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


PROPOSED WORLD HERITAGE VISUAL IDENTITY AND LEGAL PROTECTION OF THE EMBLEM



Download 1.36 Mb.
Page12/26
Date31.05.2016
Size1.36 Mb.
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   26

15 PROPOSED WORLD HERITAGE VISUAL IDENTITY AND LEGAL PROTECTION OF THE EMBLEM



Documents WHC-02/CONF.202/11

WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.7



WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.8
1. The Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Committee that the Centre had received many comments from States Parties on the proposed visual identity and manual. He further informed the Committee that the Centre had also received new information from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) confirming that the World Heritage emblem could be protected at no cost under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Thus, the Director-General of UNESCO will now be able to make a formal request for the international protection of the emblem which should be effective in approximately one month.
2. Taking note of this new information, the Chairperson proposed that the Committee defer this agenda item to the next Committee session.
3. Concerning the proposed visual identity, the Delegate of Lebanon observed that, in his opinion, the recommended joint presentation of the UNESCO and World Heritage emblems was not appropriate from a purely graphic and aesthetic point of view. He noted however that there was no problem in using the emblems separately.
4. The Delegate of the United Kingdom also expressed difficulty with the proposed visual identity, considering it to constitute a new emblem. The manual should be developed for site managers primarily to provide them with helpful guidance and should not be compulsory. She asked for the legal protection of the World Heritage emblem, the "World Heritage" name and its derivatives.
5. The Chairperson observed that these preliminary comments demonstrated that it was better to postpone further discussion on this item to a later session.
6. The Delegate of Saint Lucia asked the Secretariat not to use the proposed visual identity any more;. only the original emblem of the Convention should be used.
7. The Committee adopted the draft decision as proposed by the Chairperson (decision 26 COM 15).
8. During the adoption of the report (item 29) it was agreed that the following text should be deleted from the decision - "Invites the Secretariat to continue working on the elaboration of the World Heritage Visual Identity and Draft User's Manual".

16 DISCUSSION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND UNESCO



Document: WHC-02/CONF.202/12
1. The Delegate of Nigeria requested the Legal Adviser to provide further information as to the status of the Director-General, of the General Conference and the Executive Board with regard to the Committee.
2. The Delegate of Greece stated that the Committee had not requested further information with regard to the role of the Committee, the States Parties to the Convention and the Secretariat as these were already clear to the Committee. She drew the attention of the Committee to the statement of the former Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Professor Francioni (Italy) during the 21st session of the Committee (Naples, 1995) on the relation between the Committee and the UNESCO governing bodies (see WHC-97/CONF.208/17, paragraph XI.11 and paragraph 30 of WHC-02/CONF.202/12). She emphasized the need to strengthen the collaboration between the Committee and UNESCO governing bodies.
3. The Delegate of Argentina noted that the role of the World Heritage Centre, as described in paragraph 9 of document WHC-02/CONF.202/12 was not entirely in agreement with Article 14 of the World Heritage Convention. She stated that the World Heritage Centre, being the Secretariat of the Committee, is the organ responsible of implementing the World Heritage Committee's decisions. With reference to paragraph 37 in the document, she declared that the General Assembly of States Parties is a sovereign body with explicit powers and specific duties.
4. The Delegate of Thailand posed the question whether the decision to place the Centre under the authority of the Culture Sector had in any way constrained the work of the Secretariat, in particular regarding human resources. He suggested that if further staff were required for the work of the World Heritage Centre, the Committee could appeal to the Director-General.
5. The Delegate of Saint Lucia considered that the relationship between the World Heritage Centre and the other sectors of UNESCO was an issue that was not within the mandate of the Committee and that its discussion on this item should focus on the relationship between the Committee and UNESCO. She suggested that the Committee should work closely with the Director-General and UNESCO governing bodies in order to improve co-operation in activities relating to World Heritage. She presented a draft decision and asked that it be distributed for discussion: its objective was to invite the Director-General to consult the Committee during the preparation of the C4 and C5.3
6. The Director of the Centre informed the Committee that the decision to place the World Heritage Centre under the authority of the Culture Sector had been taken by the Director-General and had been confirmed by the General Conference. He affirmed that in functional terms the decision has not imposed constraints on the Secretariat. He also asked for the support of the Committee concerning the staffing of the Centre and the increase of regular programme funding.
7. The Chairperson drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that as a new system of decision-making was being implemented by the Committee during this session, interim rules should be established for the distribution of draft decisions.
8. The Delegate of Oman noted that the relations between the Centre and other UNESCO units had been debated for a number of years and asked to see the draft decision proposed by the Delegate of Saint Lucia.
9. The Delegate of Saint Lucia noted that if there were no provisions in the Rules of Procedure concerning draft decisions, no regulation prevented a delegation from submitting a proposal in order to facilitate decision-making.
10. The Rapporteur noted that the Committee had not adopted a new decision-making system: the Committee had always taken decisions in the past and was supposed to do so at this session as well. The only difference was the presentation of the decisions in a better format.
11. The Director of the World Heritage Centre asked the Committee for clarification of the rules to apply to draft decisions submitted by Committee members. Particular attention should be given to the following questions: Who can propose these draft decisions? With how much time in advance do they have to be presented? At what point do they have to be translated? When are they to be circulated? Moreover, he asked that when the draft decisions were presented that mention be made of the date, time and origin of the text.
12. The Delegate of India warned the Committee against micro-management and asked to see the draft decision.
13. The Delegate of Saint Lucia, while acknowledging that the questions put forward by the Director of the Centre were important, noted that it would be easier to discuss the issue once the draft decision was distributed especially as it was only a request addressed to the Director-General to consult the Committee on the C4 and the C5.
14. The Observer of Chile stressed that this was not only a co-ordination matter, but also a regulatory matter. Contradictions or voids between the different regulations should be addressed. He described the relationship between the Committee and UNESCO governing bodies as a sui generis one.
15. The Legal Adviser of UNESCO emphasized that the protection of cultural and natural sites was not only entrusted to the World Heritage Committee. Possible overlapping with different units of UNESCO could occur. He commented that if the Committee would like to address the issue of overlapping or duplication of work between the different UNESCO units and the World Heritage Centre, it could invite the Director-General to address this issue at the General Conference. He recalled that apart from the programme and budget, there were other relevant documents, such as circular letters. With regard to the programme and budget, the Committee could make a proposal to - but not oblige - the Director-General to consult the Committee.
16. The Director of the Centre informed the Committee that consultations for the 32 C/5 had commenced and that the Secretariat would establish a preliminary draft in August. Meanwhile the draft decision of Saint Lucia was distributed in the room:
Draft Decision presented by Saint Lucia
Relations with UNESCO
The World Heritage Committee:
1-Having examined document WHC-02/CONF.202/12,
2- Noting Articles 8 to 15 of the Convention underlining the Committee’s responsibilities for the Protection of the World Heritage,
3- Recalling the Resolution adopted by the Committee at its 21st Session in Naples (1997),
4- Considering the importance of co-operation between the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO and its governing Organs through appropriate mechanisms ensuring transparency, communication and harmonisation of policies and respect of objectives,
5- Bearing in mind that the World Heritage Committee should be in a position to give opinions on Unesco’s activities, initiatives or programmes that affect the very object and purpose of the World Heritage Convention,
6- Recalling the process of consulting the Committee on the Unesco Medium Term Strategy (C/4) in Phuket (1996),
7- Invites the Director-General to consult the Committee prior to the preparation of the relevant parts of the Draft C/4 starting with the draft revisions to the 31 C/4 (2002-2007) conceived as a rolling strategy,
8- Further invites the Director-General to consult the Committee prior to the preparation of the relevant parts of the Draft Unesco Programme and Budget (C/5),
9- Requests the Director-General to clearly define within Unesco’s Programme and Budget (C/5) the respective roles of the Centre, the Culture Sector and all other units, so as to avoid overlapping responsibilities in regard to the objectives of the Convention.
17. The Delegate of the United Kingdom entirely supported the Rapporteur when she affirmed that this decision-making system was not an entirely new one for the Committee as it had always taken decisions. He encouraged the Secretariat to continue facilitating the work of the Committee by preparing draft decisions or resolutions, as it has in the past. He mentioned that the administrative costs of the World Heritage Centre should be financed by UNESCO and not by the World Heritage Fund. He also suggested that there should be an orderly process of consultation between the Committee and the Director-General in matters which were of mutual concern. He further agreed with the proposal of inviting the Director-General to consult the Committee when preparing the Budget and Programmes (i.e. thus going beyond the preparation of the C/4 and the C/5), especially as there is a wide consultation process with States Parties, NGO's and other organisations. He supported the draft decision of Saint Lucia presented to the Committee and recommended that its paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 be amended in order to include reference to all appropriate documents as suggested by the Legal Adviser.
18. The Delegate of India, while thanking the Delegate of the United Kingdom for the clarity of his explanations, stated that further time was required in order to reflect on these issues.
19. This was supported by the Delegate of Nigeria who said that these issues demanded greater attention and that the draft decision would have to be amended in order for it to be adopted by the Committee. He suggested that the draft decision be withdrawn and invited the Secretariat to prepare another decision for the next Committee session.
20. The Delegate of Greece reiterated the importance of the statements made by Professor Francioni in the 21st session of the World Heritage Committee (Naples, 1995).
21. The Delegate of Egypt stressed that this was an important matter and agreed with the proposal made by the Delegates of India and Nigeria that these issues require further consideration.
22. The Delegate of Saint Lucia stated that the draft decision should not be withdrawn and that the Secretariat should not prepare draft decisions when a proposal prepared by Committee members was available.
23. The Delegate of Colombia thanked the Delegate of Saint Lucia for proposing this draft decision aimed at better functioning of the World Heritage Convention. She asked the Committee to approve it, if necessary with some amendments.
24. The Delegate of Oman supported the intervention made by the Delegate of Nigeria.
25. The Delegate of Belgium then requested that document WHC-02/CONF.202/12 not be made public on the web as it was a preliminary document which was not accurate nor complete.
26. The Delegate of India enquired as to what the standard procedure was when making Committee working documents public (or not make public in this case).
27. The Secretariat recalled that working documents of a Committee session were released only once the report of that session was published.
28. The Delegate of India agreed that it would be better to release the document only once a decision had been taken on this issue.
29. The Delegate of Lebanon, noting that the issues discussed were sensitive, suggested to postpone further discussion to the next session of the Committee and supported the proposal not to release the working document as it was still incomplete.
30. The Delegate of Thailand also agreed that the document would not be made public until the Committee reaches a decision on this matter. He further asked that the draft decision would be examined again at the next Committee session.
31. The Delegate of South Africa noted that most of the draft decision was not controversial. She further noted that one could hardly object to ‘invite’ the Director-General to consult.
32. The Delegate of the United Kingdom also noted that the draft decision did not include any demanding requests and that no major political decision was required for its adoption. He recalled that the Committee had been consulted in the past. He proposed that the Committee adopt paragraphs 7 to 9 of the draft decision.
33. The Delegate of India restated the need for additional time for reflection on these issues.
34. This last suggestion was supported by the Delegate of Nigeria who put forward that, as far as he knew, it was the first time the Committee examined this issue. More time was needed to look at all the information available.
35. The Delegate of Greece reminded the Committee that not all Member States of UNESCO are States Parties to the World Heritage Convention.
36. The Chairperson concluded that there were two different opinions: first, to adopt paragraphs 7-9 of the draft decision presented to the Committee and second, to postpone the discussion until the next Committee session. The latter solution was approved by the Committee (decision 26 COM 16).
37. The Delegate of Saint Lucia suggested asking the Director-General if he would agree to consult the World Heritage Committee.





Share with your friends:
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   26




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

    Main page