Faites une recherche à travers les informations du Centre du patrimoine mondial.

Administration
Assistance internationale
Budget
Communauté
Communication
Conservation
Convention du patrimoine mondial
Credibilité de la Liste du ...
Inscriptions sur la Liste du ...
Liste du patrimoine mondial en péril
Listes indicatives
Mécanisme de suivi renforcé
Méthodes et outils de travail
Orientations
Partenariats
Rapport périodique
Rapports
Renforcement des capacités
Valeur universelle exceptionnelle








354 Décisions
11 Résolutions
Année (fin) : 2019close
Thème : Méthodes et outils de travail close
Par année
Un membre du Comité a proposé de modifier l'article 12 du règlement intérieur provisoire de manière à prévoir l'élection de 4 vice-présidents. Deux autres ont appuyé cette proposition, qui a été adoptée. Le Comité a ensuite élu par acclamation les représentants de la République arabe d'Egypte, de la France, du Nigéria et de la Pologne comme vice-présidents et M. Peter H. Bennett (Canada) comme rapporteur.
7. Le Président a invité les membres du Comité à examiner l'ordre du jour provisoire établi par le Secrétariat. Le représentant du Directeur général a proposé d'y ajouter un point intitulé "Questions diverses" au titre duquel la proposition de collaboration émanant de l'Organisation internationale pour la protection des oeuvres d'art (doc. CC-77/CONF.001/5) et la proposition de donation faite par le professeur Badawy (doc. CC-77/CONF.001/7) seraient étudiées. Il a suggéré en outre que la question des méthodes de travail du Comité soit examinée non pas séparément mais en même temps que les ...
[Uniquement en anglais] In reply to a suggestion that the Rules of Procedure should be examined by a working group which would report back to the Committee at a later plenary meeting, the Legal Adviser stated that, in the absence of a text formally approved by the Committee, the Provisional Rules of Procedure would prevail and he therefore proposed that they be examined at an early plenary meeting; this would not prevent the Committee from amending the Rules of procedure at a later stage, if necessary. He added that the Rules of Procedure would probably only assume their final form after ...
[Uniquement en anglais] Several amendments were proposed to bring greater clarity to the text or to reflect more closely the terms of the Convention. The Rules relating to the election of officers and to the voting procedures gave rise to some comment.
[Uniquement en anglais] With respect to the eligibility for re-election of members of the Bureau, participants considered that, although rotation in the membership of the Bureau was necessary, continuity in the work of the Committee was of paramount importance. Various proposals followed, some providing for re-election of all officers and others for re-election of the Vice-Chairmen and the Rapporteur only. A further proposal which sought to limit the eligibility of all officers for immediate re-election to a second term of office was finally accepted.
[Uniquement en anglais] An explanation was requested on the different weightings required for a majority vote under the terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Rule 28. The Legal Adviser referred members to paragraph 8 of Article 13 of the Convention·which stipulated that "Decisions of the Committee shall be taken by a majority of two-thirds of its members present and voting". This provision was included in an Article of the Convention dealing with substantive questions and not with procedural matters. It was therefore considered that a two-thirds majority should be required on substantive ...
[Uniquement en anglais] Participants requested that two points raised in connection with the Rules of Procedure be noted in the summary record. The first related to the meetings of the Committee which, in the opinion of one member, should be given wide publicity. The second concerned the suspension of the Rules of Procedure which, as confirmed by the Legal Adviser, could be initiated by any State member of the Committee.
[Uniquement en anglais] A corrigendum setting cut the modifications made by the Committee, as well as an amendment proposed by the representative of the Director-General to Rule 8.2, was examined at the last meeting of the Committee which then proceeded to adopt unanimously the revised text of its Rules of Procedure. (Annex II)
Certains membres du Comité ont exprimé l'espoir que les informations fournies aux Etats membres seront assez précises pour leur permettre de sélectionner des biens vraiment aptes à être inscrits sur la liste, et que les critères retenus les aideront à restreindre leur choix. A cet égard, quelqu'un a proposé qu'un maximum soit fixé au nombre des demandes que chaque Etat pourrait présenter à l'origine, mais à la réflexion cela n'a pas été jugé souhaitable. Il a cependant été décidé de conseiller aux Etats de limiter le nombre des demandes soumises au même moment, étant entendu qu'elles ne ...
[Uniquement en anglais] Several members considered that an independent assessment by experts of the nominations submitted would be essential and it was proposed that the nominations should be transmitted, for comments and evaluation, to the Rome Centre, ICOMOS or IUCN, as appropriate.
[Uniquement en anglais] One member considered that States not Parties to the Convention should be able to have properties nominated by a State Party for inclusion in the List. Other participants inquired about the possibility of nominating properties not situated in national territories, such as international sites, for instance the United Nations building in New York, or regions such as Antarctica. However, it was pointed out that the Convention was very explicit in this respect, Article II referring to the submission by each State Party of inventories of properties situated in its ...
[Uniquement en anglais] The Committee then proceeded to examine the working document paragraph by paragraph and to put forward their comments which would be taken into account by the drafting committee in formulating the decisions taken by the Committee.
[Uniquement en anglais] Several participants felt that the fundamental notion of the Committee's complete independence in evaluating nominations of States Parties should be more emphatically underlined. Others foresaw that certain properties would be re-evaluated in the light of new discoveries which may lead to the deletion of properties from the List. The "loss of integrity" referred to as a reason for the deletion of property from the List did not appear pertinent in the case of cultural property; for example, monuments in ruins, obviously having lost their integrity, could be eligible ...
[Uniquement en anglais] It was proposed by several participants that, in the final text of the criteria, no examples should be cited, in order not to prejudice the decisions of the Committee. There was general agreement on this point.
[Uniquement en anglais] The very tight calendar proposed was discussed in some detail, with many participants referring once more to the difficulties their own governments would have to face in preparing in time their nominations. The question of limiting the number of nominations to be submitted by States was again raised, and whereas the decision previously taken in plenary not to impose any limit was maintained, it was decided that States would be requested to indicate an order of priority among the nominations submitted. States would, at the same time, be reminded that the process of ...
[Uniquement en anglais] The exact role to be played by the Rome Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN gave rise to some discussion, one member proposing that all nominations should be transmitted automatically by the Secretariat for comments and evaluation to the competent organization. The representative of the Director-General agreed that the organizations had an extremely important role to play in reviewing the dossiers submitted by States Parties, and in particular in putting them into order but he feared that the addition of another step in the already tight calendar might entail delays. It was ...
[Uniquement en anglais] In order to present the Committee at its second session with a set of nominations that would be balanced by category and by geographical and cultural region, it was decided that the Bureau, meeting in June 1978, would review all the nominations received and decide which would be forwarded to the Committee. The following calendar would thus be followed: November 1977: dispatch to States Parties of Director-General's letter, together with printed nomination form; 1 April 1978: receipt of nominations from States Parties; April/May 1978: dossiers will be received ...
[Uniquement en anglais] With respect to the granting of international assistance, it was suggested that, in view of the limited funds available, a fixed maximum sum should be made available for each project. This would be difficult, responded another participant, since each case would have to be considered separately in the light of resources available under the Fund and arrangements for complementary financing. Another proposed that such decisions should be taken on the basis of an annual budget submitted to the Committee at each session.
[Uniquement en anglais] On the basis of resources available in the World Heritage Fund, the Secretariat proposed in document CC-77/CONF.001/6, a budget covering (i) the preparation of model nomination files, (ii) technical co-operation to States Parties in preparing their nominations and requests for assistance, and (iii) emergency assistance required before the next session of the Committee.
top