1. Having examined Document WHC/23/18.EXT.COM/2,
2. Adopts the Agenda included in the above-mentioned Document.

1. Having examined Documents WHC/23/18.EXT.COM/3 and WHC/23/18.EXT.COM/3.Add,
2. Recalling that the 45th session of the World Heritage Committee, initially scheduled from 19 to 30 June 2022, was postponed by the Bureau on 21 April 2022,
3. Also recalling that Rule 2.1 of its Rules of Procedure was suspended at its 17th extraordinary session (Decision 17 EXT.COM 3),
4. Decides to hold its extended 45th session in presentia from 10 to 25 September 2023 in the city of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, under the Presidency of Her Highness Princess Haifa Al Mogrin (Saudi Arabia), Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Saudi Arabia to UNESCO, designated as Chairperson, and also decides that, to give due consideration to Rule 13.3, the other Members of the Bureau shall be as follows: Argentina, Italy, Russian Federation, South Africa, Thailand, and the Rapporteur Ms. Shikha Jain (India) until the end of the extended 45th session of the World Heritage Committee;
5. Also decides that all items and sub-items that were foreseen for examination in 2022 and 2023 by its previous decisions, be examined at its extended 45th session in 2023;
6. Further recalling Decision 44 COM 16 by which it adopted the provisional agenda for its 45th session, which should have been held in 2022, adopts the following provisional agenda for its extended 45th session, including the additional items already foreseen for 2023 (indicated in bold):

   
   Provisional Agenda of the extended 45th session of the World Heritage Committee:

   1.    Opening Session

   2.    Admission of Observers

   3.    Adoption of the Agenda and the Timetable

   3A.    Adoption of the Agenda

   3B.    Adoption of the Timetable

   4.    Report of the Rapporteur of the 44th session of the World Heritage Committee (Fuzhou/online, 2021)

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

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

   5B.    Reports of the Advisory Bodies

   5C.    Priority Africa: a Strategy for World Heritage

   5D.    The World Heritage Convention and Sustainable Development

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

   7.    State of conservation of World Heritage properties

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

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

   8.    Nomination process

   8A.    Tentative Lists submitted by States Parties

   8B.    Nominations to the World Heritage List

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

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

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

   9.    Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List

   9A.    Upstream Process

   10.    Periodic Reports

   10A. Report on the results of the Third Cycle of the Periodic Reporting exercise in Asia-Pacific

   10B.  Report on the results of the Third Cycle of the Periodic Reporting exercise in Latin America and the Caribbean

   10C.  Follow-up on the implementation of the Action Plans for the Third Cycle of Periodic Reporting in the Africa and Arab States regions

   10D.  Progress report on the implementation of the Action Plans for the Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting in the other regions

   10E.  Progress report on the Third Cycle of Periodic Reporting in the other regions

   11.    Follow-up to Recommendations of Evaluations and Audits on Working Methods and outcomes of the ad-hoc Working Group

   12.    Revision of the Operational Guidelines

   13.    50th Anniversary of the World Heritage Convention

   14.    International Assistance

   15.    Presentation of the final accounts of the World Heritage Fund for 2020-2021, Report on the execution of the budget for the biennium 2022-2023, Budget proposal of the World Heritage Fund under the biennium 2024-2025 and Follow up Decision 44 COM 14

   16.    Other business

   17.    Election of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons and Rapporteur of the 46th session of the World Heritage Committee

   18.    Provisional Agenda of the 46th session of the World Heritage Committee

   19.    Adoption of Decisions

   20.    Closing session

7. Takes note of the number of evaluations of nominations carried out by ICOMOS in 2022 and decides to provide an additional USD 409,163 to enable ICOMOS to fund the evaluation of 50 nominations in 2022-2023.

Part I - Guiding Principles

2.    Recalling Decisions 42 COM 8B.24 and 44 COM 8 adopted at its 42nd (Manama, 2018) and the extended 44th (Fuzhou/online, 2021) sessions respectively,

3.    Considering the fruitful debates held during the meetings of the Open-ended Working Group established at its extended 44th session (Fuzhou/online, 2021) to broaden the scope of the reflection on sites of memory associated with recent conflicts,

4.    Also recalling that the World Heritage List is intended to ensure the protection of only a select list of the most outstanding sites from a comparative and a universal viewpoint,

5.    Recognizing that not all sites of memory associated with recent conflicts could satisfy the threshold of the Outstanding Universal Value, as with all other sites,

6.    Also recognizing that the inscription of sites of memory associated with recent conflicts should serve the peace building mission of UNESCO, and emphasizing the importance of an agreement through dialogue among the concerned State(s) Party(ies) upon all nominations in this regard,

7.    Encourages States Parties and Advisory Bodies in collaboration with the World Heritage Centre to seek to address their skill gaps and to strengthen their competencies, as well as those of managers, communities and local communities in order to address the particular challenges of sites of memory associated with recent conflicts, including the preparation of nominations and the future interpretation of these sites;

8.    Decides to lift the moratorium on the evaluation of sites of memory associated with recent conflicts and also decides that the nominations of such sites for inscription on the World Heritage List may be evaluated on a case-by-case basis;

9.    Further decides that nominations of sites of memory associated with recent conflicts, submitted by 1 February 2022 and considered complete^[1], will be processed under the procedures and criteria applicable at the time of their submission;

10.    Decides furthermore to suspend the application of Paragraphs 61 and 122 of the Operational Guidelines for the nominations of sites of memory associated with recent conflicts, submitted by 1 February 2022 and considered complete¹;

11.    Notes that the Guiding Principles proposed by the Open-ended Working Group were elaborated with the understanding that:

i.  The term “conflict” is considered to cover events such as wars, battles, massacres, genocide, torture, military occupations, movements of self-determination, resistance movements, liberation movements from colonization, apartheid and occupation, exile, deportation and mass violations of human rights and events or actions that could potentially impact the territorial integrity of States.

ii.  The term "recent" generally relates to events having occurred from the turn of the twentieth century, it being understood that the sensitive nature of memories resulting from conflict can endure for centuries beyond that temporal framework.

iii. Sites of memory are places where an event happened that a nation and its people (or at least some of them) or communities want to remember. Sites associated with recent conflicts are specific sites with material evidence, in conformity with Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, or landscape features which can be linked to their memorial aspect and that commemorate the victims of these conflicts. These sites, accessible, or made accessible, to the public, represent a place of reconciliation, remembrance, peaceful reflection, and must play an educational role in order to promote a culture of peace and dialogue.

12.    Adopts the following Guiding Principles applicable to sites of memory associated with recent conflicts that are nominated under criterion (vi), preferably in conjunction with other criteria, as defined in paragraph 77 of the Operational Guidelines, having in mind that the Guiding Principles are consistent with the UNESCO Constitution, the World Heritage Convention, and the Operational Guidelines;

Guiding Principles:

a)    The nomination text will include the assessment of the use of criterion (vi) carried out in three distinct phases. First, the outstanding universal significance of the association must be demonstrated; secondly, the nature of the direct or tangible link between the association and the site must be described; thirdly, a comparative analysis to other sites with similar associations and their links to the site needs to be carried out.

b)    The nomination text will include the assessment of the authenticity of the physical site and of the link to the associated memories. Bearing in mind potential differing views, factual accuracy must be demonstrated to avoid distortion of memories. In addition, it has to be shown that efforts were made to address and minimize any dissonance that may occur at the local, national, regional, and international levels.

c)    The nomination text shall include documentation that serious efforts have been made to ensure inclusive and effective participation of all potentially affected stakeholders in the process of preparation of the nomination and their agreement on the meaning, values and interpretation of the nominated property. The nominating State(s) Party(ies) is/are responsible for identifying all potentially affected stakeholders that need to be involved throughout the development of the nomination and in the ensuing process. Potentially affected stakeholders include, inter alia, other concerned States Parties, local communities where sites are located, communities of interest, local governments, right-holders and others.

d)    The nomination text will include a dedicated sub-section titled “Interpretation strategy”. Bearing in mind potential differing views and narratives, the interpretation strategy shall be multi-dimensional to present accurately the full meaning of the site and to support an understanding of its full history. The physical location at the place where conflict has taken place and means of interpretation will be part of the interpretation strategy. The interpretation strategy shall embrace the place’s historical past and its present-day meanings, in a dialogue and peace-building perspective. It needs to discuss how the stakeholders concerned with the site intend to take into account the debates on issues of current concern that connect to the themes of the The strategy should describe efforts made so that stakeholders who have an interest in the site will be engaged in the development of interpretation for the site.

e)    The nomination text, under a dedicated sub-section titled “Education and information programmes”, will include evidence of educational and information programmes meeting the same high ethical and scholarly standards of the UNESCO Global Citizenship Education programme, such as the inclusion of multiple narratives based on sound research and comparative analysis using documentary and archival sources, testimonies and material evidence. Sites of memory associated with recent conflicts have the potential to teach preventive lessons and promote reconciliation and peace. On the other hand, sites where the values are still contested may unduly favour one narrative over others, leading to exclusion and injustice and fostering divisiveness, not peace.

f)    The nomination text shall document the reconciliation process and demonstrate that the nomination of the site is not interrupting the process of dialogue and reconciliation. Bearing in mind that for sites of memory associated with recent conflicts, reconciliation can be a slow and painful process, the values proposed as potential Outstanding Universal Value in these nominations should encourage the ongoing process of dialogue and reconciliation in relation to the concerned conflict.

Part II - Mechanism to notify a contestation

14.    Considering that nomination files are produced by the concerned States Parties, the sole responsibility for the content of each nomination file lies with the State Party concerned; the receipt, processing and publication of the nomination file does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever of the World Heritage Committee or of the Secretariat of UNESCO concerning the history or legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its boundaries,

15.    Keeping in mind that “the purpose of UNESCO is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations” (Article I, UNESCO Constitution),

16.    Also adopts the following contestation mechanism for Tentative List entries and submitted nominations, applicable to sites of memory associated with recent conflicts that are nominated under criterion (vi), preferably in conjunction with other criteria, as defined in paragraph 77 of the Operational Guidelines:

a) Contestation concerning a Tentative List entry

A State Party may contest an existing or newly submitted Tentative List entry, formally, in writing, using the form available on the World Heritage Centre’s website. The World Heritage Centre will confirm the receipt of the notification of contestation and transmit a copy to the submitting State(s) Party(ies), and to the relevant Advisory Body(ies). The notification of contestation will be provided to the World Heritage Committee as an information document for noting under Item 8A Tentative List at the following World Heritage Committee meeting. The World Heritage Centre will facilitate dialogue among the concerned States Parties.

b) Contestation concerning a newly submitted nomination

On 31 March (year 1), newly submitted nominations that are considered complete are uploaded on the World Heritage Centre’s website and made available for all States Parties.

State(s) Party(ies) may submit a contestation up to 30 June (year 1) at the latest. The contesting State(s) Party(ies) shall express formally, in writing, its contestation to the World Heritage Centre using the established form available on the World Heritage Centre’s website. The World Heritage Centre will transmit the submitted contestation to the nominating State(s) Party(ies).

The nominating State(s) Party(ies) may respond to the contestation formally, in writing, to the World Heritage Centre using the established form available on the World Heritage Centre’s website by 30 September (year 1) at the latest. The World Heritage Centre will transmit the response to the contestation to the contesting State(s) Party(ies).

The World Heritage Centre will facilitate dialogue among the concerned States Parties. The notification of contestation and any response to the notice of contestation from the nominating State(s) Party(ies) will be provided to the World Heritage Committee as an information document under Item 8B Nominations to the World Heritage List, therefore, no further notifications could be integrated in the formal contestation beyond the limit of six weeks prior to the World Heritage Committee’s session. 

In case the concerned States Parties reach an agreement, the nominating State(s) Party(ies) will submit evidence documenting their agreement on contested matters to the Committee as additional information to its own nomination by 28 February (year 2).

Where no agreement has been reached, with due regard to the Committee's prerogatives, and unless otherwise decided by the Committee, it should request the concerned States Parties to continue their dialogue.

Whatever the outcome of the continued dialogue, the nomination file will be re-examined at the following session of the World Heritage Committee.

The Secretariat will also make available the electronic format of the text of the nomination dossiers to the Members of the Committee on the World Heritage Centre’s website.

Part III – Implementation of the present decision

_{[1] Notably: Funerary and memorial sites of the First World War (Western Front), Belgium and France / The Landing Beaches, Normandy, 1944, France / Brâncusi Monumental Ensemble of Târgu Jiu, Romania / Genocide memorial sites: Nyamata, Murambi, Gisozi and Bisesero, Rwanda / Human Rights, Liberation and Reconciliation: Nelson Mandela Legacy Sites, South Africa / ESMA Museum and Site of Memory – Former Clandestine Center of Detention, Torture and Extermination, Argentina.}

1. Having examined Documents WHC/23/18.EXT.COM/5 and WHC/23/18.EXT.COM/INF.5,
2. Inscribes the Rachid Karami International Fair-Tripoli, Lebanon, on the World Heritage List according to the emergency procedure, on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv);

3. Adopts the following Statement of Outstanding Universal Value:

   Brief synthesis

   The Rachid Karami International Fair-Tripoli has been erected in Tripoli, the second largest city in Lebanon and the capital of the Northern Governorate, and was designed by Oscar Niemeyer between 1962-1967 and built until 1975. The main building of the International Fair consists of a huge oblong covered exhibition space, the Grand Canopy, under which the exhibition pavilions of several countries could be freely installed. The entrance to the International Fair complex begins at the southern end of the Grand Canopy: a vast ramp leads to a raised portico from where the visitors can discover the entire composition. A series of educational, recreational and cultural facilities were immersed within a “Brazilian Tropical Garden” and connected by water pools and pedestrian passages. In the northern part, a ceremonial ramp leads to the outdoor amphitheatre, surmounted by a monumental arch forming a symbolic gateway to modernity and a landmark of the city of Tripoli.

   The use of traditional elements of local architecture was intended to express the aspirations of the newly independent Arab peoples to take part in the universal process of modernisation. For its scale, its daring structural solutions, its architectural expression, its vast modernist public spaces and gardens, its links to post-independence identity buildings, and despite the deterioration of most of its structures and the endangered integrity of several of its components due to the ageing of the concrete, the Rachid Karami International Fair-Tripoli is one of the most representative works of modern architecture of the 20th century in the Arab States.

   Criterion (ii): The Rachid Karami International Fair-Tripoli expresses in an exceptional way the successful integration of Brazilian modernist concepts into the context of the Arab Near East in Tripoli and is a vivid example of cultural exchange in the field of architecture. The collaboration between Oscar Niemeyer, the architect of the complex, and the Lebanese engineers and contractors has given them valuable experience in sophisticated large-scale reinforced concrete structures and concrete shells, while a new generation of Lebanese architects was inspired by Niemeyer’s “Brazilian modernism”, which is reflected in several of their works, whether in Lebanon or in the Arab Near East.

   Criterion (iv): Oscar Niemeyer’s monumental International Fair project in Tripoli is an outstanding example of world fairs that emerged in the newly independent Arab countries to express national pride and take part in the universal process of modernisation. It constitutes an outstanding architectural example of a large-scale modernist exhibition complex, which defines an architectural typology characterised by simplicity and discipline where a single main large structure hosts the pavilions; a set of smaller structures serve social- reformative and educational purposes.

   Integrity

   The Rachid Karami International Fair-Tripoli covers an elliptical area corresponding to the limits of the fairground as it was built and contains all buildings designed by Niemeyer. Almost all buildings and structures were preserved according to Niemeyer’s original design but lie in a state of abandonment, while outdoor and landscaped areas are maintained. Despite the loss of interior finishes, fixtures, glazing, doors and equipment due to the war, the attributes of Outstanding Universal Value have retained sufficient integrity. Some interventions on the Grand Canopy dictated by modern uses are reversible; the transformation of Niemeyer’s Collective Housing Prototype has seriously affected its architectural quality and erased the traces of the original design, but attempts have been made to restore the structure to its original conditions. However, the integrity of the property is extremely vulnerable, with the main threat coming from the precarious state of conservation of most buildings, which face serious stability problems due to the severe steel corrosion and the ageing of concrete.

   Authenticity

   The layout and almost all buildings of the Rachid Karami International Fair-Tripoli have been preserved according to Niemeyer’s design. In most of the buildings of the complex, the structure defines their form and volume and is proudly exhibited to the audience. The main original structures of the International Fair complex, most of which are made of authentic materials, credibly reflect their period of construction and the quality of their execution. Despite the loss of interior finishes, fixtures and equipment, the transformation of the collective housing prototype into a hotel, and the interventions to the southern part of the Grand Canopy, the surviving attributes credibly convey the Outstanding Universal Value through the overall layout, the design of the structures, their sculptural conception, and the construction materials. The reflective pools and the hard landscape elements around the buildings are preserved according to Niemeyer’s design, the tropical gardens are still present and retain their “Brazilian spirit”. The International Fair complex in Tripoli still bears witness to an era of modernisation and social liberalisation in Lebanon and the Arab Near East.

   Protection and management requirements

   The Law N°274-10/03/2022 on the Reorganization of Rachid Karami International Fair is the main legal instrument that covers the property and includes basic protection mechanisms. The law sets out differentiated protection mechanisms for the rectangular area (800x500 metres) encompassing all Niemeyer designed structures and the extant part of the oval. Most of the buildings on the fairground need immediate stabilisation measures, maintenance, and structural repairs to preserve their integrity; the Conservation Management Plan that is being developed for the entire property should be finalised urgently to guarantee the conservation of its cultural and historical values in any future development processes.

   The long-term conservation of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property will benefit from the recognition of its cultural value under the national legislation for heritage protection, beyond the 2022 special law. An inclusive management structure involving heritage protection authorities, professionals and academic organisations and civil society representatives can guarantee a shared vision for the future of the property and its long-term protection. The systematic application of a Heritage Impact Assessment approach and related mechanisms provides the framework for ensuring compatible conservation, rehabilitation and reuse of the Rachid Karami International Fair-Tripoli.

4. Also inscribes the Rachid Karami International Fair-Tripoli, Lebanon, on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
5. Recommends that the State Party invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to the property to establish a Desired state of conservation and a programme of corrective measures for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger;
6. Also recommends that the State Party give urgent consideration to the following:
   1. Providing the exact geographical coordinates of the boundaries of the property,
   2. Considering, with the assistance of the joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission, the establishment of a buffer zone as per paragraphs 103 to 105 of the Operational Guidelines to ensure an added layer of protection to the property,
   3. Developing detailed land-use and zoning guidelines for the planning of the immediate setting of the Rachid Karimi International Fair-Tripoli and of the portion of the oval within the property outside the nationally relevant “core zone”,
   4. Setting up a management structure for the property that also includes among its members representatives of the cultural heritage protection institutions, professionals and academic organisations and the civil society,
   5. Carrying out a geometric and architectural survey and a detailed condition assessment of Niemeyer’s structures as a knowledge basis for emergency stabilisation measures, conservation and structural rehabilitation interventions,
   6. Considering a digital project of the documentation preserved at the various publicly accessible archives, to promote research and ensure that the original project documentation is not lost due to disasters or accidents,
   7. Informing the World Heritage Centre of the intention to undertake or authorise any major projects which may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, in line with paragraph 172 of Operational Guidelines,
   8. Developing and implementing a Heritage Impact Assessment for any project proposals that may have an impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property (including the “Knowledge and Innovation Centre” (KIC) project) and for the revision of the master plans of El-Mina and Tripoli;
7. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2024, a report on the implementation of the above-mentioned recommendations for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 46th session.

1. Having examined Documents WHC/23/18.EXT.COM/5 and WHC/23/18.EXT.COM/INF.5,
2. Inscribes the Historic Center of the Port City of Odesa, Ukraine, on the World Heritage List according to the emergency procedure, on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv);
3. Adopts the following Statement of Outstanding Universal Value:

   
   Brief synthesis

   The historic centre of Odesa is part of a port city located on the Ukrainian shores of the Black Sea. It stands on a shallow indentation of the seacoast about thirty kilometres north of the Dniester River estuary. The city was founded in 1794 by a strategic decision of the Empress Catherine II to build a warm-water port following the conclusion of the Russo-Turkish war of 1787-1792.

   The new city, built on the site of a Turkish fortress, was initially planned by a military engineer and then expanded further during the 19th century.

   Odesa owes its character and rapid development during the 19th century to the success of its port, the favourable policies of its governors, and its status as a free port city from 1819 to 1859. Trade attracted many diverse people who formed multi-ethnic and multicultural communities, making Odesa a cosmopolitan city. Its pace of development, the wealth it generated and its multiculturalism all influenced its architectural expression and the variety of styles that still remain in the urban landscape. It has also caused tensions that, beginning in 1821, triggered a series of violent events.

   The historic centre of Odesa is a grid system of spacious tree-lined streets divided into two rectangular blocks, the direction of which conformed to the orientation of two deep ravines cutting through the Odesa high plateau perpendicular to the sea. The city is characterised by relatively low-rise buildings. Designed by renowned architects and engineers, many from Italy in the early years, its theatres, religious buildings, schools, private palaces and tenement houses, clubs, hotels, banks, shopping centres, warehouses, stock exchanges, terminals and other public and administrative buildings represent both eclectic diversity in architectural styles and all the main activities of a trading city.

   Prymorsky Boulevard, stretching along the edge of the plateau, Prymorsky Stairs coming down to the shore, and the ensemble of the Odesa Opera and Ballet Theatre, and the Palais-Royal are the main landmarks of the city.

   While the urban planning and architectural quality represented in Odesa can also be found in other cities in the former Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires, Odesa has preserved large areas of its historic fabric that reflect its rapid and prosperous development in the 19th century and its population which was far more diverse than in many other cities. Thus, Odesa, through its urban planning and built heritage as a reflection of many cultures, values, customs, social structures, and denominations, can be considered to stand out as a testimony to multicultural and multi-ethnic traditions of Eastern European cities of the 19th century.

   Criterion (ii): The historic centre of Odesa represents an important interchange of human values within Eastern Europe through its heterogeneous architectural styles, developed during its rapid growth in the 19th century, that reflect the coexistence of many cultures and the combination of influences characteristic of the border area of Europe and Asia.

   Criterion (iv): The historic centre of Odesa is an outstanding “time capsule” of the 19th‑century urban planning, with heterogeneous buildings mostly from the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th century, which reflects both the exceptionally fast growth of the town, based on the prosperity generated by the Industrial Revolution, and its notable diversity.

   Integrity

   While the designed plan of Odesa evolved in certain respects as the city grew, its main outline remained unchanged. The grid structure and the linear connection with the port and the sea are retained and legible in the cityscape, and many of 19th-century buildings have survived. The modified boundaries matching those of the Integrated Protection Zone of the current General Plan of Odesa encompass all the necessary attributes expressing the Outstanding Universal Value.

   The intactness of the city’s 19th- and early 20th‑century architecture, seems to be mainly satisfactory for the key buildings, but remains highly vulnerable due to the lack of adequate planning controls and inappropriate conservation. The integrity of the form and characteristics of the building quarters behind the main street facades, also appears highly vulnerable to modern infill and inadequate conservation. Given the emergency procedure and the lack of a mission to the site, at the moment of inscription an appropriate assessment of how well the integrity of individual buildings and group of buildings has been maintained is to be envisaged.

   Authenticity

   The key attributes of Outstanding Universal Value relate to the planned layout of the city, and its heterogeneous architecture that reflects the diversity of its multicultural trading communities. The modified boundaries matching those of the Integrated Protection Zone of the current General Plan of Odesa, encompass all the necessary attributes that convey the idea of a coherent city, developed rapidly during a period of exceptional economic growth and with buildings that reflect fully the intertwined social, cultural and architectural influences that prevailed.

   Given the emergency procedure and the lack of a mission to the site, at the moment of inscription an appropriate assessment of the authenticity of individual buildings, their state of conservation, how their contexts have been respected, and how the new buildings developed during the last twenty years have impacted adversely on the overall authenticity of the urban ensemble is to be envisaged.

   Management and protection requirements

   General provisions for cultural heritage protection are established by the Law of Ukraine on Cultural Heritage Protection adopted in 2000. The Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine is the highest authority in the sphere of cultural heritage, acting on behalf of the Cabinet of Ministers. It formulates and implements state policy on cultural heritage and directs the activities of state institutions related to culture and art. The Ministry is responsible for supervising and monitoring the protection of historic monuments. At the municipal level, the Department of Cultural Heritage Protection of the Odesa City Council is responsible for the protection and conservation of cultural heritage sites in compliance with regulations on historic conservation in urban planning.

   The property is protected according to the local regulations established in 2008 by the General Plan of Odesa.

   The property is situated in the central zone, the most significant one in the city, where the main administrative, public, business, and cultural institutions are located. An Integrated Protection Zone was established. Its boundaries are delineated according to the current Historical and Architectural Reference Plan of Odesa, approved by the Order of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Ukraine and integrated into the General Plan of Odesa. Selected individual buildings and their complexes are listed in the State Register of Immovable Historical Monuments of Ukraine and protected in compliance with the Law of Ukraine on Cultural Heritage Protection as historic architectural monuments.

   The enhancement of the management system is needed to cover all attributes and provide for coordinated management with supporting administrative tools and decision-making mechanisms. The management system should include detailed monitoring and conservation programmes, and an overall interpretation and presentation policy. Risk management should be included.

4. Also inscribes the Historic Center of the Port City of Odesa, Ukraine, on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
5. Recommends that the State Party invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission to the property, if this is feasible, to establish a Desired state of conservation and a programme of corrective measures for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger;
6. Requests the State Party to submit a map and geographical coordinates showing the modified boundaries of the property, with wider boundaries than those proposed in the nomination dossier and excluding the port area, covering the historic area of the city, as it was developed by the end of the 19th century and coinciding with those of the Integrated Protection Zone as shown in the General Plan of Odesa, with the port area as a part of the buffer zone, by 1 June 2023;
7. Also recommends that the State Party give urgent consideration to the following:
   1. Extending the buffer zone to encompass the immediate setting of the modified boundaries as well as the port area, and submit a minor boundary modification request in this respect with details of how the buffer zone will be managed to support the Outstanding Universal Value of the property,
   2. Reinforcing the legal regulation for the Integrated Protection Zone to protect the attributes of the property against unsuitable development,
   3. Integrating Heritage Impact Assessment mechanisms into the legal framework as a pre-requisite for development projects and activities that are planned for implementation within the property or its buffer zone,
   4. Developing an inventory and indicators for the assessment of the state of conservation of the property together with developing and implementing a monitoring system,
   5. Continuing the implementation of conservation programmes with priorities given to buildings at risk and areas that need urgent stabilisation or conservation interventions,
   6. Developing a study to identify tangible and intangible aspects of multi-ethnic and multicultural heritage of the city and developing measures for an interpretation policy,
   7. Revising the draft management plan to include disaster, climate change and other risk preparedness measures, as well as implementation measures for emergency responses;
8. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2024, a report on the implementation of the above-mentioned recommendations for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 46th session;
9. Decides that the name of the property be changed to become “The Historic Centre of Odesa”.

1. Having examined Documents WHC/23/18.EXT.COM/5 and WHC/23/18.EXT.COM/INF.5,
2. Inscribes the Landmarks of the Ancient Kingdom of Saba in Marib Governorate, Yemen, on the World Heritage List according to the emergency procedure, on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv);
3. Taking note that the authenticity, integrity, protection and management of the property or its potential vulnerabilities could not have been fully evaluated at this stage due to the lack of a technical evaluation mission to the site,
4. Adopts the following Statement of Outstanding Universal Value:

   
   Brief synthesis

   The Landmarks of the Ancient Kingdom of Saba represents a period of the South Arabian history from the 1st millennium BCE until the arrival of Islam to the region around 630 CE, when the ancient Yemeni kingdoms developed amidst the harsh and arid environment of the Arabian Peninsula and flourished through their involvement with the Incense Trade Route linking South Arabia to the Mediterranean, from about the 8th century BCE to the 3rd century CE, before it was overpowered by the Ḥimyar people.

   Located in the Marib Governorate in central Yemen, seven archaeological sites reflect the affluent Kingdom of Saba, arising from its control of the incense trade in South Arabia and its architectural, aesthetic and technological achievements that bear witness to a highly complex society with a strong, well-organised and centralised administration, as evidenced by numerous historical wall inscriptions.

   The Sabaeans' culture and wealth is clearly evident in the ensemble of two cities, temples and extensive irrigation systems. The walled capital city Ma’rib, was the administrative, cultural and economic centre of the Kingdom of Saba, while the fortified city of Sirwah, some forty kilometres to the west, may have acted as its military capital. The monumental sanctuaries with propyla in the temples of Ḥarūnum, Awām and Bar’ān were linked by a processional pilgrimage route, which attracted adherents from across the Arabian Peninsula. Technological knowledge in the field of hydrological engineering enabled the Sabaeans to create the Ma’rib dam, which fed an innovative irrigation system of canals that allowed cultivation of a vast territory spreading north and south of Ma’rib, that was considered to be the largest artificial oasis in ancient Arabia.

   Criterion (iii): The Landmarks of the Ancient Kingdom of Saba, with the monumental architecture and the preserved hydraulic structures erected by the Sabaeans, demonstrate high level of technological know-how and engineering skills. They are an exceptional testimony to the affluence of the Kingdom of Saba, which dominated South Arabia in the period between the 8th century BCE to the 3rd century CE as a political and cultural power. They reflect the high socio-political and economic status of the kingdom, which owed its prosperity to control of the incense trade, and its survival in the harsh arid environment of the Arabian Peninsula through the creation of large oases based on a sophisticated irrigation system linked to the Ma’rib dam. The preserved wall inscriptions that document historical events, religious occasions, and administrative decisions offer a glimpse into the main domains of life of the kingdom.

   Criterion (iv): The Landmarks of the Ancient Kingdom of Saba with their monumental architecture and diverse technological advances represent an outstanding example of an ensemble that testifies to the cultural tradition of the Kingdom of Saba that served as a central node in the frankincense trade route through the Arabian Peninsula. Flourishing within the semi-arid landscape of valleys, mountains and deserts of South Arabia thanks to a highly advanced irrigation system, the kingdom played a key influential role among neighbouring realms and in the wider network of cultural exchanges at a time when trade routes linked South Arabia with the Mediterranean and East Africa. The dam of the Ma’rib irrigation system, which enabled farming in what is said to be the largest artificial oasis in ancient Arabia, represents the pinnacle of hydrological engineering in the region.

   Integrity

   The component parts of the property include the attributes necessary to ensure the representation of the features and processes, which convey the property’s Outstanding Universal Value. The physical fabric of the property can be considered as very poor with some attributes having been gravely damaged. Considering the existing threats related to the war and the developmental pressures, integrity of the individual component parts and of the property as a whole can be considered as highly vulnerable.

   Authenticity

   The authenticity of the individual component parts and of the whole series can be considered as highly vulnerable due to historical developments and contemporary threats. Despite changes in the landscape of the property associated with the development of the modern city of Ma’rib, and the urban sprawl that led to the destruction of some areas with archaeological potential, the historical oasis setting of the component parts can be still understood. Demolishing of post-Sabaean vernacular architecture, which reflects the traditions that link the pre-Islamic Sabaean culture with the cultures that developed in the area after the arrival of Islam, and which constitutes part of the historical context of the property, is of concern.

   Management and protection requirements

   The archaeological material at all component parts is legally protected at the national level through the Law on Antiquities N. 21/1994 and its amendments set forth by Law N. 8/1997. The ancient city of Ma’rib is protected as a historic town by Law N. 16/2013. The legal authority within the boundaries of the component parts is unclear, as are protection mechanisms that apply to the property. The legal basis for the buffer zones, including buffer zone B, is also not known at this stage.

   Protection and management of the property reside at the highest level with the General Organization of Antiquities and Museums; the Ma’rib branch being responsible for the monitoring and maintenance of the component parts. The General Organization for the Preservation of Historic Cities in Yemen is in charge of the protection and management of the ancient city of Ma’rib as a historic town. Besides the legal-institutional protection, the component parts benefit from traditional protection provided by the local tribes.

   At present, there is no management plan for the property in place. Conservation and Management Guidelines have been developed to guide future management and protection of the component parts. But it is unclear how the proposed plan of action will be implemented given the precarious political situation. The management measures for the buffer zones, including buffer zone B, have not been provided.

5. Also inscribes the Landmarks of the Ancient Kingdom of Saba in Marib Governorate, Yemen, on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
6. Recommends that the State Party give urgent consideration to the following:
   1. Inviting, as soon as feasible, a Reactive Monitoring mission to the property, to:
      1. Prepare a detailed report on the state of conservation,
      2. Assess protection of the property and its buffer zones,
      3. Consider the effectiveness of its boundaries,
      4. Establish a Desired state of conservation and a programme of corrective measures for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger,
   2. Halting the implementation of the 2018 Master Plan until a full assessment has been undertaken, through a Heritage Impact Assessment, of its potential impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and its setting, and, based on the results of the Heritage Impact Assessment, undertaking necessary revisions of the Plan,
   3. Reinstating funding for management and conservation,
   4. Developing as a matter of urgency risk preparedness plans for each component part to address vandalism and looting as well as overall protection,
   5. Including local tribes as traditional custodians of the component parts in the management and protection of the property to ensure buy-in from local communities and prevent potential conflicts,
   6. Extending protection measures onto the post-Sabaean vernacular architecture in the ancient cities of Ma’rib and Sirwah as part of the safeguarding of the historic and traditional context of the property, and involving local populations in the protection and management of these heritage resources,
   7. Completing an inventory of Sabaean monuments and sites,
   8. Enhancing the coordination of inputs from varied research institutions and international agencies to ensure that there is no duplication of work or resources and to maximise and sustain the initiatives aimed at capacity-strengthening, knowledge production, protection and management of the property,
   9. Informing the World Heritage Centre of the intention to undertake or authorise all major projects which may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, in line with paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;
7. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2024, a report on the implementation of the above-mentioned recommendations for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 46th session;
8. Decides that the name of the property be changed to become “Landmarks of the Ancient Kingdom of Saba, Marib”, as the governorate of Marib is a present-day administrative unit which does not reflect the boundaries of the ancient Kingdom of Saba, there is no need to reference it in the name of the property.

 The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC/23/19EXT.COM/2,
2. Adopts the Agenda included in the above-mentioned Document.

 The World Heritage Committee,

1. Recalling its Decision 45 COM 17, adopted at its extended 45th session (Riyadh, 2023),
2. Decides that its 46th session will take place in India tentatively in July 2024, in accordance with Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Procedure[1];
3. Elects in accordance with Rule 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure, its Bureau with the following composition:

• Chairperson: E. Mr Vishal V. Sharma (India),
• Vice-Chairpersons: Bulgaria, Greece, Kenya, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
• Rapporteur: Mr Martin Ouaklani (Belgium),

whose mandates will begin at the end of the 19th Extraordinary session of the Committee (UNESCO, 2023) until the end of the 46th session of the Committee (2024);

[1] The State Party of India expresses its preference that the meeting dates be between July and September 2024.

1. Elects E. Ms Paula ALVES DE SOUZA (Brazil), as Chairperson of the 24th session of the General Assembly;
2. Elects Ms Uyanga SUKHBAATAR (Mongolia), as Rapporteur of the 24th session of the General Assembly;
3. Elects Iraq, Norway, Poland and Rwanda as Vice-Chairpersons of the 24th session of the General Assembly.

1. Having examined Document WHC/23/24.GA/2A,
2. Adopts the Agenda included in the above.

1. Having examined Document WHC/23/24.GA/2B,
2. Adopts the timetable of the 24th session included in the above-mentioned Document.

1. Takes note of the report of the Rapporteur of the 23rd session of the General Assembly (UNESCO, 2021).

1. Takes note of the report of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee on the activities of the World Heritage Committee.

1. Elects the following 9 States Parties: Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Türkiye, Ukraine and Viet Nam, as members of the World Heritage Committee.

1. Having examined Documents WHC/23/24.GA/6 and WHC/23/24.GA/INF.6,
2. Having also examined the accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period ended 31 December 2021,
3. Approves the accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period ended 31 December 2021;
4. Takes note of the financial report relating to the World Heritage Fund for the period 1 January 2022 to 30 June 2023.

1. Having examined Documents WHC/23/24.GA/7 and WHC/23/24.GA/INF.7,
2. Recalling Article 16 of the World Heritage Convention,
3. Decides to set the uniform percentage for the calculation of the amount of the contributions to be paid to the World Heritage Fund by States Parties at 1% of each State’s contribution to the regular budget of UNESCO for an indeterminate period of time, with the understanding that this percentage can be revised in the future;
4. Emphasizing the urgency of securing adequate financial resources to achieve the objectives of the World Heritage Convention to identify and conserve the world’s cultural and natural heritage of Outstanding Universal Value, in particular in light of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the unprecedented threats such as climate change, natural disasters, and deliberate attacks on cultural heritage in territories affected by armed conflicts and terrorism,
5. Notes the status of assessed compulsory and voluntary contributions to the World Heritage Fund as presented in Document WHC/23/24.GA/INF.7;
6. Recalls, in this regard, that the payment of assessed contributions to the World Heritage Fund is a legally binding obligation incumbent on all States Parties which have ratified the Convention;
7. Reiterates the plea of the World Heritage Committee to States Parties to the Convention to pay their annual contributions by 31 January wherever possible in order to facilitate the timely implementation of the activities financed by the World Heritage Fund;
8. Invites States Parties to provide supplementary voluntary contributions to the various sub-accounts of the World Heritage Fund, especially to the one dedicated to human resources of the Secretariat and to the one dedicated to the evaluation of nominations.

1. Having examined Documents WHC/23/24.GA/8 and WHC/23/24.GA/INF.8,
2. Recalling Resolution 23 GA 11, adopted at its 23rd session (UNESCO, 2021),
3. Also recalling Decisions 40 COM 7, 41 COM 7, 42 COM 7, 43 COM 7.2, 44 COM 7C and 45 COM 7.1, adopted respectively at the 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016), 41st (Krakow, 2017), 42nd (Manama, 2018), 43rd (Baku, 2019), extended 44th (Fuzhou/online, 2021) and extended 45th (Riyadh, 2023) sessions of the World Heritage Committee,
4. Thanking H.E. Ms Yvette Sylla (Madagascar) as elected Chairperson of the Open-ended Working Group established by the General Assembly at its 23rd session (UNESCO, 2021), Ms Carolina Diaz Acosta (Colombia) for her remarkable leadership in chairing meetings of the Open-ended Working Group, Australia, Colombia, Lebanon and Poland as Vice-Chairpersons, Ms Barbara Engels (Germany) as Rapporteur, and all members of the Working Group for the work accomplished,
5. Also thanking the States Parties of Australia, Azerbaijan and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for their generous financial support to the updating process of the 2007 “Policy Document on the impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage properties”, and expressing its gratitude to all stakeholders of the World Heritage Convention who contributed to this process,
6. Noting the rich debates that took place during the eight meetings of the Open-ended Working Group established by the General Assembly at its 23rd session (UNESCO, 2021) with the mandate to review and develop its final version taking into account Decision 44 COM 7C, as well as proposals for its effective implementation,
7. Emphasizing that, consistent with Article 18 of the 2017 UNESCO Declaration of Ethical Principles in relation to Climate Change, nothing in this non-binding Policy Document should be understood as an interpretation of any of the principles and provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and of the Paris Agreement adopted under it,
8. Adopts the 2023 “Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage”, as recommended by consensus by the Open-ended Working Group and contained in Document WHC/23/24.GA/INF.8;
9. Encourages the States Parties, the World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies and World Heritage-related Category 2 Centres to disseminate widely the "Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage” through appropriate means to the World Heritage community and the broader public, including in local languages, and to promote its implementation;
10. Recalls the World Heritage Committee’s requests, regarding the implementation of the Policy Document, addressed to the World Heritage Centre jointly with the Advisory Bodies, and within the available resources, to:
    1. Elaborate proposals for specific changes to the Operational Guidelines necessary to translate the principles of this Policy Document into actual operational procedures, and to develop education and capacity-building initiatives to enable a wide implementation of this Policy Document,
    2. Consider preparing a Guidance Document to facilitate effective implementation of, and support for, the actions, goals and targets of this Policy Document, which could include indicators and benchmarking tools for measuring and reporting progress towards achieving the World Heritage Climate Action Goals,

    provided the above be undertaken in consultation with States Parties;

11. Calls on States Parties to support the above-mentioned activities through extrabudgetary funding;
12. Recommends that States Parties and all stakeholders of the Convention integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation actions in risk preparedness policies and action plans, in order to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of all World Heritage properties, in line with the "Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage”;
13. Also recommends that World Heritage-related Category 2 Centres and UNESCO Chairs prioritize issues related to the implementation of the "Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage” within their capacity-building and research initiatives;
14. Requests the World Heritage Centre to present to the General Assembly, at its 26th session, a report on the progress made in the implementation of the Policy Document and the above provisions.

1. Having examined Documents WHC/23/24.GA/9 and WHC/23/24.GA/INF.9 and WHC/23/24.GA/INF.9.Add,
2. Recalling 41C/Resolution 74, adopted by the UNESCO General Conference at its 41st session in 2021,
3. Commends the efforts of the UNESCO Culture Sector and the Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs to establish the Model Rules of Procedure, and thanks the Secretariat of the 1972 Convention for having explored possible ways to harmonize the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly on that basis;
4. Adopts the amendments to the Rules of Procedure as foreseen in Document WHC/23/24.GA/INF.9.Add, as amended.

1. Having examined Document WHC/23/45.COM/2.Rev,
2. Taking into consideration Rule 8 (Observers) of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee,
3. Authorizes the participation in the extended 45th session, as observers, of the representatives of the international governmental organizations (IGOs), international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), permanent observer missions to UNESCO and non profit-making institutions in the fields covered by the Convention, listed in Part I of the present document.

1. Having examined Document WHC/23/45.COM/3A,
2. Adopts the Agenda contained in the above-mentioned document.