VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHFR #1073/01 1561506
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 041506Z JUN 08
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 3262

UNCLAS PARIS 001073 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
STATE FOR IO/UNESCO 
 
PASS TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - STEPHEN MORRIS, LYLE LAVERTY AND 
PHYLLIS ELLIN 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNESCO SCUL
SUBJECT: WORLD HERITAGE WORKING GROUP ON ELECTION OF MEMBERS - PARIS 
MEETINGS, MAY 2008 
 
¶1.  (U) Summary:  The second session of the Working Group meeting to 
examine issues concerning the election of members of the World 
Heritage Committee (WHC) made little progress, as expected, but 
advanced on defining the key points to consider.  End summary. 
 
¶2. (U) The open-ended Working Group of States Parties to the World 
Heritage Convention met for its second session on 26 May 2008 to 
discuss the sensitive issues regarding the election of members on 
the World Heritage Committee (WHC).  Ambassador Kondo of Japan again 
chaired the meeting, with Belgium's Ambassador Kridelka acting as 
the single Vice-Chair.  Hungary's Gabor Soos is the group's 
rapporteur.  The US was represented by Assistant Secretary of the 
Interior, Lyle Laverty and Stephen Morris, accompanied by US Mission 
staff. 
 
¶3. (U) Kondo started the meeting by suggesting that the current 
reduced Bureau (Kondo - Group IV; Kridelka - Group I; Soos - Group 
II) be continued, and that at the third and fourth meetings, the 
Vice Chair and Rapporteur be switched to include representatives 
from Group V(a) and Group V(b). (Note: He made no mention of Group 
III's participation, but it would likely be proposed for the fourth 
meeting.)  Mr. Soos then read out a summary of the first meeting, 
which will be scanned and sent to addressees via separate e-mail. 
Kondo said that he had been able to consult with some of the 
geographic groups, but still wished to consult with Groups I and III 
prior to the Quebec meeting, where he is scheduled to give a 
progress report to the World Heritage Committee regarding the 
Working Group's efforts to date.  Kondo also noted the fact that the 
Africa Group was not present at the meeting due to a scheduling 
conflict with the launch of Africa Week activities. (Note: Few 
African delegations attended either the Working Group meeting or the 
WH Information meeting held the following day.) 
 
¶4. (U) To launch the discussion, Kondo identified seven points that 
he wanted to cover during the meetings:  1) gaps between mandates; 
2) reserved seats for countries not having any sites or never 
elected to the Committee; 3) refraining from nominating sites while 
on the Committee; 4) quotas; 5) groupings; 6) simplification of 
voting methods; 7) expertise of representatives.  Despite his best 
efforts to control the agenda, almost every delegate spoke on 
several of the points when given the floor.  Several of the issues 
were touched on only briefly, due to the wide range of subjects. 
 
Experts - Setting Criteria 
 
¶5. (U) The Polish Ambassador began the meeting by suggesting that 
the people named to the World Heritage Committee be "experts". 
While most speakers agreed that expertise is vital in understanding 
the issues before the Committee, the room was almost unanimous that 
it is the sovereign right of Member States to select their 
representatives, and that the idea of setting criteria would not be 
acceptable. 
 
¶6. (U) The Belgian Ambassador raised the issue of capacity-building 
in the context of expertise.  He noted that many of the African 
countries will always be at a disadvantage as they do not have the 
necessary structures in place to train people in the fields of 
heritage conservation and management. 
 
Gaps Between Mandates to Improve Rotation 
 
¶7. (U) There were several schools of thought regarding the idea of a 
gap between WH Committee mandates.  The current gap of two years was 
viewed as too short, and does little to improve rotation among the 
185 Member States wishing to be elected to the 21-member WH 
Committee.  There was relatively general agreement, among those 
speaking, that a four year gap would be an acceptable compromise. 
Some suggested that the term of a mandate match the gap between 
mandates (e.g., four year term followed by a four year gap). 
 
¶8. (U) Kondo presented some figures to help frame the discussion of 
rotation: 
 
There are now 185 State Parties to the Convention. 
77 have been elected to the WH Committee once or more. 
108 have never been elected.  Of the 108, 71 never presented their 
candidacies, 37 tried, but lost.  42 have no sites inscribed on the 
WH List, and only 2 have no sites inscribed, but were elected to the 
Committee. 
 
No Gentlemen Here 
 
¶9. (U) There were several countries that expressed concern that a 
voluntary gap would not work.  India, notably, said that a 
"gentlemen's agreement" would not work if not everyone was a 
gentleman.  Zimbabwe also agreed that voluntary gaps would not be 
 
respected, and that one Member State could cause an otherwise 
workable system to collapse.  The majority present seemed to support 
the idea of a decision by consensus that would guarantee that all 
Member States would respect whatever decision was taken. 
 
¶10. (U) The Nordic countries were supportive of longer gaps between 
service, with Sweden suggesting a minimum of four years, but ideally 
a break of six to eight years.  Norway, however, was by far the most 
extreme on this point, suggesting that a gap of twelve to sixteen 
years is the only way to ensure proper rotation, and pushing that we 
conclude on this point during the upcoming Quebec meetings.  The 
Czech Republic proposed that membership on the Executive Board and 
the WH Committee should not overlap. 
 
Reserved seat for a "no site" State, or "election loser" 
 
¶11. (U) There was a brief exchange on whether one of the 21 seats on 
the World Heritage Committee be reserved for countries having no 
sites currently inscribed on the WH List.  Most countries indicated 
their support for this idea.  Another suggestion was that a seat be 
set aside for a country which had tried but failed to get elected to 
the WH Committee.  There was less vocal support for this idea. 
 
Refraining from Nominating Sites While on the Committee 
 
¶12. (U) This was a complicated discussion, as perceptions and facts 
did not always mesh.  The widely held perception is that a country's 
best chance of success in getting a site inscribed on the WH List is 
while that state is on the Committee.  The reality, however, is that 
many states have had sites inscribed when they were not on the 
Committee. 
 
¶13. (U) The other point raised on this subject was one of timing. 
For those countries that already have nominations in the "pipeline", 
the question came up regarding timing conflicts, nominations, and 
delays in connection with presence on the WH Committee. 
 
¶14. (U) Some suggested that it is a conflict of interest to actively 
lobby for a site that a state would be voting on. 
(Note:  The US, in fact, campaigned for the WH Committee with the 
promise that it would not nominate any sites while it sat on the 
Committee.)  Others said that there is no conflict of interest in 
nominating sites from your own State while on the Committee. 
France, for example, suggested that there should be no "blanket ban" 
on refraining from nominating sites while on the Committee. 
 
¶15. (U) The Legal Advisor was asked to weigh in on the issue, and 
said that States Parties have a right to submit nominations under 
the Convention, and it would not be possible to limit that right. 
Clearly, this issue will be one of the most difficult to resolve in 
future meetings. 
 
Groupings 
 
¶16. (U) This issue also proved to be a difficult one without any 
resolution.  The WH Convention requires that "the election of 
members of the Committee shall ensure an equitable representation of 
the different regions and cultures."  However, there is no specific 
language or indication as to whether the same system of geographic 
distribution used in UNESCO, at the Executive Board, for instance, 
or elsewhere in the United Nations be the basis for this "equitable 
representation" by region. 
 
¶17. (U) There were suggestions that Member States could potentially 
create a whole new system of geographic representation for the 
purposes of this Convention.  Several States suggested that the WH 
Convention mirror other recent Conventions on this point noting, in 
particular, the Intangible Cultural Convention.  Other countries, 
including St. Lucia, added the point that the Convention also 
mentions equitable representation of "cultures", a subject that 
others quickly dropped, as if any discussion of the subject would be 
like taking a walk in a diplomatic minefield. 
 
¶18. (U) Strangely, the Member States present reflexively put any 
discussion into the context of UNESCO's standard and structured six 
regional Group system. 
 
Quotas 
 
¶19. (U) Linked to the issue of groupings, which itself remains 
unresolved, the question of quotas was raised by Chairman Kondo in a 
variety of possible scenarios: 1)partial quotas; 2) proportional 
quotas; 3) minimum quotas; 4) maximum/full quotas. 
 
¶20. (U) On this issue, Norway began the debate by stating that it is 
not interested in amending the Convention, yet noting that we do not 
 
have an "equitable" division today as, for example, Group II is 
currently not represented on the WH Committee.  Norway also stated 
that we follow the concept of full quotas everywhere at UNESCO, 
except in the context of this Convention.  Several other Member 
States supported the idea of minimum quotas, with at least one seat 
reserved for each geographic group.  France's new Ambassador 
Colonna, said that we should be "cautious" on this issue of quotas, 
and generally advocated a careful and gradual approach on all the 
issues raised during the meeting. 
 
¶21. (U) Netherlands noted that quotas "do not always work to our 
advantage", and stressed the necessity for a Convention that stands 
for "universality, above regional and group interests". 
Netherlands did, however, support a minimum quota of one seat per 
group. 
 
¶22. (U) The question of how to divide the 21 seats continues to 
raise problems.  India suggested adopting a "floating seat" that 
would move among the groups.  Others suggested one seat per group, 
with the rest of the seats be open to free voting, (apart from one 
or two set aside for countries that do not have a site on the WH 
List, or a seat for a country that was not successful in its 
candidature to run for the WH Committee).  The Indian ambassador 
said that for her, quotas are used, citing the US (affirmative 
action ?) as an example, to help "mainstream those who need help". 
 
¶23. (U) Morocco was concerned that we could introduce too many 
changes that could destabilize the Convention.  Canada stressed the 
fact that inscription is not the only part of the Committee's work, 
and that the attention to rotation and quotas is linked to the 
perception that it is not possible to successfully campaign for a 
site if a country is not a Committee member.  The figures on this 
point, however, show that many countries, including India, for 
example, have been able to inscribe many sites (India = 37) despite 
the fact that it has only had two terms on the Committee. 
 
¶24. (U) The US delegation, led by Assistant Secretary of the 
Interior, Lyle Laverty and Stephen Morris, made the point that 
minimum quotas could easily turn in to maximum quotas in the long 
term, and that we must be cautious of establishing new principles. 
 
Moving Forward - Best Approach? 
 
¶25. (U) Chairman Kondo said that clearly, we need to better define 
what we want to achieve.  Secondly, we must then decide how best to 
put these things into effect.  Whether we try to amend the 
Convention, change the Rules of Procedure, or work through informal 
understandings and consensus. 
 
¶26. (U) Chairman Kondo asked the Legal Advisor to prepare a written 
paper exploring the legal elements of each of the seven items that 
were discussed, indicating which element is linked to the 
Convention's language, which can be achieved through a change in the 
Rules of Procedure, or through informal understandings. 
 
¶27. (U) India asked, if the concept of rotation is not accepted by 
everyone, why then are the WH Committee meetings are rotated to 
different regions every year?  She also questioned why the Moroccan 
ambassador, during the elections in Christchurch, announced prior to 
the final election rounds, that Group II was about to be left off of 
the Committee if, regional groups were not to be considered.  India 
said that "there is nothing sinister in regional groupings". 
 
Simplification of Voting Methods 
 
¶28. (U) There were a few comments made supporting the need to 
simplify voting methods, including instituting electronic voting, 
but no specific recommendations were forthcoming. 
 
General Points 
 
¶29. (U) Senegal, as one of the few African states present at the 
meeting, said that we should exclude no option at this point. 
 
¶30. (U) Zimbabwe suggested that we should not be afraid of amending 
the Convention, if need be.  This idea, however, had raised concerns 
during the first meeting about the obstacles in ratification 
processes in different countries, and the potential nightmare of two 
concurrent Conventions in effect.  India, in an earlier exchange, 
had suggested that "protocols" could be added to the Convention 
without any problem. 
 
¶31. (U) Finally, Kondo suggested the creation of a small (3-5 
person) drafting group to write down the various comments and ideas 
expressed during the day-long meeting, but did not propose any 
concrete steps to launch the group. 
 
 
¶31. (U) Comment:  Overall, the "go slow" message was the one 
repeated by most delegations during the course of the day.  Kondo, 
clearly made no move to rush things forward, indicating that he 
expected to hold at least two more meetings on these issues before 
reporting to the next WH General Assembly in Fall 2009.  End 
comment. 
 
----------------------- 
Two additional discussions related to the World Heritage Committee 
were held: 
----------------------- 
 
Dinner at Australian Ambassador's 26 May 
 
Spain, UK, Canada, Israel, US, Sweden attending. 
 
Pre-selection for Capacity Building? 
 
¶32. (U) It was suggested that one idea to explore would be the 
pre-selection of Member States, whereby they would begin attending 
meetings as observers two years prior to taking their seats on the 
WH Committee, so gain greater expertise regarding the Committee's 
workings.  (Note:  Ambassador Oliver later indicated that she did 
not support this idea, as all countries are now able to sit in on 
all WH Committee meetings - including Bureau meetings.) 
 
Politicization vs. Universality 
 
¶33. (U) Christine Cameron, the Chairman of the Quebec WH Committee 
meeting, said that she has become concerned by the growing tendency 
to politicize and even monetize the issues the WH Committee is 
dealing with, and minimize the spirit of universality and 
identification of sites with "outstanding universal value" that was 
behind the Convention.  She stated that China, for example, has been 
extremely active in promoting several dozen new sites for 
inscription, which she views as a purely economic move to boost 
tourism. 
 
Overload at the WH Center 
 
¶34. (U) There was also concern expressed about the increase in the 
workload at the World Heritage Center, and the fact that we will 
soon be dealing with over one thousand inscribed sites.  Cameron and 
Australia want to push the WH Committee to set up a Working Group to 
consider what kind of issues we will face in administering the 
Convention over the next 10-15 year period.  Will system overload 
lead inevitably to system failure ? OLIVER