11. He noted that many States Parties had demonstrated their support of the World Heritage Convention by concluding special cooperation agreements with UNESCO. He thanked the Government of France for its continued support, the Governments of Italy and the Netherlands for their co-operation, as well as those States Parties cooperating through the Nordic World Heritage Office. He thanked the Governments of China and the Republic of Korea for their extrabudgetary contributions over and above their dues and paid a special tribute to the United Nations Foundation (UNF) for its important contribution of over US$8 million for the protection of natural heritage sites, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

12. Mr Bouchenaki thanked the States Parties who had supported the World Heritage Centre by providing human resources over the past two years, including Austria, China, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom as well as Delft University of the Netherlands. He also thanked the recent commitment by Belgium to make available an expert for natural heritage.

13. He thanked Mr Abdelaziz Touri (Morocco), the former Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, and commended Mr Peter King (Australia) and the outgoing members of the World Heritage Committee for their services. Mr Bouchenaki then declared the thirteenth General Assembly open.

15. The Chairperson thanked the General Assembly for his election and commented on the tremendous importance of the World Heritage Convention.

16. The Delegate of Algeria congratulated the Chairperson on his election and welcomed the three new States Parties to the Convention. He then asked that the representative of Palestine be accepted as an observer to the 13th General Assembly. The Delegates of Cuba, the Republic of Dominica, Egypt, the Republic of South Africa, Malaysia, Oman, India, Pakistan, Yemen, Benin, France, Finland, Laos, Costa Rica, Morocco, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, Zimbabwe and Angola supported Algeria's proposal. The Delegate of Israel spoke against the proposal commenting that the Palestinian authority was not a full-fledged state. The Delegate of France commented that Palestine enjoyed observer status at UNESCO and that Palestine had always enjoyed observer status at the General Assembly. He then asked if there were any legal reason to counter Algeria's proposal.

17. The Legal Advisor of UNESCO referred to Rules 2 and 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. He concluded that according to Rule 2.2, Palestine could not be accepted as an observer at the General Assembly unless Rule 2.2 was amended in accordance with Rule 16. He noted however, that Palestine had been accepted as an observer in the past. The Delegate of Spain noted that the general view of the General Assembly was clear and it was not necessary to resort to amending Rule 2.2.

18. The Delegate of Algeria proposed an amendment to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly to state "The representatives of member States and observers of UNESCO…". The Chairperson then suggested that Algeria's proposal to allow Palestine as an observer be accepted. There were no objections. The representative from Palestine thanked the General Assembly for the decision and commented that it opened the way to dialogue amongst peoples that was the only way to achieve peace.

20. The Delegate of the United States of America agreed with the proposal made by the Delegate of France and also commented that in future the General Assembly needed to be given prior notice of issues such as the discussion on the changes to the Rules of Procedure that had been discussed under the previous agenda item.

21. The Chairperson informed the General Assembly that the Director-General of UNESCO might be available to attend the closure of the session. He therefore suggested that an item be added to the end of the Agenda - "Closure of the session".

22. The Provisional Agenda was adopted with the proposed amendments.

23. The Director of the World Heritage Centre noted that in relation to Item 10: Elections to the World Heritage Committee, all candidates for election must have paid their contributions to the World Heritage Fund. If States Parties had not yet paid their contributions and wished to stand as a candidate for the Committee, the Comptroller of UNESCO would accept contributions up until the beginning of the election. Candidates were requested to inform the Secretariat if they intended to pay their outstanding contribution to the World Heritage Fund.

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.

• the accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period 1998-1999, certified by the auditors within the framework of the UNESCO General Audit; and
• the Fund accounts for the year 2000 approved by the Comptroller and which will be part of the external audit for the financial period 2000-2001.

45. He explained each one of the financial statements and tables contained in this document, noting that it reflected the actual financial situation as at the end of the 1998-1999 biennium and the end of 2000.

46. The Delegate of Canada requested clarification as to the difference between the contingency reserve and the operating reserve (Statement II: Balance Statement of Assets, Liabilities, Reserves and Fund Balance as at 31 December 1999). The representative of the Comptroller recalled that the Reserve for unforeseen expenses amounting to 2 million US dollars, had been established following the decision of the Committee at its 17^th session, and that it concerned long-term economies destined to ensure a cash reserve for the budget of the Fund.

47. The Chairperson proposed that the General Assembly approve the accounts for the period 1998-1999 and to take note of the accounts for 2000. The Assembly took note of the document and approved the accounts.

49. The Delegate of Thailand referred to the last page of document WHC-2001/CONF.206/3b, State of contributions as at 31 August 2001, and requested clarification regarding the minimum level of voluntary and compulsory contributions for 2001. The representative of the Comptroller confirmed that the calculations were based, in both cases, on 1% of the contribution of each State to the UNESCO budget, and that the minimum contribution was $27 for 2001, and that the figure indicated was correct.

50. The representative of the Comptroller then informed the General Assembly of other contributions received as at 30 October 2001 amounting to US$ 61,826. The Delegate of Bangladesh intervened to announce that his country had paid its contribution for 2001. The representative of the Comptroller confirmed that Bangladesh had indeed paid on 13 September 2001.   He indicated that some payments were being processed and would be accepted up until the announcement of the first round of voting so that candidate States to the Committee could regularize their contribution.

51. The General Assembly took note of these documents.

54. The Director of the World Heritage Centre recalled that a Resolution had been adopted by the 12th General Assembly concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Furthermore, he acknowledged the work of the Working Group that was chaired by H.E. Ambassador Yai (Benin) in 2000 whose mandate was to make recommendations, based on the Resolution, towards improving the representivity of the World Heritage List.

55. The Director of the World Heritage Centre summarised the main points of the decision of the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-fourth session in Cairns 2000, which were based on the recommendations of the Working Group.

56. The Delegate of Argentina supported the decision of the World Heritage Committee and stressed the importance of the preparation of tentative lists as a first step to protecting heritage. He advised that a committee was recently established in Argentina for this purpose and there were already 10 sites on the tentative list that would be valid until 2010. Under-represented heritage such as cultural landscapes and intangible heritage had been considered as well as sites bordering neighbouring countries.

57. The Delegate of France welcomed the Committee decision but questioned the priority system to be used to select the 30 nominations to be considered by the Committee in 2003. He asked when information from the analysis of the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists (requested by the Committee at its twenty-fourth session) would be available to States Parties to assist them in prioritising their nominations. The Director of the World Heritage Centre responded that an initial analysis would be completed in early 2002.

58. The Delegate of Finland commented that the World Heritage List should be analysed according to a whole range of typologies and categories so that States Parties can identify when they had too much or not enough of a type of heritage represented on the List. He suggested that this would be an important discussion topic at the next World Heritage Committee meeting in Helsinki.

59. The Delegate of Israel referred to document WHC-2001/CONF.206/INF.5 "Distribution of World Heritage properties in States Parties" in which it was stated that 33 States Parties had no properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. He stated that by proposing a limit of 30 nominations to be examined, a "gate keeper" was created whereby underrepresented States Parties may be able to present only 1 or 2 properties, thus limiting their potential for representation on the List. He stated that a limitation of 30 nominations was too strict and suggested that the scale of contributions to the World Heritage Fund for each State Party be based on the number of properties it had inscribed on the World Heritage List.

60. The Director of the World Heritage Centre reminded the General Assembly that it was only asked to note the document on Representivity of the List (WHC-2001/CONF.206/5). He also recalled that the Committee had decided to limit the number of new nominations to be examined in 2003. The World Heritage Committee would decide on the number of nominations to be examined in future years.

61. The Delegate of Greece reiterated the comments made by the Delegate of France emphasising that the results of the analysis of the World Heritage List and tentative lists were required by States Parties to prepare nominations of categories of heritage not well represented on the List. She stressed that the analysis should be a priority of the World Heritage Centre.

62. The Director of the World Heritage Centre provided a brief explanation of the analysis of the World Heritage List and tentative lists which had been requested by the World Heritage Committee in Cairns. The deadline for the report of the analysis was 30 September 2001, but the World Heritage Committee had not provided funding for the study and the World Heritage Centre was unable to find resources to initiate the study. He advised that the study would be funded in 2002.

63. The Delegate of New Zealand supported the work done to date to balance the World Heritage List and acknowledged that the Pacific region was underrepresented on the World Heritage List. He mentioned that the Pacific was under-resourced and welcomed assistance to prepare nominations. He noted that the General Assembly must not forget the objective of quality in the words "outstanding universal value". He stated that New Zealand did not believe that properties of "outstanding universal value" should be restricted from being inscribed just because they were located within a State Party that was well represented on the List. He stressed that New Zealand did not want a distorted List or suppression of high-quality nominations.

64. The Delegate of Chile shared the misgivings of the Delegate of France regarding the priority system to be used to select the 30 nominations to be examined by the Committee in 2003. He asked the Director of the World Heritage Centre to explain how joint nominations between two or more State Parties would be considered. The Director responded by noting that while this type of nomination had not been considered by the Cairns Committee, a solution would be proposed in Helsinki that might encourage more of these nominations in the future.

65. The Delegate of Lithuania supported the work conducted to date to balance the World Heritage List and stated that they eagerly awaited the results of the analysis of the World Heritage List and tentative lists. The Delegate of Denmark supported the decision of the Cairns Committee as indicated in the document (WHC-2001/CONF.206/5) and commented that Denmark had selected three natural/cultural areas in Greenland that they would like to nominate for inclusion in the World Heritage List. Furthermore, he informed the General Assembly that the government of Denmark would provide the expertise to assist in the preparation and co-ordination of these nominations.

66. The Delegate of Slovenia mentioned the importance of scientific research for World Heritage properties and suggested that Karstic phenomena be used as one of the criteria for inclusion in the World Heritage List. She also offered to host a seminar in Slovenia in 2002 on Karstic phenomena.

67. The Delegate of India agreed with the comments made by the Delegates of France, New Zealand and Chile. She stated that nominations of properties of quality should not be excluded from the List in the search for new categories, typologies and themes of heritage. She stated that the process for selecting which nominations were to be examined by the World Heritage Committee must be inclusive and consultative rather than exclusive.

68. The Delegate of Iceland welcomed the work to date to ensure a representative World Heritage List and mentioned that Iceland hoped to nominate a property in the near future.

69. The Delegate of Sudan supported the criteria for selecting nominations to be examined by the Committee in 2003. He stated that Sudan had no sites on the World Heritage List even though it covered a large land mass and contained a considerable number of cultural and natural sites. He commented that as part of the priority system for selecting nominations to be examined, the date when a State Party became a signatory to the World Heritage Convention should be considered as Sudan ratified the Convention 25 years ago.

70. The Delegates of Armenia, Iraq and Indonesia all supported the work achieved to date in trying to achieve a more representative and balanced World Heritage List and mentioned that they had cultural and natural sites that could potentially be inscribed on the World Heritage List.

71. The Delegate from the Democratic Republic of the Congo stated that his country had a number of sites on the World Heritage List but due to war, one of the sites had been put on the List of World Heritage in Danger. He appealed to the General Assembly for appropriate funds to be allocated to enable restoration of the site. Furthermore, he stated that the Congo was full of cultural riches that were not on the World Heritage List and asked that a balance be made between cultural and natural sites.

72. Following these interventions, and at the request of the Chairperson, the General Assembly took note of the decision adopted at the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee as presented in document WHC-2001/CONF.206/5.

73. The Director of the World Heritage Centre reiterated that the priority system for limiting the number of nominations to be examined by the Committee each year would be evaluated by the Committee in one to two years' time. He thanked the General Assembly for their words of appreciation and stated that there was a need to establish ongoing activities for States Parties with no sites on the World Heritage List such as Sudan. He advised that the World Heritage Centre had begun a process to identify desertic sites in this region that may have the potential to be inscribed on the World Heritage List. He also stated that with the assistance of a major grant from the United Nations Foundation work was now being conducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He noted that the Director-General of UNESCO would visit the Congo in 2002.