Relations Between the World Heritage List and the International Campaigns for the Safeguarding of the Cultural Heritage
31. Mr. Ian Christie Clark (Canada), one of the four Rapporteurs entrusted by the Special Committee of the Executive Board with an in-depth study on International Campaigns for the Preservation and Safeguarding of the Cultural Heritage of Mankind informed the Committee of the findings of that study (document 23 C/INF.25). The study described the success of the earlier campaigns but pointed out that only very limited degrees of success had been achieved in respect of the other campaigns due in part to the rapid growth in their number. The speaker indicated that whereas it would be logical that international campaigns be launched only for sites included in the World Heritage List, this in fact was not the case, since only seventeen of the twenty-nine campaigns concerned world heritage sites. This could be explained by the separate development of these two Unesco programmes and the different procedures by which an international campaign was launched and a site was included in the World Heritage List. The study recommended that the concept which lies behind the international campaigns be revised, and that priorities be set and realistic limitations placed on the responsibilities of Unesco, the national governments concerned and the international community. Of particular interest to the World Heritage Committee was the recommendation that closer links be established between international campaigns and the World Heritage Convention in the following ways : firstly, that prior to requesting an international campaign, a Member State which is not Party to the World Heritage Convention should be encouraged to adhere to it so that it is eligible to seek inclusion of the site or monument concerned on the World Heritage List; secondly, that Member States on whose behalf international campaigns have been undertaken but which are not yet parties to the Convention should also adhere to it and submit the site or monument in question for inclusion in the World Heritage List.
32. After examining the in-depth study, the Committee welcomed the conclusions and recommendations formulated therein, as endorsed by the Executive Board at its 122nd session (decision 5.1.4) and, in particular, the two recommendations calling for closer links between the sites included in the World Heritage List and those which were the subject of international campaigns, and which read as follows
"6.5.2 If the Member State is not a State Party to the 1972 World Heritage Convention, to take action so that it is eligible to seek inclusion of the site(s) or monument(s) it wishes to safeguard on the World Heritage List.
6.5.3 If an International Campaign has been undertaken on behalf of a Member State not yet signatory to the World Heritage Convention, that State should become a State Party and submit the cultural property subject to a campaign to the World Heritage Committee for inclusion on the World Heritage List."
The Committee requested the Secretariat to report to it at its next session on progress achieved in implementing both recommendations.