Limited distribution WHC-93/CONF.002/INF.5 Original: English Paris, 23 November 1993 UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Seventeenth Session Cartagena, Colombia 6 to 11 December 1993 REPORT OF THE EXPERT MEETING ON "APPROACHES TO THE MONITORING OF WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES: EXPLORING WAYS AND MEANS", Cambridge, U.K. (1 to 4 November 1993) 1. INTRODUCTION This document is the report of the expert meeting convened at the request of the sixteenth session of the World Heritage Committee held in December 1992 in Santa Fe. Individuals from the natural and cultural fields met from 1 through 4 November 1993 at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in Cambridge, U.K. We were received most hospitably by the WCMC, and wish to express our gratitude to them and to the World Heritage Centre for organizing the meeting. A number of the individuals who attended the meeting reported on cases from their own experience around the world relating to the issues at hand. The discussions of the entire group and the resulting recommendations were firmly grounded in practical experience and professional commitment. We recommend that this document be used by the Committee in the work of strengthening the guidelines, standards, and procedures for systematic and continuous monitoring of the state of conservation of World Heritage sites. We anticipate that enhanced strategies of reporting and monitoring will have the effect of improving the quality and usefulness of support afforded to site managers by the Centre. *[2] We wish to emphasize the importance of the next step by the Committee and the Secretariat to put in place a structure that enables them to oversee the implementation of our recommendations and to follow up the resulting information. Otherwise we see a danger that the authority and integrity of the World Heritage Convention will be compromised. 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS In our discussions we distinguished the following three types of monitoring: a) systematic monitoring: a continuous process of monitoring the conditions of World Heritage sites with periodic reporting; b) ad-hoc monitoring: reporting on the state of conservation of a specific site when the need arises, in general in response to information received at UNESCO or the advisory bodies of the Convention, or in response to an emergency situation; c) administrative monitoring: follow-up to ensure the implementation of the Convention by States Parties as well as recommendations and decisions of the World Heritage Bureau and Committee; The representative of the Ramsar Convention informed that they apply procedures similar to the above. Systematic monitoring is in cooperation with the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau (IWRB). Ad-hoc monitoring relates to sites where threatening ecological change takes place, while administrative monitoring is carried out by the Convention Bureau. This expert meeting dealt with systematic monitoring exclusively. By "monitoring" we mean, therefore, a process of continuous co-operation between site managers, States Parties and the World Heritage Convention and its partners involving the continuous/repeated observation of the condition(s) of the site, identification of issues that threaten the conservation and World Heritage characteristics of the site and the identification of decisions to be taken; and reporting the results of monitoring and recommendations to the appropriate authorities, the World Heritage Bureau and Committee and the cultural and scientific communities. Monitoring in this sense is predicated on the existence of a base of information that describes the heritage properties, their use and management as well as their characteristics, qualities and significance. It is a process of repeated comparison of the current status of a site against the original baseline information about its *[3] physical, social and administrative condition, undertaken with the collaboration of local authorities and institutions. Systematic monitoring and reporting will have to apply to all sites on the World Heritage List and in a larger notion should also include an appreciation of the overall implementation of the World Heritage Convention at the national level. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS The World Heritage Convention sets out the responsibility of the States Parties, in collaboration with the appropriate regional and local agencies and institutions, to put in place an adequate structure for the conservation and management of World Heritage sites. We consider that monitoring and reporting arrangements are an essential part of such a structure. We recommend that the World Heritage Committee request the States Parties to put monitoring arrangements in place and report to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre on the action they have taken in order to do so. As they proceed, States Parties should ensure that the arrangements they make have the following characteristics: 3.1. Information To form a foundation for subsequent monitoring reports, baseline information must be collected according to international standards that define the condition of the site as well as the administrative and legal framework. In the case of cultural and mixed sites this will include an assessment of their physical and social conditions. Baseline information should also include a statement of the universal significance and the character of sites. Guidelines to implement this process should be developed by the Committee and its expert advisers, drawing upon the experiences in this field of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre for natural sites and other institutions for cultural sites. The Committee should insist on stringent adherence to the regulations of the nomination process regarding the materials required for the original nomination and documentation. We recommend that revised nomination and evaluation procedures be sufficiently rigorous and thorough to ensure the provision of adequate baseline information. The Committee could also consider promoting, at the time of inscription, orientation sessions for site managers and national authorities to encourage greater appreciation for the Convention and the implications of inscription. *[4] In the case of sites that have already been inscribed, the first stage in the monitoring process, making use of existing information resources, should be the compilation of a statement equivalent to what should now be required of newly proposed sites. Every five years, the information collected on each site should be reviewed and updated. This is the heart of the monitoring process. Every twenty years sites should undergo a comprehensive re-evaluation to determine whether the sites still meet, totally or partially, the criteria under which they had been originally included. 3.2. Standards The procedures recommended should respect and reinforce the existing guidelines for site management with project programming and short and medium term reporting at regular intervals and a quinquenial review of maintenance and management. Systematic monitoring is a part of the same process. 3.3. Outputs Every fifth year, the monitoring process should produce a written site-specific state of conservation report along with supporting material, all of which should be stored centrally, and distributed upon request to those who require it. We recommend that the Committee establish a format for this reporting. The format of these reports should, however, be flexible and be fully adaptable so as to relate closely to the characteristics and requirements of the various sites. Executive summaries including recommendations for follow-up actions should be prepared for presentation to the Committee. Emergency reporting may be necessary in response to information received regarding heritage at risk or to extreme situations. Periodic reporting on an annual basis is required for sites under specific threat and for sites inscribed on the World Heritage List in Danger. Continuous monitoring will allow for advance planning, as well as the organization and implementation of relief operations where required. In cases where monitoring is undertaken on a national or regional basis, a regional/national state of conservation *[5] report should be prepared, drawing general conclusions and identifying broad patterns of problems. This should also lead to national/regional World Heritage policies, training and promotional activities. These reports should be useful: - in the process of day-to-day management, - in clarifying needs for protective legislation at the national and local levels, - in setting major goals and new policy directions, - in institutional development at national and local levels, - in the decision-making process of the Committee, and - in assessing the States Parties response to its World Heritage Convention obligations. 3.4. Partners We consider that it is essential that the site managers be involved in the process of monitoring, and that there be some participation by professionals or an agency independent of the national organization with direct management responsibility. In order to optimize the impact and efficiency of monitoring and the results thereof we recommend a national or regional approach to monitoring. For each programme of monitoring, appropriate partners should be identified for involvement. Such programmes could be initiated with workshops for the partners and other participants in the monitoring activity with the objectives of establishing the framework, defining needs for training in the methods, and identifying professional resources in the region. Although in principle the same procedures will apply to all World Heritage sites, the specific characteristics of the natural and the cultural heritage will have to be acknowledged. In this context, the World Heritage Centre will in particular draw upon the considerable experience of the advisory bodies and other partners in monitoring and reporting. Natural sites: The World Heritage Centre will in particular be supported by IUCN and the WCMC, in partnership with site managers and other appropriate partners (e.g. universities, NGO's, independent professionals) in the reporting on natural sites. In this respect, we recommend the following: - IUCN and WCMC should work with States Parties to review and update basic information on inscribed natural sites on a five-year cycle, using standard- format information sheets (revised to include the reasons for listing more explicitly); *[6] - IUCN should expand the use of regional and national networks to assist in reporting on the status of World Heritage sites. Cultural sites: We recommend that the following be considered for involvement in the monitoring and reporting process: - UNESCO offices and networks and other appropriate UN agencies - advisory bodies (ICCROM, ICOMOS) - local and national authorities - site managers and staff - professional organizations - national and regional universities and conservation centres - non-governmental organizations - independent professionals in the appropriate fields. Mixed sites: In the case of mixed sites a combination of the above will be required. 4. RELATED REQUIREMENTS An assessment and reassessment of available resources and needs should be made on a regular basis to define the goals and -requirements for training, and strategies should be developed to identify the appropriate target groups.This should be undertaken by the World Heritage Centre in a cooperative effort with ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN. The World Heritage Centre should ensure that the topic of monitoring is included in all regional training workshops. The monitoring process should lead to improved cooperation within and between countries and regions and promote regional cooperation. Monitoring should lead to improved quality of World Heritage support. World Heritage assistance should preferably be based upon monitoring reports and their conclusions and recommendations for future action. Monitoring should facilitate decision-making and priority setting in relation to technical assistance, training and other remedial actions. *[7] 5. PROPOSED IMMEDIATE ACTIONS In order to implement successfully a systematic monitoring/reporting system it will be necessary to undertake the following actions: 5.1. request the States Parties to put monitoring arrangements in place and report to the World Heritage Centre on the actions they have taken to do so; 5.2. establish the structures at different levels (notably at the national level and at the World Heritage Centre) that will enable the implementation of the monitoring and reporting system; 5.3. establish guidelines for baseline information and its collection and management; 5.4. revise the nomination and evaluation procedures and process to secure baseline information at the time of inscription of the site on the World Heritage List; 5.5. establish a format for reporting; 5.6. commission the World Heritage Centre jointly with ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN to determine the needs and format for training in methods required by this enhanced programme of monitoring and reporting. *[EOF]