ANNEX I



                                   LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
                                   LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS

I. STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE Ms Sharon SULLIVAN Head Australian and World Heritage Group Environment Australia GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Dr Warren NICHOLLS Director World Heritage Unit Australian and World Heritage Group Environment Australia GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601 BENIN Mr Isidore MONSI Counsellor Permanent Delegation of Benin to UNESCO UNESCO House 1 rue Miollis 75015 PARIS BRAZIL/BRESIL Ms Maria Dolores PENNA DE ALMEIDA CUNHA Second Secretary Ministerio das Relacion Exteriores Palacio Itamaraty Annexo 1 BRASILIA Mr Glauco CAMPELLO President Instituto Patrimonio Historico e Artistico Nacional (IPHAN) CANADA Dr Christina CAMERON Director General National Historic Sites Parks Canada Department of Canadian Heritage Mr Murray McCOMB Chief, Strategic Studies and National Parks Parks Canada Department of Canadian Heritage Mr Terry O’GRADY Canadian National Commission for UNESCO CHINA/CHINE Professor LUO Zhewen Chief Expert in Ancient Architecture State Bureau of Cultural Relics BEIJING 100009 Mr MA Yansheng Director, Division of Culture & Communication Chinese National Commission for UNESCO BEIJING 100009 Mr ZHANG Kuangren Director, Administrative Bureau of Lushan National Park JIANGXI PROVINCE Mr MA Yuanzhu Director, Administration of Mt E'mei-Leshan Giant Buddha Scenic Area SICHUAN PROVINCE Mr JING Feng Programme Officer Chinese National Commission for UNESCO BEIJING 100816 CUBA Sra Marta ARJONA Presidenta del Consejo Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural Ministerio de Cultura LA HABANA Ms Maria Josefa VILABOY MORALES J’Asuntos Multilaterales Direccion de Relaciones Internacionales Ministerio de Cultura LA HABANA CYPRUS/CHYPRE Dr Sophocles HADJISAVVAS Curator of Ancient Monuments Department of Antiquities Ministry of Communications and Works NICOSIA ECUADOR Mr Diego STACEY Director de Soberania Territorial Ministerio d Relaciones Exteriores QUITO Ms Yolanda MONTUFAR Ministro-Encardo de Negocios del Ecuador en Mexico Tennyson 217 MEXICO D.F. FRANCE Mme Anne LEWIS-LOUBIGNAC Délégué Permanent adjoint Délégation Permanent de la France auprès de l’UNESCO Maison de l’UNESCO Mme Françoise BERCE Inspecteur général du Patrimoine Ministère de la Culture 65 rue de Richelieu 75001 PARIS Ms Catherine DUMESNIL Conseiller Technique Commission Nationale Française pour l'UNESCO Mme Brigitte YVINEC MAZIERE Sous-Directeur des Sites et Paysages Ministère de l'Evironnement 20 av de Segur 75007 PARIS M. Léon PRESSOUYRE Vice-Président de l'Université de Paris I Vice-Président du Comité Culture de la Commission Nationale Française pour l'UNESCO GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE Ambassador Dr Horst Winkelmann Federal Foreign Office Postfach 1148 D-53001 BONN Mr Thilo KOEHLER Federal Foreign Office Postfach 1148 D-53001 BONN Dr Hans CASPARY Conservator of Historic Monuments Landesamt fur Denkmalpflege Rheinland-Pfalz Gottelmannstrasse 17 D-55130 MAINZ Prof.Dr Harald PLACHTER University of Marburg Faculty of Biology Department for Nature Conservation D-35032 MARBURG Dr Annemarie GEIGER Director of Cultural Affairs City of Hildesheim Markt 1 31134 HILDESHEIM ITALY/ITALIE H.E. Mr Giancarlo LEO Ambassador, Permanent Delegate Permanent Delegation of Italy to UNESCO Mr Francesco FRANCIONI Professeur de Droit Internationale Université de Sienne Ministère des Affaires Etrangères ROME Mrs Margherita SABATINI Attachée au Secteur UNESCO Direction général des Affaires culturels Ministère des Affaires Etrangères ROME Mr Luciano MARCHETTI Conservateur des Biens architecturaux et de l'environnement de Ministère Biens Culturels Florence Mr Pasquale MALARA Surintendent des Biens Architecturaux et de l’Environnement de Turin Ministère Biens Culturels TURIN Mme Licia BORRELLI VLAD Expert de la Commission nationale Italienne pour l'UNESCO Inspecteur Général Ministère Biens Culturels ROME Ms Roberta ALBEROTANZA Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali Gabinetto del Ministro Servizio Rapporti Internazionali ROME Ms Filomena SARDELLA Directeur du Palais Royal de Naples Ministère Biens Culturels NAPLES JAPAN/JAPON Mr Seiichiro OTSUKA Director-General Cultural Affairs Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr Yasufumi SAKITANI Director General Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs Mr George HISAEDA Director Second Cultural Affairs Division Cultural Affairs Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr Yasuhisa SUZUKI First Secretary Embassy of Japan in Mexico Mr Takashi MANABE Second Secretary Embassy of Japan in Mexico Ms Tokuko NABESHIMA Third Secretary Permanent Delegation of Japan to UNESCO Mr Shinichiro MURAKAMI Official Second Cultural Affairs Division Cultural Affairs Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ms Takako SAKO Assistant Director Planning Division Nature Conservation Bureau Environment Agency Mr Hideyasu YAMAZAKI Deputy-Director Mouments and Sites Division Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs Dr Makoto MOTONAKA Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties Monuments and Sites Division Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs Dr Nobuko INABA Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties Architecture Division Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs Mr Muneo SEGAWA Director of the Forest Management Department Kumamoto Regional Forest Office Forestry Agency Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Prof.Dr Nobuo ITO Professor Emeritus Kobe Design University LEBANON/LIBAN Mr Camille ASMAR Directeur-Général des Antiquités Musée National BEYROUTH Mr Noel FATTAL Counsellor Deputy Permanent Delegate Delegation of Lebanon to UNESCO UNESCO House Mr Abdallah ZAKHIA Lawyer - Consultant Environment MALTA Ms Tanya VELLA Deputy Permanent Delegate Permanent Delegation of Malta to UNESCO Embassy of Malta 92 Avenue des champs Elysees 75008 PARIS MEXICO/MEXIQUE Ms Maria Teresa FRANCO Y GONZALEZ SALAS Director-General National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) CORDOBA # 45, Col. Roma 04700 Mexico D.F. Mrs Alejandro MARTINEZ MURIEL National Coordinator for Archaeology CORDOBA 45 Mr Salvador ACEVES National Coordinator for National Monuments (INAH) XOCHIMILCO D.F. Mr Salvador DIAZ-BERRIO Deputy Director National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) CORDOBA # 45 04700 Mexico D.F. Mr Augusto MOLINA MONTES Professor Olivo 48 Col. Florida 01030 MEXICO D.F. Mr Hector Luis RUIZ BARRANCO Director de Reservas Naturales y Areas Protegidas Instituto Nacional de Ecologia SEMARNAP MEXICO D.F. Mr Jorge DIAZ Secretario Administrativo Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Hisotria MEXICO D.F. Dr Francisco Javier LOPEZ Cooperation Nacional de Monumentos Historicos Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historicos MEXICO D.F. Ms Adriana KONZEVIK CABIB Coordinacion Nacional de Difusion Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historicos MEXICO D.F. Ms Patricia PERNAS GUARNERO Deputy Director Mexican National Commission for UNESCO MEXICO CITY MOROCCO Mme SEDRATI Permanent Delegate Permanent Delegation of Morocco to UNESCO UNESCO House 1 rue Miollis 75015 PARIS NIGER S.E. M. Messan Ambassadeur et Délégué permanent Délégation permanent du Niger auprès de l'UNESCO Mr André ZODI Secrétaire Général Ministère de la Culture, la Communication et les Sports et de la Jeunesse NIAMEY Mr Seyni SEYDOU Directeur Parc National du W du Niger Ministère de l’Hydraulique et de l’Environnement B.P. 721 NIAMEY Mr Michel LE BERRE Advisor UCBL1 Socioecologie et Conservation 43 Bd du 11 novembre 96 LYON PHILIPPINES Ms Virginia R. MORENO Chairperson Committee on Culture UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines 2330 Roxas Blvd. PASAY CITY Dr Miguel Fortes Professor and Chair National Committee on Marine Sciences UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines 2330 Roxas Blvd. PASAY CITY SPAIN/ESPAGNE Mr Dimas FERNANDEZ-GALIANO RUIZ Jefe Area Monumentos y Arqueologia Instituto del Patrimonio Historico Espanol Direccion General Bellas artes MADRID Mr Rafael RIPOLL Asesor de Internacional Ayuntamiento de Valencia UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE Mr John J. REYNOLDS National Park Service Presido of San Francisco Main Post, Bldg. 102 P.O. Box 29022 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94129-0022 Ms Katherine Stevenson Associate Director Cultural Resources Stewardship and Partnerships National Park Service Department of the Interior WASHINGTON Mr James CHARLETON International Cooperation Specialist National Park Service Department of the Interior WASHINGTON DC 20013-7127 Mr William McIlhenny United States Observer to UNESCO American Embassy to France PARIS II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY/ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES/ CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES Mme Carmen Anon Feliu Président du Comité consultatif Puerto Santamaria 49 MADRID 28043 Dr Henry CLEERE World Heritage Co-ordinator 49-51 rue de la Féderation 75015 PARIS Mr Carlos FLORES-MARINI President ICOMOS-Mexico Mr Ramon M. BONFIL Vice-President ICOMOS-Mexico Ms Dolores PINEDA CAMPOS Delegate ICOMOS-Mexico Ms Regina DURIGHELLO Assistant to the World Heritage Coordinator 49-51 rue de la Federation 75015 PARIS THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)/UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE(UICN) Dr James THORSELL Head - Natural Heritage Programme Rue Mauverney, 28 CH-1196 GLAND Switzerland Mr P.H.C. (Bing) LUCAS Vice-Chair World Heritage World Commission on Protected Areas 1/268 Main Road Tawa WELLINGTON 6006 New Zealand INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM) Mr Marc LAENEN Director-General Via di S. Michele, 13 00153 ROME Italy Dr Jukka JOKILEHTO Chief Architectural Conservation Programme Via di S. Michele, 13 00153 ROME Italy III. OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS ARGENTINA Mr Diego DE KARA JAUREGUI Counsellor Embassy of Argentina MEXICO CITY AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE Ministerialrat Dr Hans HORCICKA Bundesministerium für Unterricht und Kulturelle Angelegenheiter Abteilung IV/3 Minoritempletz 5 A-1014 VIENNA Dr Ernst BACHER Generalkonservator Bundesdenkmalamt Hofburg A-1010 VIENNA BELIZE Mr Rafael MANZANERO Forest Officer (Conservation) Forest Department Ministry of Natural Resources BELMOPAN Mr José PEREZ Coastal Zone Management Unit Coordinator Ministry of Agriculture P.O. Box 148 BELIZE CITY FINLAND/FINLANDE Mr Kimmo PULKKINEN Ambassador Embassy of Finland MEXICO D.F. Mr Henrik LILIUS State Archaeologist Director-General of the National Board of Antiquities Mr Eero NIINIKUSKI Director UPM-Kymmene Ltd. KUUSANKUSKI Mrs Armi VENERMO Second Secretary Embassy of Finland Mexico GREECE/GRECE S.E. Mr Vassilis VASSILIKOS Ambassador Permanent Delegation of Greece to UNESCO 1 rue Miollis 75015 PARIS Ms Helene METHODIOU Cultural Councillor Permanent Delegation of Greece to UNESCO 1 rue Miollis 75015 PARIS GUATEMALA Ms Nino BLANCA Asesora Ministro de Cultura y Deportes Presidenta ICOMOS Guatemala HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE H.E. Mr Ernesto Gallina Archbishop, Apostolic Nuncio Delegate for International Governmental Organizations Vatican City ROME Mr José CAMARGO SOSA Cronista de la Ciudad de Merida MERIDA HUNGARY/HONGROIS M. Laszlo RAJK Architecte, Député du Parlement Kossuth L. tér 1-3 H-1055 BUDAPEST INDONESIA/INDONESIE Mr Ali MARGONO Minister Counsellor Indonesian Embassy MEXICO CITY Mr Harry WIDIANTO Head of Research Centre of Archaeology of Baniarmasin BANJARMASIN 70123 Mr SAMIDI Head of Sub-Directorate for Restoration Directorate for Archaeological Heritage Directorate General for Culture JAKARTA KOREA/COREE Mr Kwon HUH Korean National Commission for UNESCO SEOUL MALAYSIA/MALAISIE Mr Moh. Ariff YUSOF Under Secretary Ministry of Culture, Arts and Tourism Dr Kamarul Baharin BUYONG Director-General Museum Department Ministry of Culture, Arts and Tourism MAURITANIA/MAURITANIE Mr Ethmane OULDADI Directeur de la Fondation Nationale pour la Sauvegarde des Villes anciennes Secrétariat Général du Gouvernement BP 6354 NOUAKCHOTT MEXICO/MEXIQUE Mr Victor SANCHEZ SOTOMAYOR Director de la Reserva de la Biosfera El Vizcaino Instituto Nacional de Ecologia Mr Alexandro HERNANDEZ YANEZ Director de la Reserva de la Biosfera El Triunto Instituto Nacional de Ecologia TAXTLA THE NETHERLANDS Mr Robert DE JONG Presient ICOMOS-IFLA Committee Dutch State Department for Conservation P.O. Box 1001 ZEIST The Netherlands NORWAY/NORVEGE Ms Kris ENDRESEN Director Nordic World Heritage Office Postbox 8196 Dep., N-0034 OSLO PAKISTAN Mr Haroon RANA RASHID Chargée d’Affaires Counsellor Embassy of Pakistan to Mexico MEXICO CITY DF POLAND/POLOGNE Mme Aleksandra WACLAWCZYK Deputy Secretary General Polish National Commission for UNESCO WARSAW Mr Krzysztof PAWLOWSKI President ICOMOS-Poland Zamek Krolewski Plac Zamkowy 4 00277 WARSAW PORTUGAL Mr Jorge RITTO Permanent Delegate Permanent Delegation of Portugal to UNESCO UNESCO House 1 rue Miollis 75015 PARIS Mr Joao LOPES SERRADO Secrétaire Général de la Commission Portugaise pour l’UNESCO 1350 LISBONNE Mr Luiz OLIVEIRA DIAS Municipal Councillor PORTO Mr Rui RAMOS LOSA Director of the Hisotric Centre of Porto PORTO Mr Raul MATOS FERNANDES Director Central Department of Administration PORTO Mr Fernando SOMES Alcalde PORTO Ms Gina NETO Secretary PORTO SAUDI ARABIA/ARABIE SAUDITE Dr Abdullah AL-DOSARY Director General of Reseach and Excavations Ministry of Education P.O. Box 3734 RIYADH 11481 SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE Mr Jozef KLINDA Head, Environmental Conceptions and Planning Department Ministry of the Environment Mr Kamil VILLNOVIC taire GSpecialist Environmental Conceptions and Planning Department Ministry of the Environment SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE Mrs Zofija KLEMEN-KREK Secretary-General Slovenian National Commission for UNESCO SWEDEN/SUEDE Ms Birgitta HOBERG Principal Administrative Officer Central Board of National Antiquities and the National Historical Museum P.O. Box 5405 11484 STOCKHOLM Mr Hans FURMARK County Administration Province of Norrbotten Ms Inga Maria MULK Ajtte Swedish Mountain and Sami Museum Ms Margareta LINDBACK Representative from LULEA Mr Steffan AKERLUND Box 42 54520 GAMNELSTAD Mr Bror SAITTON Saami Parliament Hyalmar Lundbohmsv. 50D 98131 KIRUNA SWITZERLAND/SUISSE Dr Evide H. PIRCHER Conseiller Embajada de Suiza MEXICO, D.F. THAILAND/THAILANDE Prof.Dr Adul WICHIENCHAROEN Chairman National Committee on the Convention for Protection of the World Heritage Mr Viroj PIMMANROJNAGOOL Director of Wildlife Conservation Division Royal Forest Department Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives Mr Manit SIRIWAN Secretary National Committee on the Convention for Protection of World Heritage Mr Tawee NOOTONG Technical Forest Officer 7 Royal Forest Department Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives M.L. Chiranand HASDINTRA Director of Economic Division 4 Bureau of the Budget The Prime Minister’s Office Mrs Siriporn NANTA Secretariat Officer National Committee on the Convention for Protection of the World Heritage URUGUAY Mr Abelardo Manuel Garcia VIERA Director del Archivo General de la Nacion y Secretario de la Comision del Patrimonio Historico Artistico y Cultural de la Nacion Convencion 1474 MONTEVIDEO VIETNAM/VIET NAM Dr Quoc Binh TRUONG Permanent Secretary of the Hué-UNESCO Working Group Ministry of Culture and Information HANOI Mr Ngyen van TUAN Director Management Department of Ha Long Bay IV. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ORGANISATIONS NON- GOUVERNEMENTALES INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS/FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES ARCHITECTS PAYSAGISTES Mr Hans DORN Vice-President Holbeinstr, 17 60596 FRANKFURT ORGANIZATION OF WORLD HERITAGE CITIES/ORGANISATION DES VILLES DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Mr Marcel JUNIUS Secrétaire général 56, rue Saint Pierre QUEBEC G1H 4A1 Canada Dr Celine SAUCIER Directrice des projets speciaux 56, rue Saint Pierre QUEBEC G1H 4A1 Canada VI. SECRETARIAT Mr Federico MAYOR Director-General Mr Bernd von DROSTE Director World Heritage Centre Mr Mounir BOUCHENAKI Director, Cultural Heritage Division Mr Georges ZOUAIN Deputy Director World Heritage Centre Mr Robert MILNE Principal Advisor to the Director World Heritage Centre Ms Minja YANG World Heritage Centre Ms Breda PAVLIC World Heritage Centre Ms Galia SAOUMA-FORERO World Heritage Centre Mr Mark WARREN Bureau of the Comptroller Mr Herman van HOOFF World Heritage Centre Ms Mechtild ROSSLER World Heritage Centre Ms Alexandra SAYN-WITTGENSTEIN World Heritage Centre Mr Jesus GETAN-BORNN Interpretation Division Ms Jane DEGEORGES World Heritage Centre Ms Jocelyne POUTEAU World Heritage Centre Mr David MARTEL World Heritage Centre Mr Sacha GOLDMAN Consultant World Heritage Centre
ANNEXE II.1

Discurso del Sr. Victor Cervera Pacheco
Gobernador del Estado de Yucatán

Señoras y Señores integrantes del Presidium:

Muy distinguidos miembros de la UNESCO e invitados especiales:

Señoras y señores amigos todos:

Sería un exceso de mi parte realizar ante ustedes un recuento del patrimonio cultural y natural de Yucatán. Son ustedes conocedores por excelencia en esta materia e integrantes de un Comité especializado de la UNESCO, que goza merecidamente del mayor prestigio en materia de cultura, de su preservación y divulgación.

Los yucatecos nos sentimos sumamente orgullosos de nuestro pasado, de los monumentos arqueológicos y coloniales legados por nuestros antecesores, así como de los tesoros naturales de nuestra región. Sabemos que somos depositarios de un patrimonio que pertenece a la humanidad y eso aumenta el grado de responsabilidad: responsabilidad con nosotros mismos, con nuestra historia y con los pueblos del mundo.

Estamos convencidos que la mejor manera de preservar los tesoros del pasado o los recursos naturales, es alimentando y fortaleciendo la cultura viva, nuestra identidad como pueblo, la relación que mantenemos con la naturaleza y con otros pueblos. Y esta es, también, una cuestion por la que sentimos un gran orgullo. Orgullo y satisfacción con los que vengo esta mañana, ante ustedes, como gobernante de un pueblo cálido, amante de la paz, practicante del arte, conocedor del tiempo largo y circular respetuoso de la historia de cada pueblo.

Para mi representa un gran honor estar con ustedes esta mañana y darles la bienvenida a nombre de Yucatán y de su gente. Es un lugar común para los pueblos iberoamericanos decir a los visitantes « sientanse en su casa ».

Pero yo quiero que sepan ustedes, amigos integrantes de la UNESCO, que Yucatán, que tiene tantas y tan importantes joyas culturales que forma parte de esa enorme « aldea mundial », se siente y se sabe, también, parte entrañable de esa familia que es la UNESCO.

Somos nosotros, los yucatecos, los que nos sentimos en familia con ustedes, los que nos sabemos en casa, en la casa de ustedes, porque somos parte activa, convencida y afectuosa, del Patrimonio de la Humanidad.



                                                      ANNEX II.2
INTERVENCIÓN DEL LIC. MIGUEL LIMÓN ROJAS, SECRETARIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA, EN LA VIGÉSIMA REUNIÓN DEL COMITÉ INTERGUBERNAMENTAL DE PROTECCIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL, CULTURAL Y NATURAL DE LA U.N.E.S.C.O.
MÉRIDA, YUC. 2 DE DICIEMBRE DE 1996 EN NOMBRE DEL GOBIERNO DE MÉXICO, ME ES GRATO DAR LA MÁS CORDIAL BIENVENIDA A LOS INTEGRANTES DEL COMITÉ INTERGUBERNAMENTAL DE PROTECCIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL, CULTURAL Y NATURAL DE LA U.N.E.S.C.O. ES MOTIVO DE ALEGRÍA LA PRESENCIA DE ESTE GRAN AMIGO DE MÉXICO QUE ES FEDERICO MAYOR, A QUIEN RECONOCEMOS EL LIDERAZGO CON EL QUE CONDUCE LOS TRABAJOS DE LA GRAN ORGANIZACIÓN INTERNACIONAL PARA LA EDUCACIÓN, LA CIENCIA Y LA CULTURA. CELEBRAMOS LA DECISIÓN DEL COMITÉ DE ELEGIR COMO SEDE DE SU VIGÉSIMA REUNIÓN A ESTA CIUDAD CAPITAL DEL ESTADO DE YUCATÁN, PUES AQUÍ SE CONFORMA PARTE DE UNA VASTA REGIÓN QUE FUE EL ESPACIO ORIGINARIO DE UNA DE LAS MÁS DESLUMBRANTES CIVILIZACIONES MESOAMERICANAS. AGRADEZCO A SU GOBERNADOR, VÍCTOR CERVERA PACHECO EL APOYO BRINDADO PARA SU REALIZACIÓN. ESTAMOS SEGUROS DE QUE EN ESTA GRAN CIUDAD ENCONTRAREMOS LA HOSPITALIDAD ESMERADA, CARACTERÍSTICA DE LOS YUCATECOS, Y LA INSPIRACIÓN FECUNDA PARA NUESTRAS DELIBERACIONES. PARA MÉXICO, ES UN PRIVILEGIO Y UN ESTÍMULO QUE EL COMITÉ SESIONE AQUÍ. LO ES PORQUE LA NACIÓN Y SU GOBIERNO ENTIENDEN Y SE IDENTIFICAN CABALMENTE CON LA DELICADA ENCOMIENDA QUE LES HA DADO LA U.N.E.S.C.O., Y PORQUE NUESTRO PAÍS CUENTA CON UNA FIRME TRADICIÓN QUE LO HA COMPROMETIDO, DESDE HACE MUCHO TIEMPO CON LAS TAREAS DE RESCATE, CONSERVACIÓN Y PRESERVACIÓN DE SU ENORME PATRIMONIO CULTURAL. LA INTENSIDAD DE NUESTRA HISTORIA SE REFLEJA EN LA DIVERSIDAD Y LA ABUNDANCIA DE LAS CREACIONES DE NUESTRO PUEBLO. LOS MEXICANOS NOS SENTIMOS LEGÍTIMAMENTE ORGULLOSOS DE ESTA ABUNDANCIA. SIN EMBARGO, EN OCASIONES, LA MAGNITUD DE ESA RIQUEZA NOS HACE SENTIR LA INSUFICIENCIA DE LOS RECURSOS PARA LLEVAR A CABO EL DEBIDO RESGUARDO DE LAS DECENAS DE MILES DE SITIOS Y MONUMENTOS QUE POSEEMOS. VELAR POR ELLOS IMPLICA UNA VASTA Y COMPLEJA TAREA QUE EXIGE TODO NUESTRO ESFUERZO COMO SOCIEDAD Y COMO GOBIERNO, Y QUE NOS OBLIGA A CONJUGAR IMAGINACIÓN Y VOLUNTAD PARA PRESERVAR, Y DIFUNDIR LA GRANDEZA DE NUESTRO LEGADO CULTURAL. LOS MEXICANOS ESTAMOS CONVENCIDOS DE QUE NUESTRA ESENCIA, NUESTRO ESPÍRITU, ESTÁ ÍNTIMAMENTE VINCULADO A ESTE PATRIMONIO CULTURAL, QUE CONSTITUYE A UN TIEMPO EL SUSTRATO MATERIAL DE NUESTRA IDENTIDAD Y LA MANIFESTACIÓN MÁS PATENTE DE LO QUE HEMOS SIDO Y SOMOS; QUE ES LEGADO Y BENEFICIO; MEMORIA E HISTORIA DE NUESTRA SINGULARIDAD; LAZO DE IDENTIFICACIÓN ENTRE LOS MEXICANOS QUE NOS DEFINE Y DISTINGUE FRENTE A LAS OTRAS NACIONES DEL MUNDO. Y SI LOS BIENES CREADOS POR EL HOMBRE MERECEN NUESTRO APRECIO Y NUESTRO CUIDADO PERMANENTE, RESULTA AÚN MÁS APREMIANTE LA ATENCIÓN QUE RECLAMA EL MEDIO NATURAL, NUESTRO HÁBITAT IRREMPLAZABLE, FUENTE DE VIDA Y BELLEZA QUE NOS DA CONTINUIDAD. ES MUY PROBABLE QUE SE PUEDA AFIRMAR QUE EXISTIÓ UNA RELACIÓN DIRECTA ENTRE LA VARIEDAD Y RIQUEZA DE LAS ANTIGUAS CULTURAS QUE FLORECIERON EN ESTA REGIÓN DEL MUNDO Y LA EXTRAORDINARIA BIODIVERSIDAD QUE LA CARACTERIZÓ. POR ELLO, EL CONCEPTO DE DESARROLLO SUSTENTABLE GUÍA NUESTRO PROGRAMA GUBERNAMENTAL DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE QUE CUENTA ENTRE SUS INSTRUMENTOS ESENCIALES CON LA DELIMITACIÓN Y MANEJO DE ÁREAS NATURALES PROTEGIDAS, QUE AL SER RECONOCIDAS OBTIENEN LA DEFINICIÓN JURÍDICA Y LOS DISPOSITIVOS NECESARIOS MÁS IMPORTANTES PARA LA CONSERVACIÓN DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD Y PARA LA PROMOCIÓN DEL DESARROLLO REGIONAL. EN MÉXICO, COMO ES COMÚN EN CASI TODO EL ORBE, INTERESES DE DIVERSA ÍNDOLE ATENTAN CONTRA LA SALVAGUARDA DEL PATRIMONIO. NO PODEMOS IGNORAR LA VARIEDAD DE CAUSAS QUE EXPLICAN ESTOS HECHOS Y SÍ, EN CAMBIO, BUSCAR SOLUCIONES COPARTICIPATIVAS, QUE GARANTICEN LA ADECUADA, ENÉRGICA Y EFICAZ CONSERVACIÓN DE NUESTRA HERENCIA. POR ELLO, HACE YA TRECE ANOS NOS ADHERIMOS DECIDIDAMENTE A LA CONVENCIÓN FORMULADA POR LA U.N.E.S.C.O. PARA PROTEGER EL PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL, EN FUNCIÓN DE LA CUAL HEMOS LOGRADO LA INSCRIPCIÓN DE CATORCE BIENES NACIONALES EN LA LISTA DE DICHO PATRIMONIO. QUE USTEDES ESCRUPULOSAMENTE CALIFICAN. LA PARTICIPACIÓN DE BIENES NACIONALES EN EL LISTADO QUE INTEGRA GRADUALMENTE EL COMITÉ, NOS COMPROMETE Y OBLIGA A PERSEVERAR EN LA REVALORACIÓN Y EN EL CUIDADO DE NUESTRO PATRIMONIO, Y NOS DA UNA VALIOSA PAUTA PARA INDUCIR ENTRE LA SOCIEDAD ENTERA ACTITUDES DE CORRESPONSABILIDAD EN SU CUSTODIA Y DE GUSTO POR SU USO Y DISFRUTE. DE MANERA PARALELA Y EN CONCORDANCIA CON UNA RESPONSABILIDAD ASUMIDA A LO LARGO DE NUESTRA HISTORIA, EL GOBIERNO DEL PRESIDENTE ZEDILLO DESPLIEGA EN LA ACTUALIDAD INTENSOS ESFUERZOS PARA SALVAGUARDAR EL PATRIMONIO CULTURAL Y NATURAL, MEDIANTE PROGRAMAS QUE ESTIMULAN LAS TAREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN, INVESTIGACIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN, POR CONSIDERÁRSELES ESENCIALES PARA FORTALECER LA IDENTIDAD NACIONAL. BUSCAMOS, ADEMÁS, VINCULAR ESAS TAREAS CON EL SISTEMA EDUCATIVO, EL CUAL, CON SUS MAS DE 27 MILLONES DE ESTUDIANTES Y CIENTOS DE MILES DE MAESTROS, REPRESENTA EL MEJOR VEHÍCULO PARA LOGRAR LA REVALORACIÓN MÁS PROFUNDA, EFICAZ Y DURADERA DE DICHO PATRIMONIO. SEÑORAS Y SEÑORES: EL AVANCE VERTIGINOSO Y SORPRENDENTE DE LAS TELECOMUNICACIONES Y LA INFORMÁTICA PODRÍA IMPLICAR LA INDESEABLE Y EMPOBRECEDORA UNIFORMACION DE LAS CULTURAS QUE HOY CONVIVEN EN EL PLANETA, PERO TAMBIÉN OFRECE LA OPORTUNIDAD EXCEPCIONAL DE AVANZAR EN EL CAMINO DE UNA CONCIENCIA UNIVERSAL PUES, AL DESAPARECER LAS MURALLAS QUE INCOMUNICAN Y ALEJAN A LAS DIFERENTES CULTURAS, ÉSTAS SE DESCUBREN, SE OBSERVAN, SE JUZGAN Y ADQUIEREN CONCIENCIA, AL MISMO TIEMPO, DE SU SINGULARIDAD Y DE SU PERTENENCIA A UN TODO MAYOR Y MAS COMPLEJO QUE LAS IMPULSA A INTERACTUAR. ES NECESARIO TAMBIÉN REFLEXIONAR EN QUE A LA PAR DE LA MUNDIALIZACIÓN SE ACENTUA EL VALOR DE LA DIVERSIDAD, TANTO AL INTERIOR DE LAS NACIONES COMO ENTRE ELLAS, LO QUE PERMITE QUE LAS CULTURAS SE APROXIMEN ENTRE SÍ MEDIANTE UN PROCESO PAULATINO DE ASIMILACIÓN Y APORTE CREATIVO ORIENTADO POR UNA NOCIÓN SUPERIOR, QUE PODRÍA IDENTIFICARSE COMO LA OBRA DE TODOS QUE SE FUNDA EN VALORES COMUNES A LA GENERALIDAD DE LOS SERES HUMANOS Y CONSTITUYE UN PATRIMONIO DE LA ESPECIE ENGRANDECIDO POR LAS CONTRIBUCIONES DE CADA CULTURA PARTICULAR. CUYA SINGULARIDAD, MERECE CABAL RESPETO. LA POBLACIÓN DEL PLANETA ASCIENDE HOY, A MÁS DE 5 MIL 500 MILLONES DE INDIVIDUOS QUE TEJEMOS A DIARIO NUESTRAS VIDAS PERSONALES Y CON ELLAS, LAS HISTORIAS DE NUESTROS PUEBLOS Y LA DE LA HUMANIDAD. DEBEMOS, COMO LO SUGIERE EL INFORME DE LA COMISIÓN PRESIDIDA POR JACQUES DELORS, CONOCERNOS MÁS, CONOCER AL OTRO, A LOS OTROS, PARA AYUDAR A TRANSFORMAR UNA INTERDEPENDENCIA DE HECHO EN UNA SOLIDARIDAD DESEADA. ESTE ES EL ESPÍRITU QUE PREVALECE EN REUNIONES COMO ESTA, EN LA QUE SE SUMAN VOLUNTADES PARA MEJORAR LA POSIBILIDAD DE RESCATE, PRESERVACIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO DE LA HUMANIDAD. POR ESE MOTIVO, LOS MEXICANOS RESPALDAMOS DECIDIDAMENTE TODAS LAS INICIATIVAS ENCAMINADAS HACIA ESTOS FINES, Y DE MODO SEÑALADO LAS QUE AUSPICIA LA U.N.E.S.C.O. SEAN USTEDES BIENVENIDOS A MÉXICO. ESTAMOS CIERTOS DE QUE NUESTRO TRABAJO CONTRIBUIRÁ A ENSANCHAR LA CONCIENCIA HUMANA Y LA SOLIDARIDAD, PARA HACER PERDURABLE EL GRANDIOSO PATRIMONIO DE ESTE MUNDO QUE TENEMOS TODOS LA FORTUNA DE HABITAR.
ANNEX II.3
DISCURSO PRONUNCIADO POR LA SECRETARIA DE MEDIO AMBIENTE, RECURSOS NATURALES Y PESCA, JULIA CARABIAS LILLO, EN EL ACTO INAUGURAL DE LA XX REUNION DEL COMITE INTERGUBERNAMENTAL DE PROTECCION DEL PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL, CULTURAL Y NATURAL DE LA UNESCO, MERIDA, YUCATAN. 2 DE DICIEMBRE DE 1996.

SEÑOR GOBERNADOR VICTOR CERVERA PACHECO.

SEÑOR DIRECTOR GENERAL DE LA UNESCO, FEDERICO MAYOR.

SEÑOR SECRETARIO DE EDUCACION PUBLICA, MIGUEL LIMON ROJAS.

DISTINGUIDOS DELEGADOS DE LOS PAISES Y DE LAS AGENCIAS Y ORGANIZACIONES, INTERESADAS EN LA CONSERVACION DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURAL Y NACIONAL NATURAL.

Celebro mucho que esta XX sesion del Comité del Patrimonio Mundial se esté llevando a cabo en nuestro país, puesto que esto nos va a permitir estrechar mucho más los lazos con la organización y además tener el beneficio de un trabajo conjunto en todas las delegaciones y los mexicanos.

Es una actividad que durante 20 sesiones y mas de 25 años se ha venido llevando a cabo en el seno de la UNESCO y es un momento muy adecuado para poder evaluar como vamos avanzando en este objetivo de lograr preservar realmente nuestro patrimonio cultural y natural.

El Secretario Limón ha hecho una serie de referencias con la política del gobierno hacia estos dos temas y quisiera solicitar la posibilidad de explicar como lo vemos desde el gobierno en los aspectos que tiene que ver con la conservación del patrimonio natural. Como ustedes saben, México es uno de los países que cuenta con una de las mayores riquezas en flora y fauna, es considerado como un país de mega diversidad y esto nos abre enormes posibilidades para el desarrollo, pero una enorme responsabilidad también para la conservación de las especies de la flora y de la fauna y de sus habitat, en donde han evolucionado.

Tenemos una gran riqueza pero, ademas, una buena parte de esta flora; fauna es endémica a nuestro pais, esto significa que solamente en el territorio mexicano existen, aquí han evolucionado y no se distribuyen en ninguna otra parte del mundo, la responsabilidad que tenemos para la preservación de este germoplasma pone a México en una situación de mucha importancia y en un compromiso mundial.

Dos estrategias fundamentales estamos siguiendo para esta conservación; lograr que todo el uso de esta flora y esta fauna, a través de los distintos procesos productivos, esté empapado de criterios de sustentabilidad; y lograr que regiones críticas, importantes por su endemismo, por la cantidad de especies, por la representatividad única en nuestro país, estén protegidas bajo algún régimen de protección en áreas naturales.

Tenemos ya 11 millones de hectáreas en esta situación, es poco más del 5% del territorio nacional y en ello se representa prácticamente todos los ecosistemas que tiene México, que son todos los ecosistemas del mundo, excepto los más extremos frios. Necesitamos continuar con esta tarea de una mayor representatividad en regiones importantes de nuestro país como es fundamentalmente las costas del Pacífico que tienen los mayores endemismos en sus selvas secas y en los bosques mesófilos.

Nos interesa, fundamentalmente , consolidar las áreas naturales protegidas a través del Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas que el gobierno mexicano ha constituido. No queremos reservas de papel, no queremos decretos ajenos a los verdaderos objetivos de conservación.

Ello requiere de esfuerzos importantes de los gobiernos y de la sociedad, que implica personal calificado, infraestructura, recursos economicos, programas de manejo para orientar que se puede hacer y como se puede hacer y que implica, sobre todo, la participación de la sociedad.

Se está trabajando con los habitantes que en estas regiones están desde hace siglos viviendo, comunidades indígenas y campesinas, se está trabajando con los grupos no gubernamentales que se han dedicado a la conservación, se trabaja con los grupos académicos que han estudiado durante décadas estas regiones y tenemos asi constituido ya en nuestro país el Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas y los consejos técnicos asesores para cada una de las reservas.

Estamos fortaleciendo el marco normativo, y hace apenas unas semanas, se ha hecho una reforma espectacular en México de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico que todos los aspectos normativos en parte de las areas naturales protegidas quedan fuertemente fortalecidos y se abren estos cauces de participación al nivel de la Ley.

Estamos trabajando en un proceso de descentralización para lograr una mayor corresponsabilidad con los distintos niveles de gobierno y con la propia sociedad. Ejemplo de ello, lo tenemos aquí en el estado de Yucatán, en donde el gobierno del estado se ha involucrado muy activemente en la proteccion de sus areas, uno de estos sitios como Dzibizaltum es ya administrado por el propio gobierno del estado.

Estamos trabajando muy intensamente en la vinculación con las universidades, con los grupos de investigación, para fortalecer el conocimiento, los sistemas de información y tenemos una Comisión Nacional de Biodiversidad, que se encarga de esta sistematización del conocimiento.

Estamos logrando canalizar recursos importantes, por primera vez en México de parte del Gobierno federal, que van directamente a esta actividades de protección y esto ha desatado un proceso muy interesante de canalización de recursos económicos, tanto de la iniciativa privada, de los grupos no gubernamentales, y finalmente hemos logrado resolver un largo problema que nuestros países habían tenido por mucho tiempo que es el financiamiento del llamado GER.

Estos elementos, nos permiten vincularnos ya con una estructura, con una estrategia que se encuentra establecida en este Programa de Areas Naturales Protegidas que presentó el señor Presidente por primera vez como una política para desarrollar estos elementos en nuestro país y que quisiera hacer entrega al Señor Director de la UNESCO..... y que nos plantea las estrategias que estamos llevando a cabo y que brevemente he resumido.

Nos permite vincularnos muy estrechamente con la Secretaría de Educación Pública, para lograr trabajar en todos estos espacios, en donde el patrimonio cultural y natural, son uno mismo. Trabajamos en Tulum, Palenque, Bonampak y Kalacmul, entre otros sitios. Esto nos permite fortalecer y desarrollar el turismo, nos permite rescatar nuestra cultura y nos permite fortalecer también la protección y garantizar la protección de estas áreas.

La UNESCO tiene reconocida la propuesta de México sobre estas dos áreas muy importantes para el país que son el área de Sian'Kaan, que está cumpliendo 10 años; y el área de Lagunas de San Ignacio y de Ojo de Liebre, en Baja California, como parte de una de las reservas más grandes del país; la reserva del Vizcaino. Se propone próximamente la visita a la reserva del Triunfo, que ustedes escrupulosamente estarán evaluando.

Se cuenta ya hoy en estas reservas con personal, con recursos económicos, se está fortaleciendo la infraestructura, se tienen ya en estas reservas programas de manejo, se trabaja con las academias, con los grupos no gubernamentales, con las comunidades y estamos haciendo una evaluación cuidadosa de los avances, para garantizar la conservación de estas reservas que ustedes han catalogado ya como patrimonio mundial cultural y natural.

Quisiéramos tener y presentar nuevas propuestas, en la medida que este proceso de manera paulatina se va consolidando, estoy segura que estos avances, estos compromisos nacionales e internacionales, nos va permitir asegurar la conservación y el rescate de nuestros recursos naturales, nuestro patrimonio natural y cultural... muchas gracias y esperamos los resultados de esta reunión.


Annex II.4 Original: español/inglés ORGANIZACIÓN DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS PARA LA EDUCACIÓN, LA CIENCIA Y LA CULTURA Discurso del Profesor Federico Mayor Director General de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO) con motivo de la 20ª sesión del Comité del Patrimonio Mundial Mérida (México) 2 de diciembre de 1996 [El Director General empieza su discurso en español]
Señor Secretario de Educación Pública de los Estados Unidos de México, distinguido y querido Don Miguel Limón Rojas, Señor Gobernador Constitucional del Estado de Yucatán, Don Victor Cervera Pacheco, Señora Secretaria del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca, Maestra Julia Carabias Lillo, Señor Presidente del Comité Mundial del Patrimonio, Su Excelencia Embajador Horst Winkelmann, Señor Rafael Tovar y de Teresa, Presidente del Consejo de Cultura, Señor Presidente de la Comisión de Cultura de la Cámara de Diputados, Señor Florentino Castro, Muy distinguidos miembros del Comité del Patrimonio Mundial, Señoras y señores representantes de la Unión Internacional de la Conservación de la Naturaleza, de ICOMOS, de ICOM, todos tan importantes colaboradores de la Organización, en la función de conservación y fomento del patrimonio mundial, Señoras y señores observadores, Señoras y señores, Queridos colegas: Me complace de manera muy especial tener el privilegio de reunirme en México con Uds., con motivo de la Vigésima Sesión del Comité del Patrimonio Mundial. Esta satisfacción tiene su origen tanto en la importancia de los temas que aquí se han de examinar, como en el hecho de que sea precisamente en esta tierra tan rica en cultura y en amistad, en historia y en futuro, donde hoy celebramos este encuentro. Además de expresar mi reconocimiento a las autoridades mexicanas por la hospitalidad sin igual que nos brindan, quisiera agradecer al Embajador Horst Winkelmann la dedicación, el profesionalismo, la fuerza y la perseverancia con que ha desempeñado sus funciones en la presidencia del Comité. Su rigor, capacidad y sentido de la justicia han contribuido notablemente al buen funcionamiento de este organismo en los últimos tiempos. Estoy seguro de que su vinculación a la problemática del patrimonio mundial no terminará al cesar en el cargo y que durante mucho tiempo podremos beneficiarnos de su experiencia y dinamismo. Señor Secretario, Señoras y señores: México ilustra cabalmente el dilema fundamental que hoy nos convoca: la necesidad de preservar el pasado sin dejar de construir el futuro, la de conciliar el desarrollo con la cultura. Muy pocas de las maravillas del arte tolteca, maya o azteca, que cantaron los cronistas del siglo XVI sobreviven en la actualidad, a pesar del esfuerzo que ese país ha realizado para preservar y dar a conocer su patrimonio histórico, artístico y natural. Con diferencias de grado, todas las naciones afrontan actualmente una situación análoga, lo mismo en América que en el resto del planeta. La índole mundial del problema, -que se ha conocido con gran detalle en las últimas décadas por el desarrollo impetuoso de los medios de comunicación- otorga un relieve aun mayor a la labor preventiva y educativa que la UNESCO, con todos sus Estados miembros, fomenta incansablemente. Como lo plantea su Constitución, uno de los cometidos fundamentales de la UNESCO es -cito textualmente-: “contribuir a la conservación, al progreso y a la difusión del saber, velando por la conservación y la protección del patrimonio universal de libros, obras de arte y monumentos de interés histórico o científico”. Pero además de desempeñar un papel catalítico, incitador y coordinador en las actividades relativas al patrimonio físico, sea cultural o natural, la UNESCO ha asumido la misión de contribuir a la conservación y el desarrollo del patrimonio inmaterial. El conjunto de lenguas, danzas, cantos, ritos, ceremonias y productos artesanales transmitidos por la tradición que constituyen el tesoro del arte popular y las costumbres, corre el riesgo de desaparecer, bajo el doble impacto de la mundialización de las corrientes y tendencias, y la presión del mercado, que suele aplicar baremos comerciales a aspectos de la vida humana que difícilmente pueden reducirse al criterio de pérdidas y ganancias. Sin embargo, el desarrollo tecnológico ofrece, por su otra cara, la posibilidad de preservar y difundir ampliamente las culturas y tradiciones. El cine, la radio, la televisión y, en general, la electrónica aplicada a las telecomunicaciones, contribuyen a salvaguardar y transmitir algunas de estas actividades, esenciales para la vida y, sobre todo -como ponía de manifiesto el Secretario de Educación Pública- sobre todo sirven para hacer posible y mejorar la convivencia cotidiana. Decía Miguel de Unamuno que “la memoria es la base de la personalidad individual, así como la tradición es la base de la personalidad colectiva de un pueblo. Vivimos en y por el recuerdo, y nuestra vida espiritual no es en el fondo sino el esfuerzo que hacemos para que nuestros recuerdos se perpetúen y se vuelvan esperanza, para que nuestro pasado se vuelva futuro”. Pero debo decirles que además de las piedras y de los cantos, de lo que representan como símbolo y como memoria, me interesan otras formas del patrimonio que considero indispensable preservar en esta transición histórica de siglo y de milenio. Porque el mundo necesita hoy más que nunca de una visión extensa, ampliada de lo que significa patrimonio. El patrimonio de las ideas, el patrimonio científico, el patrimonio genético -que también la UNESCO, como saben, se empeña en conservar, porque es común a toda la especie- son parte de la herencia milenaria que debemos preservar. Pero además de esas formas intangibles del patrimonio, tengo que proclamar la importancia del patrimonio ético, la inmensa relevancia de unos cuantos valores, muy pocos: esos principios universales que pueden conjugar toda la fantástica e infinita diversidad que es nuestra riqueza y convertirla en esa unión que es nuestra fuerza y nuestra esperanza. Señor Secretario, Señoras y señores: En los últimos años, he constatado con alegría que la comunidad internacional comienza por fin a poner de relieve el papel fundamental que la cultura desempeña en la construcción de la paz, la democracia y el desarrollo duradero. No hace mucho, se la consideraba todavía como algo accesorio, como ornamento. Sin embargo, un análisis detenido de su relevancia nos indica que atañe a lo esencial y que muchas iniciativas de desarrollo han fracasado porque, como señala Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, se ha “subestimado la importancia del factor humano, la compleja trama de relaciones y creencias, valores y motivaciones, que son la médula de la cultura”. Fue esta preocupación la que llevó a la UNESCO, apoyada en su acción por las Naciones Unidas, a crear conjuntamente la Comisión Mundial de Cultura y Desarrollo, que comenzó sus trabajos -como bien saben- en la primavera de 1993, bajo la presidencia del propio Pérez de Cuéllar. La tarea de la Comisión consistió en examinar los vínculos entre cultura y desarrollo, y proponer medidas orientadas a la solución de los problemas fundamentales derivados de esa interacción. Se trataba de una iniciativa sin precedentes, dado que nunca antes las relaciones entre ambos habían sido objeto de un examen global y coordinado, a escala planetaria. La principal finalidad de las recomendaciones de la Comisión es inspirar las políticas en todos los ámbitos en los que se articulan el desarrollo y la cultura. La idea de que el desarrollo es poco más que simple crecimiento económico es un concepto que exige profunda revisión en nuestros días. No basta con el aumento de los índices de la producción industrial y el consumo de electricidad para que un país se modernice y mejore el destino de sus habitantes. Los dogmas y las ideas preconcebidas, los lugares comunes sobre las etapas del crecimiento, la visión fácil de modelos de progreso que se importan, llave en mano, listos para ser aplicados, todo esto ha estallado en pedazos. Tenemos que reconsiderar el desarrollo de punta a cabo, si no deseamos seguir acumulando conflictos de difícil solución al entrar en el siglo XXI. El desarrollo solamente puede encontrar las articulaciones perdidas entre lo económico y lo cultural, si cada sociedad se reconoce en un sistema original de valores indisociable de su patrimonio de usos y creencias. Sin embargo, precisamente cuando más convencidos estamos de que la cultura es una dimensión fundamental del desarrollo, los peligros que pueden esterilizar esta articulación se acumulan. La trivialización cultural por el comercio de las imágenes. La ruptura del diálogo y el intercambio entre culturas, que abre paso a la animadversión y a la violencia. El del triunfo del aislacionismo sobre la nación, la amarga victoria del fanatismo sobre la cooperación. El del conformismo asfixiante sobre la innovación y la creación intelectual. El encierro sobre la apertura. No hay mejor protección para una cultura que la interacción a la intemperie, sin telones de acero ni muros de vergüenza. Las culturas sólo medran y fructifican en el encuentro y el intercambio fecundo de otros modos de pensar y sentir. La soledad y el repliegue, los recintos amurallados -que suelen estar defendidos por la intransigencia y el temor a la innovación- son precisamente los ámbitos donde las culturas declinan y acaban por agostarse. Olvidamos que la diferencia es riqueza, siempre que pueda convertirse en nexo de unión. Es menester interactuar, es menester vivir conjuntamente en un mundo que carece ya de compartimentos estancos, porque tiene un destino común. Necesitamos grandes dosis de conocimiento, de respeto de la diferencia y de apertura, de par en par, a los demás. La paz duradera requiere la exaltación de la diversidad, de estas “culturas mestizas y peregrinas” que, en decir de Carlos Fuentes, son nuestra mayor riqueza. Señoras y señores: El cometido de preservar y aumentar la herencia natural y cultural de nuestros antecesores va mucho más allá -como hemos visto- de la simple conservación de paisajes y monumentos. Por primera vez en la historia de la humanidad, la conciencia de la globalidad y del impacto de nuestras acciones nos obliga a proceder de tal modo que se eviten efectos irreversibles sobre el mismo, que podrían limitar o anular a las generaciones futuras el ejercicio de sus derechos. Es pues el criterio de irreversibilidad potencial, el de alcanzar puntos de no retorno, el que exige hoy moralmente a los decisores la adopción de medidas a tiempo, antes de que sea demasiado tarde para corregir las tendencias que podrían desembocar, en caso contrario, en alteraciones irreparables. Es menester avizorar, anticiparse y prevenir; saber para prever, prever para evitar. En nuestra época, cuando prevenir no es sólo una posibilidad, sino que es una obligación inesquivable, es un imperativo ético. Debemos mirar hacia adelante para diseñar el contorno de nuestro común destino y no aceptar nunca el fatalismo. La Constitución de la UNESCO nos encomienda una fantástica misión: ser la conciencia ética de la humanidad. La Convención sobre Protección del Patrimonio Mundial Cultural y Natural, adoptada por la Conferencia General de la UNESCO en 1972, se inspiró en esta preocupación de salvaguardar el patrimonio, a fin de transmitirlo intacto a las generaciones venideras -idea que aparece explícita en el texto-. Veinte años después, en la Cumbre de la Tierra, se adoptó la “Declaración de Río”, en la que se reitera, reforzada y consolidada, la noción de solidaridad intergeneracional. Esta solidaridad es la que nos impulsa a conjugar el desarrollo económico y la preservación de las diversas modalidades de patrimonio. No es tarea fácil, como tampoco resulta sencillo equilibrar en nuestra vida individual el pasado con el porvenir. Pero es un cometido insoslayable. En él se concreta nuestro deber de previsión para con las generaciones que heredarán la Tierra. Como nos recuerda el poeta catalán Miquel Martí i Pol:
“De nosotros depende que el paso del tiempo no dañe las señales grabadas en las piedras, y que el huésped que los años anunciaron no encuentre la casa abandonada, oscura y triste”.
Señor Secretario de Educación Pública, Señor Presidente, Señoras y señores: Por una feliz coincidencia, se nos ha llamado a confrontar nuevas situaciones al mismo tiempo que celebrar el vigésimoquinto aniversario de la Convención que aquí nos reúne. Esta es una oportunidad para detenernos, reflexionar y prepararnos mejor para hacer frente al porvenir. Con el fin de reforzar el Centro del Patrimonio Mundial para responder mejor a los desafíos del mañana, he tomado varias medidas que completarán de este modo otras de ámbito regional. He decidido reforzar, como saben, en personal al Centro, es decir absorber bajo el presupuesto de la Organización a todos aquellos que trabajan en el mismo y cuyos contratos hasta ahora habían sido cubiertos por el Fondo del Patrimonio Mundial. De esta manera se liberará la totalidad de los recursos del Fondo en favor de los sitios y mejorará así nuestra respuesta a las necesidades crecientes de conservación y de protección. He tomado esta decisión -y lo sabe muy bien el Presidente Winkelmann- a pesar de la situación financiera de la Organización. Creo que es una prueba adicional de mi compromiso en favor del exacto cumplimiento y la puesta en práctica de la Convención. Así lo había prometido, pacta sum servanda, aunque a veces sea muy difícil por las circunstancias que Uds. conocen, poder poner a tiempo en práctica estas previsiones. Estas medidas en términos de personal se complementan con el papel que he otorgado al Centro. Establecido bajo mi autoridad directa, el Centro, como cualquier otra Unidad de la Secretaría de la UNESCO, asume la coordinación de las actividades emprendidas en favor de los sitios del patrimonio mundial por los servicios de la Organización, de acuerdo con las decisiones del Comité, así como en colaboración con las diversas organizaciones no gubernamentales, que tanto nos ayudan en esta tarea. Para que el Centro pueda llevar a cabo con la eficacia y flexibilidad requeridas las numerosas responsabilidades que le he atribuido, he decidido otorgarle el régimen de grant-in aid. Este régimen especial permite que no se realice ninguna de las medidas, a veces de disminución de los fondos previstos, de acuerdo con la situación de la tesorería. También permite una utilización más fluida de los fondos. En este, como en otros aspectos que favorezcan el cumplimiento de su misión, puedo asegurarles que no faltará mi personal atención, ni tampoco faltará el uso de todas las facultades propias de mi cargo. Lo que pretendo es asegurar el exacto cumplimiento de las decisiones del Comité Mundial del Patrimonio y el seguimiento de la conservación de los sitios del patrimonio. Cada año aumenta en cantidad el número de sitios; cada año, por tanto, debemos estar a la altura, con la calidad y el seguimiento apropiado y cercano de los sitios del patrimonio común de la humanidad. Personalmente, he podido constatar la calidad de algunas iniciativas que se han realizado en este último año. He asistido a los foros de jóvenes organizados en Bergen, Noruega, y en las Cataratas Victoria, en Zimbabwe. El estusiasmo y compromiso de los jóvenes en favor del patrimonio mundial me impresionaron muy favorablemente. También he constatado con gran satisfacción que la capacitación del personal responsable de la gestión de los sitios del patrimonio mundial avanza como estaba previsto y que pronto dispondremos de la estrategia de formación que Uds. debatirán durante la reunión. Me complace comprobar que instituciones de prestigio se asocian a nuestros esfuerzos en este campo y hago votos porque este importante trabajo siga ampliándose. También quisiera compartir con ustedes mi satisfacción por el trabajo de cooperación puesto en marcha por el Centro con los medios de difusión masiva, públicos y privados. Esta cooperación ha contribuido a aumentar la visibilidad de nuestra acción. Al respecto, he asistido a numerosas ceremonias de inauguración de sitios y he constatado con pesar que aún no se ha concluido la presentación prevista de las placas que manifiestan la pertenencia de un sitio al patrimonio mundial.
[The Director-General continues in English]
Your Excellency, Mr Secretary of Education, Governor, Honourable Minister, Mr Chairman, I should like, before concluding, to say a few words about the ultimate goal of all our efforts. For through your work you are making a very substantial contribution to what UNESCO is doing every day, through education, science, the social and human sciences, communication and culture, to help alleviate suffering and, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, to help “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. And it is UNESCO’s mission, in particular, to build peace in the minds of men through education, science and culture. This is our goal and it is this that I wish to emphasize so that, in our day-to-day work, even when we are addressing the most concrete issues, we never lose sight of this paramount concern. Because where there is conflict, where there is violence, where there is war, there is no safeguarding, there is only destruction. Nor are there human rights, nor democracy, nor the right to education, nor the right to justice, nor the right to housing. Without peace there is nothing. Peace is the precondition, and it is for this reason that it was so clearly proclaimed by the founders of the United Nations and of UNESCO in the preamble to their respective charters. The overriding aim they say is to prevent “the scourge of war”, to stop people killing one another. How in this context can we safeguard our physical heritage, natural or cultural? How can we disregard our ethical heritage - those intangible, invisible values that have ever greater importance in our lives? Without these values, life has little meaning, and they must therefore be impressed upon the minds of the young in particular, who in some cases possess so many material goods but lack these essential intangible values. Without them life itself is endangered. It is for this reason that I am fond of repeating that the most important monument we have to preserve is human life. Human beings alone are endowed with the creative spirit. This is their distinctive faculty, setting them aside from all other living organisms. This is the wonder of human life. And in wishing to preserve human life, our first concern must be with children, children all over the world, whatever their nationality, for children have no nationality, they are the children of us all. They are the most important heritage we have to preserve. They are much more important than stones because they are more vulnerable than stones. Our constant endeavour then must be to preserve human life, to preserve the wonder of human life. How is this to be achieved? How is violence to be averted? In seeking answers to these questions we must think about the future, we must draw upon our memory of the future, so that we can, in the world of tomorrow, safeguard the most important human right, the right to life. When we are told that in the next twenty years we shall be able to provide food for only fifty per cent of the world’s hungry people, it is therefore unacceptable to cry “What a shame!”. For we know that, elsewhere in the world, because of commercial considerations or for the sake of protectionism, so many tonnes of food are being destroyed. How can we accept to preserve stones while at the same time leaving four hundred million human beings to die of hunger - each one of them more important than all the stone monuments in the world? Mr Chairman, in the conversations I have had with you, in your capacity as representative of the Committee, I have accordingly been very appreciative of your conviction that safeguarding the past is important in so far as it contributes to a new design for the future. Such is your tremendous responsibility. And this is why I encourage you to deal with substantive issues. Those organizations that deal with purely technical matters are bound to disappear before very long. The information they provide can be had very easily. Our mission is to preserve our past, to preserve this multicultural message embodied in all the wonders that you proclaim every year to be part of the World Heritage. There, in the infinite variety of cultures, you recognize the great wealth of humanity. But at the same time there are other values, duly enshrined in UNESCO’s Constitution, the values of justice and freedom, the values of equality and mutual respect, requiring the Organization, in the interests of peace, to ensure “the moral and intellectual solidarity of mankind”. It is a mistake then to concern ourselves with technicalities. They must be left to the technicians. Our responsibility is political, ours is the important role. For this reason I am happy that we have with us today the President of the Cultural Commission of the Mexican Parliament. For we can influence parliaments in their decision-making, we can make our views felt, the views of the World Heritage Committee, so that they are taken into account in their policy-making, at the strategic level, in their laws. Considering how important all this is at the close of the century, I wish to express my gratitude to you, for you are helping to build peace in the minds of men; I wish to thank you because in your work you are saying “This is the path of the future, this is what we must safeguard and pass on to our children”.
[El Director General termina en español]
Señor Secretario, Señoras y señores: Esta encrucijada magnífica de pueblos y culturas que es Yucatán nos acoge hoy con su hospitalidad proverbial. Hospitalidad y sabiduría..., y saberes. Sí, saberes antiguos recogidos en forma poética, en compendios, como el Popol Vuh, el Memorial de Sololá y los Libros de Chilam Balam, que nos sirven hoy a todos de ejemplo y de admiración. En uno de sus ensayos más conocidos, Octavio Paz escribió estas palabras: “Toda cultura nace del mestizaje, del encuentro, del choque con otras culturas. Y a la inversa, es el aislamiento, la obsesión de la pureza lo que mata a las civilizaciones”. No olvidemos, pues, las señales que el tiempo ha dejado en las viejas piedras de los mayas y los quichés.

ANNEX II.5

Opening Address by Dr Horst Winkelmann
at the 20th session of the World Heritage Committee
Merida, 2 December 1996

We are about to begin the 20th session of the World Heritage Committee. Let me give you two more "round numbers": UNESCO is fifty years old, and next year the World Heritage Convention celebrates its twenty-fifth birthday. In my view this combination alone proves that this meeting is of special significance.

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.



                                                    ANNEX II.6

OPENING SPEECH OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

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.

Me emociona decir esto, hoy, ante ustedes, en este queridísimo Yucatán, pletórico de historia y patrimonio, y considero que, a casi 25 años de haberse suscrito la Convención del Patrimonio Mundial en la que se establecieron compromisos trascendentales que han permitido acciones de las que todos nos hemos beneficiado, debemos hacer un ejercicio de analisis crítico y propositivo.

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
DISTINGUIDOS DELEGADOS AL COMITÉ DEL PATRMONIO MUNDIAL Y OBSERVADORES DE LOS PAÍSES MIEMBROS.
SEÑOR REPRESENTANTE DEL SECRETARIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA, LIC. MIGUEL LIMÓN ROJAS.
SEÑORES DE LOS CUERPOS ASESORES DE ESTE COMITÉ ICCROM, IUCN, ICOMOS.
SEÑORAS Y SEÑORES DEL SECRETARIADO.
AMIGOS TODOS.

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)

CHINA

“During the Second World War, it was the other Asian countries and peoples who suffered the greatest loss in life and property. But today there are still few people trying to deny this fact of history. As such being the case, if Hiroshima nomination is approved to be included on the World Heritage List, even though on an exceptional basis, it may be utilized for harmful purpose by these few people. This will, of course, not be conducive to the safeguarding of world peace and security. For this reason China has reservations on the approval of this nomination.”

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

“The United States is dissociating itself from today’s decision to inscribe the Genbaku Dome on the World Heritage List. The United States and Japan are close friends and allies. We cooperate on security, diplomatic, international and economic affairs around the world. Our two countries are tied by deep personal friendships between many Americans and Japanese. Even so, the United States cannot support its friend in this inscription.

The United States is concerned about the lack of historical perspective in the nomination of Genbaku Dome. The events antecedent to the United States’ use of atomic weapons to end World War II are key to understanding the tragedy of Hiroshima. Any examination of the period leading up to 1945 should be placed in the appropriate historical context.

The United States believes the inscription of war sites outside the scope of the Convention. We urge the Committee to address the question of the suitability of war sites for the World Heritage List.”


Annex VI

PRINCIPLE TRAINING GUIDE LINES ADOPTED BY THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AT ITS TWENTIETH SESSION

  1. Apply to both cultural and heritage sites the following strategic actions which were adopted by the Committee in 1995:

    • continue to develop curricula and training information packages on the World Heritage Convention, its ethics and implementation as basic materials;

    • and develop Word Heritage Convention Information Networks, for the benefit of all site managers: procurement of computer and communication equipment to access site managers on Internet should be facilitated.

  2. request the advisory bodies (IUCN, ICCROM, ICOMOS) to collaborate, in as much as possible, in the preparation of regional strategies, awareness and educational programmes which should be part of the training strategy. Common workshops should be encouraged, and the outcome of their evaluation brought to the attention of the Committee.

  3. request the advisory bodies to develop thematic courses at the international level and adapt them at the regional level with partner institutions: the course on “the Conservation of World Heritage Cities Integrated Territorial and Urban Conservation” is a case in point of this necessary development.

  4. give more influence to awareness and educational programmes which are part of the training strategy, and allocate more resources to such activities.

  5. all training needs should be assessed and analysed not only in relation to the conservation and management processes of the site, but also within the overall context of a national policy for heritage conservation: and, gradually in the light of a regional planning framework which takes into account integrated and sustainable conservation programmes.

  6. consequently, encourage all regions to cooperate, through the World Heritage Committee, with the Advisory bodies, ICCROM in particular, to further develop their strategic approaches and take into account: local realities, priorities, availability of resources, financial constraints and time frames. Moreover, heritage preservation should also embrace economics and development.

  7. progress reports of the regional approaches for cultural heritage, beginning with proposals concerning the Baltic States, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the course in Inegrated Territorial and Urban conservation; as well as for natural heritage in Asia and the Pacific, should be brought to the attention of the committee.

  8. regional training centres such as: (a) school for the training of specialists in wildlife in francophone Africa (Garoua, Cameroon), anglophone Africa - Mweka college of Wildlife Management, Moshi, Tanzania; (b) CATIE Costa Rica (Latin America); (c) Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehra Dun, India; (d) Centro Nacional de Conservación, Restauración y Museologia, Cuba (CENCREM) - Catedra Regional de Conservación (UNESCO - UNITWIN); (e) CECRE architectural conservation course at the Federal University of Bahía, Brazil; (f) the CECOR Conservation Centre at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil: and others as appropriate, should be provided with the curricula and information packages on the World Heritage Convention and use case studies of World Heritage sites. Moreover, networking of training institutions for cultural and natural heritage should be encouraged and supported to coordinate existing and new curricula, and provide for their dissemination.

  9. given the under-representation of the cultural heritage of certain regions on the World Heritage List and in particular African heritage, UNESCO’s priority in favour of Africa, the lack of training courses in the field of immovable cultural properties in sub-Saharan Africa, the need to train and educate almost all decision-makers, site managers, technicians and local populations decides to launch in 97, through the World Heritage Centre and in the framework of the project ICCROM/GAIA, a first set of the in situ training activities in sub-Saharian Africa. These will be developed within the framework of a ten-year pilot international framework project. During the three year launching phase, the strategic framework will be developed, and the methodology tested. In the second phase, the existing training potential will be reevaluated, and adequate national and regional training institutions identified with a view to adapting, improving and diversifying the teaching materials. In the last phase, new training programmes shall be elaborated and adapted to local realities, to reflect the know-how acquired during in situ activities.

  10. The World Heritage Centre, the advisory bodies and the State Parties should cooperate closely with one another in the design and conduct of training activities in conformity with the regional and thematic approaches adopted by the committee. Moreover, the Committee may wish to foresee a two year period after which all World Heritage Fund supported activities should derive form the above mentioned guiding principles.

    In addition, the Committee:

  11. may request a revision of the Operation Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention in order to reflect the guiding principles for training activities as adopted at its XXth session.


ANNEX VII INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE REQUESTS APPROVED BY THE BUREAU CULTURAL HERITAGE The Bureau examined and approved international assistance requests concerning cultural heritage for amounts between US$ 20,000 and US$ 30,000. A.1 TECHNICAL COOPERATION A.1.1 ICCROM - Technical Assistance Programme (TAP) (US$ 25,000 requested) The Bureau approved an amount of US$ 25,000 to allow ICCROM to continue its work of dissemination of scientific information by supplying World Heritage sites with basic conservation materials and libraries. A.1.2 Technical Assistance Request for Vilnius Old Town (Lithuania) (US, 25,000 requested) The Bureau approved an amount of US$ 25,000 to provide expert advice and logistic support to both the rehabilitation programme and the organization of the Donors' and Investors' Conference. A.1.3 Lalibela; Fasil Ghebi; Lower Valley of the Awash; Tiya; Aksum and Valley of the Omo (Ethiopia) (US$ 27,500 requested) Considering the quality and the well-chosen small-scale activities which are already partly funded by the Centre for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (CRCCH), and in order to backstop the remarkable achievements and commitments of CRCCH to conservation, the Bureau approved an amount of US$ 27,500. Support from the World Heritage Fund will permit the funding of international experts to examine the studies and restoration programmes for Lalibela, to improve the presentation of Tiya and organize an in-situ training course in Gondar. A.2 TRAINING A.2.1 Regional Training Course on Critical Wetlands Habitats: Keoladeo National Park (India) (US$ 30,000 requested) The Bureau approved an amount of US$ 30,000 to organize at the beginning of 1997 this regional training workshop for site managers from India, Sri Lanka, Nepal and other countries in support of the Natural Heritage Training Strategy. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Wildlife Institute and the Government of India to ensure that there is no overlap with any other subregional training seminars for protected area managers foreseen for 1997 to be hosted by India. A.2.2 International Study Project for the Conservation of Wadi Tumilat (Egypt) (US$ 26,000 requested) The Bureau approved an amount of US$ 20,000 for the international training project for a scientific study and the conservation of the region of Wadi Tumilat. Organized by the Universities of Cairo, London, and Uppsala, the project foresees the participation of 20 students in documentation and conservation research work. A.2.3 Training Workshop for Urban Planning Officers of China's Historic Cities (US$ 25,000 requested) The Bureau, recognizing the urgent need to sensitize the municipal authorities and increase their technical competence to safeguard the historic cities of China, approved an amount of US$ 25,000 to organize a workshop in May 1997 for the preparation of the Conference for the Mayors of Historic Cities, foreseen in September 1997. A.2.4 Regional Training Workshop in Tbilisi and Signagi on "The Significance of Vernacular Architecture and the Problem of Conservation (Georgia) (US$ 27,000 requested) The Bureau recognized the importance of Georgian vernacular architecture and the need to improve scientific, technological and management competences of the persons responsible for the conservation and presentation of the remarkable heritage. The Bureau approved an amount of US$ 27,000 for this regional training activity organized for trainees from the neighbouring countries, viz. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iran, Russia and the Ukraine, as well as Georgia. A.2.5 ICCROM: Regional course for Latin America and the Caribbean on Scientific Principles of Conservation (USS 30,000 requested) The Bureau approved an amount of US$ 30,000 as a contribution towards the costs of the regional course for Latin America and the Caribbean on Scientific Principles of Conservation, in order to improve the understanding of the elementary principles of scientific conservation relevant to different materials, the deterioration processes they undergo and the governing principles of different conservation/restoration treatments. A.2.6 Latin America and the Caribbean: Regional Course on Financial and Institutional Capacity Building in urban Rehabilitation in Historic Cities (request submitted by Cuba) (US$ 30,000 requested) The Bureau took note of the complementary nature of this course, organized in Cuba, with the one proposed by the Federal University of Pernambuco in Brazil. The Bureau approved an amount of US$ 30,000 for the organization of this two-week course, which places the emphasis on funding and addresses decision-makers at the municipal level, and in particular those of World Heritage cities.
ANNEX VIII Distribution Limited WHC-96/CONF.201/20 Merida, 6 December 1996 Original: English
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Twentieth session Merida, Yucatan, Mexico 2-7 December 1996
Item 19 of the Provisional Agenda: Provisional agenda for the twenty-first session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (June/July 1997)
1. Opening of the session by the Director General of UNESCO or his representative 2. Adoption of the agenda and the timetable 3. Report on the activities undertaken by the Secretariat since the twentieth session of the Committee 4. State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List: 4.1. Reports on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger 4.2. Reports on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List 5. Information on tentative lists and examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties to the World Heritage List and on the List of World Heritage in Danger 6. Requests for international assistance 7. Progress report by the Committee's consultative body on the overall management and financial review of the administration of the World Heritage Convention 8. Approval of the Committee's report on its activities for 1996-1997 to be submitted to the 29th session of the General Conference of UNESCO 9. Information on the preparation of the Eleventh General Assembly of States parties (November 1997) 10. Date, place and provisional agenda of the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau (December 1997) 11. Date, place and provisional agenda of the twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee (December 1997) 12. Other business 13. Closure of the session.
ANNEX IX STATEMENTS ON THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES IX.1 Statement of the Delegate of Germany "During this session, the Committee decided the inscription of a site neglecting the following rules of the Operational Guidelines: Paragraph 65 which stipulates that nominations deferred by the Bureau will not be examined by the Committee the same year; paragraph 57 stating that the evaluation will be carried out by IUCN for natural properties; paragraph 62 indicating that representatives of a State Party shall not speak to advocate the inclusion in the List of a property nominated by that State; paragraph 63 that the criteria for which a specific property is included will be set out by the Committee, as well as paragraph 58 in connection with 44 (b) on the integrity of the property. Germany is of the strong opinion that the Operational Guidelines can be overruled by the Committee only by amending them, but not by not applying them in one single case. By not applying the Operational Guidelines, the World Heritage Convention is in Danger to become a mere political instrument." IX.2 Statement of the Delegate of the United States of America "Divergence from the Operational Guidelines now and then, especially when not related directly to the main purpose of this body is certainly tolerable, so long, as all delegations, large and small are treated fairly. Everyone appreciates that manner of operation. The primary purposes of this body are: (1) inscribe sites on the World Heritage List (2) inscribe sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger and (3) remove sites from both lists. The intend of the Convention was to inscribe only those sites which clearly qualify. Very rigorous criteria and procedures were designed to ensure the professional integrity of the decisions reached by this body. The criteria are tough and comprehensive because of the need to protect the integrity of this body so that we are seen as the highest epiform of conservation and preservation decision making. Only the best of the world make it. The procedures were very obviously designed to try and ensure that this body always acts in a manner which cannot be questioned anywhere in the world. It was recognized that taking time rather than rushing is not punative; rather it helps ensure impassive, thoughtfull, professionally based criteria driven decision making and to avoid any open forum for dueling experts. We made a sham of our integrity this week. Please do not infer any derogation of the management of W National Park. I am told by professionals who have been there that it is unusually well managed. That is not the subject at hand. We made a sham of our integrity. Why is that important? It is important, because conservation and preservation of the best of this world is a constant battle and an uphill battle at that. The force is not always, perhaps not even usually with us. Our most important weapon is our integrity. I have worked for the US National Park Service for 35 years, I have planned parks, I have managed parks, I have advised on parks in several countries and I have been the Deputy Director over 369 national park areas in the US. I have fought for protection of natural and cultural parks with individuals, groups, municipalities, states, other agencies and the United States congress. I have not always prevailed, but I always left knowing that the parks were better respected and therefore more likely to be protected in the future. We tarnished our integrity by not following our own procedures. The result is that we may not be as well respected when we leave as we were when we got here." IX.3 Statement of the Delegate of Italy The Delegate of Italy stated that he was in agreement with the views expressed by Germany concerning the Guidelines. However, he wished to point out that all the decisions taken by the Committee during this session were taken in complete conformity with the existing regulations. He furthermore noted that in accordance with the hierarchy of organizations, a superior hierarchical organization always has the possibility to take decisions concerning matters treated by a lesser organization. IX.4 Statement of the Chairperson In concluding the discussions which she found constructive, the Chairperson recalled that each of the delegates of the Committee had made a serious analysis of the concrete cases and the spirit of the Convention before making a final decision, and, whilst respecting the statements of one and all, even athough she considered those of the Delegates of Germany and the United States of America unacceptable, the Committee had retained its credibility and competence. *[EOF]