UNCLASSIFIED   UNESCOPARI   05260693 
VZCZCXYZ0009
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHFR #0693 1461214
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 261214Z MAY 09
FM UNESCO PARIS FR
TO SECSTATE WASHDC

UNCLAS PARIS FR 000693 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STEPHEN MORRIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SCUL UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO 181ST EXECUTIVE BOARD: FIRST STEPS TOWARD NEW 
RECOMMENDATION ON CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC URBAN LANDSCAPES 
 
¶1.  UNESCO's Executive Board at its 181st session in April 2009 took 
a decisive step toward future adoption of a new UNESCO 
Recommendation (or non-binding standard-setting instrument) on 
conservation of the historic urban landscape.  The Board proposed 
that the 35th session of UNESCO's General Conference in October 2009 
"take action aimed at drawing up" such a Recommendation.  The 
decision did, however, not propose or set any explicit or target 
deadlines for completion of the drafting process. 
 
¶2.  While there was substantial support for a new Recommendation on 
this subject, the decision was reached only after a spirited and 
constructive (by UNESCO's standards) debate over both the need for 
such an instrument and its added value to the international 
community.  For example, the Spanish Ambassador said it should 
reflect best practices based upon experience in all (emphasis on 
all) countries and should follow a truly international 
consultation/negotiations process.  India's Ambassador said "this 
issue needs to be looked at very sensitively and cautiously."  India 
noted that the term "urban landscape" is an amorphous one in places 
like India and Indonesia.  Brazil and Germany said that, while 
action needed to be taken in this area, already existing instruments 
on this subject needed to be organized more coherently (something 
which the U.S. had also said).  China's Ambassador emphasized the 
impact of globalization, climate change, and the need to reconcile 
urban development and conservation; new policy guidelines were 
needed in this regard.  Similar themes were echoed by Morocco, 
Tanzania, and Cuba. 
 
¶3.  The U.S. called attention to the more than one dozen instruments 
already touching on this field (some adopted as recently as 2005 and 
2008); stressed the importance of limiting any standard-setting 
instrument to a Recommendation only, and not an international 
convention; noted the lack of clarity in the preliminary study as to 
whether the new Recommendation would replace or supplement existing 
instruments; underlined the need for further study as to what the 
real problems were; and highlighted the need for an approach that 
enables prior consultations with local urban authorities and 
communities for their input in formulating such an instrument. 
 
¶4.  The U.S. Delegation, when intervening in the debate on this 
issue, drew substantially from the guidance and talking points 
provided by the State and Interior Departments.  We were 
unsuccessful in convincing the Board to accept one or two aspects of 
that guidance, such as our view that there are no new challenges to 
policy-makers in this field, only the same problems that present 
themselves more frequently and on a larger scale.  However, we were 
able to re-shape the wording of the draft decision in important 
respects.  For example, we were able to get the wording of the 
decision changed (in paragraph 3) so that it now says that existing 
standard-setting instruments "may not" adequately address modern day 
concerns rather than (as originally worded) "do not" adequately 
address those concerns.  Similarly, we persuaded the Board to remove 
the erroneous reference (in paragraph 4 of the decision) to the 
other existing urban landscape documents as "existing legal 
instruments."  Instead, paragraph 4 now refers to updating "the 
existing UNESCO standard-setting instruments on this matter." 
Moreover, we were able to insert language into the decision that 
instructs the UNESCO Director-General to submit not just the 
preliminary study on this instrument to the 35th General Conference 
but also the "relevant observations" concerning it that arose during 
the course of the Board's debate at its 181st session. 
 
¶5.  Comment:  Sentiment in favor of a new Recommendation was too 
strong for us to stop it entirely.  We succeeded in slowing the 
momentum towards a new Recommendation, however, and in highlighting 
cautionary markers.  It is likely that the General Conference, when 
it meets in the fall of 2009, will approve at least in concept the 
idea of eventually adopting a new Recommendation on conserving the 
historic urban landscape.  This is not certain, however. The voices 
of caution from both developed and developing countries at the just 
finished Executive Board session could become more numerous at the 
General Conference, where all 193 Member States, rather than the 
Executive Board's 58 Member States, will be the final 
decision-makers.  The U.S. will need to monitor closely the 
evolution of this Recommendation process to ensure that it does not 
become an intrusive instrument that seeks to constrict and dictate 
urban land use policy-making in countries like the United States. 
To prevent such an instrument from being adopted, the U.S. will need 
to maintain active involvement in the negotiations that will shape 
the scope and content of the new Recommendation.  An added reason to 
do so is that, once it is adopted, the U.S., like all other UNESCO 
Member States, will become legally obliged (under the UNESCO 
Constitution) to submit periodic reports to UNESCO on its 
implementation. 
ENGELKEN