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


Download 1.36 Mb.
Size1.36 Mb.
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26


Document: WHC-02/CONF.202/22
1. The Secretariat provided the Bureau with new information concerning two of the international assistance requests.
2. With reference to the request from Niger for the preparation of the nomination file of the City of Agadez, the Secretariat informed the Bureau that a new budget breakdown had been provided and ICOMOS has expressed its support for the preparation of a management plan to be submitted as part of the nomination dossier. Therefore the Bureau was requested to approve US$ 30,000 for the preparation of management plan.
3. The Secretariat informed the Bureau of new information concerning the Emergency Assistance request for the elaboration of an Emergency Rehabilitation Plan for Tbilisi Historic District in Georgia following the earthquake of 25 April 2002. Members of the ICCROM Council and ICOMOS Executive Council visited the property in May 2002 to evaluate the scale of the damage from the earthquake. Furthermore the State Party informed the Centre on 17 June 2002 that further budget details would be forthcoming. The Bureau was requested to take a decision based on the recommendation presented in the working document.
4. The Chairperson invited the Bureau to approve the requests as set out in Part I of document WHC-02/CONF.202/22, taking into account the new information provided by the Secretariat.
5. The Bureau adopted the draft decisions without amendment (decisions 26 COM 25.1.2, 26 COM 25.1.3, 26 COM 25.1.4 and 26 COM 25.1.5) and agreed to amend the draft decisions related to the requests from Niger and Georgia as suggested by the Secretariat (decisions 26 COM 25.1.1 and 26 COM 25.1.6).
6. The Chairperson then asked the Bureau to make recommendations concerning requests for international assistance for approval by the Committee - Training Assistance and Technical Co-operation requests above US$30,000 and Emergency Assistance requests above US$75,000, presented in Part II of document WHC-02/CONF.202/22.
7. The Secretariat provided new information to the Bureau concerning the request from Colombia concerning the Preparation of the Management Plan for Los Katios National Park. The State Party had submitted a detailed budget breakdown and activity workplan that will be transmitted to IUCN. IUCN had provided its in-principle support of this request. The Secretariat suggested that the Bureau transmit this request to the Committee with a favourable opinion but subject to a positive recommendation from IUCN concerning the budget breakdown and activity workplan.
8. The Secretariat also provided new information to the Bureau concerning the Training Assistance request from Uzbekistan for the restoration of the medersa “Rachid” at Bukhara and creation of an international training centre for the conservation of architectural heritage. This request had been examined by the 26th session of the Bureau in April 2002 and sent back to the State Party for reformulation in co-operation with the Advisory Bodies. A new request for US$53,960 had been submitted. ICOMOS had provided their support for this request.
9. The representative of ICCROM expressed ICCROM's support for the first well detailed part of the request for US$21,960. He commented that the second part of the request for US$32,000 was not detailed, did not provide a budget breakdown and was not clear whether the request was for training or technical co-operation. He therefore recommended approval of US$21,960 and suggested that the State Party be asked to provide further explanation concerning the request for the additional US$32,000. ICOMOS supported this view.
10. The Chairperson proposed that the Bureau adopt the decision on the basis of the recommendation from ICCROM.
11. The Delegate of Thailand asked what further details ICCROM was recommending.
12. The representative of ICCROM commented that the State Party request was not clear as to whether the US$32,000 would be used for restoration activities or for the organization of training activities.
13. The Chairperson proposed that the Bureau approve the request on the condition that further detail be provided by the State Party as to the proposed use of the US$32,000.
14. The Delegate of Thailand expressed his concern that the Centre and the Advisory Bodies had not asked for this information at an earlier date.
15. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the State Party had been unable to provide further information to date. The Centre and the Advisory Bodies had done all they could to gain further information from the State Party. The Secretariat agreed with the comments made by the representative of ICCROM and emphasized the importance of providing support to training activities at the site.
16. The Chairperson noted that with this clarification it was possible for the Bureau to recommend to the Committee approval of all of the requests presented in Part II of the document WHC-02/CONF.202/22 taking into account the recommendation of ICCROM concerning the request from Uzbekistan.

1. The Chairperson asked the Committee whether it could approve all of the international assistance requests presented in Part II of document WHC-02/CONF.202/22 as recommended by the Bureau.
2. Decision 26 COM 25.2 was approved without further debate.
3. The Secretariat informed the Committee that the international assistance requests presented in Part III of the working document would be submitted for the consideration of the Chairperson.
1. The Delegate of Saint Lucia pointed out - as a general issue - that some of the projects funded under Emergency Assistance were not emergencies. She asked how to define emergencies and requested that the Secretariat provide the Committee with criteria for Emergency Assistance.
2. The Director of the Centre informed the Committee that emergency situations are clearly defined in the Operational Guidelines. He commented that the problem exists with the interpretation of the criteria and noted the rather broad application of the criteria. He suggested that the Committee apply the criteria included in the Guidelines to avoid use of Emergency Assistance for non-emergency situations to ensure that funds were available when real emergencies arise.
3. The Delegate of Saint Lucia recalled that the strict application of the criteria in the Operational Guidelines for Emergency Assistance should start at the Centre before the requests were put before the Committee for decision.
4. The Delegate of the United Kingdom commented that the mechanism for responses to requests for International Assistance was inefficient. She pointed out that the international assistance system does not match the Committee's Strategic Objectives and said that its revision would be the next stage in ensuring a more logical basis of the Committee's work. She said that given that the Committee meets just once each year, a better procedure should be applied. She proposed that the Director-General be requested to propose a better procedure based on clear criteria derived from the Committee's Strategic Objectives - Credibility of the World Heritage List, Capacity-Building of States Parties, Conservation of World Heritage properties and Communication so that minor decisions could be delegated to the Director of the Centre. She further expressed her slight concern that the Advisory Bodies were close to usurping the role of the Committee in decision making concerning International Assistance. She said that whilst their comments are valuable and they are a huge source of expertise it was not clear that making such recommendations was in conformity with the role of the Advisory Bodies defined by the Convention.
5. The Chairperson asked whether the Committee wished to take a decision on this matter.
6. The Delegate of Argentina recommended that the issue be examined as part of the revision of Operational Guidelines to be examined at the extraordinary session of the Committee in 2003.
7. The Delegate of the United Kingdom indicated that she did not propose a debate on the proposal at this session.
8. The Delegate of Greece supported the statement of the Delegate of Argentina. She noted that the draft revised Operational Guidelines included a new annex on International Assistance.
9. The Delegate of India indicated her support for the comment of the Delegate of Argentina and the clarification of the Delegate of the United Kingdom.
10. Noting the consensus in the light of these clarifications, the Chairperson suggested to adopt a decision on this matter (decision 26 COM 25.3). The Committee agreed and the Chairperson then closed the debate.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26

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

    Main page