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


Download 1.36 Mb.
Size1.36 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   26


Document: WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.6
1. According to decision 26 COM 3.1, this agenda item was scheduled later in the week. Due to time constraints (see also the debate relating to items 26, 27 and the workload during the Committee sessions), the Committee decided to defer the discussion of this agenda item to its next ordinary session in 2003 (decision 26 COM 7).


Document WHC-02/CONF.202/4
Part I – International Congress "World Heritage 2002 Shared Legacy, Common Responsibility"
1. Support for the Congress, a major event amongst others organized within the framework of the 30th anniversary, was expressed by all speakers who noted the progress made in its preparation. The Delegates of Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Mexico, Oman and Zimbabwe stressed the importance of the event as it is an opportunity to give visibility to the World Heritage Convention, through media involvement, thus reinforcing aspects of its implementation and encouraging the involvement of a growing number of World Heritage actors. It was also noted that the technical workshops organized prior to the Congress could lead to interesting results.
2. Some delegates Argentina, Belgium, South Africa, Greece requested clarification on the following issues

  • The participation of representatives of States Parties in the International Congress

  • The role of the Committee if it was to participate in the International Congress

  • The objectives of the Congress;

  • The status of the proceedings prepared as a result of the Congress and how the results of the Congress could be transmitted to the Committee;

  • The participation of governmental experts in the workshops.

3. The Delegate of Argentina expressed her concern that the recommendations of the Bureau had not been integrated into the working document. Flexibility was required in order to permit the participation of representatives of the States Parties to the Convention. These issues needed to be addressed in a satisfactory manner if the World Heritage emblem was to be used for the Congress.

4. The Delegate of Greece noted that in the context of a category IV meeting, the Committee could not participate as such in the International Congress nor approve its objectives. She thus asked for clarification by the Legal Advisor.
5. The Legal Adviser clarified that, in the context of a Category IV meeting, participants could be invited to attend directly; representatives of Government bodies, National Commissions or learned societies, however, would all participate in their personal capacity. Therefore, it would not be possible for the Committee to participate as an intergovernmental body. Members of the Committee could, however, attend in their personal capacity.
6. Furthermore, the Secretariat confirmed that the proceedings of the International Congress could be presented by the Director-General to the Committee, for it to decide on any appropriate action it may wish to take once the results were examined. The Committee would however not be obliged to take the results of the International Congress into consideration.
7. The Delegate of Colombia thanked the Italian Government for taking this initiative. She asked the Secretariat to consult the Committee in the future on such events.
8. The Delegate of Saint Lucia supported the previous speaker. Considering that it was a major opportunity, the Committee should thank the Italian authorities for offering to host and participate in the funding of the Congress. The Committee should formally authorize the use of the World Heritage Emblem for the Congress and take note of its objectives. Finally, the Committee should invite the Director-General to submit at an initial stage for the Committee’s approval both the programme of such events and the request for the use of the World Heritage Emblem.
9. Following this debate, the Delegate of the United Kingdom proposed that the key elements suggested by the Delegate of Saint Lucia be reflected in the Committee’s decision.
10. The Chairperson integrated these suggestions in his conclusions and his proposed draft decision was adopted by the Committee (decision 26 COM 8.1).
11. The Observer of Italy expressed his satisfaction that the Committee had overcome some reservations related to the form and content of the Congress. He assured the Committee of the commitment of his Government, the Veneto Region and the town of Venice that the Congress would have a rigorous scientific profile and be highly visible.

Part II – List of events co-organized or supported by UNESCO
1. The Delegates of Argentina, Chile, Korea and Mexico provided information about initiatives being implemented in their countries during the 30th Anniversary year.
2. The Delegate of Saint Lucia asked for information on the type of financial assistance, if any, that could be made available for activities to promote the Convention in the regions and States Parties.
3. The Delegate of India stressed the importance of encouraging and supporting regional initiatives.
4. The Delegate of Korea stressed the importance of consultation with the Committee and different sectors within UNESCO.
5. The conclusions of the debate as proposed by the Chairperson were adopted (decision 26 COM 8.2).

Part III – Publication project to mark the 30th Anniversary of the World Heritage Convention
1. Several delegates (Belgium, Colombia, Egypt, Greece, India, Lebanon, Mexico, Saint Lucia, Thailand and Zimbabwe) took the floor on this part of the document to raise issues relating to the content of the publication, its format, target group, schedule for its preparation and its funding.
2. The Delegates of Egypt and Thailand asked for clarification on the linkages it would have with the International Congress, World Heritage 2002: Shared Heritage, Common Responsibility. The Delegate of Egypt referred to the need to ensure that no overlaps were created between the Congress proceedings and a publication for the 30th Anniversary of the Convention.
3. Several delegates (Belgium, Saint Lucia, Thailand and Zimbabwe) stated that if the publication was linked to the International Congress, its funding should be provided by the organizers of the Congress. If not, the Committee had to consider, during the discussion on the budget, whether this was a priority.
4. The Delegate of Greece underlined the importance of the preparatory work for any publication and the implication in terms of human resources.
5. The Secretariat confirmed that this publication was not intended to duplicate the work of the International Congress and that it was to address a wide audience of readers interested in the main issues of heritage conservation. The Secretariat further specified that additional funding would be required to develop and implement this project and that this would be done in close collaboration with the Advisory Bodies.
6. The Chairperson summarized the debate and his proposed draft decision was adopted by the Committee (decision 26 COM 8.3).
7. During the adoption of the report (item 29) it was agreed that the decision should specify that the funding sources to be identified for the publication should be "extrabudgetary".

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   26

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

    Main page