CLT-99/CONF.204/CLD.7

I - Introduction

1. The second meeting of governmental experts to consider the draft Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage ('draft Convention'), was held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 19 to 24 April 1999. The meeting was attended by171 experts from 82 Member States; 10 experts from 3 Permanent Observers to UNESCO; representatives from the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS), Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations; representatives from the International Seabed Authority and from the International Centre for Conservation and Restoration of Monuments (ICCROM); and 4 non-governmental organizations including the Cultural Heritage Law Committee of the International Law Association (ILA), the International Scientific Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage of the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and the World Underwater Federation (CMAS). The meeting was open to the public.

2. Following the first meeting of governmental experts in 1998, the Secretariat had invited Member States who wished to propose amendments to the draft Convention, to submit them to the Secretariat prior to the second meeting. The Secretariat received twenty-seven replies from Member States (Argentina, Barbados, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Panama, Poland, Russian Federation, Spain, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay) and one from an Observer State (United States of America). The comments and amendments were included in a Synoptic Report which was distributed to all participants prior to the second meeting.

3. The draft Convention adopted by the participants as the basis for future work at the first meeting, together with the Report of the first meeting and the Synoptic Report, formed the basis of the discussion. In addition, during the course of the meeting certain written proposals were submitted by experts from both Member and Observer States, several of which were duly considered and debated.

II - Opening of the Meeting

4. In his opening statement the representative of the Director-General, Mr Hernán Crespo-Toral, Assistant Director-General of the Sector for Culture, welcomed the participants to the meeting. He stressed the pressing need to both protect the underwater cultural heritage from severe looting and to prevent and discourage commercial operations which alter scientific and historical data. In particular, as deep-water technology becomes cheaper, enabling easy access to the last remaining inviolate areas of the sea, the threat to underwater cultural heritage is greater than ever. As a result, the creation of a specific legal instrument was warranted.

III - Election of the Bureau and organisation of the meeting

5. Mr Carsten Lund (Denmark) and Mr Anoumou Yom Kouvahe (Togo) were elected Chairman and Rapporteur of the meeting respectively. Colombia, Philippines, Poland and Tunisia were elected as Vice-Presidents.

6. The Plenary Session was attended by all participants, during which certain delegations thought that the discussions article by article in the Plenary Sessions during the first meeting were sufficient and that this meeting should form Working Groups immediately. However, it was decided that further discussion of the provisions of the draft Convention article by article was warranted in the Plenary, followed by a brief debate as to which issues should be dealt with by Working Groups and when they should be formed. Finally, Working Groups were formed on the third day of the meeting. Each was comprised of twelve Member States and was open to participation by other interested experts. Working Group 1 considered definitions and scope (Articles 1 and 2), and Working Group 3 considered jurisdictional issues (Articles 4 to 7 and Article 14). The operative provisions of the Charter were not considered in the Plenary Session as it was decided that they should be directly considered by Working Group 2 for conversion into the Rules of the Annex. The work of each Working Group was then submitted to the Plenary Session for consideration and further views were expressed, some of which were adopted by consensus.

IV - General discussion

76. All experts spoke in favour of the need to protect underwater cultural heritage and to adopt a Convention for this purpose. One expert expressed doubts as to whether further development of international law in this area was warranted.

87. Most of the experts referred in their general comments to the jurisdictional issues, in particular, the rights of coastal States in relation to underwater cultural heritage located in their exclusive economic zones and continental shelves. A majority of experts believed that the jurisdiction of coastal States would be essential in order to fill the gap in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) ('UNCLOS') with respect to the protection of underwater cultural heritage in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. Further, such development would be permitted by both paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 303 of UNCLOS, and would not prejudice other lawful uses of the ocean by third States. One expert suggested that the proposed jurisdiction of the coastal States in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf was not intended for the benefit of coastal States, but for all of humanity.

98. Another group of experts said that the granting of jurisdiction to coastal States would be a violation of the relevant provisions of UNCLOS and would disturb the carefully balanced jurisdictional regime contained in UNCLOS. Several experts referred to General Assembly Resolution 53/32 on Oceans and the Law of the Sea stressing "the importance of ensuring that the instrument to be elaborated is in full conformity with the relevant provisions of the Convention". For these experts the possibilities offered by UNCLOS had not been fully explored, including the role to be played by international co-operation. Some of these experts added that while UNESCO was competent with regard to cultural heritage, the General Assembly of the United Nations remained the only competent forum in which to develop the jurisdictional regime contained in UNCLOS.

10. Some experts referred to the need to achieve a balance between proper respect for the provisions of UNCLOS, and the necessity of an effective regime for the protection of underwater cultural heritage. One expert said that the balance might be achieved through international co-operation. Another expert suggested that the regime for the protection of underwater cultural heritage in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf could be developed along the lines of the regime contained in UNCLOS for the protection of the marine environment (Part XII) and marine scientific research (Part XIII). According to this expert, coastal States could ensure primary co-ordination in relation to information and notification procedures.

11. Some experts expressed the view that the principle of sovereign immunity of warships and other government vessels was not appropriate when dealing with underwater cultural heritage, and could not be applied in this context automatically. Another expert said that States and individuals should take upon themselves the responsibility of protecting underwater heritage irrespective of issues of ownership and sovereignty. In relation to the concept of "warships", one expert said that it was not a single concept and that it was necessary to differentiate between the wreck itself and its cargo. Another expert referred to the definition contained in Article 29 of UNCLOS as a possible solution to this problem.

12. Some experts supported the proposal to include in the draft Convention a new provision on regional co-operation for the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. One expert said that regional agreements would be useful provided that they conform with UNCLOS.

13. One expert indicated that a better definition was required for the nature of the activities which are to be regulated by the draft Convention. In particular, this expert proposed to substitute throughout the text, the phrase "activities directed at underwater cultural heritage" for "activities affecting underwater cultural heritage". In addition, a separate provision should be included which deals with other activities which can pose a threat to underwater cultural heritage.

14. The need to further develop an institutional framework and international organisations was also noted. Some experts specifically referred to the role of UNESCO and one expert stated that there was a need to create capacity-building programmes and technical assistance under the auspices of UNESCO.

15. The general discussion also touched upon the question of how to incorporate the ICOMOS International Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage (‘ICOMOS Charter’) into the draft Convention; the possible role of the private sector; the interests of the State of origin, and the adequacy of salvage laws in the context of underwater cultural heritage.

15. The Plenary Session was attended by all participants, during which time there was a brief discussion as to which issues should be dealt with by Working Groups and when they should be formed. Certain delegations thought that the discussions in the Plenary Sessions during the first meeting were sufficient and that this meeting should form Working Groups immediately. However, it was decided that further discussion of the general issues was warranted and Working Groups were formed on the third day of the meeting. They were comprised of twelve Member States and were open to participation by other interested experts. Working Group 1 considered definitions and scope (Articles 1 and 2), and Working Group 3 considered jurisdictional issues (Articles 4 to 7 and Article 14). The operative provisions of the Charter were not considered in the Plenary Session as it was decided that they should be directly considered by Working Group 2 for conversion into the Rules of the Annex. The work of each Working Group was then submitted to the Plenary Session for consideration and further views were expressed, some of which were adopted by consensus.

V – Definitions (Article 1)

16. The majority of experts wished to eliminate the deeming provision in Article 1(2) concerning the abandonment of underwater cultural heritage. Similarly, paragraph 3 was deleted because the text of the ICOMOS Charter was no longer being annexed to the draft Convention. A reference to the "Operative provisions of the ICOMOS Charter" has been replaced by the words "Rules of the Annex" wherever they appear.

17. In relation to the definition of "underwater cultural heritage", a number of experts considered that a criterion of significance should be added, whilst others stated that such a circumscription would render the draft Convention unworkable. The experts took a vote on the addition of the words "archaeologically and historically significant"; however a majority decided against this proposal. Some experts suggested expanding the time criterion for underwater cultural heritage so that it covered not only those items situated underwater for at least 100 years, but those which were at least 100 years old. Others disagreed and felt that such an extension would impede the draft Convention on the basis that this would be a very great extension of the reach of the Convention and would cover items more properly the object of salvage law.

18. One expert proposed to delete the definition of "UNESCO" and the "Director-General". Another expert indicated that these definitions were standard in instruments such as the draft Convention.

19. In the context of the definitions, there was considerable discussion as to precisely what should constitute the scope of the draft Convention, in particular, what activities it should be directed at, bearing in mind that not all of them would disturb or damage the underwater cultural heritage. Whilst all experts agreed that the protection of the underwater cultural heritage was the primary aim, some experts pointed out that the activities the draft Convention was concerned with should be more specific. As a result, the meeting of experts agreed to insert a new definition in Article 1 for the term "activities directed at underwater cultural heritage" which encompassed activities having underwater cultural heritage as their primary object and which could, either directly or indirectly, physically disturb or damage the underwater cultural heritage.

VI - Scope and application of the Convention (Article 2)

20. As the concept of abandonment was eliminated from Article 1, the corresponding changes were made to Article 2(1). Consequently, several experts proposed the deletion of this paragraph altogether. Others, however, recommended that the paragraph be retained. Several amendments were proposed based upon the differing views in respect of whether the draft Convention should apply only to "maritime" internal waters, or to all "internal" waters including rivers and lakes.

21. Different views were expressed on the question of sovereign immunity of warships and other government vessels. Some experts wanted to exclude any reference to warships so that the draft Convention would apply to all wrecks older than 100 years, irrespective of their nature. Others argued in favour of a time limit for sovereign immunity, whilst some experts opposed sovereign immunity, specifically in the case of wrecks located in the internal waters and territorial seas of other States. One expert doubted that the definition in Article 29 of UNCLOS was valid outside the UNCLOS context. Another expert added that sovereign immunity did not apply to sunken vessels.

22. Other experts insisted on keeping the principle of sovereign immunity in the draft Convention. In the view of these experts, the flag State of a wreck entitled to sovereign immunity should always retain exclusive jurisdiction over the wreck and its contents in all maritime areas. According to this view, sovereign immunity would be without prejudice to the need to protect those wrecks and the possibility of co-operation with other States. Further, this protection should be undertaken with the express consent of the flag State of the wreck. An alternative proposal for Article 2(2) was put forward by one expert which provided that "The Convention shall also apply upon an express consent in writing of the flag State, to the remains and contents of any warship, naval auxiliary, other vessels or aircraft owned or operated by or on behalf of a State". The proposal, however was not dealt with in the Plenary Session.

23. One expert said that the draft Convention needed to reconcile these two views in one way or another without infringing upon the principle of sovereign immunity. The Chairman, summing up the discussion, pointed out that it was the understanding of the group of experts that acceptance of the principle of sovereign immunity did not call into question the application of the protective provisions of the draft Convention and that title and ownership should not interfere with the protection of underwater cultural heritage.

24. One expert referred to the need to ensure proper respect for war graves at sea. Several experts spoke in favour of this proposal and it was agreed that the draft Convention would deal with this issue in one way or another. The Chairman suggested including a specific clause on war graves in the Annex.

VII - Relationship between the Draft Convention and UNCLOS (Article 2 bis)

25. Although there were differing views as to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of UNCLOS, all experts agreed that the draft Convention should not undermine the jurisdictional regime established in UNCLOS. One expert expressed the view that the draft Convention should be adopted as an implementing agreement of UNCLOS. This expert provided the text for a new Article 2bis which borrowed the language used in Article 4 of the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. In relation to the second sentence of this proposal, some experts said that the draft Convention should be "in full conformity" with UNCLOS while others thought that it should be "compatible" with UNCLOS. Another expert expressed the view that this distinction was not relevant since the problem lay entirely in the interpretation given to the provisions of UNCLOS. Some experts said that if this Article was retained, it would be appropriate to rename the draft as "Agreement on the implementation..." instead of "Convention". Others were opposed to the change in the title.

VIII - General Principle (Article 3)

26. All experts agreed on the general principle of preservation of underwater cultural heritage for the benefit of humankind. One expert proposed to soften the language in the original draft by adding words such as "in accordance with this Convention". Other experts proposed the addition of a new paragraph including the principle of international co-operation between coastal States, flag States of the wreck and States of the same cultural, archaeological and historical origin. Other experts felt that it would be preferable to combine both the principles of protection and co-operation in a single paragraph as was done in Article 303(1) of UNCLOS.

27. One expert proposed the inclusion of an Article on the non-applicability of salvage law to the underwater cultural heritage to which the Convention applied, together with the possibility of States being permitted to make reservations. Several delegations expressed their opposition to allowing reservations to the provisions of the draft Convention. It was decided not to deal with this proposal until the question of reservations was taken up at a future meeting of the group of experts. One expert stated for the record that she reserved her position on the applicability of salvage law.

IX - Jurisdictional aspects (Articles 4 to 7 and 14)

28. Opposing views were expressed as to whether the draft Convention should apply only to "maritime" internal waters or to all "internal" waters including rivers and lakes. A majority of experts concluded that the draft Convention should apply only to maritime zones. One expert pointed out that this question was of fundamental importance in the case of occupied territories. Another expert noted that this question could have implications for the division of competencies between the federal government and the regional governments of some countries. Some experts argued that Article 4(1) should be understood without prejudice to the sovereign immunity of warships and government vessels. One expert requested that the flag State of a wreck entitled to sovereign immunity be informed of any activity undertaken in relation to that wreck. Several other experts rejected the applicability of the principle of sovereign immunity in maritime zones under the sovereignty of States other than the flag State of the wreck.

29. Some experts said that the obligation for coastal States to apply the Rules of the Annex to underwater cultural heritage in the maritime areas under their sovereignty, could create some difficulties in relation to their internal legislative procedures. These experts favoured non-legally binding language in this provision. Other experts pointed out that it was inconsistent on the part of some coastal States to advocate the application of the Rules of the Annex in their exclusive economic zones and continental shelves, while rejecting a clear commitment in the maritime areas in which their jurisdiction was not disputed. One expert pointed out that there could be a compromise if the obligation was retained using softer language.

30. Several experts noted that a reference to the contiguous zone was missing in the draft Convention. Some experts proposed a new Article 4a specifically dealing with the contiguous zone. The experts held different views on the phrase to be used in order to establish the link between this new Article and Article 303(2) of UNCLOS. One expert expressed a concern that the inclusion of the contiguous zone might give rise to problems in cases in which a country exercised sovereignty over islands located near the coasts of another State. Certain experts queried whether the application of the Rules of the Annex should be made mandatory for coastal States in the contiguous zones.

31. In relation to Article 5, two views were expressed on the question of jurisdiction over the underwater cultural heritage located in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf of States. Different arguments and interpretations of UNCLOS were made in support of each position. A majority of experts supported the jurisdiction of coastal States over underwater cultural heritage in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf as contained in Article 5 of the original draft Convention. For these experts, not only did Article 5 conform with UNCLOS, but was in fact called for by Article 303(4) of UNCLOS. For several other experts, jurisdiction for the protection of underwater cultural heritage in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf rested, in accordance with UNCLOS, on the flag States of the vessels conducting the activities affecting or directed at underwater cultural heritage. Further, the adoption of Article 5 of the original draft Convention would amount to a renegotiation of UNCLOS for which the meeting of experts had no mandate. One expert stated that Article 5 should be deleted and replaced by Article 4bis.

32. It was decided to present three different Options of Articles 5 to 7 of the original draft Convention. However, it was noted that the approach taken in the draft Convention of referring to coastal States, port States and flag States when dealing with jurisdictional issues was correct and that the disagreement was only in relation to the demarcation between the three jurisdictions. Option 1 reflected the position of the experts in favour of the jurisdiction of coastal States in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf. The most controversial paragraphs, namely Article 5(2) and (3) of the original draft, were merged into a single paragraph to become the new Article 5(2). Option 2 contained the views of the experts opposed to jurisdiction of coastal States beyond the contiguous zone. One expert stated that its proposal for the deletion of paragraph 5 and substitution of Article 4bis had not been reflected in either Option. The third Option - Option 3 - was presented by the Chairman of the Working Group which tried to achieve a compromise between the two views. It was decided that all three Options would appear together in square brackets in the draft Convention.

33. Experts agreed on the importance of establishing a system for the notification of new finds such as proposed in Article 5(1) of the original draft Convention. In this respect, several experts referred to the need to clarify who should be obliged to report and to which authorities. One expert proposed that all States Parties should be obliged to notify UNESCO of any new discovery of underwater cultural heritage. Another expert stated that the coastal State should request notification of new finds and convey this information to UNESCO, which in turn would inform other interested States. One expert referred to the need to include some provisions on assessment, registration and information sharing. This suggestion was incorporated into Article 5(2) and (3) of Option 3. One expert said that UNESCO’s role could also be dealt with in Article 13. Another expert, opposed to the jurisdiction of coastal States, proposed to deal with this issue in Article 7(1), so that notifications of new finds would be directed to the flag States. That proposal was incorporated into Option 2. In this respect, one expert referred to the problem of "flags of convenience" as supporting requirement of notification to coastal States. Two other experts added that, in any event, States of cultural, historical or archaeological origin should also be notified of new finds.

34. Different views were expressed on the question, dealt with in Article 5(4) of the original draft Convention, of how to balance the rights and jurisdiction of coastal States under UNCLOS with the need to protect underwater cultural heritage. Some of the experts who were in favour of the jurisdiction of coastal States argued against the limitation implied by the word "unjustifiably" and requested its deletion. Another expert proposed to improve the original draft in order to reflect all rights and jurisdiction of coastal States in their exclusive economic zones and on their continental shelves. Another expert in the same group proposed to redraft this paragraph simply stating that refusals of authorizations should be motivated. In this respect it was noted by one expert that should the change regarding "activities directed at" be accepted, then the question of other activities affecting underwater cultural heritage would need to be considered in a separate Article (Article X). Experts opposed to the jurisdiction of coastal States proposed a single paragraph for Article 5 stating that coastal States should take into account the need to protect underwater cultural heritage in the exercise of their rights and jurisdiction in the exclusive economic zones and on their continental shelves.

35. One expert proposed to include in the draft Convention, a provision allowing regional agreements to be concluded by States bordering the same sea for the preservation of their common cultural heritage. Another expert requested that those agreements be open to the States of cultural, historical and archaeological origin. Other experts said that such regional agreements should be allowed to incorporate more stringent rules and regulations than those applied globally, while yet other experts believed that these agreements would have to be consistent with international law. One expert pointed out that, in any event, States bordering a sea could not be obliged to enter into such an agreement.

36. In relation to port State control in Article 6, the experts agreed to paragraph 1 of the original draft Convention being incorporated, with some drafting improvements, into both Options 1 and 2. Several of the experts in favour of Option 1 requested the deletion of paragraph 6(2), while several of those in favour of Option 2 proposed an amendment in line with their opposition to coastal State jurisdiction in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf.

37. In relation to jurisdiction of the flag State (and State of nationality) in Article 7 of the original draft Convention, several experts noted that control over nationals would be very difficult to apply in practice. Paragraph 7(2) of the original draft was included in both Options 1 and 2 with corresponding changes to reflect the different positions on jurisdictional issues. Article 7(1) of the original draft was deleted from Option 2 as it was thought to be superfluous.

38. The experts agreed to place Article 14, which deals with the Area, directly after the other Articles concerning jurisdiction. One expert pointed out that the draft Convention could not create obligations for particular individuals and proposed to amend the draft by making it obligatory for the flag State or the State of nationality of the finder, to notify any new find. Different views were expressed as to which one of the two organisations - UNESCO or the International Seabed Authority (‘Authority’) - should be informed first. It was pointed out however, that in any event the transmission of information from one organisation to the other should be as swift as possible. Two experts were opposed to mentioning the Authority as they believed that its mandate did not include any function relating to underwater cultural heritage. In this respect, the representative of the Authority noted that it was presently engaged in drafting a Mining Code, of which one of the provisions requested contractors of the Authority to report to it any find of underwater cultural heritage. One expert proposed the addition of a second paragraph to this Article concerning the notification of States having preferential rights in accordance with Article 149 of UNCLOS. Another expert suggested that all States be informed by UNESCO, given the difficulties of ascertaining all States of cultural, historical or archaeological origin.

X – Chairman’s proposal (Articles 8 to 18 excluding 14)

39. Articles 8 to 18, excluding Article 14, were the subject of a draft proposal by the Chairman, after a thorough discussion in the Plenary Session in which he suggested amendments to the Articles as they appeared in the original draft Convention. Because of lack of time they were not considered in the final Plenary Session save that the experts agreed the proposed additions would appear in the draft Convention in square brackets and proposed deletions would be ruled through.

XI - Articles 19 to 24; Title; Preamble

40. Given the time constraints and the significant discussion that took place in relation to the definitions, jurisdiction and the Rules of the Annex, the meeting of experts did not consider Articles 19 to 24 of the draft Convention, namely: Peaceful Settlement of Disputes; Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession; Reservations and Exceptions; Amendments; Denunciation; and The Charter. Neither the Title of the Convention nor the Preamble were discussed in detail at this meeting.

XII – ICOMOS Charter / Rules of the Annex

41. In relation to the inclusion of the ICOMOS Charter into the draft Convention, the meeting of experts decided that it was more appropriate to take the general standards of the Charter, rather than the complete text, and formulate a set of Rules which could be annexed to the draft Convention. Accordingly, Working Group 2 produced the Rules of the Annex, which were generally accepted by the group of experts.

42. In discussing the substance, a number of experts noted that the Rules of the Annex should go beyond the guidelines contained in the ICOMOS Charter and impose positive obligations on States Parties. There was a lively discussion on the use of the words "shall" or "should": some experts thought they there was no effective distinction between them since the rules as part of an international convention naturally imposed binding obligations; others thought that "should" was recommendatory rather than obligatory and would prefer it; yet others thought this a reason to adopt "shall", and one expert pointed out that in at least one of the official languages of UNESCO there would be no such linguistic distinction in any event. In relation to the General Principles, the experts noted that the exclusion of commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage for trade, speculation or its irretrievable dispersal, should not exclude the provision of services, for example, non-government entities being contracted by a State Party to carry out work on its behalf.

43. The meeting of experts discussed the extent and obligations in respect of the project funding required for activities in relation to underwater cultural heritage. Most experts were of the opinion that in principle, the funding plan should cover all different phases of the project. However, they recognised that such funding may be subject to unavoidable budgetary changes.

44. Following the proposal of one expert, it was agreed to include in square brackets an additional point in the reporting requirements concerning graphic and photographic documentation. Further, it was decided to insert a five year time limit in the paragraph concerning the curation of project archives.

45. Finally, as the group of experts had not decided on the placement of the article dealing with the need for international co-operation, it was agreed that the paragraph dealing with this issue should be placed in square brackets.

XIII - Conclusion

46. The Chairman congratulated the participants on the important progress that had been made in the development of the text of the draft Convention. As there were still substantial issues to be resolved, the participants unanimously agreed on the need for a further meeting of governmental experts to be held as soon as possible following the 30^th session of the General Conference. The Chairman encouraged the participants to consider with one another the outstanding issues prior to the next meeting and thanked the participants for the work they had done over the preceding week.

47. Finally, the meeting of experts adopted the resolution attached.  

of the Second Meeting of Governmental Experts to consider the draft Convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage

________________________________________________________________________________

The Second Meeting of Governmental Experts to consider a draft Convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage, which met in Paris at UNESCO Headquarters from 19 to 24 April 1999 in implementation of the Resolution 29C/21 adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO,

Recalling that the General Conference invited the submission of the draft Convention at its 30^th session to be held in October-November 1999,

Recalling the results of the First meeting of governmental experts held on this subject at UNESCO Headquarters 29 June to 2 July 1998,

Noting the important progress made in the development of a text of such a Convention at the present meeting,

Considering however that there are still substantial issues to be resolved, and

Believing that a further meeting of governmental experts will be necessary for the resolution of these issues and the conclusion of the work of drafting the Convention,

1. to report to the 30^th session of the General Conference,
2. to take all appropriate measures for the continuation of the work of the governmental experts in the next biennial programme of UNESCO, and
3. to call for another meeting of governmental experts at the earliest possible moment at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris with the aim of concluding such work as soon as possible.