ANNEX II.5

Before we turn to our agenda, I would like to share with you a few personal impressions of my term in office as President of the Committee, as well as some thoughts on the Committee and its work.

Let me start by saying that when I was elected President I was a complete newcomer to the field of world heritage. Since then the idea of "lifelong learning" has taken on a whole new dimension. I have tried as far as possible to use the mandate given to me in the service of our Committee's objective, in other words the protection of world heritage. In doing so I paid attention to three levels: national, i. e. Germany, international and UNESCO.

At national level I concentrated directly upon the protection of World Heritage Sites with which the Committee and the Bureau dealt this year and which required urgent action: the Trier Amphitheatre and the Palaces and Parks of Potsdam. In both these cases I took advantage of the opportunity given to me, and I think I can say that as President I was able to achieve more than I would have done under normal circumstances.

In Trier building plans in the direct vicinity of the Amphitheatre gave rise to concerns regarding the integrity of this World Heritage Site. I therefore contacted the relevant authorities in the City of Trier and Land Rhineland-Palatinate and, on 20 May, I held a local meeting to clarify the situation in which representatives of the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS took part. Although we were unable to limit building work to the extent we would have liked, we were able to involve ICOMOS in an urban-planning competition aimed at defining the future form of the area surrounding the Amphitheatre. In this way we seek to ensure that the new building work conforms to the character of the World Heritage Site. My experience of this case, which I am happy to pass on to you, is that the involvement of "advisory bodies" at the right time can markedly increase awareness on the part of local officials of the international scope of world heritage.

A more difficult case, which took up an increasing amount of my time as President this year, was the discussion on planning and construction in the direct and indirect vicinity of the World Heritage Sites in Potsdam. Luckily, in this case I was able to pick up from the Berlin session, during which, of course, the Committee itself had visited Potsdam. At the start of my term, in January, I conducted initial talks with the City of Potsdam, together with the head of the World Heritage Centre and an ICOMOS representative, and had the situation and plans explained to me in detail. Since then, in countless telephone calls, letters and conversations, I have striven to make sure that the protection of world heritage is given sufficient consideration. My activities have not gone unnoticed: There is now a wide and ongoing discussion in Germany, even at the highest political level, but also in the media, about how to protect Potsdam's cultural assets. Let me emphasize here that the German UNESCO Commission has given me valuable support during decisive phases of the public discussion. I have learned from this case, and the Committee and UNESCO should take note of this fact, that due to their contacts and public image the national UNESCO Commissions can play a vital role in protecting the world's cultural and natural heritage. Local authorities and persons charged with conserving World Heritage Sites should be aware of this potential. The World Heritage Committee, too, should directly address the issue of how the national commissions can be better used for its purposes. In Potsdam, as in Trier, I succeeded in giving ICOMOS experts an opportunity to acquaint themselves with the situation on the ground and to conduct extensive talks. The Committee will be able to draw upon this expertise during its further negotiations on the Potsdam issue.

At international level I spent much time dealing with the Galapagos Islands. One highlight for me was the mission to Ecuador, which we had decided upon during the Berlin session and which was carried out in June. A detailed report on this mission is contained in information document No. 13. Director-General Mayor and I both wrote to the President of Ecuador to urge his support for the protection of the Galapagos Islands. The President recently vetoed on constitutional grounds a draft law, which was criticized by experts, and which would have permitted major interference in the islands' ecosystem. A new draft is now to be drawn up. The World Heritage Committee and UNESCO must continue to monitor this situation very carefully. Although I am not able to say here with a clear conscience that our mission has negated all the Committee's concerns regarding Galapagos, I can state, on the basis of my experience, that I regard the World Heritage Convention as an essential basis for international cooperation on world heritage protection which can achieve real results if it is used wisely. On the other hand, the limits of the Convention become particularly clear when the world's desire to preserve its heritage collides with developments and events on the site itself.

My work with UNESCO and the World Heritage Centre was mainly concerned with improving in the widest sense working relations between the Committee and the Secretariat, i.e. the Centre.

In Berlin the Committee had charged me with taking up the issue of financing Secretariat posts from the World Heritage Fund with Director-General Mayor. I had two personal meetings with him on this subject, and in a letter of 14 October he agreed that the eight posts in question would be fully funded from the UNESCO regular budget from 1 January 1998 onwards. For 1997, ad interim, 6 posts would, he wrote, be financed from the regular programme staff costs budget of UNESCO and 2 from grant-in-aid funds allocated by UNESCO to the World Heritage Centre for the current biennium. The Director-General added, and I quote, "You will certainly appreciate that given the present circumstances of conflicting demands placed upon UNESCO, and at this present juncture of financial restraint, all the above measures constitute a rather exceptional effort on the part of the Organization, demonstrating UNE S CO' s strong commitment to the cause of the World Heritage Convention." End of quotation. I think the World Heritage Committee should find a way to express its gratitude to the Director-General for his support. I myself am also relieved that we will no longer need to discuss the financing of posts from the World Heritage Fund when we deal with the budget for the coming year.

Another issue which had given me cause for concern since the Berlin session was the improvement of documentation for the Committee and Bureau meetings, particularly with regard to budget documents. We also discussed this problem in detail during the Bureau meeting in Paris in June. As you can see from the documentation for this Committee meeting, the Secretariat has tried to conform as closely as possible to the Committee's ideas on the type of information and its presentation.

My experience as President has shown that working relations between the World Heritage Centre, the Committee and the "advisory bodies" deserve the Committee's special attention and goodwill. Particularly during the Paris Bureau meeting, I tried to encourage constructive dialogue between all concerned on cooperation with the Centre. In my view everyone must be aware that the demands on the Committee are increasing, and that it relies more and more on the assistance and advice of the "advisory bodies". They must be able, also financially speaking, to carry out their tasks to the full. However, it is also true that the Committee must be able to count on the support, advice and succinct proposals of the "advisory bodies". Against this background I am pleased that the Committee will discuss this cooperation under agenda point 10. Such a discussion seems to me to be necessary if we look to the future, especially in view of the fact that the World Heritage Convention will soon be 25 years old. This dialogue should of course lead to positive and bearable results for all partners.

I do not want to go into detail about my other, more routine tasks as President. Within the scope of my competence as defined in the "Operational Guidelines", I approved fifteen applications for international support from the World Heritage Fund, and on other topical issues I was in close contact with the World Heritage Centre, which gave me valuable assistance during my entire term in office. I would therefore like to thank the Director of the Centre and his staff for their support and personal commitment. Remain true to your calling and do not let yourselves be discouraged by setbacks! Your work is recognized and valued worldwide, and there is no doubt about its significance. Let me also thank the representatives of ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM who supplied me with good and forthcoming advice during my term in office.

At 25 years of age, the World Heritage Convention is at a crossroads. In the past it has achieved indisputable success and made great progress, but it can only continue this trend if it solves the problems and removes the weaknesses which have now come to light, a task upon which the Committee and the Member States should urgently concentrate their efforts.

I would like to mention just a few key points which I regard as being important:

The World Heritage Committee has underlined the importance of monitoring; I need not explain this further. It must not be left to chance whether possible threats to individual World Heritage Sites are recognized in time. Following the next UNESCO General Conference, the Committee and the Centre will face the major task of lending greater substance to the concept of monitoring, together with the Member States. There will be many questions to answer; for example, how will the Centre and the Committee, with their existing structures and capacities, be able to cope with all the data and information? In my opinion the "advisory bodies" will play a vital role in this regard. We will not manage without their help.

The World Heritage List now contains almost 500 sites. My fear is that one day we will reach a stage where the List, and the protection requirements of the individual sites, can no longer be sufficiently surveyed. The Member States must realize that their nominations are a factor in how quickly this stage is reached. I appeal to them to bear in mind the request for self-limitation already made by the Committee in the "Operational Guidelines".

The universal character of the World Heritage List must be more clearly defined in order to avoid the impression that it is a "supermarket" for some regions, while others remain underrepresented and lose interest in the Convention in the long term. I strongly support all plans which allow, for example, African or some Asian countries better access to the List.

The Committee has already extensively discussed the balance between cultural and natural monuments. My opinion is that in view of the frightening increase in the rate at which nature is being exploited, everything must be done to enable the World Heritage Committee to help save what can be saved. I personally can only warn the Committee that it is becoming bogged down in theoretical discussions on principles. The protection of the world's natural assets is better served if the Committee takes action in a pragmatic and energetic way.

One course the Committee could take in order to address these problems might be to use its criteria more flexibly and thus encourage certain trends. This requires a consensus within the Committee and among the "advisory bodies", and as outgoing President I urge you to seek this.

I have no wish to end my speech on a pessimistic note, as this would surely be wrong. The World Heritage Committee can point to a very positive and convincing range of activities; this must remain so in future. It plays a highly significant role in promoting the peaceful coexistence of peoples and countries, and it encourages and works towards intercultural understanding, tolerance, and acceptance both of one's own cultural identity and those of others. UNESCO's peace mission is clearly reflected in the Committee's tasks and activities. I am proud to have been able, as your President, to render a minor contribution to this work of peace, and I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to do so.

Thank you.

SEÑORES DELEGADOS AL COMITE PARA LA PROTECCION DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURAL Y NATURAL.

Deseo agradecer el honor que se me ha conferido al elegirme Presidenta del Comité.

Desde su fundación las Naciones Unidas y la UNESCO han jugado un papel fundamental para favorecer la paz y el entendimiento entre las naciones.

Fortalecer nuestro Comité implica asumir los acelerados cambios que estamos viviendo e innovar y hacer más eficaces nuestras formas de trabajo, intensificar el trazo de muy diversos caminos para auspiciar las políticas de conservación y la cooperación internacional, para inerementar los programas de formación y la promoción del patrimono natural y cultural.

Nuestra Convención es una guía segura para actualizar la labor que conjuntamente estamos realizando. "Humanizar el patrimonio es el mensaje ético de la UNESCO" expresó su Director General recientemente al referirse a la preservación de los grandes valores de las ciudades. Humanizar es, en efecto, buscar la democratización de la cultura, es admitir que en las diferencias culturales reside la riqueza de nuestro mundo, por cierto, el único posible para todos, y que la cultura se ensancha en la medida en que con seriedad admitimos que es en los otros donde mejor podemos reconocernos.

Creo que debemos entrar de lleno en el debate de los temas cruciales que hoy nos preocupan: como hacer la mejor aplicación de la Convención de acuerdo a los diferentes grados de desarrollo socio económico en que se encuentran los grandes valores de la naturaleza y la cultura, como revitalizar nuestro diálogo con las comunidades en que éstos están inmersos para que sean ellas plenamente partícipes de su preservación y de las posibilidades de desarrollo que puedan derivarse; como incrementar las útiles acciones que ya se llevan a cabo para hacer participar a los Estados Miembros a fin de que potencien sus posibilidades de cooperación internacional, de generar una verdadera planeación local y regional, de apoyar e integrar a los sistemas educativos dichos proyectos de formación y capacitación, de atraer a los más diversos sectores sociales y a las fuentes de financiamiento que puedan hacer realidad el rescate patrimonial. Ciertamente es en la soberanía de cada Estado donde nace la fuerza para producir las mejores propuestas de colaboración abierta a otros y para, a partir de esa soberanía, recrear una visión universal de la cultura que es la que da sentido a nuestra Convención.

Les ofrezco mi total compromiso con la honrosa tarea que este Comité se ha servido encomendarme y estoy segura de que con base en la excelente Convención que nos anima, pondremos lo mejor de todos nosotros para abatir cualquier obstáculo y así cumplir con capacidad técnica e imaginación con una de las más nobles tareas que cualquier hombre pueda plantearse: la conservación de las mejores obras de la naturaleza y de las sociedades.

ANNEX II.7 CLOSING SPEECH OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

DESPUÉS DE UNA INTENSA JORNADA DE TRABAJO PODEMOS AFIRMAR QUE LA VIGÉSIMA SESIÓN DEL COMITÉ DEL PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL HA ALCANZADO SUS OBJETIVOS Y PUESTO DE MANIFIESTO LA FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCIA QUE TIENE SU LABOR PARA HACER VIGENTE LA CONVENCIÓN QUE LE DA ORIGEN Y SENTIDO.

LOS 37 SITIOS QUE HAN SIDO INSCRITOS AUMENTANDO ASÍ A 506 LOS CONSIDERADOS PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL, SON LA EXPRESIÓN DEL DELICADO Y CONCIENZUDO TRABAJO QUE PRECEDE CADA UNA DE ESAS HONROSAS DESIGNACIONES.

A LA PUERTA DE LA CELEBRACIÓN DEL VIGÉSIMO QUINTO ANIVERSARIO DE LA CONVENCIÓN SE HACE INDISPENSABLE HACER UNA VALORACIÓN COMPRENSIVA, CRÍTICA Y TAMBIÉN PROPOSITIVA DEL DESEMPEÑO DE NUESTRO COMITÉ PARA PROTEGER Y PONER EN VALOR LAS MEJORES OBRAS DE LA NATURALEZA Y AQUELLAS EXPRESIONES MATERIALES FRUTO DE LA ESPIRITUALIDAD HUMANA, SIEMPRE DIVERSA Y CAMBIANTE QUE CONSTITUYEN LA HERENCIA CULTURAL MUNDIAL.

INDUDABLEMENTE, LA VIGENCIA DE LA VISIÓN PLURAL QUE DE LA CULTURA EXPRESA LA CONVENCIÓN, LA CONVIERTE EN FUENTE FUNDAMENTAL DE INSPIRACIÓN.

HOY, CUANDO EL MUNDO SE EMPEÑA EN ACELERAR LOS PROCESOS DE INTERCAMBIO DE CARÁCTER ECONÓMICO Y EN ACELERAR POR TANTO TAMBIÉN LOS ESCENARIOS POLÍTICOS Y SOCIALES, DEBEMOS RESPONDER DESDE EL CAMPO DE LA CIENCIA, LA EDUCACIÓN Y LA CULTURA CON MAYOR EFICIENCIA. SI, COMO ES SABIDO, TODA LABOR DE PROTECCIÓN PATRIMONIAL NO ES EN ESENCIA SINO UN ACTO DE CONDUCCIÓN DE LA HISTORIA NATURAL Y SOCIAL Y POR TANTO UNA DETERMINACIÓN DEL FUTURO BASADA EN LOS MEJORES CRITERIOS QUE HOY PODAMOS APLICAR PARA SELECCIONAR LOS VALORES EXCEPCIONALES DEL PLANETA, TENDREMOS QUE SER CAPACES DE AMPLIAR CONSTANTEMENTE LAS PERSPECTIVAS INTELECTUALES Y NUESTRA ÓPTICA CULTURAL PARA TOMAR LAS MEJORES DECISIONES EN UN MUNDO AFORTUNADAMENTE MULTICULTURAL Y PLURIÉTNICO.

LOS PLANTEAMIENTOS QUE ORIENTAN LA ESTRATEGIA GLOBAL DEL COMITÉ DEBEN MERECER NUESTRA MAYOR ATENCIÓN, PUES DE ELLOS DEPENDE LA POSIBILIDAD DE RECONOCER ACERTADAMENTE LOS CAMINOS PARA INTERVENIR A FAVOR DE LA PAZ, EL EQUILIBRIO Y LA JUSTICIA EN EL RECONOCIMIENTO DE LOS VALORES NATURALES Y CULTURALES DE TODAS LAS SOCIEDADES Y REGIONES GEOGRÁFICAS DEL MUNDO.

LOS PROYECTOS DE COOPERACIÓN TÉCNICA Y ASISTENCIA INTERNACIONAL, LOS DE CAPACITACIÓN Y ACTUALIZACIÓN Y LAS TAREAS DE SEGUIMIENTO CONSTITUYEN UN HAZ ÍNTIMAMENTE RELACIONADO DEL QUE EN BUENA MEDIDA DEPENDEN LAS ALTERNATIVAS SIEMPRE DIVERSAS DE CONSERVACIÓN.

SERÁN TAREAS DEL COMITÉ AMPLIAR EL ESPACIO DE ACCIÓN Y EL FUNCIONAMIENTO PARA QUE SUS CUERPOS ASESORES Y TODAS LAS AGENCIAS NACIONALES E INTERNACIONALES, PRIVADAS Y PÚBLICAS DE CARÁCTER PROFESIONAL QUE PUEDAN INFLUIR A FAVOR DE LA PRESERVACIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO, ENCUENTREN CABIDA EN NUESTROS ENGRANES DE OPERACIÓN.

EN EL CAMPO DE LA DIFUSIÓN Y LA PROMOCIÓN SE HACE INDISPENSABLE AMPLIAR NUESTRA PRODUCCIÓN Y VEMOS CON EXTREMA SIMPATÍA LOS LOGROS ALCANZADOS EN ESTA MATERIA. HABRÁ, SÍ, QUE INVOLUCRAR DIRECTAMENTE A LOS ESTADOS (MIEMBROS EN ESTOS GRANDES PROYECTOS PUES DE ELLOS DEPENDERÁ LA CAPACIDAD PARA DETERMINAR EL TIPO DE MANEJOS Y LAS FORMAS ESPECÍFICAS (ACCIÓN CONTINUA, USO DEL RADIO, VIDEO, CINE, PRENSA ESCRITA, MEDIOS ELECTRÓNICOS, ETC.) QUE ATIENDAN A LAS NECESIDADES DE LA POBLACIÓN A LAS QUE SON DIRIGIDAS Y RESCATEN, PRESERVEN TAMBIEN, SUS SIEMPRE REALES CAPACIDADES DE INTERVENIR DIRECTAMENTE EN LA CONDUCCIÓN DE LOS PROCESOS QUE DEFIENDEN Y RECREAN LA CULTURA Y LA NATURALEZA.

ES INDISPENSABLE QUE EL COMITÉ CONVOQUE MÁS AMPLIAMENTE A LAS AGENCIAS DE FINANCIAMIENTO Y A LAS DEDICADAS AL FAVORECIMIENTO DEL DESARROLLO SOCIAL PARA COOPERAR EN LAS SOLUCIONES DE LAS CAUSAS REALES QUE AFECTAN EL PATRIMONIO DE LA HUMANIDAD QUE MUCHAS VECES SON EL PRODUCTO DE LA MARGINACIÓN Y LA POBREZA.

POR ELLO, LOS CRITERIOS PRESUPUESTALES NO SON DE SEGUNDA MONTA, SON EN SÍ MISMOS EL PRODUCTO DE UN EJERCICIO HERMENÉUTICO QUE INTERPRETA Y DEFINE LOS PROYECTOS QUE DEBEN SER PRIVILEGIADOS Y POR TANTO CONSTITUYEN UNA RADIOGRAFÍA SOBRE UNA FACETA FUNDAMENTAL EN LA TOMA DE DECISIONES.

CREO QUE TODOS LOS MIEMBROS DEL COMITÉ, HAN DEMOSTRADO SU COMPROMISO CON LA CONVENCIÓN Y HAN LLEVADO A CABO UN ESFUERZO PROFESIONAL IMPORTANTE. QUIERO MANIFESTARLES MI MÁS ALTO RECONOCIMIENTO. EL COMITÉ CUENTA CON EL TOTAL APOYO DEL DIRECTOR GENERAL DE LA UNESCO, SR. FEDERICO MAYOR, SU PRESENCIA AQUÍ EN MÉRIDA PARA LA APERTURA Y SU DISCURSO LLENO DE CONCEPTOS QUE EXPLICITAN SU COMPROMISO CON LA PRESERVACIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURAL HAN SIDO UN ALIENTO EFECTIVO PARA NUESTRA LABOR. QUIERO AGRADECERLE SU COMPROMISO, SU IRRESTRICTO RESPALDO Y TALENTO PARA CONCEBIR CON APERTURA Y CAPACIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN LA COMPLEJA TRAMA DE ACCIONES QUE SE REQUIEREN PARA EL DISEÑO DE UNA POLÍTICA EFICAZ EN FAVOR DEL PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL.

ESTOY SEGURA DE QUE TODOS PONDREMOS LO MEJOR DE NOSOTROS MISMOS, PARA COMO, EXPRESÓ EL SR. DIRECTOR GENERAL DE LA UNESCO, DEDICAR NUESTRAS FUERZAS A LA CONSECUCIÓN DE LOS OBJETIVOS DE LA CONVENCIÓN Y HAREMOS TODO LO QUE ESTÉ A NUESTRO ALCANCE PORQUE ESTAS REUNIONES NOS PERMITAN DEBATIR LO ESENCIAL DE ACUERDO A NUESTRA MISIÓN.

ME SIENTO MUY CONTENTA POR LAS INICIATIVAS QUE TOMÓ AL COMITÉ AL FORMAR UN PEQUEÑO ÓRGANO ASESOR QUE SEGURAMENTE AYUDARA A MEJORAR NUESTRA LABOR CONJUNTA.

LES PIDO UNA DISCULPA POR LOS MUCHOS Y EVIDENTES ERRORES QUE COMETÍ EN EL MANEJO DE LOS DEBATES Y QUE FUERON DISMINUÍDOS POR SU CONTRIBUCIÓN GENEROSA.

A TODOS LOS DELEGADOS AL COMITÉ, A LOS DELEGADOS DE LOS PAÍSES MIEMBROS, A LOS CUERPOS ASESORES (ICCROM, ICOMOS E IUCN), AL ESTUPENDO EQUIPO DEL SECRETARIADO INTEGRADO POR MIEMBROS DEL CENTRO DEL PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL, QUE TANTO NOS AYUDÓ, DE CORAZÓN LES DOY LAS GRACIAS. SU TRABAJO SIEMPRE PROFESIONAL Y SU DISPOSICIÓN PARA ORIENTARME ME MERECE GRAN RESPETO Y RECONOCIMIENTO.

A LOS TRADUCTORES E INTÉRPRETES QUE NO ESCATIMARON ESFUERZO ALGUNO PARA CONTRIBUIR AL ÉXITO DE NUESTRA SESIÓN, LES DAMOS MUCHAS, MUCHAS GRACIAS.

A NUESTRO ENIBAJADOR DE NIGER, SR. LAMBERT MESSAN, RELATOR DEL COMITÉ LE AGRADECEMOS SU ENCOMIABLE TRABAJO.

AL SR. MOUNIR BOUCHENAKI, DIRECTOR DE LA DIVISIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO DE LA UNESCO, LE AGRADECEMOS SU ACTIVA PARTICIPACIÓN Y PERMANENTE APOYO PARA AYUDAR A LA PRESIDENCIA DEL COMITÉ.

AL SR. BERND VON DROSTE, DIRECTOR DEL CENTRO DEL PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL, QUIERO DECIRLE QUE LE QUEDO MUY AGRADECIDA, QUE EL INTENSO DIÁLOGO QUE HUBIMOS DE SOSTENER ME PEMITIÓ VALORAR SU INTELIGENCIA Y CONOCIMIENTOS Y QUE CONFÍO EN QUE DURANTE LOS PRÓXIMOS DOCE MESES HAGAMOS DE LAS DECISIONES DEL COMITÉ UNA REALIDAD QUE COADYUVE FUERTEMENTE AL CUIDADO Y DIFUSIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL.

AL SR. GEORGE ZOUDIN, DIRECTOR ADJUNTO DEL CENTRO, LE RECONOCEMOS SU PERMANENTE ESPÍRITU DE COOPERACIÓN.

AL SR. MARC WARREN DEL ÁREA DE FINANZAS DE LA UNESCO, MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU AYUDA.

ESPECIAL MENCIÓN QUIERO HACER DEL MANIFIESTO APOYO Y ENTUSIASMO DEL SR. DIRECTOR GENERAL DE LA UNESCO, DON FEDERICO MAYOR, PARA EL BUEN FUNCIONAMIENTO DEL COMITÉ.

POR LA PARTE MEXICANA DEBO MENCIONAR EN PRIMER TÉRMINO EL DECIDIDO RESPALDO DEL SR. SECRETARIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA, LIC. MIGUEL LIMÓN ROJAS, Y PRESIDENTE DE LA COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS PARA LA UNESCO, Y SE LO AGRADEZCO A TRAVÉS DE SU REPRESENTANTE AQUÍ PRESENTE EL SR. DIRECTOR GENERAL DE RELACIONES INTERNACIONALES DE LA SEP Y SECRETARIO GENERAL DE DICHA COMISIÓN.

AGRADECEMOS A LA SECRETARÍA DE MEDIO AMBIENTE, RECURSOS NATURALES Y PESCA, MTRA. JULIA CARABIAS, AL PRESIDENTE DEL CONSEJO NACIONAL PARA LA CULTURA Y LAS ARTES, LIC. RAFAEL TOVAR, AL SR. EMBAJADOR DE MÉXICO ANTE LA UNESCO, DR. MARIO OJEDA.

FELICITÁNDONOS DE QUE ESTA SESIÓN SE HAYA CELEBRADO EN YUCATÁN, LE EXPRESO AL GOBERNADOR VÍCTOR CERVERA PACHECO SU EXTRAORDINARIA CONTRIBUCIÓN A LOS TRABAJOS QUE AQUÍ HEMOS REALIZADO.

AL INSTITUTO DE CULTURA DE YUCATÁN, AL PATRONATO CULTUR, A LA FUNDACIÓN CULTURAL MACAY, A LA FUNDACIÓN CULTURAL DOMECQ, NUESTRO SINCERO AGRADECIMIENTO.

ES JUSTO DESTACAR LA LABOR DEL JEFE DE LA DELEGACIÓN MEXICANA, SALVADOR DIAZ-BERRIO, POR SU CONSTANTE SERVICIO A LA COMISIÓN, POR SUS LOGROS Y FRUCTÍFEROS AÑOS DE TRABAJO AQUÍ, A PATRICIA PERNAS EN QUIEN RECAYÓ BUENA PARTE DEL TRABAJO DE ORGANIZACIÓN DE ESTA SESIÓN Y A TODO SU EQUIPO QUE SON PARTE DE LA VOCALÍA DE LA COMISIÓN DE MÉXICO ANTE LA UNESCO.

A LOS ESPECIALISTAS DE LA SEMARNAP QUE AQUÍ COLABORARON, AL DIRECTOR DEL CENTRO INAH YUCATÁN, ARQLGO. ALFREDO BARRERA Y A TODOS SUS TRABAJADORES E INVESTIGADORES.

A SALVADOR ACEVES, FRANCISCO LÓPEZ, JORGE DÍAZ CUERVO Y ALEJANDRO MARTÍNEZ DE LA DELEGACIÓN MEXICANA MI MÁS FUERTE AGRADECIMIENTO.

A NUESTRAS AMABLES Y SERVICIALES EDECANES Y A MIS ENTRAÑABLES AMIGAS Y COLABORADORAS

ADRIANA KONZEVIK

GUADALUPE LAZO

FLOR DE MA. GONZÁLEZ

MA. OLVIDO MORENO Y

MINA DE OLLOQUI, MUCHAS GRACIAS.

SEÑORES Y SEÑORAS: ES UN HONOR QUE IMPLICA UNA GRAN RESPONSBAILIDAD TRABAJAR PARA NUETSRO COMITÉ. LES OFREZCO MI MAYOR ESFUERZO.

ANNEX III.1 --------------------------------------------------------------- Draft report on monitoring and reporting to be submitted by the World Heritage Committee to the Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties (Oct./Nov. 1997) Adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its twentieth session --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION ELEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE Item xx of the provisional agenda: monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List SUMMARY In accordance with the decision of the Tenth General Assembly of States Parties (paragraph 31 of the Summary Record of the Tenth General Assembly), the World Heritage Committee submits herewith a report and a draft resolution on the monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. Decision required: The General Assembly may wish to adopt the draft resolution on monitoring and reporting submitted in paragraph 16 of this document. Background* 1. To ensure the efficient implementation of the World Heritage Convention it is essential that all the actors involved have access to up-to-date knowledge on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties. This is not only true for the national authorities and site-managers, in order to plan for preventive conservation, but also for the World Heritage Committee and its Secretariat, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, to fulfil their functions in collaborating in the preservation of properties and enhancing international solidarity as set out in the Convention. In order to set priorities for international collaboration and emergency assistance the international community has to be kept informed of requirements at World Heritage properties. 2. Discussions on the most appropriate means to establish up-to- date information on World Heritage properties were initiated in 1982 and have continued since then at the sessions of the World Heritage Committee, the General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention and the General Conference of UNESCO. Numerous States Parties and experts, as well as the advisory bodies, were involved in this process. The work undertaken by the Working Group of States Parties on Monitoring and Reporting in 1987 and by the Strategic Planning Meetings held in 1992 constitute the main stages of it. 3. This process is described in detail in the report that the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee submitted to the Tenth General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention which was held in Paris on 2 and 3 November 1995. 4. Practical experiences in monitoring and reporting benefitted to the process, particularly those gained in the implementation of regional and national monitoring and reporting programmes and the different models that had been applied. In some cases for example the preparation of state of conservation reports was undertaken through United Nations activities such as the Regional Project for Cultural Heritage of UNDP and UNESCO for Latin America and the Caribbean, and a UNEP project for the Mediterranean. In other cases, the States Parties undertook the reporting by themselves or in collaboration with non-governmental organizations such as ICOMOS and IUCN or ICCROM. The World Heritage Committee examined at various occasions the results of these monitoring and reporting activities and concluded that they all resulted in credible state of conservation reports. * This report addresses the concept of systematic monitoring and reporting described in paragraph 69 to 74 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. At the same time, the World Heritage Committee recognizes the important and continuing role of reactive monitoring as described in paragraph 75 of the Operational Guidelines. 5. As a result of the above process and practical experiences, the World Heritage Committee reconfirmed at its eighteenth session in December 1994 the responsibility of the States Parties to monitor on a day-to-day basis the conditions of the properties and invited all States Parties to present periodic state of conservation reports to the World Heritage Committee. 6. The Tenth General Assembly examined the matter of monitoring and reporting under its agenda item 'New monitoring activities related to World Heritage sites' against the background of the report and a draft resolution presented by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee as well as a number of draft resolutions that were submitted by States Parties. The report of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee and the draft resolutions are included in Annex II of the Summary Record of the Tenth General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. 7. The debate at the Tenth General Assembly is reflected in paragraphs 15 to 31 of the Summary Record of the Tenth General Assembly. As a conclusion, the Tenth General Assembly decided the following: 'As a conclusion, the General Assembly decided to continue the debate on the systematic monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties at the Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties that will be held in 1997. The General Assembly requested the World Heritage Committee to prepare a report and a proposed resolution for the eleventh session of the General Assembly of States Parties taking into account the discussions and experiences gained over the past years as well as the documents that had been presented to the Tenth General Assembly and the discussions thereon.' 8. In compliance with this decision, the matter of monitoring and reporting was again examined by the World Heritage Committee at its nineteenth and twentieth sessions. At these sessions, the World Heritage Committee studied the reporting procedures foreseen under the World Heritage Convention, defined the main principles of monitoring and reporting and prepared a draft resolution for submission to the Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties. The reporting under Article 29 of the World Heritage Convention 9. The World Heritage Convention does not foresee any other reporting by States Parties than to the General Conference of UNESCO. Article 29 of the Convention states that "The States Parties to this Convention shall, in the reports which they submit to the General Conference (...) on dates and in a manner to be determined by it, give information on the legislative and administrative provisions which they have adopted and other action which they have taken for the application of this Convention, together with details of the experience acquired in this field." 10. It is the view of the Committee that the periodic reporting by the States Parties on the state of conservation of the properties on their territories would fall within the terms of Article 29 and that the General Conference could determine that 'the manner' of the reporting would be through the World Heritage Committee. The General Conference could be asked, therefore, to activate Article 29 and to determine that reports should be submitted through the World Heritage Committee, requesting the Committee at the same time to define the periodicity, the form, nature and extent of the regular reporting, i.e. to establish a format for the periodic reporting by the States Parties on the application of the Convention. 11. In this case, this reporting would include information on the general application of the Convention, particularly the stipulations in Articles 4, 5 and 6, Article 11.1, Article 17 and 18 and Article 27, as well as information on the state of conservation of specific properties on the World Heritage List. 12. If the General Conference of UNESCO would delegate to the World Heritage Committee the examination and responding to the States Parties' reports, this activity would automatically be included in the report which the Committee is required to submit to the General Conference under the terms of Article 29.3. Principles of monitoring and reporting 13. On the basis of past experiences, consultations with States Parties and experts and, above all, the debate at the Tenth General Assembly and the nineteenth session of the Committee, the World Heritage Committee concludes that there is a general recognition among the States Parties of the need for them to monitor, as an integral part of their management efforts, the conditions of the World Heritage properties on their territories and to report its results to the bodies that are involved in the implementation of the Convention. In this sense, the Committee considers that there is a need to interpret the Convention in the light of twenty-five years of experience in its implementation while recognizing the sovereign rights of the States Parties. The Committee, furthermore, considers that the General Assembly and the World Heritage Committee have a role to play as standard setting organizations. 14. In this context, the Committee proposes that the following principles govern the methodology and procedures of monitoring and reporting: i) monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage properties is the responsibility of the State Party concerned and is part of the site management; ii) the commitment of the States Parties to provide regular reports on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties is consistent with the principles of the World Heritage Convention and should be part of a continuous process of collaboration between the States Parties and the World Heritage Committee; iii) regular reports may be submitted in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention. The General Conference of UNESCO should be asked to activate Article 29 of the Convention and to entrust the World Heritage Committee with the responsibility to respond to these reports; iv) the World Heritage Committee should define the form, nature and extent of the regular reporting in respect of the principles of State sovereignty. 15. The World Heritage Committee considers that these principles would provide the appropriate framework for the management of the World Heritage properties by the States Parties themselves and for the enhanced cooperation between the States Parties, the World Heritage Committee and the international community for their preservation. Their introduction would also facilitate the World Heritage Committee to perform its functions effectively, particularly in providing and generating international assistance and in maintaining a credible World Heritage List. Decision required 16. The General Assembly may wish to adopt the following draft resolution: The General Assembly, 1. Noting that the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage has recognized that the cultural and natural heritage 'are increasingly threatened with destruction, not only by traditional causes of decay, but also by changing social and economic conditions which aggravate the situation with even more formidable phenomena of damage or destruction'; 2. Reaffirms that 'deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world'; 3. Considers that the Convention should be interpreted in the light of twenty-five years of experience in its implementation; 4. Considers that such interpretation recognizes the sovereign right of the State Party concerned over the World Heritage sites situated on its territory; 5. Considers that a well-reflected and formulated common policy for the protection of cultural and natural heritage is likely to create a continuing interaction between States Parties; 6. Emphasizes the interest of each State Party to be informed of the experience of others with regard to conservation methods and the possibilities so offered, through voluntary international cooperation, for the general improvement of all actions undertaken; 7. Reaffirms the standard setting role of the General Assembly as well as of the World Heritage Committee; 8. Concludes that monitoring is the responsibility of the State Party concerned and that the commitment to provide regular reports on the state of the site is consistent with the principles set out in the Convention in (i) the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth preambular clauses, (ii) Art. 4 (iii) Art. 6.1. and 6.2. (iv) Art. 7 (v) Art. 10 (vi) Art. 11 (vii) Art. 13 (viii) Art. 15 (ix) Art. 21.3 (x) Art. 29; 9. Emphasizes that monitoring by the State Party is part of the site management which remains the responsibility of the States Parties where the site is located, and that regular reports may be submitted in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention; 10. Recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that 'Each State Party....recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage...situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State'; 11. Recalls that Article 6 lays down the concept of world heritage 'for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate', and that Article 7 requires the establishment of a 'system of international co-operation' and assistance 'designed to support States Parties' efforts to conserve and identify that heritage; 12. Emphasizes that regular reporting should be part of a consultative process and not treated as a sanction or a coercive mechanism; 13. Notes that within the broad responsibility of the World Heritage Committee in standards setting, the form, nature and extent of the regular reporting must respect the principles of State sovereignty; The involvement of the Committee, through its Secretariat or advisory bodies, in the preparation of the regular reports would be with the agreement of the State Party concerned. The States Parties may request expert advice from the Secretariat or the advisory bodies. The Secretariat may also commission expert advice with the agreement of the States Parties; 14. Suggests the General Conference of UNESCO to activate the procedures in Art. 29 of the Convention and to refer to the World Heritage Committee the responsibility to respond to the reports; 15. Encourages States Parties to take advantage of shared information and experience on World Heritage matters; 16. Invites other States to become States Parties to the Convention. ANNEX III.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Draft resolution for inclusion in the 'Report by the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage on its Activities (1996-1997)' to be submitted to the 29th General Conference of UNESCO. Adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its twentieth session ---------------------------------------------------------------- The General Conference, 1. Noting that the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage has recognized that the cultural and natural heritage 'are increasingly threatened with destruction, not only by traditional causes of decay, but also by changing social and economic conditions which aggravate the situation with even more formidable phenomena of damage or destruction'; 2. Reaffirms that 'deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world'; 3. Considers that the Convention should be interpreted in the light of twenty-five years of experience in its implementation; 4. Considers that such interpretation recognizes the sovereign right of the State Party concerned over the World Heritage sites situated on its territory; 5. Considers that a well-reflected and formulated common policy for the protection of cultural and natural heritage is likely to create a continuing interaction between States Parties; 6. Emphasizes the interest of each State Party to be informed of the experience of others with regard to conservation methods and the possibilities so offered, through voluntary international cooperation, for the general improvement of all actions undertaken; 7. Reaffirms the standard setting role of the General Assembly as well as of the World Heritage Committee; 8. Concludes that monitoring is the responsibility of the State Party concerned and that the commitment to provide regular reports on the state of the site is consistent with the principles set out in the Convention in (i) the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth preambular clauses, (ii) Art. 4 (iii) Art. 6.1. and 6.2. (iv) Art. 7 (v) Art. 10 (vi) Art. 11 (vii) Art. 13 (viii) Art. 15 (ix) Art. 21.3 (x) Art. 29; 9. Emphasizes that monitoring by the State Party is part of the site management which remains the responsibility of the States Parties where the site is located, and that regular reports may be submitted in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention; 10. Recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that 'Each State Party....recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage...situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State'; 11. Recalls that Article 6 lays down the concept of world heritage 'for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate', and that Article 7 requires the establishment of a 'system of international co-operation' and assistance 'designed to support States Parties' efforts to conserve and identify that heritage; 12. Emphasizes that regular reporting should be part of a consultative process and not treated as a sanction or a coercive mechanism; 13. Notes that within the broad responsibility of the World Heritage Committee in standards setting, the form, nature and extent of the regular reporting must respect the principles of State sovereignty; The involvement of the Committee, through its Secretariat or advisory bodies, in the preparation of the regular reports would be with the agreement of the State Party concerned. The States Parties may request expert advice from the Secretariat or the advisory bodies. The Secretariat may also commission expert advice with the agreement of the States Parties; 14. Invites the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to submit in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention, through the World Heritage Committee, via its secretariat the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, reports on the legislative and administrative provisions and other actions which they have taken for the application of the Convention, including the state of conservation of the World Heritage properties located on its territories; 15. Requests the World Heritage Committee to define the periodicity, form, nature and extent of the regular reporting on the application of the World Heritage Convention and on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties and to examine and respond to these reports while respecting the principle of State sovereignty; 16. Requests the World Heritage Committee to include in its reports to the General Conference, presented in accordance with article 29.3 of the Convention, its findings as regard to the application of the Convention by the States Parties; 17. Encourages States Parties to take advantage of shared information and experience on World Heritage matters and to contribute to the conservation of World Heritage properties, including through voluntary contributions to the World Heritage Fund; 18. Invites other States to become States Parties to the Convention. ANNEX IV WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION NOMINATION OF PROPERTIES FOR INCLUSION ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST Table of Contents 1. Identification of the Property a. Country (and State Party if different). b. State, Province or Region c. Name of Property d. Exact location on map and indication of geographical coordinates to the nearest second e. Maps and/or plans showing boundary of area proposed for inscription and of any buffer zone f. Area of site proposed for inscription (ha.) and proposed buffer zone (ha.) if any. 2. Justification for Inscription a. Statement of significance b. Possible comparative analysis (including state of conservation of similar sites) c. Authenticity/Integrity d. Criteria under which inscription is proposed (and justification for inscription under these criteria) 3. Description a. Description of Property b. History and Development c. Form and date of most recent records of site d. Present state of conservation e. Policies and programmes related to the presentation and promotion of the property 4. Management a. Ownership b. Legal status c. Protective measures and means of implementing them d. Agency/agencies with management authority e. Level at which management is exercised (e.g., on site, regionally) and name and address of responsible person for contact purposes f. Agreed plans related to property (e.g., regional, local plan, conservation plan, tourism development plan) g. Sources and levels of finance h. Sources of expertise and training in conservation and management techniques i. Visitor facilities and statistics j. Site management plan and statement of objectives (copy to be annexed) k. Staffing levels (professional, technical, maintenance) 5. Factors Affecting the Site a. Development Pressures (e.g., encroachment, adaptation, agriculture, mining) b. Environmental Pressures (e.g., pollution, climate change) c. Natural disasters and preparedness (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) d. Visitor/tourism pressures e. Number of inhabitants within site, buffer zone f. Other 6. Monitoring a. Key indicators for measuring state of conservation b. Administrative arrangements for monitoring property c. Results of previous reporting exercises 7. Documentation a. Photographs, slides and, where available, film/video b. Copies of site management plans and extracts of other plans relevant to the site c. Bibliography d. Address where inventory, records and archives are held 8. Signature on behalf of the State Party WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION NOMINATION OF PROPERTIES FOR INCLUSION ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST Explanatory Notes INTRODUCTION (i) These notes are intended to provide guidance to those nominating sites for inclusion on the World Heritage List. They relate to the headings under which information is sought, which appear in front of each section of notes. Nomination dossiers should provide information under each of these headings. They should be signed by a responsible official on behalf of the State Party. (ii) The nomination dossier is intended to serve two main purposes. First it is to describe the property in a way which brings out the reasons it is believed to meet the criteria for inscription, and to enable the site to be assessed against those criteria. Secondly it is to provide basic data about the property, which can be revised and brought up to date in order to record the changing circumstances and state of conservation of the site. (iii) In spite of the wide differences between sites, information should be given under each of the categories set out at the head of sections 1 - 7 of these notes. General Requirements (iv) Information should be as precise and specific as possible. It should be quantified where that can be done and fully referenced. (v) Documents should be concise. In particular long historical accounts of sites and events which have taken place there should be avoided, especially when they can be found in readily available published sources. (vi) Expressions of opinion should be supported by reference to the authority on which they are made and the verifiable facts which support them. (vii) Dossiers should be completed on A4 paper (210mm x 297mm) with maps and plans a maximum of A3 paper (297mm x 420mm). States Parties are also encouraged to submit the full text of the nomination on diskette. 1. Identification of the Property a. Country (and State Party if different). b. State, Province or Region c. Name of Property d. Exact location on map and indication of geographical coordinates to the nearest second e. Maps and/or plans showing boundary of area proposed for inscription and of any buffer zone f. Area of site proposed for inscription (ha.) and proposed buffer zone (ha.) if any. 1.1 The purpose of this section is to provide the basic data to enable sites to be precisely identified. In the past, sites have been inscribed on the list with inadequate maps, and this has meant that in some cases it is impossible to be certain what is within the World Heritage site and what is outside it. This can cause considerable problems. 1.2 Apart from the basic facts at 1a - 1d of the dossier, the most important element in this section of the nomination therefore consists of the maps and plans relating to the nominated site. In all cases, at least two documents are likely to be needed and both must be prepared to professional cartographic standards. One should show the site in its natural or built environment and should be between 1:20,000 and 1:100,000. Depending on the size of the site, another suitable scale may be chosen. The other should clearly show the boundary of the nominated area and of any existing or proposed buffer zone. It should also show the position of any natural features, individual monuments or buildings mentioned in the nomination. Either on this map, or an accompanying one, there should also be a record of the boundaries of zones or special legal protection from which the site benefits. 1.3 In considering whether to propose a buffer zone it should be borne in mind that, in order to fulfil the obligations of the World Heritage Convention, sites must be protected from all threats or inconsistent uses. These developments can often take place beyond the boundaries of a site. Intrusive development can harm its setting, or the views from it or of it. Industrial processes can threaten a site by polluting the air or water. The construction of new roads, tourist resorts or airports can bring to a site more visitors than it can absorb in safety. In some cases national planning policies or existing protective legislation may provide the powers needed to protect the setting of a site as well as the site itself. In other cases it will be highly desirable to propose a formal buffer zone where special controls will be applied. This should include the immediate setting of the site and important views of it and from it. Where it is considered that existing zones of protection make it unnecessary to inscribe a buffer zone, those zones also should be shown clearly on the map of the site. 2 Justification for Inscription a. Statement of significance b. Possible comparative analysis (including state of conservation of similar sites) c. Authenticity/Integrity d. Criteria under which inscription is proposed (and justification for inscription under these criteria) 2.1 This is the most crucial aspect of the whole nomination dossier. It must make clear to the Committee why the site can be accepted as being "of outstanding universal value". The whole of this section of the dossier should be written with careful reference to the criteria for inscription found at paragraphs 24 and 44 of the Operational Guidelines. It should not include detailed descriptive material about the site or its management, which come later, but should concentrate on what the site represents. 2.2 The statement of significance (a) should make clear what are the values embodied by the site. It may be a unique survival of a particular building form or habitat or designed town. It may be a particularly fine or early or rich survival and it may bear witness to a vanished culture, way of life or eco- system. It may comprise assemblages of threatened endemic species, exceptional eco-systems, outstanding landscapes or other natural phenomena. 2.3 The possible comparative analysis (b) could relate the site to comparable sites, saying why it is more worthy than they are for inscription on the World Heritage list (or, if they are inscribed, what features distinguish it from those sites). This may be because the site is intrinsically better, or possessed of more features, species or habitats. It may also be because the site is a larger or better preserved or more complete survival or one that has been less prejudiced by later developments. This is the reason for the requirement for an account of the state of conservation of similar sites. 2.4 This section should demonstrate that the site fulfills the criteria of authenticity/integrity set out in paragraphs 24 (b) (i) or 44 (b) (i) - (iv) of the Operational Guidelines, which describe the criteria in greater detail. In the case of a cultural site it should also record whether repairs have been carried out using materials and methods traditional to the culture, in conformity with the Nara Document (1995) (attached). In the case of natural sites it should record any intrusions from exotic species of fauna or flora and any human activities which could compromise the integrity of the site. 2.5 Section 2 (d) is therefore the culmination of the section, relating the specific site to one or more individual criteria and saying unambiguously why it meets the specific criterion or criteria. States Parties may consider to provide, if possible, a comparative analysis of the nominated property with similar properties. 3. Description a. Description of Property b. History and Development c. Form and date of most recent records of site d. Present state of conservation e. Policies and programmes related to the presentation and promotion of the property 3.1 This section should begin with a description (a) of the property at the date of nomination. It should refer to all the significant features of the property. In the case of a cultural site this will include an account of any building or buildings and their architectural style, date of construction and materials. It should also describe any garden, park or other setting. In the case of an historic town or district it is not necessary to describe each individual building, but important public buildings should be described individually and an account should be given of the planning or layout of the area, its street pattern and so on. In the case of natural sites the account should deal with important physical attributes, habitats, species and other significant ecological features and processes. Species lists should be provided where practicable, and the presence of threatened or endemic taxa should be highlighted. The extent and methods of exploitation of natural resources should be described. In the case of cultural landscapes it will be necessary to produce a description under all the matters mentioned above. 3.2 Under item (b) of this section what is sought is an account of how the property has reached its present form and condition and the significant changes that it has undergone. This should include some account of construction phases in the case of monuments, buildings or groups of buildings. Where there have been major changes, demolitions or rebuilding since completion they should also be described. In the case of natural sites and landscapes the account should cover significant events in history or pre- history which have affected the evolution of the site and give an account of its interaction with humankind. This will include such matters as the development and change in use for hunting, fishing or agriculture, or changes brought about by climatic change, inundation, earthquake or other natural causes. In the case of cultural landscapes all aspects of the history of human activity in the area will need to be covered. 3.3 Because of the wide variation in the size and type of properties covered by properties nominated as World Heritage Sites it is not possible to suggest the number of words in which the description and history of properties should be given. The aim, however, should always be to produce the briefest account which can provide the important facts about the property. These are the facts needed to support and give substance to the claim that the property properly comes within the criteria of paragraphs 24 and 44 of the Operational Guidelines. The balance between description and history will change according to the applicable criteria. For example, where a cultural site is nominated under criterion 24 a (i), as a unique artistic achievement, it should not be necessary to say very much about its history and development. 3.4 Under section 3 (c) what is required is a straightforward statement giving the form and date of the most recent records or inventory of the site. Only records which are still available should be described. 3.5 The account of the present state of conservation of the property [3 (d)] should be related as closely as possible to the records described in the previous paragraph. As well as providing a general impression of the state of conservation dossiers should give statistical or empirical information wherever possible. For example, in a historic town or area the percentage of buildings needing major or minor repair works, or in a single major building or monument the scale and duration of any recent or forthcoming major repair projects. In the case of natural sites data on species trends or the integrity of eco-systems should be provided. This is important because the nomination dossier will be used in future years for purposes of comparison to trace changes in the condition of the property. 3.6. Section 3 (e) refers to the stipulations in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention regarding the presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage. States Parties are encouraged to provide information on the policies and programmes for the presentation and promotion of the nominated property. 4 Management a. Ownership b. Legal status c. Protective measures and means of implementing them d. Agency/agencies with management authority e. Level at which management is exercised (e.g., on site, regionally) and name and address of responsible person for contact purposes f. Agreed plans related to property (e.g., regional, local plan, conservation plan, tourism development plan) g. Sources and levels of finance h. Sources of expertise and training in conservation and management techniques i. Visitor facilities and statistics j. Site management plan and statement of objectives (copy to be annexed) k. Staffing levels (professional, technical, maintenance) 4.1 This section of the dossier is intended to provide a clear picture of the protective and management arrangements which are in place to protect and conserve the property as required by the World Heritage Convention. It should deal both with the policy aspects of legal status and protective measures and with the practicalities of day-to-day administration. 4.2 Sections 4 (a) - (c) of the dossier should give the legal position relating to the property. As well as providing the names and addresses of legal owners [4 (a)] and the status of the property [4 (b)], it should describe briefly any legal measures of protection applying to the site or any traditional ways in which custom safeguards it. Legal instruments should be given their title and date. In addition,the dossier should say how in practice these measures are applied and how responsibility for dealing with potential or actual breaches of protection is exercised. For example, it would be desirable to indicate who is responsible for ensuring that the nominated site is safeguarded, whether by traditional and/or statutory agencies and whether adequate resources are available for this purpose. It is not necessary to set out all the elements of legal protection, but their main provisions should be summarized briefly. In the case of large natural sites or historic towns there may be a multiplicity of legal owners. In these cases it is necessary only to list the major land- or property-owning institutions and any representative body for other owners. 4.3 Sections 4 (d) and (e) are intended to identify both the authority or authorities with legal responsibility for managing the property and the individual who is actually responsible for day-to-day control of the site and for the budget relating to its upkeep. 4.4 The agreed plans which should be listed at 4 (f) are all those plans which have been adopted by governmental or other agencies and which will have a direct influence on the way in which the site is developed, conserved, used or visited. Either relevant provisions should be summarized in the dossier or extracts or complete plans should be annexed to it. 4.5 Sections 4 (g) and (h) could show the funds, skills and training which are available to the site. Information about finance and expertise and training could be related to the earlier information about the state of conservation of the site. In all three cases an estimate could also be given of the adequacy or otherwise of what is available, in particular identifying any gaps or deficiencies or any areas where help may be required. 4.6 As well as providing any available statistics or estimates of visitor numbers or patterns over several years, section 4 (i) could describe the facilities available for visitors, for example: (i) interpretation/explanation, whether by trails, guides, notices or publications; (ii) site museum, visitor or interpretation centre; (iii) overnight accommodation; (iv) restaurant or refreshment facilities; (v) shops; (vi) car parking; (vii) lavatories; (viii) search and rescue. 4.7 Section 4 (j) in the dossier could provide only the briefest details of the management plan relating to the site, which could be annexed in its entirety. If the plan provides details of staffing levels it would not necessary to complete section 4 (k) of the dossier and other sections may also be omitted where the plan provides adequate information (e.g. on finance and training). 5 Factors Affecting the Site a. Development Pressures (e.g., encroachment, adaptation, agriculture, mining) b. Environmental Pressures (e.g., pollution, climate change) c. Natural disasters and preparedness (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.) d. Visitor/tourism pressures e. Number of inhabitants within site, buffer zone f. Other 5.1 This section of the dossier should provide information on all the factors which are likely to affect or threaten a site. It should also relate those threats to measures taken to deal with them, whether by application of the protection described at Section 4 (c) or otherwise. Obviously, not all of the factors suggested in this section are appropriate for all properties. They are indicative and are intended to assist the State Party to identify the factors that are relevant to each specific property. 5.2 Section 5 (a) deals with development pressures. Information should be given about pressure for demolitions or rebuilding; the adaptation of existing buildings for new uses which would harm their authenticity or integrity; habitat modification or destruction following encroaching agriculture, forestry or grazing, or through poorly managed tourism or other uses; inappropriate or unsustainable natural resource exploitation; damage caused by mining; the introduction of exotic species likely to disrupt natural ecological processes, creating new centres of population on or near sites so as to harm them or their settings. 5.3 Environmental pressures [5 (b)] can affect all types of site. Air pollution can have a serious effect on stone buildings and monuments as well as on fauna and flora. Desertification can lead to erosion by sand and wind. What is needed in this section of the dossier is an indication of those pressures which are presenting a current threat to the site, or may do so in the future, rather than an historical account of such pressures in the past. 5.4 Section 5 (c) should indicate those disasters which present a foreseeable threat to the site and what steps have been taken to draw up contingency plans for dealing with them, whether by physical protection measures or staff training. (In considering physical measures for the protection of monuments and buildings it is important to respect the integrity of the construction.) 5.5 In completing section 5 (d) what is required is an indication of whether the property can absorb the current or likely number of visitors without adverse effects, i.e. its carrying capacity. An indication should also be given of the steps taken to manage visitors and tourists. Amongst possible forms of visitor pressure that could be considered are: (i) Damage by wear on stone, timber, grass or other ground surfaces; (ii) Damage by increases in heat or humidity levels; (iii) Damage by disturbance to the habitat of living or growing things; (iv) Damage by the disruption of traditional cultures or ways of life; (v) Damage to visitor experience as a result of over-crowding. 5.6 Section 5 should conclude with the best available statistics or estimate of the number of inhabitants within the nominated site and any buffer zone, any activities they undertake which affect the site and an account of any other factors of any kind not included earlier in the section which have the potential to affect its development or threaten it in any way. 6. Monitoring a. Key indicators for measuring state of conservation b. Administrative arrangements for monitoring property c. Results of previous reporting exercises 6.1 This section of the dossier is intended to provide the evidence for the state of conservation of the property which can be reviewed and reported on regularly so as to give an indication of trends over time. 6.2 Section 6 (a) could set out those key indicators which have been chosen as the measure of the state of conservation of the whole site. They could be representative of an important aspect of the site and relate as closely as possible to the statement of significance. Where possible they could be expressed numerically and where this is not possible they could be of a kind which can be repeated, for example by taking a photograph from the same point. Examples of good indicators are: (i) the number of species, or population of a keystone species on a natural site; (ii) the percentage of buildings requiring major repair in a historic town or district; (iii) the number of years estimated to elapse before a major conservation programme is likely to be completed; (iv) the stability or degree of movement in a particular building or element of a building; (v) the rate at which encroachment of any kind on a site has increased or diminished. 6.3 Section 6 (b) should make clear that there is a regular system of monitoring of the property, leading to the recording, at least annually, of the conditions of the site. This should result, every five years, in a state of conservation report to the World Heritage Committee. 6.4 Section 6 (c) should summarize briefly earlier reports on the state of conservation of the site and provide extracts and references to published sources. 7 Documentation a. Photographs, slides and, where available, film b. Copies of site management plans and extracts of other plans relevant to the site c. Bibliography d. Address where inventory, records and archives are held 7.1 This section of the dossier is simply a check-list of the documentation which should be provided to make up a complete nomination. 7 (a) There should be enough photographs, slides and, where possible, film/video to provide a good general picture of the site, including one or more aerial photographs. Where possible, slides should be in 35mm format. This material should be accompanied by a duly signed authorization granting free of charge to UNESCO the non-exclusive right for the legal term of copyright to reproduce and use it in accordance with the terms of the authorization attached. 7 (b) Copies of and extracts from plans should be provided. Management plan. Legal protection, if necessary summarized. Maps and plans. 7 (c) The Bibliography should include references to all the main published sources and should be compiled to international standards. 7 (d) One or more addresses for inventory and site records should be provided. 8. Signature on behalf of the State Party The dossier should conclude with the signature of the official empowered to sign it on behalf of the State Party.

ANNEX V

STATEMENTS BY CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DURING THE INSCRIPTION OF THE HIROSHIMA PEACE MEMORIAL (GENBAKU DOME)