VII.2 The Director of the Centre took the floor and described the content of the Working Document and summarized the decisions to be taken that he proposed for submission to the Committee. The decision concerning the technical questions, amended by Benin, were adopted as follows:

The Committee requested that the World Heritage Centre and the advisory bodies continue to take into consideration the work of the Consultative Body on technical questions (application of cultural criteria (i) and (vi), examination of authenticity, imbalance of the World Heritage List and the implementation of the Global Strategy) in particular with regard to the implementation of the Global Strategy, the resolution of the General Assembly concerning the ways and means to ensure a representative World Heritage List, and the meetings on the Rationalisation of Operational Guidelines which should be held in the United Kingdom in April 2000 and the meeting on Integrity/Authenticity in the African context which should be held in Africa in May 2000.

VII.3 Following the adoption of the above, several members of the Committee intervened to request that discussion on this item of the agenda be conducted in a global manner as the different elements submitted for discussion are closely linked. Some delegates requested that a special working group be rapidly formed so that it may submit concrete proposals to this Committee session.

VII.4 Canada, supported by several delegations, of which Belgium - who proposed themes to be studied by this special working group - Australia, France and the United Kingdom suggested that the working group concentrate first of all on the finalisation of the work of the Consultative Body, created in 1996 by the Committee. The Delegate of Canada also proposed that the special working group should not discuss the subject of representativity of the List, which should be studied within the context of the Global Strategy. This proposal was endorsed by the delegates.

VII.5 With regard to the composition of the small working group, delegates indicated that it should be geographically representative of States Parties to the Convention whilst being limited in number. It was also suggested that the advisory bodies to the Convention be represented.

VII.6 At the end of the debate that discussed many aspects of the terms of reference of the working group, the Chairperson of the Committee suggested the following composition of the group that would meet at the end of the plenary session and would submit a draft decision on detailed terms of reference of the future task force to the Committee: Canada (Chairperson), Australia, Belgium, Hungary, Mexico, Morocco, South Africa and Thailand, and the advisory bodies (ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM). The Secretariat was provided by the World Heritage Centre. The Committee suggested that the working group should discuss the following items, among others: the working methods of the Committee and its Bureau; proliferation of the statutory meetings; the role of the advisory bodies; the calendar of nominations; the human and financial resources of the World Heritage Centre.

VII.7 These proposals were approved by the Committee and the Chairperson requested that the working group submit its deliberations to the Committee on Thursday, 2 December during the afternoon session. The Chairperson proposed that delegations wishing to contribute to the working group provide their proposals to the Chairperson or their representatives in the Task Force.

VII.8 The working group met twice and formulated a proposal for the terms of reference of the task force. These were submitted to the Committee and, after discussions were amended and approved. During the debate, delegates pointed out the need to keep the composition of the task force open to States Parties wishing to contribute to its work. The approved terms of reference are the following:

TASK FORCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION

At the request of the World Heritage Committee, a working group chaired by Canada submits to the Committee proposals relating to the composition and terms of reference of a Task Force aimed at improving the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

Composition of the Task Force: The same as the working group established by the Committee in Marrakesh 1999, chaired by Canada and including Australia, Belgium, Hungary, Morocco, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, and the advisory bodies (ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN) and a representative of the World Heritage Centre. Australia agreed to act as rapporteur.

Terms of reference of the Task Force: To identify and propose for consideration of the Bureau in June 2000 priority practical measures for more effective operation of the Convention, taking account of pressures affecting the Convention over the coming years. Those measures, some of which should be applicable in preparation of and during the Committee meeting of December 2000, will focus on:

• The organization and running of the statutory meetings,
• The procedures for decision making,
• The information and documentation management,
• The Operational Guidelines.

The Task Force will take into account and further build upon all discussions in previous General Assembly, Committee and Bureau meetings (see WHC-99/CONF.209/9), the management review and financial audit, and proposals made by State Parties.

Working methods: The Task Force will operate in a way that maximizes the opportunity for State Party input. A concise draft paper will be circulated by March 2000 and comments will be sought by fax and email. The draft paper will be posted on the UNESCO homepage.

Possible further developments: After having considered the proposals of the Task Force, the Bureau, at its meeting of June 2000, will recommend for Committee consideration a possible new working group to reflect in depth on the objectives and fundamental priorities in implementing the Convention.

XIII.3 The Secretariat recalled that the Amsterdam meeting made several recommendations including a proposal to develop a unified set of criteria to bring together the existing six cultural and four natural heritage criteria currently presented in Paragraphs 24 and 44 in the first section of the Operational Guidelines. The expert meeting concluded that a unified set of criteria would improve the logic of the Guidelines and emphasize and more clearly express the underlying principles of the Convention in relation to both cultural and natural, and mixed heritage, and cultural landscapes demonstrating outstanding interactions between people and the environment. The Amsterdam meeting also recommended that conditions of integrity be prepared for all ten criteria. For cultural properties this would include a test of authenticity.

XIII.4 The Secretariat informed the Committee that the Working Document concerning revisions to Section I of the Operational Guidelines examined by the twenty-third session of the Bureau in July, had been made available to the Committee as WHC-99/CONF.209/INF.12. The Secretariat recalled that the draft revisions had been prepared in full consultation with all three advisory bodies. The draft revisions, included a draft unified set of criteria with minimal change to the actual text of the criteria as a way of improving the presentation and clarity of Section I of the Guidelines and to better reflect what has been described as the nature/culture continuum expressed at many World Heritage properties around the world.

XIII.5 The Secretariat recalled that at its twenty-third session, the Bureau welcomed the generous invitation by the Observer of the United Kingdom to host an international expert meeting on the Operational Guidelines. The meeting will take place in Canterbury in the United Kingdom from 10-14 April 2000.

XIII.6 The Representative of ICOMOS noted the considerable importance of the discussions on the proposed unified set of criteria and on interpretations of the "test of authenticity". He noted that the meeting to be held in Zimbabwe in May 2000 would examine the application of the "test of authenticity" and "conditions of integrity" for Africa. He informed the Committee that the ICOMOS General Assembly held in Mexico in October 1999 had approved the Nara Document on Authenticity and that it therefore became part of the corpus of reference texts of ICOMOS. He emphasized the importance of the Nara Document in recognising, in differing regional contexts, the diversity of cultural heritage and human development. He referred to the constructive discussions that are linking culture and nature, and that had recognised cultural landscapes. Finally, he highlighted the need to recognise authenticity in the context of heritage of spiritual value.

XIII.7 The Observer of the United Kingdom informed the Committee of the aims, objectives and expected outcomes of the Expert Meeting on the Operational Guidelines to be held in Canterbury in 2000. He noted that representatives, including States Parties and site managers, from all regions would be invited. He indicated that the meeting would not re-write the Operational Guidelines but instead work on proposals to reorganise them to ensure a more user-friendly version. He thanked the Committee for having provided funds, additional to those contributed by the United Kingdom, for the meeting.

XIII.8 The Representative of ICCROM provided complementary comments to those of ICOMOS. He informed the Committee that ICCROM and ICOMOS had prepared a joint paper on the subject that they would provide to the Secretariat. He commented that it was important that a unified set of criteria did not blur the distinction between integrity and authenticity.

XIII.9 In recalling the resolution of the twelfth General Assembly of States Parties, the Observer of France commented that a unified set of criteria could contribute to ensuring a more representative World Heritage List. He expressed his concern that the Committee continued to delay the unification of the criteria and called for immediate action in this respect.

XIII.10 IUCN expressed their strong agreement with the Delegate of France stating that it was time for action by bringing the natural and cultural criteria into a continuum of criteria for World Heritage. IUCN stated that they had consulted widely within its constituency and that there is consistent support for the change to the criteria and that a decision is keenly awaited. IUCN urged that the Canterbury meeting be encouraged to work towards a draft which accommodates the integration of the criteria and endeavour to include both the conditions of integrity and the test of authenticity. The Observer of France underlined the confusion that the draft decision II.3 might encourage. With such a procedure, the Committee would confer a 'decisional' character to the evaluations of the advisory bodies that only the Bureau session in June disposes. The Delegate of Morocco noted that the revision of the Operational Guidelines is not in itself negative. What is of concern is more the rhythm of the revisions. He added that it would be advantageous to have a revised text that could be valid for the next twenty years. The importance of a concertation between the different working groups created by the Committee was emphasized.

XIII.11 The Delegate of Zimbabwe referred to the Amsterdam meeting as a milestone and expressed his agreement with the statements made by France and IUCN saying that it was time to act on the proposal to unifiy the criteria.

XIII.12 The Committee decided to refer the subject of a unified set of criteria to the Expert Meeting to be held in Canterbury, United Kingdom for review.

XIII.14 The Observer of France stated that the proposed revision might seem to add transparency but as a matter of fact it would give the advisory bodies a role of a decision-maker which does not belong to them but to the World Heritage Bureau and Committee. He noted, as did many delegates, and also the advisory bodies, that the revision could create confusion about the nomination and evaluation procedures. It was also observed that the Operational Guidelines had been revised frequently over the past years and that it would be advisable that this revision be considered in the context of the overall revision of the Operational Guidelines. Two delegates reminded the Committee that the intention of the proposed revision was to enhance equity between the Committee members and those States Parties who are not members of the World Heritage Committee.

XIII.15 The Committee decided to defer the examination of the proposed revision. It requested that this matter be considered in the framework of the meeting on the Operational Guidelines that will take place in the United Kingdom in April 2000.

XIII.17 The Committee decided to defer the examination of the proposed revision. It requested that this matter be considered in the framework of the meeting on the Operational Guidelines that will take place in the United Kingdom in April 2000.

XIII.19 The Delegate of Belgium stated that a revision was necessary, as the present Guidelines do not exactly reflect the priorities set out in the resolution adopted by the twelfth General Assembly of States Parties. The Observer of Japan made reference to the statement of the former Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee at the twelfth General Assembly that, in the absence of clear guidelines, he had to evaluate requests for international assistance on the basis of first come, first served. Instead, the international assistance should have a linkage with the Global Strategy and thus priority should be given to least developed countries as well as low income countries and especially those that are under-represented on the World Heritage List. In supporting the Observer of Japan, the Delegate of Benin recalled that the Bureau at its twenty-third session had encountered the situation whereby there were insufficient funds for international assistance requests and therefore precise priorities should be defined and adhered to when examining these requests. The Committee expressed its gratitude that the Government of Japan had made a voluntary contribution of US$ 300,000 in order to respond in a timely fashion to requests for preparatory assistance that were fully justified and responded to the objectives of the Global Strategy.

XIII.20 The Committee decided to refer this matter to the Strategic Task Force chaired by Canada for further consideration. It requested that this be done on the basis of the concerns expressed during the discussions by the Bureau at its twenty-third session, the deliberations at the twenty-third session of the Committee, the outcomes of the evaluation of International Assistance and in line with the resolution adopted by the twelfth General Assembly of States Parties.