World Heritage 32 COM Distribution Limited WHC-08/32.COM Paris, 22 June 2009 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-Second Session Quebec City, Canada 2– 10 July 2008 DRAFT SUMMARY RECORD PROJET DE RESUME DES INTERVENTIONS Corrections from States Parties on their own interventions requested for submission before 31 August 2009 Les corrections des Etats parties sur leurs propres interventions doivent être soumises avant le 31 août 2009 SECOND DAY – THURSDAY, 3 JULY 2008 FIRST MEETING 09.00 a.m. – 01.00 p.m. Chairperson: Ms Christina Cameron The Chairperson, opening the first meeting, thanked the authorities of Quebec for hosting the Committee’s 32nd session on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of Quebec City. She noted that it was being attended by five former Chairpersons of the World Heritage Committee: Mr Tumu te Heuheu, Chairperson in 2007, Ms. Ina Marciulionyte, Chairperson in 2006, Mr. Themba Wakashe, Chairperson in 2005, Mr Zhang Xinsheng, Chairperson in 2004 and Mr Tamas Fejerdi, Chairperson in 2002. ITEM 2 REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS Documents: WHC-08/32.COM/2 WHC-08/32.COM/INF.2 Decision: 32 COM 2 The Chairperson drew attention to the exceptionally high demand for participation at the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee. Out of the 1300 requests received only 900 have been accepted. Given the number of requests, she considered that a clear policy should be laid down to deal with the matter for future sessions of the Committee. She suggested that rules might be drawn up establishing fixed quotas for countries, and also concerning the calendar for the registration of participants. The Delegation of Canada offered assistance to the World Heritage Centre in preparing a proposal along those lines and drew attention to the amended draft decision put forward. The Rapporteur read out the following amendments to Decision 32 COM 2 proposed by the Delegation of Canada, consisting of four additional paragraphs at the end of the text presented in the working document: • Noting the ever-increasing interest in the implementation of the Convention by States Parties and observers and the challenges that the resultant growth in demand for participation in the Committee’s sessions poses for the host country; • Noting further the need to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the Committee’s proceedings; • Requests the World Heritage Centre to develop draft principles, policies and procedures to guide the process of evaluating and confirming requests for participation at meetings of the World Heritage Committee including, in particular, questions associated with: a) the appropriate size of State Party delegations b) an annual calendar defining timelines for the registration and acceptance of participants for Committee meetings 2 • Further requests the World Heritage Centre to propose any changes to the Rules of Procedure, the Operational Guidelines and the Host Country Agreement that may be warranted to operationalize the principles, policies and procedures described above, for examination at its 33rd session in 2009. The Chairperson opened the floor for comments. The Delegation of Brazil expressed disagreement with the proposed amendments, pointing out that the calendar and policy referred to in the text would cause serious difficulties for many countries. It was to be hoped that the Secretariat would be able to come up with another proposal. The Delegation of Kenya, supported by the Delegation of Jordan, said that the success of the World Heritage Convention was demonstrated by the popularity of the Committee’s sessions. Access to those sessions should not, therefore, be restricted and the number of participants artificially reduced. Though a developing country, Kenya had made the effort to participate in the current session with a seven-member delegation and that effort should be welcomed rather than reproved. Therefore, the Delegation of Kenya supported open participation in the sessions of the Committee, provided there was an established calendar and a clear policy in place. The Delegation of Israel concurred with the views expressed by the Delegation of Kenya, but proposed a change to the amendments just circulated, adding a reference to observers in the third paragraph a), in order to ensure that Observer delegations were of an appropriate size too. The Delegation of Spain supported the proposal by the Delegation of Canada and the intention to enhance participation in the Committee’s sessions. However, it was very difficult to take a decision without any precise data on participation. The Rapporteur read out the amended draft decision reflecting the change proposed by the Delegation of Israel. The Chairperson asked the delegations proposing amendments whether that latter version was acceptable to them. The Delegation of Canada responded positively. The Delegation of Brazil insisted on not imposing any limitation of calendar or size on delegations participating in the Committee’s sessions, and proposed to put a full stop after “the World Heritage Committee” in Paragraph 3 of the amended version. The Delegation of Israel said it would be satisfied with the changes proposed by the Delegation of Brazil. Following an exchange of views, the Chairperson said she took it that the Committee wished to adopt the amended draft decision. Decision 32 COM 2 was adopted as amended. The Chairperson then asked the Arabic- and Spanish-speaking members of the Committee to state in which of the two working languages they wished to see their interventions reflected in the summary records of the session. The Delegations of Bahrain, Spain, Cuba and Peru said they wished their interventions to be recorded in English. 3 Following a request by the Delegation of Egypt for its interventions to be recorded in English and in Arabic, the Chairperson recalled that the working languages of the World Heritage Committee were English and French, unlike the General Assembly of States Parties in which six languages were used, including Arabic. The Delegation of Egypt chose the English option. La Délégation du Maroc remercie à son tour la Présidente ainsi que les autorités canadiennes pour leur accueil chaleureux. Elle remercie également l’Arabie saoudite de leur permettre de s’exprimer en arabe. La Délégation interviendra en arabe et souhaite que ses observations soient retranscrites en français dans le résumé des interventions. La Délégation de la Tunisie transmet à la Présidente et aux autorités canadiennes ses meilleurs vœux et remerciements pour l’organisation de ce Comité, et souhaite que ses propos soient également retranscrits en français. ITEM 3 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND THE TIMETABLE ITEM 3A ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA Document: WHC-08/32.COM/3A.Rev3 Decision: 32 COM 3A The Director of the World Heritage Centre introduced three amendments to the agenda proposed by the Bureau. The Delegation of Australia raised the question of late receipt of documentation. While it acknowledged the difficulties of producing and circulating such a large volume of documents in time and did not wish to lay blame on the World Heritage Centre, the Delegation requested a thorough discussion on the full cycle of preparation of the documentation and asked the World Heritage Centre to draw up a clear timeline for the preparation of documents at least 6 weeks in advance of the meeting, in conformity with Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure. The Director of the World Heritage Centre said that a document had been prepared for the Bureau and proposed to circulate it to the Committee. The Delegation of Australia welcomed that initiative, but insisted on having a discussion on the timeline for the preparation of documentation, in order to ascertain where the weak points lay and where to focus more attention. The Chairperson suggested that a discussion on the matter be included in Item 18, “Other business”. The Observer Delegation of Argentina expressed agreement with the agenda in general, but requested postponement of the Argentinean nomination of the Cultural Landscape of Buenos Aires (Argentina) under item 8B as it had not been formally notified of a change in the status of the nomination and preferred to leave the Committee’s consideration of this nomination in abeyance until the 33rd session as had originally been projected, noting that, according to the Operational Guidelines, the World Heritage Committee could decide at any time to suspend an item, even if the agenda had already been adopted. Further it noted that 4 the outcomes of the debate on historic urban landscapes being held during the current session, might have important consequences which it would prefer to be able to take into account. It hoped that the Committee would take Argentina’s request into account. The Chairperson said that the matter had been raised at the Bureau meeting. She believed that the discussion should be held under item 8 on nominations, but sought the opinion of the Legal Adviser. The Legal Adviser said that in the case under discussion there were two questions to be put to the Committee, the first concerning the appropriate item under which to discuss the matter, and the second having more to do with looking into the consequences of postponement. Therefore, the first decision for the Committee to take was whether to deal with the issue under the current item or elsewhere. In response to a question by the Delegation of Kenya, the Chairperson reassured that Delegation that the postponement did not concern the whole of item 8 on nominations, and said she was in favour of discussing the request for postponement under item 8, one reason being that that would give the Committee more time to think about the question. The Delegation of Israel supported the Chairperson. There being no other comments, the agenda was adopted as amended.