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

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

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

Number of States Parties eligible to vote: 156

Number of voters: 134

Number of abstentions and invalid papers:  0

Majority required: 68

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

The President declared Belgium, Colombia and Portugal as elected.

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

The results of the second ballot were as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

«The Bureau of the World Heritage Committee

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

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

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

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

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

1. Requests the Director-General of UNESCO
   

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

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

XVI.2 Several delegates noted that the follow-up to the General Assembly should be included in the agenda of the Bureau and that the discussion on this agenda item should be given enough time and attention. The Delegate of Hungary informed the Committee about the Resolution Number 40 of the thirtieth session of the General Conference dealing with the proposed World Heritage Fellowship Programme. This item should be included in the agenda of the Bureau meeting in order to prepare a report to be brought to the 160th session of the Executive Board. The Rapporteur asked for clarification whether this resolution was adopted by the Plenary session of the General Conference and whether this involved financial implications.

XVI.3 The Director of the Centre informed the Committee that, indeed, such a proposal was submitted for an amount of US$ 200,000 and that the Programme Commission IV of the General Conference of UNESCO took note of it, but that no budget allocation was made available. As a number of fellowships programmes already exist, the Centre will study the question and will report back to the next session of the Bureau. The Delegate of Thailand noted that no funds were provided for such a programme and that the Committee should not make any commitment at this stage but look further into this matter. The Delegate of Hungary noted that the resolution was adopted by the Plenary Meeting of the General Conference and that the Secretariat has to do the follow-up work and that at this stage it would not involve financial implications. He also recalled that this proposal was first presented at the session in Kyoto and is included as Annex II.4 of the report. The Delegate of Benin suggested that the Committee mandate the Chairperson to closely examine this question together with the Secretariat, and decide whether it should be studied by the Bureau as an aganda item, and that eventually an information document be prepared on the follow-up of the General Conference Resolution. This proposal was endorsed by the Chairperson and approved by the Committee. The Chairperson decided to request the Secretariat to review the situation and to report back to the next session of the Bureau.

XVII.2 The Delegate of Hungary announced that his Government is withdrawing its invitation to the Committee for the year 2000 and supports the Australian invitation, and that the Hungarian authorities wish to invite the World Heritage Committee for the year 2002, taking into consideration the invitation from Finland in 2001. His full statement is included in Annex XI.

XVII.3 The Delegate of Australia warmly thanked the Hungarian authorities for their understanding, and he reiterated that it would be an honour for his country host the Committee in Australia in November/December 2000. His full statement is included in Annex XII.

XVII.4 The Chairperson emphasised the immense work of the Secretariat, and suggested that two days between the extraordinary session of the Bureau and the twenty-fourth session of the Committee would allow the Secretariat to conclude its work on the Bureau and the preparations for the Committee session.

XVII.5 The Committee decided that the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau would be held in Cairns, Australia, from 23 to 24 November 2000, followed by the twenty-fourth session of the Committee, from 27 November to 2 December 2000.

XVII.6 The Delegate of Benin noted that the reports of the sessions could be much shorter and should just reflect decisions made by the Committee. The Rapporteur welcomed any suggestions to improve the quality of the reports. She noted that the actual reporting system was far from being perfect and indeed many improvements could be made in that respect. She recalled the ongoing process of improving the working methods of the Committee and its Bureau, which would bring modifications to the actual reporting system. This issue merits a thorough reflection and thus it could be referred to the task force chaired by the Delegate of Canada. The Delegate of Hungary, in highlighting his experience as Rapporteur, noted that the World Heritage Committee and Bureau reports are important documents, as they are the only ones that are available to the public. He stated that the Committee should be very careful and not introduce changes to the actual reporting system without having reflected upon it.

XVII.7 The Delegate of China informed the Committee that his Government wishes to host one of the sessions of the World Heritage Committee session, in 2003, taking into consideration the earlier invitations from Australia, Finland and Hungary. The Delegate of Benin wished that in the future there would be no misunderstandings concerning the invitations to host Committee meetings and that the Committee members would be reminded of the invitations at each of its sessions. The Chairperson thanked the Delegate of Benin for his remarks and noted that the order of invitation should be respected.

XVIII.2 The Observer of Uganda informed the Committee that the question of the involvement of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) should be reviewed, in particular with regard to the movable heritage, in particular with regard to moveable heritage and the serious problem of illicit traffic in Africa.

XVIII.3 The Observer of Poland underlined the importance of a pluridisciplinary approach in the safeguarding of heritage. The criteria of the World Heritage Convention should respect the wealth of regional diversity.