LHE/20/8.GA/INF.1 - page 19

- Parties wished to have as many elements as possible, but the Committee must take into account the criteria of the Convention. States Parties should also consider the important issue of sustainable development when preparing files.
- 76. The Secretary remarked that the question of dialogue appeared to be discussed either as a concept or as a very specific procedure proposed to the Evaluation Body. However, it was important not to confuse the two as they were distinctly different. The Secretary also noted a suggestion that the Secretariat did not support dialogue and he respectfully disagreed, explaining that the particular procedure proposed had not been accepted because it was seen as particularly burdensome by both the Secretariat and the Evaluation Body. The Secretary took note that some countries were asking to review the entire evaluation process and not just the specific procedure to address these issues, or as reminded by Morocco, to ensure the independence of the Evaluation Body from the members of the Committee. The Secretary, however, wished to clarify that the informal working groups, which had initially been closed and were now open-ended, were fully participative. For the Secretariat, these informal contexts had been extremely useful in understanding and exchanging points of view, which was in itself a dialogue that moved the process towards a more transparent way of engaging outside the formal consultations. The Secretary reiterated once again that caution should be exercised when using the word 'dialogue' so as to avoid any confusion with the very specific procedure being proposed.
- 77. The delegation of Singapore had hoped that the States Parties would have convinced the working group of the value of dialogue. The delegation sought to understand the reluctance or hesitation on the part of the Secretariat and the Evaluation Body about conducting dialogue, noting that this issue of dialogue had been discussed at great length at the World Heritage Committee over many years, which was finally implemented in 2015. Singapore had been one of the first to benefit from this dialogue with its first submission to the World Heritage Committee in 2015, and it had not heard of any serious problems resulting from speaking with the evaluators. The delegation appreciated the fact that, unlike the World Heritage Committee, there was a more diversified group of evaluators [in the Evaluation Body], but in terms of the process, it did not see how it would hinder, complicate or add additional work simply because the initial evaluation had been conducted by twelve evaluators. Moreover, there was no question of expanding the evaluation beyond the capacity of both parties. The delegation thus urged the Evaluation Body and the Secretariat to consult with ICOMOS,IUCN and the Secretariat of the World Heritage Committee to learn from their experience in this regard.
- 78. The Secretary understood the concerns. However, the Assembly should be cautious in trying to replicate the 1972 model because of the different nature of the Evaluation Body and the Advisory Bodies [of the World Heritage Committee] in the way they work, as already discussed in the informal ad hoc working group. The experiences of ICOMOS, the IUCN and ICCROM were completely different as they exist and work as institutions. The members of the Evaluation Body, on the other hand, speak either as individual experts, whose names were put forward by States Parties, or as accredited NGOs elected by Committee members on a rotating basis. The Advisory Bodies have a long experience in engaging with both States Parties and the Committee, and the evaluation processes involve country and site visits. In the case of the 2003 Convention, the members of the Evaluation Body did not feel comfortable or institutionally supported in engaging in the same way as these institutions, as they must make collegial, collective decisions on each criterion for every evaluation. In addition, the calendar of meetings (September being the last meeting of the Evaluation Body) was not sufficient to allow for this exchange of letters or process that would have to happen by October. Thus, the question was not about the idea of dialogue per se but rather about the process in which dialogue takes place, which would be considered as particularly problematic by the Evaluation Body should the 1972 method be followed.
- 79. The delegation of Viet Nam supported strengthening the dialogue mechanism between the submitting States and the Evaluation Body, and of course speeding up the development of such a mechanism. However, taking into account the adjustments that may be required in