Whc-07/31.Com/Inf.24

World Heritage31 COM

Distribution LimitedWHC-07/31.COM/INF.24

Paris, 20 December 2007

Original: English/French

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC
AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF
THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

World Heritage Committee

Thirty-First Session

Christchurch, New Zealand

23 June – 2 July 2007

DRAFT SUMMARY RECORD

PROJET DE RESUME DES INTERVENTIONS

Sunday, 23 June 2007 (afternoon)

OPENING CEREMONY

03.00 p.m – 06.50 p.m

ITEM 1OPENING OF THE SESSION

The 31st session of the World Heritage Committee was opened by Tumu te Heuheu, Chairman of the World Heritage Committee. A traditional Powhiri welcome celebration took place at the Christchurch Town Hall auditorium to open the session in the presence of, among others, the Governor General of New Zealand, Anand Satyanand; the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark; Deputy Director-General of UNESCO, Marcio Barbosa, who represented Director-General Koïchiro Matsuura; the Chairman of UNESCO’s Executive Board, Zhang Xinsheng, alongside the representative of the 21 States that make up the World Heritage Committee: Benin, Canada, Chile, Cuba, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Spain, Republic of Korea, Tunisia and the United States of America. A full list of participants is included in Annex I to this document.
The following States Parties to the World Heritage Convention which are not members of the Committee were represented as observers: Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Holy-See, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Latvia, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Caledonia, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Representatives of the Advisory Bodies to the Committee, namely the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) also attended the session.
Statements were made by the personalities attending the opening session, a summary of which follows below. The full text of each statement is reproduced at the following Web address: (Note: this web address is password-protected until the documents are made available to the public.)
Rick Tau, Respected Elder of the Ngai Tahu tribe of South Island (New Zealand) welcomed the participants, notably those of the Northern Hemisphere, “to the winter of the Southern Hemisphere, winter being a season of planning” and exhorted them “to open the doors to knowledge and thought… so that the results of the meetings be acceptable in terms of brotherhood… and so that we may follow in the footsteps of our ancestors who left us the landscapes that we know.”
Te Kananawa Pitiroi, a Respected Elder of the Ngati Tuwharetoa tribe of the central NorthIsland, also spoke in Maori and exhorted participants to “remember that the pristineness that remains here is worth preserving”.
Parekura Horomia, Maori Affairs Minister and Associate Minister of Education, also used Maori in his welcome address and urged participants to let the spirit of the language permeate them.
He was followed by Garry Moore, Mayor of Christchurch, who welcomed the participants of the 31st session of the Committee and introduced them to the heritage of Christchurch.
The Governor-General of New Zealand, Anand Satyanand, then spoke of the need to protect world heritage sites in the face of serious challenges including “climate change, depleting fisheries and water resources, declining ecosystems and a host of other problems”. He pointed out that while the Pacific Region covers one third of the globe, it is underrepresented on the World Heritage List. Speaking of the particular history of New Zealand and its longstanding respect for both Maori and Western institutions and traditions, the Governor-General quoted a Maori proverb: “Care for the land and care for the people; go forth”.
Prime Minister Helen Clark for her part highlighted New Zealand’s particularity as a land that has experienced only 1,000 years of human habitation. As a result, New Zealand has many fragile and unique ecosystems which must be preserved. Ms Clark stressed that East Rennell, of the Solomon Islands, is the only World Heritage site to be found among all of the South Pacific Small Island States.
Mr Marcio Barbosa, Deputy-Director General of UNESCO, on behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO, praised the Maori cultural heritage that “embraces many different and interlinked forms, both tangible and intangible. In recognizing the spiritual links uniting Maori people with their environment, the World Heritage Committee had taken a decisive step in celebrating the intangible value of natural heritage.
Mr Zhang Xinsheng, the Chairman of UNESCO’s Executive Board, encouraged Small Island Developing States of the Pacific to ratify UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention to help correct the region’s underrepresentation on the World Heritage List. He stressed that “in our ever more globalized world, all dimensions of heritage – natural, cultural, tangible and intangible – are part of the sustainable development equation” and warned against the dangers of uniformization generated by globalization.
Dame Silvia Cartwright, Chair of New Zealand’s National Commission for UNESCO then introduced the presentation of the UNESCO Asia Pacific World Heritage Youth Forum organized prior to the Committee meeting (19-23 June 2007) in which 30 young students from 12 countries in the region had participated (Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Japan, Republic of Korea, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Thailand, Tonga, French Polynesia, Vanuatu and New Zealand). She stated that the New Zealand National Commission was actively working on promoting the work of UNESCO in particular among the youth.
“The World Heritage Youth Challenge”, prepared as a 10-minute film by the 30 young students, was shown, highlighting the forum which focussed on the development of understanding and skills relating to World Heritage and the environment, integrating Information and Communication Technologies to encourage and stimulate a fresh perspective to international heritage issues. The film showed sequences from the youth forum which had taken place not only in Christchurch but also in five locations around the Canterbury region, where they were filming and collecting material while learning about the World Heritage Convention from heritage and conservation experts.
The final speaker of the opening ceremony was Mr Tumu te Heuheu, Paramount Chief of the CentralNorthIsland Tuwharetoa Tribe and Chairperson of the 31st session of the World Heritage Committee. He stressed the importance of having communities play their part in the preservation of heritage, and spoke of the Pacific region’s heritage and the history of its peoples.

The meeting rose at 6:50 p.m.

FIRST DAY – SUNDAY 24 JUNE 2007

FIRST MEETING

09.00 a.m. – 01.00 p.m.

Chairperson: Mr Tumu te HeuHeu

ITEM 1OPENING SESSION

The Chairperson opened the session at 9:15 am by inviting the Deputy Director-General to address the Committee on behalf of the Director-General.
The Deputy Director-General of UNESCO brought greetings from the Director-General, who could not attend due to illness, and presented the Director-General’s speech in French.
Le Directeur général adjoint lit le message du Directeur général en français. Dans son texte, le Directeur général remercie la Nouvelle Zélande d’accueillir la 31e session du Comité du patrimoine mondial à Christchurch. Il passe en revue les différents points difficiles que cette session aura à examiner et à débattre, comme par exemple les risques qui pèsent sur certains sites de la Liste du Patrimoine mondial et qui pourraient conduire le Comité à décider de les retirer de la Liste. Il évoque aussi le danger que constitue le tourisme soulignant que ce risque pourrait devenir un atout s’il est responsable et maîtrisé.Il peut, en outre, favoriser les économies locales et, de ce fait, contribuer au développement durable. Il ajoute aussi que le Comité aura à examiner l’audit de gestion réalisé par la Société Deloitte, en attirant l’attention sur le fait que IOS, le service d’audit interne a fait une série d’observations sur ce rapport. Les décisions et recommandations issues des débats de cette session seront très utiles au Directeur général pour prendre les mesures nécessaires dans le but d’améliorer les capacités du Centre du patrimoine mondial.
The Chairperson thanked the DeputyDirector-General and extended the best wishes to the Director-General on behalf of the Committee. He then continued with Item 2 Requests for Observer Status and gave the floor to DIR for information.

ITEM 2REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS

Documents:WHC-07/31.COM/2

WHC-07/31.COM/INF.2

Decision:31 COM 2

The Director of the World heritage Centre referred to document WHC-07/31.COM/2 given out that morning and explained that a draft of the List of participants (document WHC-07/31.COM/INF.2) was under finalization and would be distributed at the end of the day.

ITEM 3ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND THE TIMETABLE

Documents:WHC-07/31.COM/3A.Rev3

WHC-07/31.COM/3B.Rev

Decisions:31 COM 3A

31 COM 3B

After the Chairperson had asked the Spanish-speaking Delegations to indicate in which language (French or English) they wished their interventions to be recorded in the Summary Record, to which the Delegations of Chile, CubaandSpain all referred to English, he continued with Item 3 Adoption of the Agenda and asked the Director of the World Heritage Centre to provide explanation.
The Director of the World Heritage Centre referred to the previous day’s Bureau meeting, where it had been discussed the issue of requesting Committee Members to indicate, within the review on the State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, which sites currently on the so-called B-list (for noting) should be moved to the so-called A-list (for discussion), adding that the Delegations of Canada and Lithuania had already handed in their requests – these lists were not to be read out yet, but will only after integration with further requests to follow.
The Director of the World Heritage Centre recalled that items 19 (Report of the Management Audit) and 20 (Budgets) of the Provisional Agenda had been also discussed at the Bureau meeting, clarifying that Tuesday’s evening session of two and a half hours currently foreseen might not be enough and that additional time could be allocated on Friday – the proposal was to start with the Budget on Tuesday 26, followed by a discussion on the auditor’s report, which could be resumed on Friday 29 June.
Upon opening the floor for comments, the Delegation of theNetherlands provided a statement on behalf of the Head of the Delegation, who regretted that due to unforeseen circumstances he was not able to attend this 31st session and thanked all Committee Members and colleagues for their collaboration.
The Chairperson, on receiving no further comments,adopted the Agenda and gave the floor to the Rapporteur, who explained that blue papers were to be used by the Delegations for the submission of amendments to Draft Decisions.

The Vice-Chairperson, Mr Ole Briseid (Norway) took the chair.

The Chairperson explained the need for efficiency regarding time management of the tight agenda and proposed imposing a time limit for intervention: 3 minutes for Committee members and 2 minutes for Observers. He furthermore asked for repetitions to be limited, mobile phones to be switched off, individual discussions to be held outside the meeting room and the sessions to be started on time. He then moved to Item 4, Report of the Rapporteur.

ITEM 4REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE 30TH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (Vilnius, 2006)

The Rapporteur of the 30th session of the World Heritage Committee explained that the Decisions were part of a tapestry linking past to future, as well as to other regimes and fora, and that they should be read with that in mind. He continued that the Decisions, numbering 200 in the past and currently 230, were more intricate and complex which reflected a mounting work pressure.
The Chairperson, on receiving no further comments,adopted the Report of the Rapporteur and moved to Item 5, subdivided into two parts, asking the Director of the World Heritage Centre to provide explanation.

ITEM 5REPORT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE ON ITS ACTIVITIES AND ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISIONS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Documents:WHC-07/31.COM/5

WHC-07/31.COM/INF.5A

WHC-07/31.COM/INF.5B

WHC-07/31.COM/INF.5C

Decision:31 COM 5

The Director of the World Heritage Centre summarized the main content of document WHC-07/31.COM/5 as an account of all activities undertaken by the World Heritage Centre in the implementation of the Convention.
The Chairperson referred to the Draft Decision on page 9 and opened the floor for comments.
The Delegation of Canada raised two comments: (i) requesting a focus on results instead of activities; and (ii) proposing as amendment to the Draft Decision that the Committee “takes note” of the report.
The Delegation of India seconded Canada and, in referring to section 20, encouraged a stronger relationship with the Intangible Heritage Committee to be reflected in the Draft Decision.
The Delegation of Israel seconded Canada and mentioned it had prepared an amendment.
La Délégation du Bénin se joint à ceux qui l’ont précédée pour féliciter le Centre du patrimoine des activités accomplies mais elle se pose un certain nombre d’interrogations. Par exemple, en lisant le paragraphe 18 du document 31COM/5 la délégation voudrait savoir si, pour ces activités, on tient compte de la répartition géographique pour les Centres de formation. En ce qui concerne les paragraphes 19 et 20, la délégation prend note de la participation du Centre du patrimoine mondial à la première session ordinaire du Comité intergouvernemental de la Convention pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine immatériel mais elle se demande quels sont les résultats d’une telle participation. La Délégation souhaite savoir aussi quels sont les rapports du Centre du patrimoine mondial avec la Banque Africaine de Développement. En ce qui concerne le paragraphe 57, qui rend compte des langues dans lesquelles les Textes fondamentaux ont été traduits, la délégation demande d’envisager leur traduction dans les langues africaines les plus importantes, comme le swahili ou le wolof. Finalement, la délégation attire l’attention sur le fait que dans le projet de décision manque l’aspect du Renforcement des capacités.
The Delegation of Kuwait, in commenting on section 34, encouraged the World Heritage Centre to assist the countries mentioned in the development of their Tentative Lists, and that this should be reflected in the Draft Decision.
The Delegation of Lithuania seconded Canada.
The Director of the World Heritage Centre thanked the Delegates and agreed on a revised format for a results-based Report for the next edition. Responding to a geographical representation of training activities, he explained that although the World Heritage Centre utilizes opportunities that arise in the field as much as possible and capitalizes upon the broader networks offered by existing training institutions, more should be done in addition to initiatives such as the Chinese training institute and the Africa 2009 Programme.
He further explained the relationship with the African Development Bank, which is currently involved in the Master Plan for MozambiqueIsland in cooperation with the State Party of Portugal, while activities of the African World Heritage Fund would provide more opportunities for cooperation.
As regards the languages for translation of documents, he referred to the success of the Operational Guidelines and the Heritage in Young Hands Kit, and while striving for as many languages as possible the need for resources was the bottleneck.
Finally, relating to the link with the 2003 Intangible Heritage Convention, he expressed strong favour, because of UNESCO’s mandate, as well as the cross-fertilization in heritage conservation innovations, and that follow-up would be given.
The Chairperson turned to the Draft Decision and without any written amendments so far, he invited suggestions from the floor.
The Delegation of Canada proposed to revise paragraph 2 into “takes note with appreciation”, to cut out paragraphs 3 to 7, and to revise 3 into “make its future report more results-oriented”.
The Delegation of Chile proposed to add to paragraph 5 “Pacific States” and for the countries “to work with the World Heritage Centre” to get support.
The Chairperson enquired whether the Delegation of Chile had an amendment, to which the Delegation responded negatively, but the idea was to be noted by the World Heritage Centre.
La Délégation du Maroc intervient dans le même sens que les délégations du Chili et Koweït en ce qui concerne le paragraphe 5 du projet de décision. Elle propose la formulation suivante: «Demande au Centre du Patrimoine mondial d’apporter aux Etats parties de l’Afrique, les Etats arabes et ceux du Pacifique l’appui nécessaire, etc.…»
The Delegation of Israel commented that without a discussion on the Global Strategy, this should be combined into a paragraph and stated that it would prepare an amendment.
The Delegation of India commented on the lack of logic in current proposals, with Canada proposing to cut out most paragraphs, and put forward the proposal to include a separate paragraph on the Pacific as it had currently no sites.
The Delegation of theNetherlands seconded India and suggested to take a Decision on Canada’s proposal before preparing new paragraphs.
The Chairperson agreed and asked Canada to reflect.
The Delegation of Canada responded that the document appeared to be just a report on activities undertaken and suggestions for inclusion of other items such as on the Pacific could be addressed later when discussed.
The Delegation of Norway seconded Canada.
The Delegation of India was not in agreement and proposed to retain paragraph 5, while modifying paragraph 4, and requested the Director of the World Heritage Centre to react to Canada’s proposal.
The Delegation oftheUnited States of America thanked the Chairperson and host New Zealand and seconded Canada.
The Delegation of Lithuania seconded Canada and suggested a compromise on paragraph 5 as regards the Pacific, since it seemed to have widespread support.
The Delegation of Chile seconded Morocco and proposed to keep paragraph 5 and to include the Pacific.
The Delegation of New Zealand seconded Chile.
La Délégation de la Tunisie remercie les autorités du pays hôte pour l’accueil offert. Elle soutient l’amendement proposé par la délégation du Maroc qui l’a précédée.
La Délégation du Bénin considère que le renforcement des capacités relève des activités de type transversal du Centre du patrimoine mondial et que cela devrait être reflété dans la décision. Elle ajoute aussi qu’elle soutient la proposition des délégations du Maroc et de la Tunisie.
The Delegation of India reiterated the request for a reaction by the Director of the World Heritage Centre on Canada’s proposal.
The Director of the World Heritage Centre explained that most issues of the Draft Decision would come back in other agenda items, so a reduction of the Draft Decision as proposed by Canada would not have a detrimental effect.
The Chairperson proposed to proceed paragraph by paragraph, as no suggestions had been withdrawn:

paragraph 1 – adopted;
paragraph 2 – the Rapporteur reiterated Canada’s proposal that the Committee “takes note with appreciation”, which was adopted;
paragraph 3 – the Rapporteur reiterated Canada’s proposal to delete, which was adopted;
paragraph 4 – the Rapporteur reiterated Canada’s proposal to delete, which was adopted;
paragraph 5 – two proposals in French, both focusing on assistance by the World Heritage Centre to African, Arab and PacificStates;

La Délégation du Bénin propose de formuler l’amendement en insérant la phrase suivante: «Demande au Centre du patrimoine mondial d’intensifier le renforcement d’activités…».
La Délégation du Maroc intervient pour proposer la formulation suivante: «Encourage le Centre du patrimoine mondial à apporter, aux Etats parties de la région d’Afrique, des pays arabes et du Pacifique, l’appui nécessaire…»
The Chairperson asked India for its amendment, but the State Party responded it wanted to withdraw it; thus paragraph 5 was adopted as amended.
The Chairperson returned to the proposal from Benin for a new paragraph, which was adopted as the new paragraph 4 before 5 as had just been amended. Subsequently the proposal from Canada to delete paragraphs 6 and 7 was adopted.
The Rapporteur mentioned Canada’s proposal for a new paragraph to reflect the need for a results-based report, which was adopted accordingly.

ITEM 5.2MECHANISM PROPOSED BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL TO ENSURE THE PROPER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE DECISIONS