(a) Emphasizes the importance of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention. In particular the Committee emphasizes Article 6 (1) which states that:

Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the States on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage (...) is situated, and without prejudice to property right provided by national legislation, the States Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate.

(b) Recalls that the twenty-second session of the World Heritage Committee in Kyoto (1998) expressed "grave concern" over the ascertained and potential dangers to the World Heritage cultural and natural values of Kakadu National Park posed by the proposal for uranium mining and milling at Jabiluka;

(c) Notes that the deliberations of the twenty-third session of the Bureau and of the third extraordinary session of the Committee demand the continuous serious consideration of the conditions at Kakadu National Park by the Committee with reference to Section III, in particular Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage;

(d) Expresses its deep regret that the voluntary suspension of construction of the mine decline at Jabiluka until the twenty-third session of the Committee (requested by the twenty-second session of the Committee) has not taken place;

(e) Is gravely concerned about the serious impacts to the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park posed by the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka. The Committee is of the opinion that confidence and trust building through dialogue are crucial for there to be any resolution of issues relating to the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka. In particular, a more substantial and continuous dialogue needs to be established between the Australian Government and the traditional owners of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease, the Mirrar Aboriginal people;

(f) Is concerned about the lack of progress with the preparation of a cultural heritage management plan for Jabiluka;

(g) Continues to have significant reservations concerning the scientific uncertainties relating to mining and milling at Jabiluka.

(a) Recognizes, with appreciation, that the Australian Government, Australian Supervising Scientist, advisory bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM) and independent scientific panel (ISP) established by the International Council of Science (ICSU) have provided the reports requested by the twenty-second session of the Committee (Kyoto, 1998);

(b) Acknowledges that there are indications that a new dialogue between the Mirrar Aboriginal people and the Australian Government has begun in relation to issues concerning the Jabiluka uranium mine and mill. The Committee considers this to be an essential step in finding a constructive solution to the issues raised by the UNESCO mission to Kakadu National Park and encourages the Australian Government to intensify their efforts in this regard and pursue with vigor the deepening of its dialogue with the Mirrar Aboriginal people;

(c) Notes that the Australian Government has stated (in document WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G entitled "Protecting Kakadu National Park" submitted by the Australian Government) that "full scale commercial mining at Jabiluka would only be reached about 2009 following the scaling down of production at the Ranger mine so that two mines would not be in full production simultaneously". The Committee further notes that the Minister for Environment and Heritage has stated that there shall be no parallel commercial scale operation of the Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines located in enclaves surrounded by, but not included, in Kakadu National Park. The Committee considers that it is the clear responsibility of the Australian Government to regulate the activities of a private company, such as Energy Resources of Australia, Inc, in relation to the proposed mining and milling activities at Jabiluka to ensure the protection of the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park;

(d) Notes that the Australian Supervising Scientist (ASS) has assessed the report of the independent scientific panel (ISP) established by the International Council of Science (ICSU) and seeks a dialogue with the ISP to resolve outstanding questions relating to scientific issues concerning mining and milling at Jabiluka.

(a) progress made with cultural mapping of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease and the Boyweg-Almudj site and its boundaries and the completion of the cultural heritage management plan with the necessary co-operation of the Mirrar, and appropriate involvement of other stakeholders and ICOMOS and ICCROM;

(b) progress in the implementation, in response to the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study (KRSIS), of a comprehensive package of social and welfare benefits, together with the Northern Territory Government, for the benefit of the Aboriginal communities of Kakadu (including the Mirrar);

(c) more precise details of the output and scale of any parallel activities at the Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines as well as on any legal provisions taken in that respect.

 The advisory bodies have often expressed their concerns in view of the growing number of nominations. They feel that the current rate of new nominations:

• threaten the credibility of the List,

• require the availability of additional financial and human resources that could weigh on the already modest World Heritage funds,

• will result, for lack of time, in a reduction of the activities that should be devoted to conservation reports, strategic planning, thematic studies, and the strengthening of existing capacities,

• create difficulties in managing the timetable of the meetings of the Bureau and the World Heritage Committee, and also that the prolongation of the sessions will lead to additional financial outlay.

Delegation to all the UNESCO Delegations which announced the withdrawal of their candidature to the Committee "for the sake of the system of rotation". He also referred to a written declaration of the Italian Delegation in which it pledged that if re-elected, it would resign after two years. He declared that this type of commitment and political will provided food for thought and were good examples for other Delegations. He announced that he would “come back to the French Note Verbale and Italian declaration under agenda item 8 “Ways and means to ensure a representative World Heritage List”.

11. He recalled that his own country, The Netherlands, had ratified the World Heritage Convention in 1992, and had never been a candidate to the Committee. Nevertheless, as an observer, the Netherlands had been working in the spirit of changes that were needed. He referred to the “Amsterdam meeting" in March 1998, which brought together natural and cultural heritage experts to define a holistic approach of the “Global Strategy”. He pointed out that in the last eight years, his country had submitted five nominations to the World Heritage List which all fall in under-represented categories of heritage.

12. Before thanking the General Assembly once again for his election he vowed to enhance the prestige and reputation of the Convention by working towards a change.

15. He referred to the fundamental issue of the representativity of the List and to the ongoing discussions (since 1992) to improve the existing imbalances in the framework of the Global Strategy. He stressed that during his mandate as Chairperson, he had not only drawn up action plans, but had tried to translate recommendations into concrete actions. He cited a Japanese proverb: “Even dust, if gathered together, can be transformed into a mountain”, and evoked the draft resolution that had been prepared by a working group he had created during the twenty-third session of the Bureau in July 1999.

16. He then referred to the five essential functions of the Convention:

The first function is to identify cultural and natural properties of “outstanding universal value” for inscription on the World Heritage List. He noted that the number of nominations submitted had increased exponentially over the past few years, taxing the ability of the Secretariat to process them, the advisory bodies to evaluate them and the Committee to decide on these cases with the attention and scientific rigour that each case merits. He appealed to the States Parties to support the objectives of the Global Strategy in the identification and nomination of sites to enhance the representativity of the World Heritage List.

17. As for the second task, which is to monitor the state of conservation of inscribed sites in co-operation with the States Parties concerned, he referred to similar pressures: during the past two years, over 200 state of conservation reports have been presented to the Bureau and the Committee.

18. When mentioning the third task of the Committee, which concerns the inscribed properties to include on the List of World Heritage in Danger he referred to natural calamities, man-made disasters, ill-planned public tourism which are among the most frequent causes of ascertained and potential threats to World Heritage sites. Many of these sites discussed by the Committee have not been inscribed on the List of World heritage in Danger. The ongoing examination of the Kakadu National Park in Australia is a case in point. The complexity of this case required the Committee to consider a wide range of issues: from uranium mining technology, to social and economic issues, wetland conservation and the fundamental rights and spiritual beliefs of indigenous peoples.

He congratulated his predecessor, Professor Francesco Francioni, for the exemplary manner in which he initiated the process of evaluation of Kakadu, and for his personal commitment in heading the UNESCO fact-finding mission. He referred to his decision to hold an extraordinary session of the Committee, devoted entirely to the case of Kakadu. Despite the considerable financial and human resources this implied, he believed that the credibility of the Committee was enhanced by the thoroughness of its examination and its decision.  

19. He underlined the fourth task of the Committee which is to determine the most effective use of the World Heritage Fund to assist States Parties in protecting their properties. During his term, the budget was further increased by another 14% to US$ 4,676,000 for 1999. Noting the absence of clear guidelines in the approval process to enable prioritization of the requests, he suggested the linkage of preparatory assistance and training grants to Global Strategy and to give priority to requests from Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Least Industrialized Countries (LICs) which will be put before the Committee for their endorsement. He announced that the Government of Japan had made an exceptional contribution of US$ 300,000 for preparatory assistance to LDCs and LICs. He emphasized as Article 5 of the Convention states, that adoption of a general policy to give cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the Community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes, remain the key to World Heritage protection.

20. This brought him to the fifth task of the Committee, and perhaps the most important of all tasks, that of public-awareness building and education for World Heritage conservation. This task calls all to invest in intelligence. For without the understanding and support of the public at large, without the respect and daily care of the local communities, which are the true custodians of World Heritage, no amount of funds or army of experts will suffice in protecting the sites. In this connection he expressed his satisfaction that the Committee during his Chairmanship accepted the validity of traditional management regimes as a protection mechanism required in the fulfilment of the conditions for inscription.

21. He praised the efficiency and energy of the Secretariat of the Convention and impressed upon the General Assembly the Committee’s deep appreciation for the excellent work of the Secretariat, particularly the Director and the staff of the World Heritage Centre. He said that the World Heritage Centre needs to be strengthened with more staff and financial resources. He recalled that a Draft Resolution on the strengthening of the World Heritage Centre has been submitted to the General Assembly.

22. In concluding his report, he said that in this year as Chair of the World Heritage Committee, he has strengthened his conviction that it is not money that makes the world turn, but pride and dignity. His speech is attached in Annex I to this report.

23. The President of the General Assembly congratulated Ambassador Matsuura and expressed general satisfaction for the work accomplished during his mandate. It took note of the written and oral reports presented.

The Delegate of Thailand asked for an explication on the amount of the expenditure mentioned in Table 1.1 entitled “Table of funds engaged and expenditure for the biennial exercise ending 31 December 1997”, under the item “Secretariat Support”, i.e. US$ 358,650. The Director of the Centre indicated that this amount concerned the 1996 salaries of six staff members of the Centre who were paid until 1 January 1997 from the budget of the World Heritage Fund, and thereafter from the budget of the Regular Programme of UNESCO.

26. The representative of the Bureau of the Comptroller, after making an oral update of the state of the contributions as at 28 October 1999, indicated that many States Parties had paid their contributions and that other payments were being made and would be accepted until the announcement of the first ballot. The Director of the Centre recalled that the States that were candidate to the Committee should be paid up with their dues.

27. The Delegate of Bolivia, reiterating his country’s candidacy, expressed disappointment that its contribution was not mentioned in the revised document. The President indicated that Bolivia’s contribution has not been received for the current year, and therefore it could not present its candidacy for the Committee.

28. The Delegate of Indonesia was surprised not to see his country on the revised list of States that were not paid up. He declared that Indonesia had recently paid its contribution and, in support of this, presented to the President a letter and a copy of the bank transfer dated 25 October 1999. The President informed the Delegate of Indonesia that, in accordance with the UNESCO Rules and Regulations, his country could only present its candidacy if the amount of this transfer appeared on the Chase Manhattan Bank’s list of amounts received by UNESCO before the first ballot. He also gave him a note from the Bureau of the Comptroller dated 29 October reflecting this position.

31. He recalled that at its twenty-second session, the World Heritage Committee inscribed this item on the provisional agenda of the twenty-third session of the Bureau. The document informs the General Assembly of the implications and development of the Global Strategy. It was examined and approved by the Bureau at its twenty-third session (Paris, 5-10 July 1999). He underlined its paramount importance because it addresses the issue of the Global Strategy.

32. He said that since the adoption of the World Heritage Convention in 1972, innumerable discussions have been conducted as to the means of ensuring the representative nature of the World Heritage List. He underlined that since 1979, disparities and imbalances have been pointed out. The predominance of western European monumental architecture in comparison to non-monumental architectural heritage of other regions has also been highlighted. The need to strengthen the protection of past and continuing interactions between humans and the environment has been stressed.

33. He referred to the June 1994 expert meeting organised by the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS which established a methodology to remedy such disparities. The expert group defined a “Global Strategy”, a thematic methodology to redress the geographical, temporal, and spiritual imbalances of the List. The expert group also identified the following areas or themes whose investigation would help to improve the representativity of the List:

• Human coexistence with the land (movement of peoples, settlements)
• Human beings in society (human interactions, spirituality and creative expressions).

34. In December 1994, the Committee adopted the report of the expert group and it revised the criteria for inscription of cultural properties. The scope of the Global Strategy was extended from cultural heritage to include natural and mixed properties. He referred also to the category of cultural landscapes and recalled that the World Heritage Committee, aware of the changing definition of cultural heritage, had defined this category which is still under-represented on the World Heritage List.

35. He mentioned also that every year since 1995, the Committee has approved the organization by the World Heritage Centre of regional and thematic Global Strategy meetings and studies. A list of background documents concerning these Global Strategy meetings can be found in document WHC-99/CONF.206/INF.5. The advisory bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS) have contributed to the preparation of these meetings and publications.

36. He defined the objectives of the Global Strategy as follows “The Global Strategy is a framework and methodology for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. It relies on regional and thematic definitions of categories of heritage that have outstanding universal value. Its aim is to ensure a more balanced and representative World Heritage List. It encourages countries to become States Parties to the Convention, to prepare tentative lists and to harmonise them, and to prepare nominations of properties from categories and regions currently under-represented on the World Heritage List”.

37. He then gave the floor to the Director of the World Heritage Centre who presented the process set in motion at the twenty-second session of the Committee, under the Chairmanship of Japan to “move from recommendations to action”.

38. The Director of the Centre recalled that by letter of 22 September 1999, he had transmitted all the working documents to the States Parties, requesting them to send him written comments on the draft Resolution. He referred to the only letter received, that from the Czech Delegation, dated 26 October 1999, of which he had acknowledged receipt. He then presented the main points of the draft project, stressing the following considerations: 

• It is in the interest of all States Parties and advisory bodies to preserve the authority of the 1972 Convention, by improving the representativity of the World Heritage List, which should reflect the diversity of all cultures and ecosystem of all regions.  

• Since the adoption of the Global Strategy by the World Heritage Committee in December 1994, to improve the representativity of the list, this objective has not been attained, despite the efforts of the Secretariat and the States Parties concerned.

• To address these continuing deficiencies, the Bureau in July 1999 prepared the Draft Resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of States Parties.

39. He recalled that the 1972 Convention is a framework for international co-operation, he reaffirmed the sovereignty of States Parties, and underlined the importance of moving from recommendations to action, as decided by the Committee at its twenty-second session. He highlighted the following paragraphs of the Draft Resolution which had been prepared by a working group at the Bureau composed of the following members of the Bureau: Benin, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Morocco, Republic of Korea; the following members of the Committee: Canada, Finland, France, Zimbabwe; the following observers: Belgium, United Kingdom and the Secretary- General of ICOMOS.

A. The General Assembly invites all States Parties to:

• Integrate the protection of cultural and natural heritage into comprehensive planning programmes (Art.5 of the Convention)
• Prepare or re-examine tentative lists by focusing on under-represented heritage
• Prioritise categories highlighting interaction between humans and their environment, and humans in society

 On a voluntary basis,

• Space voluntarily their future nominations; and/or
• Propose only properties in the under-represented categories; and/or
• Link their nominations with those of another State Party with under-represented heritage; or
• Decide to suspend the presentation of new nominations; and
• Inform the Committee of their choices.

C. Invites States Parties with under-represented heritage to:

•  Prioritise nominations and tentative lists
• Initiate regional partnerships based on the exchange of technical expertise
• Encourage bilateral and multilateral co-operation to increase their expertise
• Maximise their participation in World Heritage meetings

D. Invites the Advisory bodies to:

•  Pursue programmes of thematic studies and classification of themes
• Observe the greatest scientific rigor while evaluating nominations
• Develop mechanisms to deliver training to experts in under-represented regions to prepare and evaluate nominations

E. Invites the World Heritage Committee to:

• Continue its actions within the Global Strategy framework
• Provide necessary resources from the World Heritage Fund to support the efforts of States Parties whose heritage is under-represented
• Adopt regional and multi-year action plans to implement the Global Strategy
• Evaluate, with all States Parties, progress in the Implementation of the Global Strategy

• Support States Parties with under-represented heritage in the preparation of tentative lists and nominations
• Ensure that sufficient human resources are allocated for the implementation of the regional Action Plans

G. Invites the international community and the donor agencies to:

• Support the protection of natural and cultural heritage and the 1972 Convention
• Prioritise actions directed to the implementation of the Global Strategy in States Parties with under-represented heritage

40. Thirty-eight (38) States participated in the debate. All the speakers expressed satisfaction with the text adopted by the Bureau at its twenty-third session. They thanked the Chairperson of the Committee, the Chairperson of the working group and the States Parties. They stressed the pertinence of the draft resolution, its structure that identifies the responsibilities of each of the partners involved in the implementation of the Global Strategy, and the choice of the measures proposed which aim to improve the representativity of the World Heritage List.

41. Moreover many countries, following France which had been the first speaker in the debate, declared that the principles set out in the draft resolution, when adopted, can only take effect if they are supported by the political will of the States. Indeed, the draft resolution requests the States that already have a substantial number of sites inscribed to limit the rate of new nominations, to make a concentrated effort to help strengthen the co-operative mechanisms and international solidarity, and to assist countries without sufficient capacity to prepare their nomination files and ensure the management of their properties.

42. France’s opinion that a strategy must be developed with three main components: (i) definition of the objectives, (ii) establishment of action plans with timetables, and (iii) an evaluation procedure, found an echo amongst the speakers who affirmed the need to move from recommendations to action.

43. Although Austria and France were the only States to declare, for the former, that it had limited the rate of nomination proposals to one site per year, and for the latter, that it had decided to abstain from presenting new sites in 2000, many States whose heritage is still under-represented stressed the importance of international co-operation and, referring to activities for which they had received assistance from States with substantial conservation capacities, they thanked the donor countries.

44. During the debate, certain States put forward the principle of rotation within the Committee and congratulated France for having withdrawn its candidacy. The large majority of the speakers stressed the discrepancy between the number of States Parties (157) and the number of Committee members (21). Some speakers referred to Article 8.2 of the Convention “Election of members of the Committee shall ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world”, and requested an equitable representation within the Committee. Certain speakers evoked the possibility of reducing the length of the mandate of the Committee members.

45. At the end of the debate a draft resolution was adopted by consensus and without modification (the full text is contained in Annex II).

46. The President felt that a possible increase in the number of States members of the Committee, fixed at twenty-one, according to Article 8 of the Convention could make it necessary to revise this important legal instrument. He therefore invited the Legal Advisor to explain the procedure for modifying the Convention

47. Taking the floor, the Legal Advisor referred to Article 37 of the Convention which states that :

48. Taking account of the clarifications of the Legal Advisor and the debate on an equitable representation within the Committee, the President presented the following draft resolution that the General Assembly adopted by consensus:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote: 156

Number of voters: 134

Number of abstentions and invalid papers:  0

Majority required: 68

Algeria (21 votes); Argentina (49); Armenia (11); Austria (28); Belgium (72); Cameroon (10); China (52); Colombia (86); Egypt (46); Guatemala (42); Italy (53); Jamaica (15); Japan (29); Jordan (14); Lebanon (44); Mongolia (9); Portugal (73); Slovakia (19); South Africa (64); Tunisia (32); Uganda (9); United Kingdom (52); United Republic of Tanzania (16); Vietnam (40).

The President declared Belgium, Colombia and Portugal as elected.

51. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the second ballot was to be limited to those States having obtained the greatest number of votes, provided that the number of States did not exceed twice the number of seats remaining to be filled.

The results of the second ballot were as follows:

Number of voters: 136
Abstentions: 0
Invalid papers: 2
Majority required: 69

Argentina (57); China (74); Egypt (65); Guatemala (49); Italy (69); Lebanon (46); South Africa (85); United Kingdom (61).

The President of the Assembly declared China, Italy and South Africa as elected.

52. One seat remained to be filled and a third ballot was organized with twice the number of candidate States, these being Egypt and the United Kingdom which had obtained the highest number of votes. Before the third ballot, the United Kingdom requested and was granted the permission to make the following statement:

“The UK is very grateful for the considerable support it has received from so many countries towards it candidacy for the Committee. That support has been most generous and gratifying.

The UK, since rejoining UNESCO in 1997, has been a very strong supporter of the Convention and has enthusiastically taken part in the debates which have taken place about the need for greater representativity both in the World Heritage List itself, and in the procedures of the Convention.

The UK has observed that on this occasion three Western European countries have already been selected to the Committee, but only one representative each of Africa, Asia and Latin America, and none from the Arab States.
The UK believes strongly in the need for rotation and a proper balance of representation in the work of the Committee. It accordingly feels that it would now be wrong to press its own candidature further on this occasion. In doing so, it asks all those would have voted for it to instead support the election of Egypt, a country from the Arab States which is well-qualified to serve on the Committee, as this will ensure a better degree of balance in the Committee’s representation.

The UK nevertheless wishes to express its continuing support for the Convention and the important work of the Committee. It hopes to be able to continue to pay a prominent part, even as an observer, and it declares now that it will certainly wish to put itself forward again for election to the Committee on the next occasion.

May I end by thanking all of those whose support for the UK’s candidacy has been so valuable and by asking them to now support the course of action which was believed to be right”.

53. This statement was favourably welcomed by the General Assembly which thus elected Egypt by acclamation. To close this agenda item on elections, the President of the General Assembly congratulated the new members of the Committee (Belgium, China, Columbia, Egypt, Italy, Portugal and South Africa) and announced its new composition.

55. The General Assembly took note of the draft resolution addressed to the Director-General.

«The Bureau of the World Heritage Committee

Noting that the true nature of the functioning of the Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage implies a regular growth in the annual activities relating to its implementation.

Pointing out that the staff of the World Heritage Centre who ensures the Secretariat of this Convention are funded by UNESCO, as well as its operating costs,

Considering that the resources of the World Heritage Centre, notably its staff, have to respond on a regular basis to the workload resulting from its functions relating to the Convention,

Reaffirming the interest of all States Parties to the Convention for its efficient implementation, in conformity with the undertakings of the General Conference of UNESCO and its Director-General,

Taking note of all the efforts already undertaken by the Director-General of UNESCO to secure the necessary resources,

1. Requests the Director-General of UNESCO
   

a) to request the General Conference of UNESCO, during its approval of the Programme and Budget for 2000-2001 of the Organization, to take into consideration the needs and resources of the World Heritage Centre so that it may ensure the implementation of the Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage,

b) to take the above into consideration during the implementation of the approved Budget and Programme.