World Heritage Emblem

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/9A,

2. Adopts the Terms of Reference for the evaluation of the Global Strategy for a representative, balanced, and credible World Heritage List, by deleting Paragraph 1a;

3. Also adopts the Terms of Reference for the evaluation of the PACT initiative, changing the formulation of its Paragraph 5 by adding "and of their traceability" and by completing the Terms of Reference with the following evaluations:

a) Evaluate the contents of the respective engagements of the World Heritage Centre and its private sector partners and appreciate the equitable character of these engagements,

b) Evaluate the conditions of use of the emblem of the Convention by private sector partners in order to assess whether they correspond to the objectives and provisions of the Convention,

c) Evaluate the contribution of PACT in developing partnerships at the local and regional levels in order to identify the possibility of establishing such partnerships at these levels, as well as the need to provide guidelines in this respect.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Documents WHC-10/34.COM/13 and WHC-10/34.COM/13.Rev,

2. Recalling Decisions 31 COM 16, 32 COM 13 and 33 COM 13 adopted at its 31st (Christchurch, 2007), 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) and 33rd (Seville, 2009) sessions respectively;

3. Takes note of the proposals presented in Document WHC-10/34.COM/13.Rev of the Working Group on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines, created as a Consultative Body at its present session as per Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Heritage Committee;

4. Requests the Working Group to continue its work to finalize the revision of the Operational Guidelines, and to present its report to the Committee at its 35th session in 2011, including reflections concerning the process for the revision of the Operational Guidelines and the recommendations of the international expert meetings presented in section II of Document WHC-10/34.COM/13.Rev;

5. Recalling Decisions 31 COM 8A.3 and 32 COM 8A concerning tentative lists, also requests the World Heritage Centre in consultation with the Advisory Bodies to propose a revision of Part II.C (Tentative Lists) of the Operational Guidelines in order to clarify the procedures of technical analysis by the World Heritage Centre and to ensure that properties proposed on the tentative lists are consistent with properties already inscribed on the World Heritage List.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/13 and WHC-09/33.COM/INF.13,

2. Recalling Decisions 31 COM 16 and 32 COM 13 respectively adopted at its 31st (Christchurch, 2007) and 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) sessions,

3. Takes note of the report of the Working group of the Committee on the World Heritage emblem presented in document WHC-09/33.COM/INF.13 and the work undertaken to propose corresponding revisions to the Operational Guidelines;

4. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation with the Advisory Bodies, and relevant sectors of UNESCO, to continue the work initiated through the Working group on the World Heritage emblem and submit a comprehensive working document focusing on the harmonization of the Directives Concerning the Use of the Name, Acronym, Logo, and Internet Domain Names of UNESCO (Resolution 34 C/86 of the General Conference of UNESCO) to the Committee for examination at its 34th session in 2010;

5. Also requests the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation with the Advisory Bodies in conformity with Section IIE of the Operational Guidelines, to organize an expert meeting to develop examples of the application of the conditions of integrity and authenticity to properties nominated under criteria (i) - (vi) for inclusion in Section IIE of the Operational Guidelines and to seek extra-budgetary funding to support the organization of this meeting.

6. Recalling the debate on changes in the Operational Guidelines during the 33rd session of the Committee (Seville, 2009), requests the World Heritage Centre to prepare an updated document of these changes for adoption at the 34th session in 2010 and circulate this for comments to States Parties before the 1 December 2009.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-08/32.COM/13,

2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 16 adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),
Decisions report of the 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008) WHC-08/32.COM/24, p. 236

3. Takes not of the amendments compiled in the Annex of the Document WHC-08/32.COM/13;

4. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in close cooperation with the Advisory Bodies, to draft the amendments to the Operational Guidelines proposed in Document WHC-08/32.COM/13 taking account of the debate at the 32nd session and the Committee's reflections, and in cooperation with the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, to develop a screening process for the Operational Guidelines to ensure consistent references between the different proposals for submission to the Committee at its 33rd session in 2009;

5. Establishes an informal working group to review and propose revisions to Chapter VIII of the Operational Guidelines, as well as clear procedures and tools to promote consistent and appropriate use of the World Heritage emblem, for the consideration of the Committee at its 33rd session in 2009;

6. Requests the World Heritage Centre, notwithstanding Decision 31 COM 16, to publish the updated English and French versions of the Basic Texts of the Convention following the 33rd session of the Committee in 2009.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/17,

2. Recalling Decisions 26 COM 15, adopted at its 26th session (Budapest, 2002), and 7 EXT.COM 14, adopted at its 7th extraordinary session (UNESCO, 2004),

3. Takes note of the Annual Report on the uses of the World Heritage emblem, included in Document WHC-05/29.COM/17;

4. Further notes with satisfaction that the graphics of the World Heritage emblem, by itself, as well as the graphics of the emblem with the words in any language surrounding such graphics, are now adequately registered under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, thus offering protection to the emblem in the States Parties to the Paris Convention;

5. Requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre to report on new information pertaining to guidelines, procedures and visual representation of the UNESCO name and logo that may have a bearing on the conditions of use of the World Heritage emblem.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Documents WHC-04/7 EXT COM/14, and WHC-04/7 EXT COM/14.Corr,
2. Recalling Decision 26 COM 15, adopted at its 26th session (Budapest, 2002),
3. Regrets that the World Heritage Emblem was not protected as had been requested;
4. Takes note of the Annual Report on the use of the World Heritage Emblem included in Document WHC-04/7 EXT COM/14;
5. Urges the Director of the World Heritage Centre, in consultation with the Office of Legal Affairs of UNESCO, to request the World Intellectual Property Organization to amend its initial communication under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property in order to protect :
   1. the graphics of the World Heritage Emblem by itself; and
   2. the graphics with the words ‘World Heritage’ in any language, surrounding this graphic;
6. Expresses its concern at some inconsistencies in the handling by the World Heritage Centre of requests for use of the World Heritage Emblem and requests that proposals for use of the Emblem which are within the competence of the State Party should be referred immediately to the State Party concerned;
7. Recalls the segment entitled ‘Responsibilities of States Parties’ of the Guidelines and Principles for the Use of the World Heritage Emblem as follows: ‘States Parties to the Convention should take all possible measures to prevent the use of the Emblem in their respective countries by any group or for any purpose not explicitly recognized by the Committee. States Parties are encouraged to make full use of national legislation including Trade Mark Laws’.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Requests the World Heritage Centre to provide a yearly report on the authorized use of the emblem to the World Heritage Committee in accordance with the Operational Guidelines (Annex 3 "Guidelines and Principles for the Use of the World Heritage Emblem" July 2002).

The World Heritage Committee,

Decides that the proposed World Heritage Visual Identity will not be included on the agenda for the 27th session of the World Heritage Committee (Suzhou, June/July 2003).

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Welcomes the World Heritage Partnerships Initiative as a means to achieve, on an experimental basis, a new systematic approach to partnerships;

2. Acknowledges that the work undertaken in identifying partnerships and criteria for new World Heritage partnerships is in progress;

3. Invites the Director-General to further develop a regulatory framework for the Partnerships Initiative to be added to the Committee's guidelines relating to the use of the World Heritage name, emblem and patronage;

4. Encourages the Director-General to ensure that the Initiative supports the Strategic Objectives adopted by the Committee;

5.   Considers that funds generated through the World Heritage Partnerships Initiative should be channeled, to the extent possible, through the World Heritage Fund;

6. Requests the Director-General to ensure that the overheads charged on partnership contributions are appropriated to support the World Heritage Centre;

7. Emphasises that the overseeing authority for monitoring progress and performance of the World Heritage Partnerships Initiative rests with the Committee, and that the Initiative is launched on an experimental basis;

8. Welcomes the proposal to develop performance indicators for evaluating the Initiative for consideration by the Committee in 2003 and to submit progress reports, and invites the Director-General to submit to the Committee at its 30th session in 2006 an evaluation of the Initiative up to end of 2005.

The World Heritage Committee:

1. Invites the Director-General to take the necessary actions to ensure the legal protection of the World Heritage emblem and "World Heritage" name and its derivatives;

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Endorses the objectives of the International Congress entitled World Heritage 2002: Shared Legacy, Common Responsibility;

2. Thanks the Italian Government for offering to host and participate in the funding of the Congress;

3. Authorizes the use of the World Heritage Emblem for the Congress;

XIV.1 The Chairperson then introduced Agenda item XIV concerning Awareness Building and Education Activities and, due to lack of time, asked the Committee to accept reviewing the work plan of activities proposed in document WHC-01/CONF.208/17 without hearing the Secretariat's presentation on this item.

XIV.2 The delegates demonstrated their support for the communication strategy in developing awareness activities and reiterated their unyielding support to activities such as the World Heritage Education project for Young People. It was suggested that activities in this programme also include awareness-raising with regard to wilful destruction of heritage. The importance of involving universities in research and training was also stressed.

XIV.3 Questions were raised concerning specific activities proposed in the work plan, notably on the World Heritage Review and the new series of World Heritage Papers being proposed and underlined the need to ensure better co-ordination of these activities with other partners, including the Advisory Bodies, in order to strengthen the impact of these projects and avoid any duplication of efforts. The issue of quality control was also raised and the Centre was invited to consult with States Parties concerned before information materials are produced and used in promotional contexts, particularly with regard to the public service announcements under preparation.

XIV.4 The Committee debated on the proposed World Heritage Visual Identity and the need to examine this document more closely as similar initiatives may have already been undertaken at local and national levels and new information may be derived from existing experiences. The need to keep this new tool as flexible as possible and to take other visual identities designed by local management authorities into consideration was also emphasized. The design of the new World Heritage signature, illustrated in the draft Visual Identity manual, was considered positively, provided that a certain measure of flexibility be given to management and national authorities for the choice of language versions attached to this Signature as stipulated in the Guidelines and Principles for the use of the World Heritage Emblem contained in the Operational Guidelines. It was suggested that the current draft manual on the proposed World Heritage Visual Identity could be circulated to the members of the Committee for comments and that a new draft should be prepared for examination at the next session of the Bureau in April 2002. This proposal was approved by the Committee.

XIV.5 Following the comments made by delegates on this item, the Committee decided to approve the proposed work plan of Awareness-Building and Education activities. In addition, the Committee requested the Centre to study the process for ensuring the legal protection of the World Heritage Emblem and report on its findings during the next session of the Bureau.

Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention

XIV.1 The Committee examined Working Documents WHC-98/CONF.203/16 and WHC-98/CONF.203/16Add. The Committee reviewed the following proposed revisions to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention:

Section I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST:

XIV.2 The Committee recalled that it had already decided under item 9 of the agenda (see Chapter IX of this report) that the Centre should work with the advisory bodies to further develop Section I of the Operational Guidelines and submit them to the twenty-third ordinary session of the Bureau.

XIV.3 The Chairperson, while referring to the earlier decision to inscribe East Rennell (Solomon Islands), proposed to include a reference to traditional protection in paragraph 44 b(vi) of the Operational Guidelines. The Delegate of Thailand stated that, in principle, the proposed amendment of the provision of the Operational Guidelines could not be applied retroactively to the case of East Rennell and expressed his reservations to this proposal. The Committee decided to revise the first sentence of this paragraph as follows:

"A site described in paragraph 44(a) should have adequate long-term legislative, regulatory, institutional or traditional protection..."

XIV.4 The Committee noted the proposal made by the Delegate of Italy concerning paragraph 65 and the recommendation of the Bureau at its twenty-second extraordinary session, that evaluations of nominations prepared by the advisory bodies would be also sent by the Secretariat to the States Parties which had nominated sites for inscription. The Representative of IUCN said that he saw the proposal of Italy as advantageous as it would formalize a process by which the States Parties concerned would receive copies of evaluations of properties they had nominated. While recognizing that there are merits in this proposal, the Committee noted that a more in-depth reflection was required and decided to request the Bureau at its twenty-third session to examine this proposal in the context of the overall revision of Section I.

Section II. REACTIVE MONITORING AND PERIOD

REPORTING:

XIV.5 The Committee recalled that it had already amended and adopted the proposed revisions to this Section under item 6 of the agenda (see Chapter VI of this report).

XIV.6 During the discussions on the revision of the Operational Guidelines, the Committee considered a proposal by the Delegate of Hungary, an additional item h to Section II.1.: Appropriate Geographical Information, together with the following text to be included in the Explanatory Notes:

"If appropriate geographical information is not available or incomplete, it will be necessary, in the first periodic report for the State Party to provide such information. Such geographical information should be provided in an appropriate form to assist the Centre to create and maintain a user-friendly Geographical Information System of the World Heritage properties for easy reference by the States Parties and other interested partners."

The Committee decided that this proposal needs further reflection and discussion at the twenty-third session of the Bureau.

Section IV. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

XIV.7 The Secretariat informed the Committee that it withdrew proposed revisions to paragraphs 92 to 106 as included in Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/16.

XIV.8 As to the budgetary ceiling for Preparatory Assistance, the Committee decided to raise the ceiling to US$ 30,000 with the understanding that the Chairperson would be authorized to approve requests up to an amount of US$ 20,000, whereas the Bureau's approval would be required for amounts between US$ 20,000 and US$30,000. The last sentence of paragraph 90 was amended as follows:

"This type of assistance known as "preparatory assistance", can take the form of consultant services, equipment or, in exceptional cases, financial grants. The budgetary ceiling for each preparatory assistance project is fixed at US$30,000. The Chairperson has the authorization to approve preparatory assistance requests up to an amount of US$ 20,000, whereas the Bureau can approve requests up to an amount of US$30,000."

XIV.9 The Committee decided to include in paragraph 107 a reference to education and information activities as follows:

"(v) Assistance for education, information and promotional activities

107. (a) at the regional and international levels: With reference to Article 27 of the Convention, the Committee has agreed to support programmes, activities and the holding of meetings that could:

- help to create interest in the Convention within the countries of a given region;

- create a greater awareness of the different issues related to the implementation of the Convention to promote more active involvement in its application;

- be a means of exchanging experiences;

- stimulate joint education, information and promotional programmes and activities, especially when they involve the participation of young people for the benefit of World Heritage conservation.

(b) at the national level:

The Committee felt that requests concerning national activities for promoting the Convention could be considered only when they concern:

meetings specifically organized to make the Convention better known, especially amongst young people, or for the creation of national World Heritage associations, in accordance with Article 17 of the Convention;

preparation of education and information material for the general promotion of the Convention and not for the promotion of a particular site, and especially for young people.

The World Heritage Fund shall provide only small contributions towards national education, information and promotional programmes and activities on a selective basis and for a maximum amount of $5,000. However, requests for sums above this amount could exceptionally be approved for projects that are of special interest: the Chairperson's agreement would be required and the maximum amount approved would be $10,000."

Section V. WORLD HERITAGE FUND

XIV.10 Following discussions under agenda item 9 on Fund- Raising Guidelines, the Committee decided to add the following paragraph to this Section of the Operational Guidelines:

"121. The Secretariat should refer to the "Internal Guidelines for Private Sector Fund-Raising in Favour of UNESCO" to govern external fund-raising in favour of the World Heritage Fund."

The paragraphs following 121 will be renumbered in consequence.

Section VII. OTHER MATTERS

XIV.11 The Committee recalled that it had discussed the issue on the use of the World Heritage Emblem under agenda item 9. It decided to delete paragraphs 124 to 128 from the Operational Guidelines and to amend paragraphs 122 and 123 as follows:

"A. Use of the World Heritage Emblem and the name, symbol or depiction of World Heritage sites

122. At its second session, the Committee adopted the World Heritage Emblem which had been designed by Mr. Michel Olyff. This Emblem symbolizes the interdependence of cultural and natural properties: the central square is a form created by man and the circle represents nature, the two being intimately linked. The Emblem is round, like the world, but at the same time it is a symbol of protection. The Committee decided that the Emblem proposed by the artist (see Annex 2) could be used, in any colour or size, depending on the use, the technical possibilities and considerations of an artistic nature. The Emblem should always carry the text "World Heritage. Patrimoine Mondial". The space occupied by "Patrimonio Mundial" can be used for its translation into the national language of the country where the Emblem is to be used.

123. In order to ensure the Emblem benefits from as much visibility as possible while preventing improper uses, the Committee at its twenty-second session adopted "Guidelines and Principles for the Use of the World Heritage Emblem" which shall be considered an integral part of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, and are attached as Annex 3."

The paragraphs following 123 will be renumbered in consequence.

IX.32 The Secretariat briefly introduced the issue on the use of the World Heritage Emblem and Fund-raising, by recalling the step by step process followed by the Consultative Body in proposing new Guidelines on the Use of the World Heritage Emblem and Fund-raising to the Committee at its twenty-second session. The Secretariat further recalled that the document submitted to the Committee for examination within document WHC-98/CONF.203/11Add remained unchanged since it was last presented to the extraordinary session of the Bureau.

IX.33 Concerning the use of the World Heritage Emblem, the Chairperson recalled discussions of the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau and invited the Delegate of Canada, who had suggested amendments to the Guidelines prepared by Japan and the United States of America, to present them.

IX.34 In presenting the proposed document, "Guidelines and Principles for the Use of the World Heritage Emblem", the Delegate of Canada informed the Committee that the proposal emanated from the Guidelines prepared by Japan and the United States of America (WHC-98/CONF.203/11Add) and was finalized in co-operation with these delegations. She underlined the fact that the document was not a new proposal, but a slightly modified version of the Japanese/USA Guidelines, presenting a more concise, but nevertheless self-contained document. She recalled that the adoption of the proposed Guidelines and Principles would entail a revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. She concluded by stating that, after having spent close to two years working on this issue and in view of the growing urgency of the matter, the Committee should adopt guidelines to provide all concerned parties with a tool ensuring appropriate use of the Emblem.

IX.35 While recognizing that the proposed Guidelines reflected the comments of the Secretariat to some extent, the representative of the UNESCO Publishing Office who participated in the debate, expressed reserve regarding the applicability of the Guidelines and quality control requirements proposed in the document. He stated that this might discourage media related companies (publishers, film producers, etc.) from requesting the use of the Emblem on World Heritage related information products.

IX.36 During the discussions, concerns were raised on the legal aspects related to the protection of the Emblem and the implications of these aspects in terms of the responsibilities of the Committee and the States Parties to the Convention. The need for quality control of World Heritage site-specific products from States Parties was reaffirmed and considered indispensable.  

IX.37 A working group, composed of the Governments of Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America was established on a voluntary basis to continue working on this issue before the end of the session. The working group made amendments to the text to reflect the discussions of the Committee. The Delegate of the United States of America briefly presented the modifications made to the document. This new version of the document (attached as Annex XII to this report) was adopted by the Committee.

IX.38 The Chairperson briefly introduced the Fund-raising Guidelines and reminded the Committee that the "Internal Guidelines for Private Sector Fund-Raising in Favour of UNESCO" have been in use within UNESCO since 1997 but have not yet been adopted by the Executive Board. Therefore, the Chairperson proposed that the Committee ask the Centre to work in accordance with the "Internal Guidelines for Private Sector Fund-Raising in Favour of UNESCO". The Committee agreed with the proposal and then adopted the decision as formulated.

XII.16 With regard to partnerships with the media and publishing houses, the Committee expressed concern about the use of the emblem and quality control The Committee requested the Consultative Body to submit to it recommendations on the use of the emblem and guidelines for fund-raising. This would allow the development of a policy for outside partnerships that the Centre would implement. The Delegates of China and Japan commended the efforts of the Centre in building partnerships with the media, stating that in their countries World Heritage films produced by Beijing Television and Tokyo Broadcasting System (TBS), respectively, has been diffused widely, informing large audiences of the importance of World Heritage. The delegate of Japan stated that more than half of the income from media contracts come from Japanese companies, showing how despite the late accession of Japan to the Convention, there is a tremendous public interest in World Heritage which is inspired by the media.

XII.18 The Committee took the following decisions with regard to activities under Sections A to D:

1. Under Section A. the Committee agreed not to approve the request for the purchase of equipment under A.7 and A.8 from the World Heritage Fund as a matter of principle, indicating that equipment to be used by the Secretariat should be financed under the Regular Programme Budget. The Committee therefore decided to allocate US$ 38,000 from the World Heritage Fund for 1998 for the documentation.
2. Under Section B, the Committee decided to allocate US$165,000 from the World Heritage Fund in 1998, but requested the Secretariat to submit a proposal on means of cost recovery for posters, maps and other material being produced under this section as well as the possibility of co-production of such material for mass distribution.
3. Under Section C, taking into account the comments of several Committee members on the need to use the radio medium, the Secretariat was requested to prepare a strategy and plan of action on how to support States Parties efforts to produce radio programmes on World Heritage. The Committee decided to approve the budgetary ceiling of US$ 70,000 for Section C, stating that up to US$ 20,000 can be used to prepare a strategy on radio programming instead of the proposed activity C.5.
4. Under Section D, the Committee decided to allocate US$ 10,000 to be used to promote the involvement of publishing firms and national television companies in developing countries, in addition to the earmarked income for servicing generated from contracts with the media partners to enable the Secretariat to employ consultants and issue fee contracts for backstopping the contracts and carrying out content validation of the World Heritage information products being produced by the partners.

XII.19 To enable the Committee to address outstanding issues related to information activities, notably on the guidelines on the use of the World Heritage emblem for information and the private sector fund-raising activities, as well as on content validation, it was decided that the Consultative Body would continue its work and submit its recommendation to the Bureau in June 1998 and to the Committee at its twenty-second session. It was agreed that the Consultative Body would also look into the information strategy especially with the view to improving the target of the various information material being produced by UNESCO as well as by the media partners.

XII.29 It was suggested that the project also involve tertiary education and work in association with the Culture Sector of UNESCO which has already been involved in projects relating to heritage protection and universities .The Committee approved a total amount of US$ 70,000 for the Young People's World Heritage Education Project in 1998. The Chairperson closed the debate by noting that the Committee had expressed wide praise and enthusiasm for the Project.

Presentation of the Chapter V budget from 1998 to 1999

* US$ 226,333 earmarked income for servicing fee received from the media and publishing partners.
** including US$ 30,000 from the Education Sector.

V.6 The Committee decided to prolong the work of the Consultative Body, to be chaired by the President of the World Heritage Committee, Professor F. Francioni (Italy). The Delegate of Australia stated that the Director of the Centre should also be closely involved in the work of the Consultative Body. It was decided that the Consultative Body would report initially to the twenty-second session of the Bureau and then to the twenty-second session of the Committee. The Committee asked that the Consultative Body analyse the Management Review Report, further study the use of the emblem and fund-raising guidelines and investigate the balance between the Centre's work on promotion compared to that on the management of World Heritage properties.

XV.1 In introducing this agenda item on promotional and educational activities carried out in 1996 and to examine the proposals for 1997 (as contained in Document WHC-96/CONF.201/16), the Chair stated that these activities play a vital role In enhancing the implementation of the Convention and that the Committee therefore attaches great importance to these matters. She explained to the Committee that the World Heritage Centre, in addition to managing such activities financed from the World Heritage Fund, also coordinates promotional and educational activities on World Heritage carried out by other sectors of UNESCO and implements activities in this field entrusted to the Centre by the Director-General of UNESCO.

XV.2 The Chair requested the Secretariat to focus its presentation on the 1997 proposed activities on the assumption that the Committee has noted the activities carried out in this field in 1996 as reported in the above-mentioned document.

XV.3 The Secretariat began its presentation by responding to the request from one of the members of the Committee for a clarification on the notion of promotional activities, as understood by the Centre. The Secretariat stated that promotion was not to be confused with public relations and marketing but refers to information and communication activities for the enhancement of understanding and support by the public of the World Heritage Convention and their participation in its implementation.

XV.4 Towards the attainment of these objectives, and in the furtherance of one of the principles of UNESCO which is to provide access to information by as large a sector of the world population as possible, the information and communication strategy of the proposed programme is to produce basic core information that is adaptable and could be expanded for different target groups.

XV.5 The Secretariat explained that the proposed programme aims to optimize limited financial and staff resources, and to meet the needs of these different target groups, ranging from political decision-makers; business sector, including tourism; teachers and students; local communities inhabiting in or near the World Heritage sites and to the general public at large.

XV.6 The Delegates of Germany and the United States of America commended the excellent quality of the document and the clarity of the Secretariat's presentation, and congratulated the Director and the staff of the Centre for their accomplishments in this field.

XV.7 Several members of the Committee raised serious concerns over the numerous errors contained in the CD-ROM on World Heritage Cities co-produced by UNESCO and produced by the media with the use of the World Heritage emblem and insisted upon the need for quality control. The Committee felt that UNESCO should share the text of the publications and films with the States Parties concerned for verification in conformity with the Operational Guidelines. A delegate drew the Committee's attention to the question of confidentiality of Committee documents on Internet.

XV.8 Several members of the Committee also stated that UNESCO had not always respected paragraph 125 of the Operational Guidelines, regarding the commercial use of the emblem. In this respect the Delegate of Italy stated that the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention should be closely abided to, and in particular paragraph 125, which does not authorize commercial reproduction of images of World Heritage sites. It was emphasized that on the contrary, the paragraph required that the State Party concerned be consulted before dissemination of information and images (even non-commercial) in order to avoid errors. In any case, it is necessary to verify that the intellectual property rights of each country are protected.

XV.9 With reference to the wide diffusion of documentary information mentioned by the Delegation of Germany, the Delegation of Mexico wished to express the surprise of their authorities at the Ministry of Public Education who had finalized the publication of a book on Mexican sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, when discovering the commercialisation of a publication on these same sites, without forewarning or prior authorization, in another country and which moreover contained important errors, especially with regard to the illustrations. Consequently, the Delegation of Mexico requested that the States concerned be systematically consulted regarding all publications and proposed: (a) the use of information (often already available at the World Heritage Centre) in coordination with States; (b) that States be provided with advance information regarding publication programmes to avoid legal problems at the level of individual States and therefore maintain the credibility of the Convention. Many members of the Committee stated the need for the Secretariat to bear in mind the information requirements of developing countries and local communities which often do not have access to telephones, much less the Internet. The importance of the print and radio mediums for information dissemination was stressed.

XV.10 As regards World Heritage Education, the Secretariat recalled that the World Heritage Centre initiated in 1994, jointly with UNESCO's Education Sector, a project aiming at introducing knowledge about World Heritage in secondary schools worldwide, primarily through UNESCO's network of Associated Schools. Its main purpose is to empower local people to protect their cultural and natural heritage by helping them understand the Convention, and by having them actively involved in local/national preservation efforts.

XV.11 The project focuses on working regularly with students, teachers and specialists (curricula developers and conservation specialists) in developing a World Heritage Education Kit (consisting of a manual, texts, visual and audio material) which should help teachers "translate" the Convention into the language of their students, and raise the students' awareness about cultural and natural heritage in general. The first parts of this kit, produced on an experimental basis, have been tested through UNESCO's (sub) regional World Heritage Youth Fora which followed the First Forum held in Bergen in 1995, namely: (a) the European Forum held in Dubrovnik in May 1996, and (b) the Forum for countries of English-speaking and Portuguese-speaking Africa, held in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe in September 1996. Further work on the material, in collaboration with ICOMOS and IUCN will take place in 1997, and this will be tested during the fora to be held in Asia and the Pacific, the French-speaking countries of Africa, the Arab States and Latin America and the Caribbean in the next two to three years.

XV.12 The main institutional partners for this project in each country are the UNESCO National Commissions, ICOMOS and IUCN chapters (as resource persons) and teachers' associations. The project is receiving major financial support from the Rhone Poulenc Foundation and NORAD (both contributions go to a Special Account within UNESCO, earmarked for this project) and is being carried out with assistance from UNESCO Field Offices and other units of the Secretariat.

XV.13 In the ensuing debate, many of the members of the Committee expressed their full support for the World Heritage education work that is being done. Some stressed however the importance of assuring follow-up activities to the World Heritage Youth Fora.

XV.14 The Director of the Centre in responding to the comments and concerns raised by the Committee stated that the Centre is trying to ensure the quality of the multimedia information products by employing experts to check on the text from the servicing fees provided through contractual agreements with the media and publishing partners. The amount already received in the first ten months of the year has permitted this in addition to a full- time consultant working at the Centre to negotiate with media partners and to provide them with the logistic support as defined in the contract. He indicated that the costs for one full-time consultant for backstopping the media and publishing partners for 12 months, one expert to revise the German-language products for 6 months and one expert to revise the English-language material for 3 months have been paid from the servicing fees from these contracts.

XV.15 The Director was requested by the Chair to respond to the following questions related to this agenda item raised by members of the Committee during the examination of the 1997 budget.

(a) clear breakdown on incomes generated from contracts with the media and publishers, and how they have been spent;
(b) other expected income from these contracts in 1997;
(c) if the policy of the Centre is to reinvest these incomes into promotional or operational activities;
(d) whether a marketing strategy is needed and if so, whether this would be in keeping with the rules and regulations of the Committee.

XV.16 The Director stated that the income received from the contracts between 1 January and 31 October 1996, amounted to US$ 94,437 as servicing fees (entered into the accounts as earmarked contribution) and US$ 132,787 as contribution towards the Fund for use to be determined by the Committee. He specified that this amount does not take into account the share on incomes retained by the UNESCO Publishing Office (UPO) or other entities of UNESCO which also conclude contracts related to World Heritage.

XV.17 He explained that income in 1997 will most likely increase but that he was not in a position to provide the amount since much of the income comes from percentages on royalties which of course depends on the sales.

XV.18 The overall strategy and programme was approved, with the exception of the proposed budgetary appropriation for the 25th anniversary (US$ 100,000) and the State of the World Heritage Report (US$ 35,000).

XVI.1 The Secretariat summarized Working Document WHC-96/CONF.201/17 on the "Use of the World Heritage Emblem" which was requested by the twentieth session of the Bureau in 1996, and which provided a legal analysis by UNESCO's Legal Advisor of the aspects concerning the use of the emblem, as well as proposals as to the manner in which to guide its appropriate use. The legal analysis determined that under the terms of the contract with the artist, Mr. Olyff, who designed the emblem, the owner of the emblem is UNESCO. However, it was further underlined that the Committee adopted the artwork as the emblem of the Convention at its second session in 1978, and had developed guidelines for its use as represented in the Operational Guidelines, paragraphs 122-128. The Secretariat explained that the situation was multifaceted and complex as well as not sufficiently addressed in the Operational Guidelines to assure the consistent and timely authorization of the use of the emblem. The Committee emphasized that it had previously decided that the States Parties had the responsibility to control the use of the emblem within their sovereign territories and it was observed that two States Parties (Canada and the United States of America) had taken the necessary steps to regulate and control the use of the emblem. The non-commercial and commercial, educational, informational, promotional and presentational uses of the emblem were noted as difficult determinations to make in the absence of more detailed guidelines. While the prerogative of the Committee to make such determinations on a case by case basis is recognized in the Operational Guidelines, pragmatic considerations for the use of the emblem had led the Centre to make for educational purposes with the private and public sector media contractual arrangements which have generated contributions to the World Heritage Fund. The Centre sought additional guidance from the Committee with respect to the development of criteria for the consistent and appropriate use, regulation and protection of the emblem.

XVI.2 It was brought to the attention of the Committee that in the current Operational Guidelines, the use of the term World Heritage "emblem" was recommended, but that the term "logo" also appears. For consistency and to avoid a nomenclature that implied a commercial connotation it was suggested to use in the future exclusively the term "emblem". It was recommended that the Committee considers revising the Operational Guidelines accordingly.

XVI.3 The Delegate of Lebanon concurred with a consistent use of the term "emblem" throughout the Operational Guidelines and the equivalent in the French text. He further expressed the opinion that UNESCO had not respected the procedures for the use of the emblem. The Delegate of Malta welcomed the confirmation from UNESCO's Office for International Standards and Legal Affairs that the decision to adopt the design as the emblem of the Convention could only be taken by the Committee, and that UNESCO can only dispose of it through the Committee. Therefore, Article 6 of the Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of Norway was legally problematic. The Committee believed that the development of more detailed guidelines for the use of the "emblem" was necessary and that the abusive commercial use of the "emblem" should be avoided.

XVI.4 The Committee decided to place this question on the appropriate use and authorization of the World Heritage emblem before the Consultative Body created by the Committee for the purpose of reviewing the financial and management aspects of the Centre.

20. The Secretary presented document SC-88/CONF.001/3 on the revision of the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. The Committee noted that the modifications proposed in this document resulted from three different actions, namely:

• changes introduced in accordance with the Committee's decisions concerning the monitoring of cultural properties, the procedure for nomination of extensions to World Heritage properties and assistance for promotional activities;
• modifications required to update the Operational Guidelines to make them conform with current practice in the implementation of the Convention (notably the need for a condition of integrity of natural sites relating to the protection and management regime, as well as to requests for training activities financed under the World Heritage Fund);
• changes resulting from the recommendations of the Working Group on the procedures for processing the nomination of cultural properties, for which the implications for the nominations of natural properties had been also taken into account, following the comments and suggestions of IUCN.

21. The Committee noted that the revised version of the Operational Guidelines had been studied in great depth both by the Bureau at its twelfth session in June 1988 and by subsequent meetings of the Working Group set up by the Committee.

22. Several members of the Committee made some suggestions for amendments and clarifications. The Committee requested that paragraph 53 for the July-November period for the timetable of processing nominations should clearly indicate that States Parties should send additional information as requested by the Bureau to the Secretariat no later than 9 weeks before the date of the Committee session to enable it to be sent in adequate time to ICOMOS and/or IUCN and the members of the Committee.

23. One member of the Committee drew attention to the contradiction existing between paragraphs 39 and 42 and the Committee requested the Secretariat to make the necessary modifications.

24. Another member of the Committee noted that paragraph 91(d) concerning the marking of equipment and all products arising from assistance provided under the Fund with the World Heritage emblem and name was missing. The Secretariat assured the Committee that this omission would be rectified in the final version.

25. Several members of the Committee drew attention to paragraph 7 and recalled the need for States Parties to comply with Article 11 of the Convention to provide tentative lists for both cultural and natural properties. Some States members felt that for natural properties a parallel should be made with cultural nominations which the Committee had decided not to consider unless a tentative list had been submitted to the Secretariat. The Committee noted that such a step could in fact have a negative effect and serve to slow down and even discourage the nomination of natural properties. The Committee nevertheless considered it necessary to draw the attention of States Parties to Article 11 of the Convention as concerns natural properties in order to raise awareness of the need to maintain an appropriate balance in the natural and cultural aspects of the work of the Convention, and requested the Secretariat to take the required measures to this end. The Committee requested that paragraph 7 be amended to indicate that priority would be given to the consideration of nominations of natural properties for those States Parties who had submitted a tentative list, unless the State Party concerned had given a specific explanation why such a list could not be provided.

26. Again concerning the nomination of natural properties, the representative of IUCN indicated that the advancement of the deadline for the submission of nominations to the Secretariat to 1 October was more than adequate for IUCN, and suggested that the deadline for natural nominations be fixed at 1 November. The Committee, however, noted that the fixing of two separate deadlines was confusing and was not workable for nominations which were proposed under both cultural and natural criteria.

27. The Committee requested the Secretariat to finalize the Operational Guidelines as indicated in the paragraphs above and decided that this version would be henceforth used by all States Parties.

26. The Committee took note of document SC-87/CONF.005/8 presenting the promotional activities undertaken in 1987 and those foreseen for 1988. The Committee congratulated the Secretariat on its work and emphasised the need to expand this promotion programme.

27. It was recalled that States Parties have a responsibility in strengthening promotional activities. Several members of the Committee mentioned the activities undertaken in their respective countries, such as the production of stamps or pamphlets on world heritage sites in Yugoslavia and India, or the publication and sale at news-stands of a series of booklets on world heritage sites in Brazil, or the printing and the distribution of the folding poster on the World Heritage Convention in China. The bulletin produced in the United Kingdom "International Heritage" was also mentioned as a particularly successful type of promotional material which could serve as an example to other States Parties.

28. The Committee requested the Secretariat to ensure that there were close links with the promotion of the international campaigns to safeguard the cultural heritage. The Committee also suggested that better use could be made of technical cooperation activities to make the Convention better known, particularly by systematically marking equipment provided under technical cooperation with the World Heritage emblem. It requested the Secretariat to mention how useful this procedure could be in identifying work carried out thanks to the Convention.

29. The representative of Brazil indicated that there was an error in the siting of a Brazilian property in the World Heritage folding brochure and was assured that this would be corrected in the future.

30. Finally, as concerns the technical cooperation requests for promotional activities, the Committee accepted the Bureau's recommendation whereby the Bureau could consider as receivable only requests aimed at making the Convention better known in general and not for promoting a specific site, and to grant only amounts not exceeding US$5,000 for such requests. However, amounts up to US$10,000 could be granted in exceptional cases on condition that the Chairman of the Committee gave his approval.

The Secretariat was entrusted with modifying the Operational Guidelines to include these points.

In accordance with this decision, the Committee accepted two requests for technical cooperation submitted by Haiti for the production of an audio-visual presentation, and by the People's Republic of China for a contribution to a film on Wordl Heritage, respectively for $6,000 and $10,000.

30. The Secretariat informed the Committee that it had carefully explored the various means available to protect the emblem and the name of the World Heritage Fund.

31. Possibilities for such protection exist in a number of countries within the framework of the Universal Copyright Convention, the Berne Convention and national legislation. In noting this report the Committee decided to include in the operational guidelines the following recommendation :

• Nations party to the Convention should take all possible measures to prevent the use of the emblem of the Convention and the use of the name of the Committee and the Convention in their respective countries by any group or for any purposes not explicitly recognized and approved by the Committee.

The question was raised as to whether the Committee would authorize States Parties to the Convention to produce material bearing the Emblem such as postage stamps and postcards for publicity purposes and for raising financial contributions to the Fund. The Committee was of the opinion that States Parties were free to use the Emblem for such purposes, and could make additional voluntary contributions to the Fund by this means.

The proposal from Upsala Ekeby to produce glass and silverware gave rise to considerable discussion, since it raised the principle of using tho World Heritage Emblem and depictions of World Heritage Sites for commercial purposes. There was some reticence among members of the Committee to authorize any commercial company to use the Emblem or pictures of the sites for such purposes. On the other hand the Committee underlined the need to create a world-wide interest in the Convention and recognized the importance of publicity. The Committee therefore decided:

(a) that the World Heritage Emblem should not be used for any commercial purposes unless the Committee has given its authorization; and

(b) that the name, symbol or depiction of any property inscribed on the World Heritage List or, of any element thereof should not be used for commercial purposes unless written authorization has been received from the State concerned on the principle of using the said name, symbol or depiction and unless the exact text or display has been approved by that State and as far as possible by the national authority specifically concerned with the protection of the site; such utilization should be in conformity with the reasons for which the property has been placed on the World Heritage List;

(c) to accept the proposal from Upsala Ekeby as set out in the Annex to document CC-79/CONF.003/6.1, authorizing the firm to use the World Heritage Emblem and the name of the Convention on a series of silver spoons and the glassware, subject to the stipulation formulated in paragraph (b) above and on condition that the company was not given exclusive rights to use the emblem and the name of the Convention on articles of the type proposed; it is however understood that the company will retain exclusive rights on its own design as foreseen in international agreements on the protection of industrial property.