This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PARIS 000238 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FOR IO/T; PLS PASS TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ATTN: STEPHEN 
MORRIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL SENV TBIO UN
SUBJECT:  SUBJECT:  KEY THEMES AT WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 6- 
11 DECEMBER 2004 MEETING:  NATIONAL PRIDE, TOURIST DOLLARS, 
GOVERNANCE ISSUES 
 
 
¶1.  Summary.     The World Heritage Committee ("Committee"), 
the 21-nation governing body of the 1972 UNESCO World 
Heritage Convention, held a 6-11 December special session in 
Paris.  The UNESCO World Heritage List's importance as a 
symbol of national pride and as a source of tourist revenues 
was evident throughout the meeting. 
 
Discussions covered: 
 
     Nomination and evaluation procedures for potential 
     World Heritage Sites, a review of Regional periodic 
     reports concerning the state of current World Heritage 
     Sites; 
 
     Working methods of the Committee, including: 
 
          Member-state participation in Advisory Body 
          evaluation of their proposed sites; 
 
          Proposals to refine the Secretariat's workload; 
 
          Possibilities for additional Committee meetings; 
          and 
 
          Whether WHC members should refrain from nominating 
          sites during their tenure on the WHC. (The USG, 
          which is not likely to nominate any sites in the 
          near future, is considering standing for election 
          to one of the 12 seats on the WHC which will 
          become vacant in fall 2005); 
 
     Plans for a special meeting of experts to be held in 
     Russia to examine how the concept of Outstanding 
     Universal Value is being applied in various contexts 
     with a view towards enhancing the representative nature 
     of the World Heritage List; and 
 
     The interplay between the 1972 World Heritage 
     Convention and more recent UNESCO documents, 
     particularly the 2003 Intangible Heritage Convention. 
 
End summary. 
 
Introduction 
------------ 
 
¶2.  The WHC held its 7th Extraordinary Session at UNESCO 
Headquarters in Paris from December 6-11, 2004.  The Session 
was held as a follow-up meeting to the 28th Session of the 
Committee that was held in China during June and July 2004. 
The 29th Session of the Committee will be held in Durban, 
South Africa in July, 10-17 2005. 
 
¶3.  The U.S. delegation included US Ambassador to UNESCO 
Louise Oliver, Department of the Interior Deputy Assistant 
Secretary Paul Hoffman, Director of the National Park 
 
SIPDIS 
Service Fran P. Mainella, National Park Service Acting Chief 
of International Affairs Stephen Morris and USUNESCO 
political officer Anne Carson. 
 
¶4.   The USG participated as an Observer at this December 
2004 session.  (Note.  The USG is considering standing for 
election to one of the twelve Committee seats, which will be 
filled at the General Assembly of States Parties meeting 
held in conjunction with the 3-21 October 2005 UNESCO 
General Conference.  The USG, which was the first signatory 
to the World Heritage Convention, has served as an elected 
member of the Committee during several periods over its 
approximately thirty-year history.  End note.) 
 
¶5.  While the interventions of many Committee reps on the 
finer points of procedure seemed geared toward enhancing the 
chances for their nation's individual nominations, there 
seemed to general agreement to preserve the exclusivity and 
prestige associated with World Heritage Sites.  (Note.  The 
interventions, especially those of developing countries, 
evidenced the importance of inscription of a site on the 
World Heritage List for national pride and commercial 
interests.   For example, the representative from St. Lucia 
referred several times to the "elation" in her country when 
its nominated site was finally inscribed on the World 
Heritage list.  End note.) 
 
Nomination and Evaluation Procedures; Review of Reports; 
Procedural Details 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶6.  The Committee completed its work on revising its 
Operational Guidelines by adding some finishing touches and 
deciding that these Guidelines will be first applied to site 
nominations submitted in 2007.  (Note.  Current Guidelines 
went into effect in 2002.  End note.)  The finishing touches 
included: 
     A definition of "transboundary sites" (sites with parts 
     in adjoining countries, whether or not contiguous, and 
     nominated as transboundary sites; not to be confused 
     with multinational serial nominations, with multiple 
     thematically- related sites in different countries); 
 
     A request to the World Heritage Convention Secretariat 
     to update "tentative" lists submitted by States Parties 
     indicating possible future World Heritage nominations 
     within its territory to reflect any changes in the list 
     (e.g., if a site becomes a World Heritage Site, or if 
     the Member State country removes the site from its 
     list); 
 
     A specification that the "comparative analysis" 
     required in the nomination dossier must be along the 
     same lines as analyses of similar properties, whether 
     or not on the World Heritage List, both at the national 
     and international levels; and 
 
     An addition of language encouraging States Parties to 
     grant to UNESCO the non-exclusive right to use 
     photographs, etc., of the World Heritage Sites, with 
     the profits to go to the World Heritage Fund. 
 
¶7.  The Working Methods of the Committee (which cover 
precise points such as timing of submission of various 
documents and are separate from the "Operational 
Guidelines") will be reviewed at the July 2005 Durban 
meeting. 
 
¶8.  At this December 2004 meeting, the Committee: 
 
     Reaffirmed earlier decisions that total nominations may 
     not exceed 45 per year and that each State Party may 
     submit only two nominations in any one year, so long as 
     one is for a natural site, and including any previously 
     submitted nominations that were deferred. 
 
     Stressed the importance of rigorous adherence to 
     established timetables for the submission of various 
     documents, such as supplementary information to the 
     Advisory Bodies following their examination of the 
     site. 
 
     Discussed the process by which countries can correct 
     factual errors in the evaluation of their proposed 
     sites by the Advisory Bodies and the mechanics of 
     drafting of proposed decisions by the Secretariat; 
 
     Discussed proposals to streamline the Committee's 
     consideration of State of Conservation reports; 
 
     Debated whether there was a need for additional 
     meetings and the possibility that establishing working 
     groups would assist the Committee in accomplishing its 
     goals in a timelier manner; 
 
     Incorporated the recommendation of the USG rep that new 
     WHC Members and new heads of delegation be afforded the 
     opportunity to attend training and orientation sessions 
     to better acquaint them with the Convention, previous 
     Committee decisions on key issues, the Operational 
     Guidelines, and the Rules of Procedure.  (Note.  The 
     USG plans to make similar practical recommendations 
     concerning a variety of matters if elected to the 
     Committee.) 
 
 
¶9.  The Committee also reviewed several items pertaining to 
Periodic Regional reports (the pending report for Europe and 
North America; action plans following-up on completed 
reports for the Arab States; Africa; Asia and the Pacific, 
and Latin America) concerning the state of World Heritage 
Sites.  Based on a recommendation originating with Canada 
and the USG, the Committee decided to suspend the cycle of 
Periodic Reporting for one year to evaluate the results of 
the first cycle and make any necessary changes. 
 
¶10.  In an apparent response to some State Party complaints 
about extensive and sometimes duplicative reporting 
requirements, the Committee asked the UNESCO Secretariat to 
present proposals at the July meeting in Durban for better 
coordination and use of required reports concerning the 
maintenance of World Heritage Sites. 
 
¶11.  In other financial and administrative matters, the 
Committee: 
     Asked the World Heritage Center director to take 
     appropriate steps to regularize the use UNESCO World 
     Heritage Emblem under intellectual property law; 
     Reviewed some aspects of the Partnership for World 
     Heritage Conservation (PACT); and 
 
     Approved the agenda for the July 11-17 Durban meeting. 
 
(Note.  The full text of the Committee's decision is 
available on UNESCO's web site under   7 WHC-04/7EXT.COM/17. 
End Note. 
 
Should WHC Members Refrain from Nominating Sites While 
Serving on the WHC? 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶12.  Continuing discussions from the July 2004 Committee 
meeting in China, Committee reps from Egypt and Saint Lucia 
cited statistics showing that the "success rate" for 
inscription of nominated sites is much higher for the 21 
nations sitting on the Committee than it is for the 157 
States-Parties not sitting on the Committee. 
 
¶13.  There was discussion of an opinion of the UNESCO Legal 
Advisor, which states that the terms of the 1973 World 
Heritage Convention do not allow the Committee to prohibit 
any State Party from making a nomination.  The opinion goes 
on to state, however, that State Party candidates for the 
WHC may say (i.e., in the nature of a campaign pledge) that 
they will voluntarily refrain from nominating sites within 
their countries during their service on the Committee. 
Some Committee reps expressed the view that allowing such 
"pledges" could limit a nation's ability to nominate a site 
and would therefore be inconsistent with both principles of 
state party sovereignty and with the specific intent of the 
World Heritage Convention.  Discussions on this subject will 
continue at the July meeting in Durban, South Africa. 
 
What Gives a Nominated Site "Universal" Value within the 
Meaning of the Convention ? 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶14.  Discussions at previous Committee meetings about a 
"representative, balanced and credible" list of World 
Heritage Sites resulted in a decision to convene a meeting 
of experts to formulate recommendations to assist the 
Committee develop a strategy to achieve this goal.  In 
particular, the expert meeting is charged with examining the 
concept of Outstanding Universal Value as it has been 
applied in different ways by the Advisory Bodies. 
 
¶15.   At this December 2004 meeting, the Committee accepted 
the Russian Federation's offer of Kazan as a meeting site 
for the March 2005 meeting and specified that the experts' 
report would be considered at the July 2005 Durban Committee 
meeting.  (Note.  The USG has nominated an expert to serve 
on the 50-member expert group.  End note.) 
 
Relationship between 1973 World Heritage Convention and 
other Normative Documents, particularly the 2003 Intangible 
Heritage Convention 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶16.  Several Committee rep interventions indicated 
unwillingness to tie closely the "flagship" World Heritage 
Convention, with 178 States-Parties, to the 2003 Intangible 
Heritage Convention, with fewer than ten States-Parties, or 
to other normative UNESCO documents, such as Man and the 
Biosphere or the Convention on Biological Diversity, whose 
substantive provisions are not accepted by many nations.  In 
particular, many Committee members and several observers 
spoke against the proposed decision to modify the World 
Heritage Convention's Operational Guidelines to remove a 
reference to intangible cultural values, as they saw no 
inherent conflict between the 2 conventions, and thought it 
inappropriate to subordinate the well-established World 
Heritage treaty to the as-yet untested Intangible Heritage 
Convention. 
 
¶17.  Some Committee interventions noted that World Heritage 
Sites include not only impressive edifices, but also natural 
sites of beauty and locales in which man and nature have 
achieved an extraordinary degree of functional and aesthetic 
harmony and necessarily involved principles expounded in 
other UNESCO normative documents, especially the 2003 
Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention. 
¶18.  The representative from Benin appeared to encapsulate 
the feeling informing many interventions when he drew an 
analogy to a father trying to determine how to divide his 
attentions and riches between a 32-year old eldest unmarried 
son, still seeking to acquire possessions to demonstrate 
strength and manhood, and his much younger sons, who still 
needed care and upbringing.   There was no perfect solution, 
he pointed out.  The sons were at different stages of their 
lives and so could not be treated alike. 
¶19.  The Committee decision on this point generally noted 
that there might be some overlapping coverage in UNESCO 
documents and invited the Secretariat to continue to 
formulate suggestions for ways to interrelate the documents. 
 
Oliver