'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.

8. Mr. von Droste stated that three States Parties had ratified the Convention during 1989 and expressed the wish that further efforts be made to encourage the adherence of new States Parties. The Committee noted the work that the Secretariat had undertaken to coordinate efforts to conserve the world's natural heritage with those of other international funds and conventions, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-International) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Committee noted the development of the proposed draft convention on biological diversity, evolving within the scope of Unesco's activities as a member of the Ecosystem Conservation Group (UNEP, FAO, Unesco and IUCN), in order to report back to the Committee's future sessions on the implications for the World Heritage Convention. The Committee also noted the promotional activities briefly described by Mr. von Droste. The Committee noted the different types of international assistance projects approved and implemented during 1989, and took special note of the fact that the demand for assistance for training was growing at a faster rate than other types of international assistance provided from the World Heritage Fund. Several delegates congratulated the Secretariat on the work undertaken. The representative from Canada emphasized that other programmes of Unesco needed to have a better understanding of the work of the Convention and the decision­making role of the World Heritage Committee. IUCN informed the Committee of activities which it had undertaken to promote the Convention. For example, at the Fourth South Pacific Nature Conservation and Protected Areas Conference, held in Vanuatu in September 1989, IUCN had presented a report on the Convention and that as a result, several of the South Pacific countries such as Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea had shown their interest in joining 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.

20. With reference to the archaeological site of Leptis Magna (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), a member of the Committee noted that flooding of the Wadi Lebda, which sporadically affects the monuments of ancient Leptis, was a known phenomenon. Reports on this phenomenon by Italian specialists, especially the Centro Nazionale per le Ricerche (CNR) in Rome, should be consulted. In this regard, it would be advisable to contact Professor Antonino Di Vita, Director of the Italian School of Athens, a leading specialist on the Leptis site and its problems.

21. The Committee accepted the Secretariat's proposals concerning the continuation of the monitoring system. The mailing of a third series of questionnaires was thus postponed, and the Committee decided that the questionnaires already received would be analyzed. A sample of the worksheets prepared on the basis of the analysis will be submitted to the Bureau at its fifteenth session. The Committee also noted with satisfaction the Secretariat's initiative in starting a programme for the systematic diagnosis of World Heritage cultural sites. Because a UNDP project is already under way in Latin America and the Caribbean, the experiment will be launched in this region.

22. With reference to this same region, a Committee member reported that the UNDP-Unesco Project Coordinator will organize practical training in monitoring in 1991. This is an excellent initiative to be cited as an example, especially for ICCROM, which could plan similar training in the coming years.

23. The Committee carefully examined the document produced by ICOMOS as a contribution to the monitoring of world heritage cultural properties. The Committee focused primarily on the Monastery of the Hieronymites and the Tower of Belem, a world heritage site where the construction of a building had begun in the area protected under the Convention. The Secretariat informed the Committee that, having been alerted by various sources, it had immediately brought this matter to the attention of the Portuguese authorities. Deeply concerned about the situation described, the Committee sent a cable to the Portuguese authorities, expressing its fear that the project in question would cause irreparable damage to the world heritage value of the site and offering to organize an expert mission to evaluate the impact of the project.

24. Particularly concerned about the proliferation of such projects, the Committee deemed it advisable to include a paragraph on this topic in the Operational Guidelines encouraging States Parties to increase their vigilance. The following wording was thus adopted for inclusion in the Operational Guidelines: "The World Heritage Committee invites the States Parties to the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage to inform the Committee, through the Unesco Secretariat, of their intention to undertake or to authorize in an area protected under the Convention major restorations or new constructions which may affect the World Heritage value of the property. Notice should be given as soon as possible (for instance, before drafting basic documents for specific projects) and before making any decisions that would be difficult to reverse, so that the Committee may assist in seeking appropriate solutions to ensure that the world heritage value of the site is fully preserved."

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.

19. The Committee was also informed of the type of continuous monitoring which the Secretariat pursued with regard to projects which were the subject of international campaigns or supported by UNDP. A recently published brochure on the work carried out in Sana'a, as well as the report on the mission to Bulgaria which was annexed to the Document SC-91/CONF.002/3, showed that the most efficient monitoring could be done through technical assistance missions. Unfortunately, the financial and personnel resources of the Secretariat were far too small compared with the many World Heritage sites to be monitored.

20. In the opinion of the Secretariat, a monitoring action should be carried out in the form of a continuous dialogue with the State Party which should begin even before the inscription of the site, in order to inform local competent authorities (politicians and technicians) about the values to be maintained and the principles and methods of conservation to be applied. In particular, the implementation of the management plan requested at the time of the proposal for inscription should be verified by means of a monitoring exercise.

21. The representative of ICOMOS brought to the attention of the Committee alarming news about the deterioration of certain parts of monuments of Khizi Pogost (USSR). He stressed the fact that his organization was interested in sending a mission on the spot to evaluate the state of conservation of the site. With reference to the cultural centre in the process of being built between the Tower of Belem and the Monastery of the Hieronymites (Portugal), he underlined that the work was almost completed and that a comprehensive file submitted by the government showed that the rules of the competition had taken account of the fact that the site was classified as a World Heritage property. Part of the existing building replaced industrial constructions and this represented an improvement. This case proved that it was necessary to determine a future strategy to guide architects in charge of the development of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Portuguese observer remarked that the project of integrating this cultural centre was part of a plan for safeguarding of the zone with a view to reasserting the value of the site. The Committee took note of the report of ICOMOS and, in the light of this example, emphasized that States Parties should attach the greatest attention to maintaining the values of World Heritage properties, when elaborating development projects, new constructions or major restorations. They should equally inform the Committee, through UNESCO's Secretariat, of their intention to undertake or to authorize projects in an area protected under the Convention before any irreversible decisions were taken. The need for close collaboration between the Secretariat and the local competent authorities was stressed during the debate. The Committee took note that ICOMOS, in co-operation with ICCROM, was preparing a guide on the management of sites for authorities responsible for World Heritage.

22. The Co-ordinator of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project on Cultural Heritage and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean introduced the method which had been used in the detailed analysis of six sites in the region. The documents presented only reflect work already achieved within the framework of a wider project concerning sixteen sites in all, the evaluation of which will be carried out up until 1993 and will cost the World Heritage Fund US$40,000.

23. The Committee took note of this report. While considering that the method was interesting, it judged that it would not be necessarily applicable to all regions.

24. The Co-ordinator of a network set up by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for the protection of Mediterranean sites under the Barcelona Convention introduced in his turn his working method on monitoring. During visits to seventeen sites around the Mediterranean, he evaluated,, in collaboration with local experts, the different problems raised by the conservation of the sites concerned. Following his visits he kept in touch with the competent authorities with a view to assisting them in their task with technical advice and documentation.

25. Regarding the management of sites, a member of the Committee questioned the limits to the possibility of intervention by the Committee and the Secretariat. The Secretariat explained that national authorities, whose collaboration was obviously indispensable, were always informed.

26. The possibility of intervention by the private sector in activities of safeguarding and development of World Heritage was raised. A delegate considered that progress in this field remained far below desirable levels. For instance, various difficulties encountered by a high visiting capacity of the sites could be solved through co­operation with, private associations.

VII.2 Following in-depth discussions, the Committee adopted, with a certain number of revisions, the conclusions, goals and the recommendations with which they had been presented, as constituting not only a strategy as such, but strategic orientations for the future, aimed at the different actors concerned with the implementation of the Convention, e.g. the States Parties, the World Heritage Committee, the advisory organizations and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

VII.3 These strategic orientations are presented as Annex II to the present report. The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to send them to all States Parties to the Convention. The Committee also requested the World Heritage Centre, with the assistance of the UNESCO Legal Office, to prepare draft revisions to the Guidelines for the implementation of the Convention reflecting its decisions, and to send them to all Committee members before the end of March 1993. These draft revisions of the Guidelines should more particularly take into account the proposal presented by United States of America as well as by Italy. These draft revisions will be submitted to the Bureau of the Committee at its seventeenth session for review.

IX.2 In this respect, schoolchildren and teachers were particularly interested, and had requested additional information on the Convention.

IX.3 The events also received excellent press coverage, from the written press as well as audio-visual, and proved a good investment for the future, the first effects of which can already be felt to judge by the numerous proposals for books, films and promotional material that the Centre has already received from the private sector.

IX.4 The Committee was in agreement with the proposal of the Centre to renew the experience, in a more modest way and more decentralized, and by facilitating exchanges of exhibitions between the States Parties.

IX.5 The Committee was also satisfied about the many activities carried out in 1992 by IUCN and ICOMOS; these activities had notedly included, for IUCN, the organization or the participation of regional seminars, the publication of books and articles on the Convention in the IUCN bulletin, the publication of the results of the seminar on the World Heritage Convention held during the Fourth Parks Congress in Caracas, Venezuela, in February 1992, etc. The USA-ICOMOS Committee had, for its part, realized an educative project on the Convention and the World Heritage sites which was in an experimental stage and being used by some teachers, as well as an audio-visual presentation for adult audiences.

IX.6 The Committee noted that, during 1992, the States Parties had also organized a certain number of promotional activities which were described in the document WHC-92/CONF.002/6. The Chinese Delegation informed the Committee that, in co-operation with UNESCO and the States Parties concerned, a film project on World Heritage in certain countries of Europe had been successfully carried out by a Chinese production team, and its distribution in China had greatly contributed towards the promotion of the World Heritage Convention. The Committee hoped this type of production would be encouraged in the future.

IX.7 Finally, the Committee was happy to note that 1992 had not been entirely devoted to activities for the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the Convention, but had also seen the updating and production of new information material, such as publications, a prototype video­disk (CD-ROM) for the general public and the model for a newsletter on world heritage, which were both presented to members of the Committee for their comments.

IX.8 With regard to activities proposed for 1993, the Committee has accepted proposals contained in document WHC­-92/CONF.002/6. However, it was felt that more emphasis should be placed on the production of material aimed at informing managers of World Heritage sites about criteria and the implications of the inscription of sites on the World Heritage List, and the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee also noted that the CD-ROM project should be pursued in accordance with the recommendation of the Bureau, but that it was not appropriate to allocate to it a quarter of the promotional budget but a more modest amount, and that a part of the budget should rather be allocated to the production of basic educational material which is more easily disseminated.

IX.9 With regard to private initiatives for publications and films, etc. the Committee requested the Centre to control the technical quality of the information contained in the material produced and to negotiate, if possible, the sharing of the copyright.

IX.10 The Committee also noted that three regional seminars particularly destined for the press, which were initially foreseen to take place in 1992, had been postponed until 1993, and which will be organized in Dakar (Senegal), Fez (Morocco) and Quito (Ecuador).

IX.11 Finally, the Committee wished that its strategic orientations concerning promotion be taken into account in the activities of the World Heritage Centre as of 1993.

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.

In this context the Delegate of Germany proposed that biennial reports be prepared by the Centre and presented to the Committee on the implementation of international assistance provided by the World Heritage Fund. The Delegate pointed out that this information was crucial for the evaluation of successive requests for the same site or project, also in view of the fact that World Heritage funding was increasingly only part of more complex funding mechanisms. The Delegate of Germany proposed that the first report would cover the period 1990-1994 and be presented, after discussion in the Bureau, to the Committee at its next session.

XIII.3 The Director of the Centre proposed to give a first overview of the available reports on international assistance provided by the States Parties at the next Bureau meeting and to decide on the procedure of reporting on the basis of this overview. The Committee adopted this amendment.

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;