null
Lucia A Keegan  11/28/2006 10:03:36 AM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS        PARIS 07455

SIPDIS
cxparis:
    ACTION: UNESCO
    INFO:   DCM POL SCI ECON AMBU AMB AMBO

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: CHARGE:AKOSS
DRAFTED: SCI:NCOOPER
CLEARED: AMB:LVOLIVER

VZCZCFRI747
RR RUEHC
DE RUEHFR #7455/01 3241109
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 201109Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 3227

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 007455 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
FOR IO/UNESCO CHAD ABEL-KOPS, KELLY SIEKMAN 
DEP. PASS DEPT OF INTERIOR PARKS SERVICE FOR DAS TODD WILLENS, STEVE 
MORRIS 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: AORC SCUL MEPP UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO: AMBASSADOR MEETS WITH WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 
CHAIR TO COUNTER "POLITICIZATION" OF CONSERVATION COMMITTEE 
DECISIONS 
 
¶1. Summary:  The November 7 meeting of the Bureau of the World 
Heritage Committee focused on the agenda for the Committee's June 
23-July 2, 2007 meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand. The Bureau 
heard progress reports from the WH Secretariat on a policy paper on 
the effects of climate change on World Heritage Sites (para 5) and 
on the management audit of the World Heritage Center (para 6). 
Bureau members reviewed the schedule of technical preparatory 
meetings leading up to the Christchurch conclave (para 14).  The 
Bureau decided not to adopt Israel's proposal that the World 
Heritage Committee consider site nominations in groups sorted 
according to "typology" rather than by region. Eliminated from the 
agenda of the Bureau meeting was an item on "politicization" of 
World Heritage meetings.  But before the Bureau meeting, Ambassador 
Oliver met with the Chair of the World Heritage Committee (New 
Zealand) and his team, to discuss means of reducing the 
"politicization" of the process by which World Heritage sites are 
chosen by the Committee for inscription on the World Heritage List 
(paras 2 and 3).  The thorniness of these choices springs from the 
fact that developing countries are keenly engaged with the World 
Heritage site nomination process; they view it as an essential boost 
to tourism, and thus to the economies of their countries.   End 
Summary. 
Ambassador Oliver Meets with New Zealand Chair:  Laying the 
Groundwork 
¶2. On November 7, Tumu Te Heu Heu (New Zealand) chaired his first 
meeting of the Bureau (steering committee) of the World Heritage 
Committee.  In advance of this meeting, Te Heu Heu consulted 
individually with some members of the committee, according special 
importance to his November 6 meeting with Ambassador Oliver.  At the 
meeting, both sides expressed concern about the "politicization" of 
the WH committee in considering sites nominated for inscription on 
the list of World Heritage sites.  Te Heu Heu stressed that New 
Zealand shares the U.S. concern.  The New Zealand approach will be 
to favor "dialogue" and have as few votes as possible on 
nominations.  But they agreed that any votes should be done via 
secret ballot in order to make political lobbying ineffective.  The 
 
SIPDIS 
New Zealanders also said that they wanted "community" to be the 
theme of the meeting, and to add this fifth "C" to the Committee's 
four strategic objectives:  credibility, conservation, capacity 
building, and communication and awareness rising.  New Zealand's 
chief objective for the Christchurch meeting will be to "bring the 
committee together"; they agreed with the Ambassador that committee 
members should not support sites that may not be of top quality 
simply because of regional solidarity. 
¶3. Ambassador Oliver and Te Heu Heu agreed on the importance of the 
management audit of the World Heritage Center, and that there should 
be ample time at the Christchurch meeting to discuss it, and that 
discussion on this agenda item should take place relatively early in 
the meeting; they also agreed that adequate time should be devoted 
to discussion of the finances and administration of the WH Center. 
It will be key to decide on the timetable of the Christchurch 
meeting far enough in advance to ensure that delegations include 
experts who can deal with management and financial issues, not just 
conservation experts. 
World Heritage Bureau Meeting: Inclusive not Exclusive 
¶4. Thanks to the good relations that the Mission has developed with 
World Heritage Center Director Bandarin, the Mission was invited to 
attend as an observer the meeting of the Bureau of the World 
Heritage Committee (composed of representatives of the six regional 
groups).  Tumu Te Heu Heu, who is also Paramount Chief of Ngati 
Tuwharetoa (a Maori tribe) opened by stressing his hope that the 
next meeting of the World Heritage Committee be "inclusive, not 
exclusive, and promote harmony, not polarization, as well as 
transparency and accountability in the World Heritage Program." 
Progress Reports:  Climate Change and Management Audit 
¶5. Kishore Rao, the Deputy Director of the World Heritage center 
reviewed progress on two items discussed at the last meeting of the 
World Heritage Committee in Vilnius.  On climate change, Rao noted 
that the World Heritage issue was featured at the recent Nairobi 
conference on climate change.  The Vilnius meeting had endorsed the 
experts' report, and asked for follow-up actions. These included a 
paper that would appear in January-February 2007 as part of the 
World Heritage series that would compile case studies detailing the 
impact of climate change on World Heritage sites, to contribute to 
"awareness raising".   The Secretariat will circulate case studies 
of specific sites cited in the paper for review by the concerned 
states parties. In Vilnius, the Committee also asked the advisory 
bodies and the World Heritage Center to present a policy paper at 
the Christchurch meeting that will be finalized at the meeting of 
the World Heritage General Assembly.  This report will focus on 
guidance on issues that were not addressed in the experts' report: 
legal issues, danger listing, and synergies with other "climate 
change mechanisms."  The plans to circulate the draft widely, Rao 
explained, beginning at a February 5-6 meeting with Stakeholders -- 
including regional organizations, advisory bodies, and 
representatives of other conventions - that will formalize a draft. 
No funds were allocated for this effort, Rao noted, but the 
government of the Netherlands has contributed funds for the February 
meeting.  Norway (the Group I representative on the Bureau) stressed 
that given the "tendency towards confrontation" engendered by the 
issue of the causes of climate change, it was decided at Vilnius to 
put the accent on coping with the effects of climate change on 
cultural heritage.  Rao responded by drawing a distinction between 
mitigation efforts - for which there are other international 
"mechanisms" - and site level impact and adaptation.  The report 
currently underway will focus sharply on sites, and on means of 
creating awareness of what is happening, as well as on policy 
options. 
¶6. On the management audit, which Rao described as "comprehensive" 
and "completely" external, terms of reference had been prepared in 
consultation with the bureau and some WH committee members, and 
approved by the President of the WH Committee.  Rao also outlined 
the process by which the auditor would be selected.   Rao expressed 
the hope that the audit would be completed within three-six months; 
it is crucial that the audit be completed in time for the next WH 
committee meeting.  (Note: the U.S. played a lead role in gaining 
acceptance of the management audit at the Vilnius meeting, and in 
reviewing the draft terms of reference.  Rao later reported to the 
Mission that Deloitte had been chosen to do the audit, and would 
present an audit plan by the end of November.  End Note.) 
 
Outstanding Value, Election Rules, a Fifth "C"? 
 
¶7. Bureau members reviewed the draft agenda for the Christchurch 
meeting which was identical to that approved in Vilnius; Norway 
stressed that it would still be possible to add agenda items if they 
were very important.  Describing it as a "heavy" agenda, Norway said 
it would be important to examine the timetable, to ensure that 
appropriate focus would be given to conservation.  He agreed with 
the Secretariat's suggestion that all agenda items relating to the 
2007 Assembly meeting be grouped together, including discussion on 
how to make Assembly meetings more strategic in focus. 
 
¶8. In response to Norway's question, the Secretariat confirmed that 
discussion on outstanding universal value (OUV) and the 
Cairns-Suzhou decision would come after consideration of 
inscriptions on the WH list, because any decisions taken would not 
apply to sites considered at Christchurch.  In response to Japan's 
query on the amount of time to be devoted to discussing outstanding 
universal value, Bandarin estimated two hours, so that more time can 
be devoted to consideration of nominated sites and the budget 
("which will take at least three hours").  In response to Norway's 
advice that discussion of outstanding universal value at 
Christchurch not be just "another open-ended exchange", the 
Secretariat said that the discussion would center on analysis of 
 
SIPDIS 
past WH Committee decisions on this issue, based on an advisory body 
paper.  Training material on OUV would also be examined. 
 
¶9. The Chair of the World Heritage Committee signaled New Zealand's 
intention to propose adding a fifth "C" - for "community" -- to the 
Committee's strategic objectives.  This strategic plan was adopted 
via a 2002 declaration and its implementation will be reviewed at 
the Christchurch meeting.  New Zealand said that it would prepare a 
paper in advance of the meeting on its proposal. 
 
¶10. The WH Secretariat noted that it would prepare a document on 
procedures for elections to the WH Committee to be considered at 
Christchurch.  WH Center Director Bandarin noted that this exercise 
would require consultation with UNESCO's regional electoral groups, 
and study of other electoral models within UNESCO.  Creation of 
regional electoral groups within the WH Committee would eliminate 
multiple rounds of voting, simplifying the procedure governing 
elections, which take place at the WH Assembly (coinciding with the 
UNESCO General Conference).  Bandarin concluded that the WH 
Committee would make the final decision, noting that "change may be 
difficult. The devil we know is sometimes better." 
 
Housekeeping Issues: Number, Order of Nominations 
 
¶11. Order in which Nominations should be considered:  WH Center 
Director Bandarin presented two proposals put forth by Michael 
Turner, the Israeli representative to the WH Committee, who was not 
present at the Bureau meeting.  In a letter, Turner proposed that 
when nominations are considered, they should be grouped by type or 
category -- rock art sites, or modern heritage sites -- as opposed 
to by region, as is currently the case; this is to allow for more 
consistent decisions, and more focus on outstanding universal value. 
 He also requested a study be drafted on modern cultural heritage. 
Morocco, the first to speak on this item, criticized the proposal as 
having impact on the Committee's discussion of sites in Jerusalem" 
"it is not for us, a technical committee" to make political 
decisions relating to borders.  Benin and Norway questioned the need 
to change the current way of doing business, given the difficulty of 
arriving at a consistent typological system for classing WH sites; 
Norway added that the idea of ordering a paper on modern cultural 
heritage could be considered at a future point. 
 
¶12. Number of nominations to be considered:  WH Center Director 
Bandarin drew attention to the fact that the center was slated to 
consider 44 sites at the next WH Committee meeting, including 
extensions to existing sites, new sites, and nominations referred or 
deferred at past meetings.  Given that a limit of 45 sites had been 
set by the Cairns-Suzhou decision, what would the Committee's 
reaction be if additional nominations deferred at past sessions were 
to move forward?  Norway responded that it was likely that out of 
the 44 sites currently on the slate, several would be withdrawn.  In 
any case, there are clear criteria in the Cairns-Suzhou decision 
outlining which sites are to be given priority; the Secretariat must 
apply these rules.  Bandarin demurred, saying that while some of the 
criteria are easy to apply -- those giving preference to sites 
nominated by states parties who currently have no or few sites on 
the WH list -- others are less so.  He concluded by saying the 
Bureau could consider the issue in the future. 
 
Getting Ready for Christchurch:  Prep Meeting Schedule 
 
¶13. On preparatory meetings leading up to the next WH Committee 
meeting in Christchurch, The Secretariat noted that a working group 
on indicators to be used in periodic reporting on World Heritage 
sites had met the day before, and that an information meeting on 
periodic reporting would begin the following day (November 8-9, to 
be reported septel). 
 
¶14. The secretariat announced that in 2007 the following meetings 
are scheduled: 
Working Group on Indicators, January 22-23, 2007; Periodic Reporting 
Reflection Year, January 24, 2007; Advisory Bodies Meeting, January 
20-25, 2007; Climate Change and World Heritage, February 5-6, 2007; 
Information Meeting, May 29, 2007.  The May meeting, Te Heu Heu 
explained, would be an informal meeting in Paris at which WH 
Committee members could review the agenda; his suggestion that a 
similar meeting take place in April was also approved by Bureau 
members. 
KOSS