'As a conclusion, the General Assembly decided to continue the debate on the systematic monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties at the Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties that will be held in 1997. The General Assembly requested the World Heritage Committee to prepare a report and a draft resolution for the Eleventh session of the General Assembly of States Parties taking into account the discussions and experiences gained over the past years as well as the documents that had been presented to the Tenth General Assembly and the discussions thereon.'

23. In response to this request, the World Heritage Committee submitted working document WHC-97/CONF.205/5 which included a report and a draft resolution. The Committee proposed in its report that the methodology and procedures of monitoring and reporting should be governed by the following principles:

 24. After long discussion and taking into account interventions of several States Parties, the General Assembly adopted, by consensus, the following resolution :

16. Noting that the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage has recognized that the cultural and natural heritage 'are increasingly threatened with destruction, not only by traditional causes of decay, but also by changing social and economic conditions which aggravate the situation with even more formidable phenomena of damage or destruction';
17. Considering the twenty-five years of experience in the implementation of the Convention;
18. Reaffirms that 'deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world';
19. While reaffirming the sovereign right of the State Party concerned over the World Heritage sites situated on its territory, considers that a well-reflected and formulated common policy for the protection of cultural and natural heritage is likely to create a continuing interaction between States Parties;
20. Emphasizes the interest of each State Party to be informed of the experience of others with regard to conservation methods and the possibilities so offered, through voluntary international co-operation, for the general improvement of all actions undertaken;
21. Reaffirms the standard setting role of the General Assembly as well as of the World Heritage Committee;
22. Concludes that monitoring is the responsibility of the State Party concerned and that the commitment to provide periodic reports on the state of the site is consistent with the principles set out in the Convention in

                            (i)                     the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth preambular clauses,

                            (ii)                    Art. 4

                            (iii)                   Art. 6.1. and 6.2.

                            (iv)                   Art. 7

                            (v)                    Art. 10

                            (vi)                   Art. 11

                            (vii)                  Art. 13

                `           (viii)                 Art. 15

                            (ix)                   Art. 21.3

                            (x)                   Art. 29;

23. Emphasizes that monitoring is part of the site management which remains the responsibility of the States Parties where the site is located, and that periodic reports may be submitted in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention;
24. Recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that 'Each State Party....recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage...situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State';
25. Recalls that Article 6 lays down the concept of world heritage 'for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate', and that Article 7 requires the establishment of a 'system of international co-operation and assistance' designed to support States Parties' efforts to identify and conserve that heritage;
26. Emphasizes that periodic reporting should be an integral part of a consultative process and not treated as a sanction or a coercive mechanism;
27. Notes that within the broad responsibility of the World Heritage Committee in standards setting, the form, nature and extent of the periodic reporting must respect the principles of State sovereignty and that the involvement of the Committee, through its Secretariat and/or advisory bodies, in the preparation of the periodic reports would be with the agreement of the State Party concerned;
28. Further notes that the States Parties may request expert advice from the Secretariat and/or the advisory bodies and that the Secretariat may also commission expert advice with the agreement of the States Parties;
29. Suggests the General Conference of UNESCO to activate the procedures in Art. 29 of the Convention and to refer to the World Heritage Committee the responsibility to respond to the reports;
30. Encourages States Parties to take advantage of shared information and experience on World Heritage matters;
31. Invites other States to become States Parties to the Convention.

26. Dr Christina Cameron (Canada), Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee presented the report of the Committee (a copy of Dr Cameron's speech is included as Annex I of this report) and introduced two Draft Resolutions to be examined by the General Assembly:

• Draft Resolution presented by the Bureau of the Committee on the protection of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan (WHC-2001/CONF.206/2B); and
• Draft Resolution presented by Mr Peter King (former Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee) - proposal for a new additional voluntary contribution by States Parties to the World Heritage Fund (WHC-2001/CONF.206/2C).

27. With reference to the first Draft Resolution, she remarked that the destruction of the ancient statues of Bamiyan in Afghanistan on 12 March 2001 had brought a new focus on the need to strengthen the safeguarding of the common heritage of humankind. In June 2001 the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee discussed ways to strengthen the protection of heritage.

28. Dr Cameron stated that this Draft Resolution should be examined in the context of the debate and Draft Resolution of the UNESCO General Conference on “Acts constituting a Crime against the Common Heritage of Humanity”. She thanked the representative of the Director-General, Mr Bouchenaki, for having referred, in his opening speech, to the important discussions that took place on this subject in Commission IV of the General Conference the previous Saturday.

29. With reference to the second Draft Resolution, Dr Cameron noted that in the last two years many States Parties had benefited from International Assistance from the World Heritage Fund. Hundreds of requests for assistance to prepare nominations, tentative lists, management conservation plans and to organise training workshops had been supported. The sustainability of this support however, had been questioned. In his letter of 2 July 2001, Mr Peter King (then Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee) commented that "in the long term I believe that the compulsory contribution by States Parties of 1% of the contribution to the Regular Budget indicated in the Convention is outdated". In noting that there were also many other fiscal initiatives that must be examined to enhance the protection of World Heritage, Mr King called for the support of all States Parties to a voluntary additional contribution to the World Heritage Fund.

30. Dr Cameron advised that after considering the financial statements as at 31 December 2000, the Comptroller of UNESCO highlighted the World Heritage Fund’s position in relation to cash reserves. He indicated that during 2001 the financial resources of the Fund would be fully stretched. The only other resources were locked in the US$2,000,000 outstanding debts from States Parties, a significant asset which was not available.

31. The Chairperson of the General Assembly congratulated Dr Cameron and expressed satisfaction with the work accomplished by the Committee to date. The General Assembly took note of the report.

32. The Chairperson referred to the Draft Resolution on the protection of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan submitted by the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-fifth session (Paris, 25-30 June 2001) (document WHC-2001/CONF.206/2B). He noted that the international community voiced deep concern when the statues of Bamiyan were destroyed. He stated that the General Assembly might wish to amend the wording of the Draft Resolution to reflect the current situation.

33. The Delegate of Greece questioned the procedure whereby the Bureau prepared the Draft Resolution without seeking the views of the Committee. She stated that the Bureau had no legal authority to do so. The Director of the World Heritage Centre stated that this situation had occurred due to the calendar of meetings whereby the Committee was not scheduled to meet until December. The Delegate of Thailand stated that if the Draft Resolution had been put to the Committee, it would have definitely been adopted.

34. The Resolution concerning "Acts constituting a crime against the common heritage of humanity" adopted by Commission IV on 27 October 2001 for adoption by the UNESCO General Conference, was distributed to the General Assembly. This Resolution was read to the General Assembly by the Director of the World Heritage Centre (see Annex II).

35. Recalling that the situation in Afghanistan had changed since the Bureau prepared the Draft Resolution, the Chairperson of the General Assembly requested that a small working group comprising the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, interested delegations and the Secretariat meet to make amendments, in light of the Resolution concerning "Acts constituting a crime against the common heritage of humanity". The revised Draft Resolution was proposed and adopted by the General Assembly by consensus (see Annex III).

36. The Chairperson of the General Assembly then referred to the second Draft Resolution presented by Mr Peter King which was a proposal for a new additional voluntary contribution by States Parties to the World Heritage Fund (WHC-2001/CONF.206/2C).

37. The Delegate of Spain advised the General Assembly that it was a complex issue that required considerable thought and further study, commenting that the proposed voluntary contribution was actually compulsory. Following this, he stated that without further study and explanation of the rationale, Spain could not accept the Draft Resolution. The Delegate of Greece agreed and stated that voluntary contributions were not a predictable way to secure funds. Furthermore, she stated that the World Heritage Committee, the statutory organ to define strategy, had not been consulted about this Draft Resolution. She suggested that every State Party to the Convention should encourage the establishment of public and private means to provide further funding for World Heritage.

38. The Delegate of Belgium gave credit to the former Chairperson for the ideas presented in the Draft Resolution but stated that an increase of 1% in voluntary contributions was minor. She commented that additional funding should be sought through, for instance, co-operative arrangements. She mentioned that several proposals suggested by States Parties in response to Mr King's proposals had not been made available to the General Assembly and that this issue needed to be more thoroughly prepared and investigated. She suggested that the decision be referred to the World Heritage Committee.

39. The Director of the World Heritage Centre announced that he would make the responses of States Parties to Mr King's proposals available to the General Assembly (see Annex IV)

40. The Delegate of Thailand stated that before proposing the Draft Resolution, Mr King had approached States Parties at the Bureau and Committee session in Cairns. The idea of the Draft Resolution was not to change the provisions of the Convention (Article 16). He noted that table 1 in the Draft Resolution may lead to some misunderstanding as the figures under "proposed additional voluntary contribution of 1% US$" were too specific. He advised that the word "additional" should be changed to "supplementary".

41. The Delegates of Lithuania, Uruguay, Finland, Hungary, Panama and Japan supported the Delegate of Spain and requested that more time be given to consider the Draft Resolution in greater depth. The Delegate of Argentina suggested that resources be strengthened by active, imaginative and efficient identification of extra budgetary resources and a reallocation of resources within UNESCO's regular budget. The Delegate of Benin commented that a 1% voluntary contribution set a ceiling which was undesirable as States Parties may want to give more. The Delegate of Finland stressed that States Parties who had not paid their contributions to the World Heritage Fund should pay their dues. The Delegate of Israel suggested that the Secretariat take note of the States Parties' responses to the Draft Resolution and provide the General Assembly with an analysis of voluntary and compulsory contributions related to the number of World Heritage sites within each State Party.

42. The Director of the World Heritage Centre agreed that a ceiling could not be put on voluntary contributions to the World Heritage Fund and that there was no upper limit. 1% was chosen for its simplicity. He also informed the General Assembly that the Draft Resolution also proposed a US$300 minimum contribution to the World Heritage Fund for all States Parties.

43. Following these remarks, the Chairperson of the General Assembly suggested that the matter be deferred and that the World Heritage Committee examine the Draft Resolution in greater depth. This decision was adopted by the General Assembly.

5. Welcomes the adoption by the 26th session of the World Heritage Committee of new Strategic Objectives that include the strengthening of the Credibility of the World Heritage List and the development of effective Capacity-building measures;
6. Notes the progress report on the implementation of the Global Strategy for a credible, representative and balanced World Heritage List presented in documents WHC-03/14.GA/8 and WHC-03/27.COM/13;
7. Also notes that the 28th session of the World Heritage Committee (Suzhou, China, June-July 2004) will evaluate the 1994 Global Strategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List;
8. Recommends that additional financial resources be allocated to the World Heritage Centre for programmes to strengthen capacity in the States Parties and regions under-represented on the World Heritage List. In addition, an allocation of part of the carry-over of unobligated funds of the regular budget for 2002-2003 could be considered for this purpose by the Executive Board during one of its forthcoming sessions;
9. Requests that the World Heritage Centre include in its evaluation of the Global Strategy to be submitted to the 28th session of the World Heritage Committee, draft proposals so as to enable the Committee to develop appropriate action plans.

2. Having examined Document 34C/REP/13,
3. Takes note of the report of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee on the World Heritage Committee’s activities in 2006-2007.

1. Having examined Document WHC-07/16.GA/5,
2. Taking note of Decision 31 COM 19, adopted at the 31st session of the World Heritage Committee (Christchurch, 2007),
3. Takes note of the results-based Action Plan to implement the main recommendations of the Management Audit of the World Heritage Centre;
4. Welcomes the proposals of the Director-General of UNESCO to improve the administrative flexibility of the World Heritage Centre, clarify its organizational structure, and create posts, on an experimental basis, by combining multiple sources of financing;
5. Requests the Director-General to prepare, for consideration at the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee, an assessment, including a risk analysis, about the potential impact of the proposals to use the World Heritage Fund as a guarantee for the creation or abolition of permanent posts;
6. Urges the Director-General to pursue the implementation of this Action Plan and other recommendations of the Management Audit; and taking into account its analysis by IOS;
7. Requests that the World Heritage Committee be kept informed about the implementation of the Action Plan and that a progress report be submitted to the 17th session of the General Assembly in 2009.

1. Having examined Document WHC-07/16.GA/11,
2. Welcomes the information provided on the development of a revised recommendation of the conservation of historic urban landscapes;
3. Invites the Director-General of UNESCO to inform the General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, at its 17th session in 2009, on the further activities undertaken and progress made with regard to this initiative.

1. Having examined Document WHC-09/17.GA/7,
2. Takes note with satisfaction of the progress achieved so far in implementing the main recommendations of the management audit of the World Heritage Centre;
3. Calls upon the World Heritage Centre to continue to implement the recommendations of the management audit;
4. While noting the positive efforts made in addressing the recommendations of the audit, calls upon the World Heritage Centre to continue to address the issues for further improvements in personnel requirements, taking into account geographical representation, and report back to the General Assembly at its 18th session in 2011;

- "Regional Thematic Study Meeting on Asian Rice Culture and its Terrace Landscapes (Philippines, 28 March to 4 April 1995)
- "Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on Associative Cultural Landscapes" (Australia, 27 to 29 April 1995).

VII.1 The Secretariat introduced the working document (WHC-96/CONF.201/6A)on this agenda item, emphasizing that, following the discussions during the nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee, the matter of monitoring and reporting should be brought to the attention of both the Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties and the 29th General Conference of UNESCO.

VII.2 As to the Eleventh General Assembly, it was noted that the Committee at its nineteenth session had already prepared a draft resolution and that, as requested by the Committee, the Bureau prepared a report for examination by the World Heritage Committee at this session.

VII.3 The Committee adopted this report which is reproduced in Annex III.1.

VII.4 The Committee also examined a draft resolution for inclusion in the Committee's report to the 29th General Conference of UNESCO, which was prepared by the Bureau at its twentieth session. The Committee adopted the draft resolution which is reproduced in Annex 111.2 of this report, with the understanding that it could be modified in the light of the decisions of the General Assembly.

VII.5 The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare the working documents for the Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, as well as the report of the World Heritage Committee to the 29th General Conference of UNESCO accordingly.

A.2 Second Global Strategy Meeting (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 29 July-1 August 1996)
IX.2 This meeting, decided by the World Heritage Committee during its nineteenth session, was prepared by the Centre and ICOMOS. Its goal was to improve the representativity of the World Heritage List. It was preceded by a meeting, on 6 May 1996, of an international Scientific Committee.

IX.3 The Addis Ababa meeting was attended by representatives from seven countries (Chad, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Niger and Uganda). It was organized around four themes:

• The Convention, the notion of cultural heritage today and African heritage
• Archaeological heritage
• Historical heritage, human settlements and living cultures
• Religious places, places of technical production, cultural itineraries and trade routes.

IX.4 The African experts presented a report on major cultural heritage in their countries, emphasizing important sites. They confirmed and illustrated the extraordinary wealth and diversity of cultural heritage of this regional of Africa. Through the examples presented significant groupings became evident. Three of these types of cultural sites requiring specific approaches were identified during discussions:

• archaeological and historical heritage
• traditional architecture and material traces of living non-monumental cultures, including technical heritage and unbuilt sacred places
• routes, itineraries, vast natural zones where traditional populations live.

IX.5 At the end of this meeting, the participants concluded that it was unnecessary presently to modify the cultural criteria in their actual form, but that in the application of the Convention account should be taken of: i) the total interaction of the nature-culture continuum in African societies; ii) the spiritual and sacred heritage and its physical supports; iii) the specificities of cultural landscapes and exchange routes in Africa. They thanked the Committee for their assistance in the organization of the meeting which allowed them to become more familiar with the Convention and provide a basis for reflection concerning the specificities of African cultural heritage.

IX.6 Publication of the proceedings of the meeting in the form of a bilingual scientific publication, in collaboration with the African Research Centre of the University of Paris I is under preparation. The synthetic report of the Addis Abeba meeting was distributed as Information Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.7.

IX.7 The Committee recalled that following the Action Plan for Cultural Landscapes as adopted by the seventeenth session of the World Heritage Committee held in Cartagena in December 1993, a series of regional thematic study meetings were organized in 1994 and 1995. In 1996 a regional thematic study meeting on European Cultural Landscapes of Outstanding Universal Value was organized by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the advisory bodies and the Austrian National Commission for UNESCO in cooperation with Austria Nostra in Vienna (Austria) on 21 April 1996. The Committee noted that the experts reaffirmed the three cultural landscape categories for the European Region and addressed the identification, assessment and evaluation of European cultural landscapes in close cooperation with the Council of Europe and its proposed European Landscape Convention.

IX.8 The Committee commended the French authorities for hosting the expert meeting on "Evaluation of general principles and criteria for nominations of natural World Heritage sites" from 22 to 24 March 1996 at the Parc National de la Vanoise (France) and took note of the full report of the meeting presented in Information Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.8 in English and French.

IX.9 The Australian Delegation endorsed the results of the La Vanoise meeting and indicated Australia's support for the proposed Global Strategy for Natural Heritage. Australia offered to contribute US$ 20,000 towards the undertaking of such a Strategy.

IX.10 The expert group reviewed the natural heritage concepts, the coverage of natural sites on the World Heritage List as well as its balance, manageability and credibility.

IX.11 The expert group emphasized the unifying concept of World Heritage embracing both cultural and natural heritage as outlined in the text of the Convention and the need for an overarching Global Strategy for both natural and cultural heritage. As a result of the discussions, the experts recommended changes to the Operational Guidelines, which were presented in Working Document WHC-96/CONF.201/18.

IX.12 The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its twentieth session did not discuss the recommendations of the experts in detail and that a Circular Letter No. 5/96 was sent to all States Parties of the World Heritage Convention together with the report of the expert meeting. The Secretariat informed the Committee that replies to this Circular Letter were received from the following States Parties: Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Ireland, Lebanon, Morocco, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Spain and Switzerland, as well as by ICOMOS Poland.

IX.13 The Committee took note that the replies were of quite substantive nature and that general agreement and support for the recommendations were expressed by Colombia, Croatia, Ireland, Lebanon, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Spain and Switzerland. Several States Parties underlined however, the complexity of the issue, in particular the problem of the application of "outstanding universal value", the usefulness of one set of criteria, the definition of universal beauty and the application of the conditions of integrity to all sites.

IX.14 Several delegates commented on the report of La Vanoise and indicated that the interaction between culture and nature is in the spirit of the Convention and that the report of the experts is extremely interesting. There is however a more in-depth discussion needed on (a) the application of the "conditions of integrity" versus the "test of authenticity", (b) the question of a unified or a harmonized set of criteria, and (c) the notion of outstanding universal value and its application in different regional and cultural contexts. The Delegate of Italy proposed to involve other experts and offered to select experts from his country.

IX.15 The Delegate of Canada proposed a truly joint meeting of cultural and natural heritage experts to consider these questions and to ensure that all advisory bodies be involved. This proposal was adopted.

IX.16 The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its eighteenth session in July 1994, had asked for an expert meeting on geological and fossil sites. This expert meeting was held at the 30th International Geological Congress (Beijing, China, 8 to 10 August 1996) in order to enhance the preparation of a comparative global study of Earth's evolutionary history. The meeting was organized by the UNESCO Division of Earth Sciences, the World Heritage Centre in cooperation with IUCN and IUGS (International Union of Geological Sciences). The Canadian authorities provided financial support for participants' travel to the expert meeting.

IX.17 The Committee took note of the full report of this expert group which is contained in Information Document WHC-96/CONF.201/INF.10 and the annexed report "Earth's Geological History. A conceptual framework for assessment of World Heritage fossil site nominations". The Delegate of Italy noted that the list of sites proposed in this study is not exhaustive. Following the experts' recommendations, the Committee (a) encouraged States Parties to the Convention to prepare inventories of their national geological heritage, and further to consider identifying from these inventories sites for national tentative lists for World Heritage, (b) that IUGS, through the Global Geosite Working Group, make a first assessment of the values of these sites and compile a global comparative inventory and database, (c) invited IUCN to cooperate closely with IUGS and other NGOs as appropriate for further evaluation of sites proposed for World Heritage listing and (d) encouraged in-depth thematic studies, taking into account the important study prepared by Mr Wells on fossil sites.

IX.18 The Committee approved a Global Strategy meeting for the Pacific Region in 1997, and the principle of a meeting for the Caribbean region with the French Ministry of Education nationale et d'Enseignement Superieur et de la Recherche in 1998. The Committee allocated an amount of US$ 40,000 under Chapter 11 of the budget for the Pacific region.  

D.2 Global Strategy for Natural Heritage

IX.19 The Committee decided that, in view of the Vanoise conclusions on strengthening the links between cultural and natural values, and in the spirit of the Global strategy adopted at the eighteenth session of the Committee in Phuket, a regionally balanced workshop of experts from both cultural and natural fields be organized in 1997. The Committee allocated an amount of US$ 30,000 under Chapter II of the budget for this Workshop.

D.3 Thematic Studies

i) Expert Meeting on Cultural Landscapes of the Andes
IX.20 Following regional thematic study meetings on specific aspects of cultural landscapes in the Asia Pacific Region and Europe, the Committee approved holding an expert meeting on the cultural landscapes of the Andes in 1997 to guide States Parties in the region in the identification, selection and presentation of cultural landscapes in the Andean Region. The Committee allocated an amount of US$ 30,000 under Chapter II of the budget for this meeting.

ii) Expert Meeting on Cultural Landscapes in Africa
IX.21 Following recommendations by the sub-regional training seminar held at La Tapoa, Niger, in September-October 1996, the Committee approved holding an expert meeting on cultural landscapes in Africa in 1998.