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


PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PREPARATION OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND REVISED STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND



Download 1.36 Mb.
Page13/26
Date31.05.2016
Size1.36 Mb.
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   26

17 PROGRESS REPORT ON THE PREPARATION OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND REVISED STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND




17 A STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES



Document: WHC-02/CONF.202/13A
1. In presenting the Strategic Objectives, the Director of the World Heritage Centre recommended adding awareness-building after the other three objectives Credibility, Conservation and Capacity-Building.
2. The Delegates of the United Kingdom, Lebanon, Thailand and Greece expressed their agreement to adopt the Strategic Objectives and recommended the development of performance indicators to measure the success and track progress in the implementation of each of the Objectives. These performance indicators could include indicators such as the number of States Parties, Tentative Lists or properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger for which additional funding had been secured. The Delegations asked that performance indicators be submitted to the Committee for adoption at its next session.
3. The Delegate of Argentina acknowledged that it was necessary to update the 1992 Strategic Orientations. She noted the important links between the different Strategic Objectives. In referring also to document WHC-02/CONF.202/6, she welcomed the fact that the analyses of the List, Tentative Lists and Periodic Reports have been integrated into the reform process as a guidance for future action. However, she considered that the nomination selection process should be kept separate. Furthermore, she noted that international assistance should not be limited to the objective of Conservation as it also relates to the objectives of Credibility of the World Heritage List, Capacity-Building and awareness-building (Communication). She also commented that the protection of the World Heritage Emblem and World Heritage partnerships are related to all of the other Strategic Objectives.
4. A number of Delegates and Observers commented on the objective of Credibility of the World Heritage List and expressed differing opinions on the growth of the World Heritage List and the possibility of considering only a finite number of inscriptions on the List.
5. The Delegate of Lebanon noted that the major increase of the properties on the World Heritage List did not come from States Parties without properties on the World Heritage List but from countries which heritage was already well represented on the List.
6. The Delegate of India noted that “outstanding universal value” is the overriding concern and that the number of properties on the List will have to be kept down to ensure quality. She suggested that there could be a review of properties already on the List that may have lost their value or are now over-represented.
7. The Chairperson proposed to adopt the four revised Strategic Objectives, to ask the Director of the Centre to develop performance indicators and to take into account the remarks made by the Delegate of Argentina. As with regard to a periodic review of the World Heritage List, he suggested that such a review might be envisaged within the framework of the periodic reports.
8. The Delegate of Saint Lucia noted that, according to the Convention, all decisions needed to be addressed to the Director-General of UNESCO.
9. The Delegate of the United Kingdom confirmed that in practice most of the decisions would be implemented by the World Heritage Centre but that formal decisions needed to be addressed to the Director-General.
10. The Delegate of Thailand recalled that although the States Party to the Convention were not the same as the Member States of UNESCO, the administrative costs of the Centre were decided through the C4 and C5. He recalled that the Committee had not addressed its decisions to the Director-General in the past. He noted that the responsibility of implementing decisions belonged to both the Director-General and the Director of the Centre.
11. The Chairperson therefore suggested to address the decision to the Director of the Centre who would be responsible to develop the performance indicators.
12. The Delegate of India asked to abide by the procedures.
13. The Legal Advisor, in referring to Article 14 of the Convention, concluded that the Committee had the choice to address its decisions either to the Director-General either to the Director of the Centre but that the first option was more courteous.
14. The Delegate of the United Kingdom, referring to Article 14.2 of the Convention, noted that the Director-General had the overall responsibility for the implementation of the Committee’s decisions. He noted that this was a flexible formula.
15. The Delegate of Nigeria supported the intervention made by the Delegate of the United Kingdom.
16. The Chairman concluded the debate declaring that all decisions would be addressed to the Director-General and that the decision on this item was adopted (decision 26 COM 17.1).


17 B WORLD HERITAGE PROGRAMMES



Document: WHC-02/CONF.202/13B
1. For the evaluation of the four existing Programmes (Sustainable Tourism, Cities, Earthen Architecture and Forests) in terms of their effectiveness in meeting the Strategic Objectives, the Director of the Centre suggested that an initial review be made for consideration by the Committee in 2003 to enable the Committee to decide on the level of budgetary allocations for the 2004-2005 biennium.
2. The Delegate of Saint Lucia agreed to the timetable and stressed the importance of performance evaluation against the Strategic Objectives. She stated that in identifying conservation issues to be addressed through programmes, closer links need to be made to the periodic reporting exercise, rather than only to the state of conservation reports and the analyses of the international assistance. She noted that the periodic reports for the Arab region and Africa were already available. While noting the merits of the thematic approach adopted for the four on-going Programmes, she felt that programmes focused on needs specifically identified through the regional periodic reporting exercise may be more effective, and invited the Centre to develop such programmes for consideration by the Committee at its 27th session.
3. The Delegate of Argentina noted that the approved thematic Programmes have regional components but it may be more beneficial to develop new Programmes to follow-up on the periodic reports and the regional global strategy. In this regard, she stated that in the Latin America and Caribbean region, focus on 19th and 20th century modern heritage would be particularly important. She supported the Delegate of Saint Lucia for a regional approach for new Programmes with outputs and a timetable in order to measure progress in implementing the Strategic Objectives adopted at the present session.
4. The Delegates of India and Zimbabwe also expressed their support for the approach proposed by Saint Lucia to give focus to the particular problems of the regions.
5. The Delegate of Greece requested the Centre to prepare action plans for the Arab States, Africa and the Asia-Pacific region for consideration by the 27th session of the Committee, with outputs and a timetable in order to measure progress made in achieving the Strategic Objectives adopted at the present session.
6. The Chairperson summarized the debate and proposed a draft decision which was adopted by the Committee (decision 26 COM 17.2).





Share with your friends:
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   26




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

    Main page