions may be found to underwater cultural heritage issues.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Since 1972, the World Heritage Convention has been the main pillar of UNESCO's work in heritage protection, so much so that it is difficult now to envisage what was the situation before that date. The clear focus of the Convention has been upon tangible cultural and natural heritage. Today, however, we cannot fail to recognize that intangible cultural heritage has been neglected over the years. There is now no good reason to further delay addressing this vital dimension of heritage, especially in view of its fragility and vulnerability. Moreover, experience has taught us how important are the links between intangible cultural heritage and the cultural identity of individuals and communities. Questions of intangible cultural heritage also intersect with issues of cultural diversity and biodiversity that are attracting mounting concern at global, national and local levels. For these and other reasons, it is neither possible nor acceptable to allow intangible cultural heritage to continue being neglected.
At the same time as the salience of intangible cultural heritage has grown, our understanding of its character and its relation to other dimensions of heritage has deepened. There have been a number of practical efforts to safeguard intangible cultural heritage at national levels but there have been no concrete steps at the international level comparable to the 1972 Convention. Therefore, as far as international instruments are concerned, there is a huge vacuum to be filled in relation to intangible cultural heritage. An important tool of advocacy to draw attention to this area was UNESCO's First Proclamation of 19 Masterpieces of Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity in May 2001. The Second Proclamation, scheduled to be issued in May 2003, will provide another opportunity to show how extraordinary is the living legacy of intangible cultural heritage across the world.
It is clear that a major step forward took place last year at the UNESCO General Conference when I was invited to prepare an international standard-setting instrument for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Substantive work on this preparation has begun. As the Executive Board decided, a government expert group will meet in late September 2002. I plan to submit a preliminary draft to the next General Conference in 2003. Such a convention will provide an international framework embracing all forms of intangible cultural heritage such as oral expressions, performing arts, social practices, rituals and festive events, or knowledge and practices about nature. With reference to this international convention, Member States will be able to devise national instruments suited to their particular profile of intangible cultural heritage.
We have high expectations that the debate concerning the basic issue of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage will receive a strong impetus at the next UNESCO Round Table of Ministers of Culture, to be held in Istanbul in mid-September 2002. It is particularly interesting that intangible cultural heritage will be addressed at the Istanbul Round Table in close conjunction with cultural diversity, whose preservation requires greater efforts by all of us.
Over recent years, in fact, it has become increasingly clear that the whole subject of heritage is closely bound up with questions of cultural diversity, in particular how cultural diversity can survive and thrive, in all its forms, in an era of rapid globalization. It is this purpose which unifies all our efforts in regard to cultural heritage, cultural development and inter-cultural dialogue. It is this vision which lies behind the focus of the UN Year for Cultural Heritage on two main themes, namely, development and dialogue. And it is therefore in the perspective of UNESCO's Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity that the operation of the 1972 Convention must be considered in order to ensure their continuing relevance in a fast-changing world. The Convention, in other words, should be viewed as a tool of great importance not only for heritage protection but for a wide range of efforts supportive of cultural diversity. Indeed, no one should underestimate the importance of UNESCO's Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity for providing a framework for viewing all of our work in the area of culture and cultural heritage.
In this United Nations Year for Cultural Heritage, I would like to give you my strong and abiding commitment to the cause of protecting and safeguarding heritage in all its forms. I call on you all to support UNESCO in its work in the knowledge that heritage issues can no longer be separated from the struggle for cultural diversity or, indeed, from the struggle for peace, reconciliation and development. The Budapest Declaration on World Heritage, which will shortly be adopted by the World Heritage Committee, will be a clarion call affirming our common responsibility in this whole area.
In closing, I would like to express once again my sincere thanks to our Hungarian hosts for your generosity and hospitality. I look forward to seeing many of you in Venice in November as we continue our celebration of the 30th anniversary of the Convention and reflect together on our shared legacy and common responsibility to protect our World Heritage.
Thank you."
"Distinguished participants of the anniversary meeting, Ladies and Gentlemen,Let me first thank Mr. Koïchiro Matsuura for the information and the interesting lecture, and also congratulate him on the occasion of his high civil award given by the Hungarian State.
With the delight I felt when I learned it, let me inform those present that this meeting of the Committee celebrating the 30th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention, is of special importance for us partly because of the opportunity to host it and partly because for the next year from now on the Committee will have a Hungarian Chairman. In addition to our World Heritage properties already on the List, our National Committee has nominated for inclusion in the World Heritage List:
We are aware of the responsibility entailed by the inclusion of the two newest properties in the List.
- Andrássy Avenue as the extension of the World Heritage site of Budapest, together with the Synagogue district in the overlapped zone,
- and the Cultural Landscape of the Tokaj-Hegyalja vineyards.
As for the urban area, we must not only to maintain it, not only to conserve its status, but must also to improve it.
As for the Tokaj Vineyards, we are so much aware of its value that it is mentioned in our national anthem: "Thou who dropped nectar on the grapevines of Tokaj..."
But it is not enough to mention that for centuries now the local wine has been "vinum regum, rex vinorum" that is "wine of kings, king of wines", since neither the splendid mountain sides facing south, nor the most perfect soil for wine production, nor the most distinguished species of grape and the most valuable noble root would be enough without the constant, attentive and professional human work for preserving - and permanently enriching - this value for the future.
Luckier nations of Europe can present families that live and work for five hundred years in the same house, within the same walls. A profession passes from father to son within the family. The bakery, the cooper's shop, the brewery or the mill is in operation for half a thousand years. Even the signboard does not change.
"Your great-great-grandfather, my fellow, drank the beer brewed by my great-great-grandfather to him, and the beer was the same brand we are drinking right now"Happy peoples, happy families!
The Valley of the Carpathians is one of the areas of the world most exposed to drought. There were no storms in European history that have not blown through this area, or that have not caused destructive whirlwinds. Nations, being foster brothers of each other, allowed some cunning powers to set them against each other. No one better than ourselves know what peace is worth, what is the value of the heritage preserved from the past, because here there are very few real values that could survive. Many more values are preserved by our minds, than the number of real fortress walls, objects or tangible art treasures preserved in the landscape.
There was a deterrent example in our neighbourhood. Sarajevo, one of the most beautiful pearls of the cultural heritage in the Balkans, has been ruined almost before our eyes. A place where otherwise three nations, three cultures and three traditions were able to coexist in peace - and even we could see how could three cultures embrace each other.
Beautiful examples of humanity are accompanied by the most horrifying ones: what destruction could the human being cause when he has gone mad with mercilessness, evilness and impatience, and become an amoral monster, when the supreme Laws: equity, fraternity and empathy are forgotten, if sword cuts into the Gordian knot where beautiful and brave task would have been its undoing.
In our country there are many more ruins than preserved landmarks. This is why we have been so proud of our participation in the Committee's work from the very beginning, and are grateful and happy to have become members in 1985 and to be able to offer treasures that have been included on the List.
However, we know that it is much easier to have a landscape, a structure or any cultural property included in the List than to preserve, care, renovate, save and further develop it. We know our tasks and we will do our best to preserve the treasures entrusted by mankind to us.
Progressive humans look forward. They know that the future is intrinsic with dangers, however they may not turn their back to the future, but rather make preparations to contend threats, and expect tempestuous weather. Human persistence, bravery and strength necessary for suc