United nations educational, scientific and cultural organization convention concerning the protection of the world


Download 1.36 Mb.
Size1.36 Mb.
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   26


Document: WHC-02/CONF.202/9
1. The Director introduced the document and recalled the background of the analysis of the World Heritage List and the Tentative Lists, and the decisions taken by the Committee in Cairns (2000) and Helsinki (2001).
2. The representative of IUCN presented the status of its work, highlighting the objective to identify those geographical areas and ecosystems of potential outstanding universal value. This process, involving many partners, includes a review of the World Heritage List by the Udvardy Scheme (realms, biomes and biogeographical regions) as well as through the IUCN theme studies. Phase I covered an examination by 9 biogeographical realms and biome types and concluded that some are poorly represented on the List, such as grasslands and cold deserts. It also covered the IUCN theme studies such as geological/fossil sites, forests, wetlands etc. During Phase II an in-depth analysis and peer review of the global classification will be carried out.
3. The representative of ICOMOS recalled the global study carried out at the request of the Committee by a working group including Greece and the United States of America, which at the time had been poorly received by the Committee. He pointed out that the thematic studies by ICOMOS are available at the ICOMOS web site. He then presented the ICOMOS process of identification of the 13 categories included in document WHC-02/CONF.202/9 and informed the Committee that Phase II with a multi-category analysis will start after the Budapest meeting, also taking into account results of the Global Strategy and regional thematic meetings organized by the Centre. During this phase, the ICOMOS Steering Committee will, as indicated in the document, be involved. The final analysis will be presented in 2003.
4. The Delegate of Lebanon thanked the Advisory Bodies for tackling such a complex task and pointed out that the identification of the 13 categories by ICOMOS seemed to be mixing chronological factors and types of properties. Therefore, he recommended the adoption of a multiple approach combining (a) geographical, regional and chronological factors, with (b) the diversity of uses (e.g. religious, civil, military etc.) and (c) thematic analysis (e.g. cultural landscapes, urban centres). With this approach, the gaps and underrepresented categories could be clearly identified and a coherent comparative system developed. He also requested to involve more experts with a broader interdisciplinary background.
5. The Delegate of Egypt supported the proposal made by the Delegate of Lebanon and informed the Committee of missing cultural categories such as heritage routes, railways and canals. IUCN should give greater emphasis to the analysis of biodiversity both in terms of qualitative and quantitative richness and endemism and continue with the approach based on realms, biomes and biogeographical regions, taking into account global studies on specific features (e.g. geological/fossil sites). Categories within each biogeographical unit towards a classification system could then be defined. He furthermore cautioned the Committee not to confuse the issue of underrepresented heritage with “outstanding universal value”; tentative lists should not exclusively include less represented types of heritage. He also pointed out that caves and troglodytic dwellings are important for the history of humanity. He drew attention to the methodological differences between IUCN being concerned with features in space and ICOMOS with features in time.
6. The Delegate of Argentina supported the previous speakers and highlighted the aims of this analysis, namely to assist the States Parties in identifying potential sites for their national tentative lists. She also stated that some types of heritage, such as urban and architectural ensembles, belong to the history of many people and are therefore better represented than others. The selection process needs to be inclusive. The Delegate also pointed out that more resources are required for preparing tentative lists and that this should be addressed through new partnerships.
7. The Delegate of Finland agreed with the statement of the Delegate of Lebanon concerning the selection of categories by ICOMOS.
8. The Delegate of Greece also supported the intervention of the Delegate of Lebanon and recalled the decisions by the Committee in Cairns, requesting that the Advisory Bodies take into account previous studies and reports since 1984. The members of the ICOMOS Steering Committee should not be members of the Committee. She requested to revise the broad categories, clearly defining each of them and to adopt a precise methodology for the identification of underrepresented categories of heritage in conformity with the decision taken by the Committee at its 24th session (Cairns, 2000). She also recalled the decision taken by the Committee at its 25th session (Helsinki, 2001) to halt new thematic studies. Furthermore, she requested that the possibility of developing a methodology for the classification of world cultural heritage, similar to the classification by biogeographical provinces of the world by IUCN, be examined and that the composition of the Steering Committee be enlarged by the participation of representatives of the ICOMOS International Committees. The bibliography (Annex IV of the working document), including references to reports on meetings and studies in conformity with the proposal by the 26th session of the Bureau, should be completed and the existing global study, which is based on major civilizations and Global Strategy results, should be taken into account. She also requested that desk studies by the Centre concerning the analysis should not be continued.
9. The Delegate of Nigeria stated that no categorisation would be perfect, referring to the overlap, for example, between archaeological sites and burial sites.
10. The Delegate of Belgium pointed out that the results and conclusions of the Global Strategy should be presented as the very first step of the analyses and that common cultural and natural criteria should be developed for cultural landscapes. Referring to paragraph 38 of document WHC-02/CONF.202/9, she requested that the number of States Parties per region be indicated.
11. The Delegate of Zimbabwe emphasised that this process is within the objectives of the Cairns decision for a more holistic picture of the world’s heritage for the World Heritage Committee in the future. Imbalances, both in terms of natural and of cultural heritage, have to be analysed. The issue of the goals also needs to be reviewed.
12. The Delegate of the United Kingdom emphasized that any analysis of gaps is complex, in particular for multi-category analysis and one may end up with too much detail (e.g. for the City of Bath, which could be anything between Roman and Modern). The fundamental concept is that of outstanding universal value.

13. The Delegate of India informed the Committee of their experience at the national level and the benefit of the studies carried out by the World Heritage Centre. The IUCN study focuses on a methodology to identify regions and similarly this has been done on the national level. Concerning ICOMOS, the same approach would not be possible, however, multiple categories could be taken into account, but the most important value has also to be identified. The aim would be to work towards a more inclusive identification of diverse heritage categories. Furthermore, other types of heritage, such as vernacular settlements are very important for local communities.

14. The Delegate of Mexico highlighted the aim of a balanced World Heritage List, and to this end regional thematic meetings could be organized in parallel with the in-depth studies. He informed the Committee about the recently published Tentative List of Mexico.
15. The Delegate of Colombia pointed out that the representativity is also linked to resources, in particular for technical advice, necessary for the submission of tentative lists and nominations.
16. The Observer of Chile supported previous speakers and pointed out that a more detailed analysis was also required to review in greater detail differences within or between regions (e.g. for historic cities).
17. The Observer of Australia recalled the 1994 Global Strategy and addressed these complex issues with an anthropological approach through time, which is particularly important for non-monumental cultures in Africa and the Pacific.
18. The Observer of Israel informed the Committee that the 13 categories have been tested in his country in collaboration with ICOMOS and that many aspects of the history of cultures have to be included. Other States Parties may also wish to follow this example.
19. The Delegate of Saint Lucia – supported by the Delegates of Lebanon, India, Greece, Argentina, the United Kingdom and ICOMOS – requested a clear decision which should provide guidance to the Advisory Bodies and the Centre, and incorporate the comments made the Committee on Phase I of the analysis.
20. The Delegate of Egypt suggested that the Secretariat and the Rapporteur submit a draft decision before the final adoption of the report.
21. The Chairperson asked the Committee whether a working group should be created. Noting that there was no consensus for that proposal, he requested the Rapporteur to provide a proposal for decision in written form.
22. A draft decision was circulated on Saturday morning, 29 June. The Chairperson invited the Committee members to focus on amendments, if required.
23. The Delegate of Finland suggested to refer under (a), in the paragraph addressed to ICOMOS, to spatial and chronological factors.
24. The Delegate of Greece asked to use the wording of the Committee's decision in Cairns (2000) and to make an explicit reference to it.
25. The Delegate of Argentina proposed a rewording for the second indent of the paragraph addressed to IUCN.
26. The Delegate of Egypt wondered whether it would not be more appropriate to draw the attention of the Advisory Bodies to those points and to delete the second paragraph of the draft decision.
27. The Delegate of India expressed interest in the Finnish proposal and for the bibliography.
28. The Delegate of Saint Lucia recalled how important it was to give precise instructions to the Advisory Bodies and therefore asked not to amend the draft decision in that respect.
29. The Representative of ICOMOS indicated that the analyses as defined in the draft decision represented a lot of work.
30. The Secretariat informed the Committee that the draft decision had been prepared with the help of the Advisory Bodies.
31. The Delegate of the United Kingdom suggested that, given the amount of work required, the results of the analyses be submitted to the 28th session of the Committee rather than to the 27 session.
32. Following this debate, the Chairperson declared the draft decision adopted with the amendments of the Delegates of Greece, Argentina and the United Kingdom (decision 26 COM 13) but he invited the Rapporteur to examine whether the matrix to be used by ICOMOS in its analysis could be clarified with regard to the remarks of the Delegates of Finland and Greece. He then closed the debate on this item.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   26

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page