UNESCO launches a new publication to improve the implementation of the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) Recommendation

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Documents WHC/19/43.COM/7, WHC/19/43.COM/7A, WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add, WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add.2, WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add.3, WHC/19/43.COM/7B, WHC/19/43.COM/7B.Add, WHC/19/43.COM/7B.Add.2 and WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add.3,
2. Recalling Decision 42 COM 7, adopted at its 42nd (Manama, 2018),
   
   Management Plans in the context of urban development
   
   
3. Noting that the many Management Plans and management systems for urban properties are not adequately anchored in the legal mechanisms, systems, and processes for urban development,
4. Also noting that the pressures of high investment urban development projects in and around properties are increasingly a threat to their Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), and that in contrast, the OUV could provide a valuable opportunity for the property and its wider setting to define a new urban vision that integrates and valorizes the OUV with new needs and aspirations,
5. Recalling that the approach of the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape has highlighted the need for urban areas to be well integrated into their wider social, economic and cultural context, calls on all States Parties to prepare and deliver Management Plans, for properties in and around urban areas, so that their planning elements can be integrated directly into the planning and development policies, plans, processes and instruments; regardless of whether the property is inscribed for its urban values or not;
6. Requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to continue reflecting on the mechanisms and tools needed to assess and guide interventions in and around urban properties to sustain the OUV of the properties and to promote sustainable development and actively engage with the wider development processes that could over time impact the appearance, use, and meaning of buildings and spaces in properties and their settings;
7. Notes with appreciation the International Union of Architects Forum (UIA) on “Mass Tourism in Historic Cities”, which was held in Baku, Azerbaijan, on 7-9 June 2019 and welcomes the proposal of the UIA to prepare, in close cooperation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, guidelines for architectural competitions in and around World Heritage urban properties that will recognise their Outstanding Universal Value;
8. Welcomes the offer of the Government of Japan to host an international experts meeting in January 2020 to provide further guidelines for the integration of the assessment of the impacts for interventions in the wider processes of urban management by applying the 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape to address the challenges of increased urbanization in close cooperation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies;
9. Calls on the UNESCO Secretariat to develop measures to address the inherently limited nature of institutional capacity in SIDS, acting as an impediment in identifying, inventorying and proposing potential cultural and natural heritage sites for listing;
   
   Tourism
   
   
10. Acknowledging the contribution of sustainable tourism to the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development and the positive impact it can have on local communities and the protection of World Heritage properties, nevertheless notes with concern that the number of properties negatively affected by overcrowding, congestion and tourism infrastructure development continues to increase;
11. Noting that the protection of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) must be a central objective for all World Heritage properties, requests States Parties to develop visitor management plans and strategies that address the seasonality of tourism (smoothing visitor numbers over time and spreading visitors across sites), encourage longer more in-depth experiences promoting tourism products and services that reflect natural and cultural values, and limit access and activities to improve visitor flows and experiences, while reducing pressures on the attributes which underpin OUV ;
12. Encourages the States Parties to support UNESCO in its efforts to assist heritage and tourism managers with system development and data collection to help destinations understand their specific situations and early warning signs, provide incentives for sustainable tourism development and raise awareness to change visitor behaviour;
13. Calls on UNESCO Secretariat to recognize opportunities for forging synergies between core UNESCO activities that could be harnessed to strengthen heritage sites: youth, heritage tourism training, sustainable heritage tourism and biodiversity, and relate it directly to SIDS;
    
    Heritage Impact Assessments / Environmental Impact Assessments (HIAs/EIAs)
    
    
14. Notes the progress of revising the guidance on impact assessment for World Heritage undertaken by the ICCROM/IUCN World Heritage Leadership Programme together with the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Documents WHC/17/41.COM/7, WHC/17/41.COM/7A, WHC/17/41.COM/7A.Add, WHC/17/41.COM/7A.Add.2, WHC/17/41.COM/7B and WHC/17/41.COM/7B.Add and WHC/17/41.COM/7B.Add.2,
2. Recalling Decision 40 COM 7, adopted at its 40th session (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016),
3. Thanks the State Party of Poland, Host Country of the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee (Krakow, 2017), for having organized the first World Heritage Site Managers Forum, as a capacity-building exercise aiming at increasing the understanding of the World Heritage decision-making process among site managers, in order to achieve a more effective protection of the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), takes note with appreciation of the World Heritage Site Managers’ Forum Statement and encourages the future Host Countries to continue this initiative and organize World Heritage Site Managers Forums in conjunction with the World Heritage Committee session;
   
   Statutory matters related to Reactive Monitoring
4. Takes note of the practices of the Secretariat to address mass campaigns on state of conservation issues;
5. Recalling the importance of Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines and its adequate implementation, further recalls Decision 40 COM 7, which requests the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation with the Advisory Bodies to evaluate the effectiveness of the Reactive Monitoring including procedures and case studies and to present a preliminary report for the consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 42nd session in 2018, if funds are available;
   
   Emergency situations resulting from conflicts
6. Deplores the conflict situation prevailing in several countries, the loss of human life as well as the degradation of humanitarian conditions and expresses its utmost concern at the damage sustained and the threats facing cultural and natural heritage in general;
7. Urges all parties associated with conflicts to refrain from any action that would cause further damage to cultural and natural heritage and to fulfill their obligations under international law by taking all possible measures to protect such heritage, in particular the safeguarding of World Heritage properties and the sites included in the Tentative List;
8. Also urges States Parties to adopt measures against using World Heritage properties for military purposes;
9. Takes note of the progress made by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to launch a reflection on a post-conflict recovery strategy, and of the support extended so far through technical assistance, capacity-building, and exchange of best practices in this regard, and recommends that further support for threatened or damaged World Heritage properties be pursued;
10. Notes with concern that the conflict situation in several countries in the world has increased considerably the workload of the World Heritage Centre staff, and that an adequate implementation of the Action Plans for the Emergency Safeguarding of Cultural Heritage in Mali, Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen requires additional financial and human resources at the World Heritage Centre and in the UNESCO field offices; also notes the increased demands on the resources of the Advisory Bodies;
11. Calls on the international community to provide financial support for the implementation of the UNESCO Action Plans for the Emergency Safeguarding of Cultural Heritage in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, including for additional human resources at the World Heritage Centre and in the UNESCO field offices;
12. Also expresses its utmost concern about the impacts of conflicts causing an escalation of the already severe poaching crisis, as armed groups are financing their activities through illegal wildlife trade, which is having a severe impact on African wildlife, and uncontrolled development, threatening the very survival of species and the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of natural World Heritage properties;
13. Launches an appeal to all Member States of UNESCO to cooperate in the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural heritage objects (UNESCO 1970 Convention) and illegal wildlife trade, including through the implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and to pursue the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding cultural heritage protection in conflict areas, especially Resolution 2199 and 2347;
    
    Other conservation issues
    Reconstruction
14. Noting the continued need to address the issue of reconstruction in World Heritage properties following conflicts or disasters, expresses its satisfaction that several international meetings have taken place or are being planned on recovery at large, and reconstruction in particular, and welcomes the offer of the Government of Poland to host an international conference on Reconstruction to provide guidelines to the World Heritage Committee to be held in Warsaw in March 2018;
15. Encourages the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to continue, with all relevant stakeholders, the reflection on reconstruction within World Heritage properties as a complex multi-disciplinary process, towards developing new guidance to reflect the multi-faceted challenges that reconstruction brings, its social and economic context, the short- and long-term needs of properties, and the idea of reconstruction as a process that should be undertaken within the framework of the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the properties;
16. Urges States Parties to include risk mitigation measures in the management plans of World Heritage properties to address the potential effects of conflicts or disasters on their integrity;
17. Also encourages the inclusion of capacity-building initiatives in the framework of recovery plans;
18. Requests the States Parties involved in reconstruction projects to maintain dialogue and close consultation and cooperation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies;
    
    Climate change
19. Recalls its Decision 40 COM 7 in relation to Climate Change, and requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to pursue the implementation of this Decision as a priority, within available resources;
20. Expresses its utmost concern regarding the reported serious impacts from coral bleaching that have affected World Heritage properties in 2016-17 and that the majority of World Heritage Coral Reefs are expected to be seriously impacted by Climate Change;
21. Noting that the World Heritage Centre, in consultation with IUCN, has initiated a scientific assessment by independent experts to better understand the impacts of Climate Change on coral reef World Heritage properties, also requests the World Heritage Centre and IUCN, as resources allow, to complete this assessment as soon as possible, and to ensure its findings are communicated effectively, and further requests the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies to further study the current and potential impacts of Climate Change on the OUV of World Heritage properties;
22. Reiterates the importance of States Parties undertaking the most ambitious implementation of the Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and by pursuing efforts to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change” and strongly invites all States Parties to ratify the Paris Agreement at the earliest possible opportunity and to undertake actions to address Climate Change under the Paris Agreement consistent with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances, that are fully consistent with their obligations within the World Heritage Convention to protect the OUV of all World Heritage properties;
23. Takes note with satisfaction of the updated UNESCO Strategy for Action on Climate Change, approved by the UNESCO Executive Board at its 201st session in April 2017 (201 EX/Decision 5.I.B), and invites all States Parties to engage fully with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, for its effective implementation;
24. Also recalls the need for all States Parties to continue, and where necessary to strengthen all efforts to build resilience of World Heritage properties to Climate Change, including by further reducing to the greatest extent possible all other pressures and threats, and by developing and implementing climate adaptation strategies for properties at risk of Climate Change impacts;
25. Requests furthermore the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to report on progress in relation to action on World Heritage and Climate Change, and to present, subject to available time and resources, a proposed update to the “Policy Document on the Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Properties”, for possible consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 42nd session in 2018, and notes with appreciation the willingness of civil society groups to engage in this process;
    
    Urban pressure
26. Noting that the increasing urban pressure in and around numerous World Heritage properties has become a major threat to their Outstanding Universal Value (OUV),
27. Taking note of the outcomes of the Habitat III Conference and notably the adoption of the “New Urban Agenda”,
28. Also taking note of the necessity to pursue the application of the Historic Urban Landscape approach towards a more effective and durable conservation and management of the urban heritage inscribed on the World Heritage List, and requests the States Parties to fully consider the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) ;
29. Calls on States Parties to take into account the recommendations of the Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development and take the necessary measures to integrate the role of culture in sustainable urban development in order to achieve SDG 11 – Target 4;
    
    Vandalism
30. Notes with concern increasing vandalism at World Heritage properties and encourages States Parties to improve monitoring and security measures as well as awareness raising on the detrimental effects of vandalism, and to consider introducing creative solutions to allow visitors to express themselves without leaving permanent marks or damage;
    
    Disasters Risk Reduction
31. Welcomes the Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy for reinforcing UNESCO’s action for the protection of culture and the promotion of cultural pluralism in the event of armed conflict (hereafter the Strategy), adopted by the UNESCO General Conference in 2015 (38 C/Res.48), whose implementation would be of great importance for the protection of World Heritage in situations of armed conflicts and disasters associated with natural and human-made hazards;
32. Encourages States Parties to provide support to the implementation of the Strategy and its Action Plan, including through contributions to the Heritage Emergency Fund, as well as in kind contributions and advocacy at the highest international levels for the integration of a concern for culture in key international humanitarian, development, and peacekeeping operations;
    
    Invasive species
33. Recalling its Decision 39 COM 7, adopted at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015),
34. Noting with concern the continued threat posed by invasive alien species on natural World Heritage properties, strongly encourages the States Parties to develop adequately resourced invasive alien species strategies that emphasize prevention and early warning and rapid response in World Heritage properties;
    
    Illegal trade of wildlife species
35. Reiterates its utmost concern about the continued impacts of poaching and illegal logging on World Heritage properties driven primarily by the illegal trade of wildlife species and its products, and requests the World Heritage Centre and IUCN to take action, as resources permit, to strengthen the collaboration between the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the World Heritage Convention;
36. Reiterates its appeal to all Member States of UNESCO to cooperate in the fight against the illicit trade in wildlife and its products, including through the implementation of the CITES, and with the full engagement of transit and destination countries;
    
    Integrated approaches for the conservation of natural and cultural heritage
37. Recalling that the World Heritage Convention explicitly links the concepts of cultural and natural heritage, highlights the importance of promoting integrated approaches that strengthen holistic governance, improve conservation outcomes and contribute to sustainable development;
38. Notes with appreciation the growing interest and efforts by the States Parties and heritage practitioners to develop and apply integrated approaches to conservation of natural and cultural heritage, and encourages the States Parties, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, in cooperation with universities and other relevant actors, to continue and expand these efforts, in accordance with the Policy Document for the integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the Convention (2015);
    
    List of World Heritage in Danger
39. Reiterates its request to the World Heritage Centre, in consultation with the Advisory Bodies and States Parties, to promote better understanding of the implications and benefits of properties being inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, and to develop appropriate information material in this regard with a view to overcome the negative perceptions of the List of World Heritage in Danger. The information material should highlight the importance of the protection of the Outstanding Universal Value;
    
    Other issues
40. Takes note with appreciation of the Chairperson of the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee’s initiative on structured dialogue with civil society and encourages States Parties and civil society organizations to continue exploring possibilities how civil society can further contribute to enhanced conservation of heritage on the site and national level and provide relevant input to the heritage related debate at the global level;
41. Notes, in conformity with Resolution 20 GA 13 of the General Assembly of the World Heritage Convention and the Decision 39 COM 11 (Bonn, 2015) of the World Heritage Committee, the establishment of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on World Heritage as an important reflection platform on the involvement of Indigenous Peoples in the identification, conservation and management of World Heritage properties, with a particular focus on the nomination process.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-15/39.COM/11, WHC-15/39.COM/10.B, WHC-15/39.COM/13A and WHC-15/39.COM/INF.13A,
2. Recalling Decision 37 COM 12.II, adopted at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),
3. Decides to establish a Consultative Body under Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure during its 39th session;
4. Adopts the proposed revisions of the Operational Guidelines, as presented in the marked-up version attached to this Decision[1], namely concerning paragraphs 28, 31, 38, 40, 44, 62, 66, 71, 80, 98, 99, 102, 111, 112, 115, 116, 122, 123, 128, 132, 140, 141, 143, 148, 149, 155, 159, 160, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 176, 180, 181, 184, 192, 232, 241, 252, 260, 262, 263, 265, 266, 275, 276, 278, Annex 2B, 5, 6, 13 and 14 as well as the Bibliography;
5. Decides to extend the mandate of the ad hoc working group extended by one extra regional group representative who is not a member of the World Heritage Committee, established at the 38th session (Doha, 2014) to be convened by Turkey, to further discuss and make recommendations on Paragraph 61 as well as on the sustainability of the World Heritage Fund;
6. Further decides to suggest that the 20th General Assembly of States Parties in November 2015 discuss the recommendations of the ad hoc working group in order for the latter to submit its final recommendations to the 40th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2016 for a decision;
7. Requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, to produce, subject to extra-budgetary funding, a guidance document on urban heritage, including its definition, identification, conservation and management, based on the Historic Urban Landscape approach;
8. Also decides that Annex 3 to the Operational Guidelines should be reviewed entirely so as to include definitions and relevant guidance for States Parties in the preparation of Tentative Lists, nominations, management and reporting systems and also requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to organise an Experts meeting, subject to extra-budgetary funding, to provide recommendations for the revision of Annex 3;
9. Welcomes the reflections on the interaction between the World Heritage Convention and the 1954 Hague Convention and its Second Protocol (1999) and further requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, in consultation with the Secretariat of the Hague Convention (1954), to consider options for further developing concrete synergies and coordinating reporting mechanisms between the World Heritage Convention and the Second Protocol (1999) of the Hague Convention (1954) for the next revision of the Operational Guidelines in 2017 and while revising the Periodic Reporting Format during the Reflection Period towards the Third Cycle of Periodic Reporting;
10. Also welcomes the inclusion of paragraphs which address issues related to indigenous peoples and World Heritage and reiterates its decision to re-examine the recommendations of the International Expert Workshop on the World Heritage Convention and Indigenous Peoples (Copenhagen, 2012) following the results of the discussions to be held by the Executive Board on the UNESCO policy on indigenous peoples;
11. Also decides, on an exceptional basis, to re-examine Paragraphs 61 and 68 as well as Annex 2A at its 40th session in 2016;
12. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to propose a revised version of Chapter V and Annex 7 of the Operational Guidelines to be examined by the Committee at its 41th session in 2017;
13. Requests furthermore the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies to undertake consultations on Paragraph 108 and subsequent paragraphs where references are made to management plans and management systems in order to address inconsistencies and ambiguities, and to provide further clarifications based on current thinking and the contents of the Resource Manuals, for consideration during the next revision of the Operational Guidelines in 2019;
14. Requests furthermore the World Heritage Centre to proceed with the corrections of language inconsistencies between the English and French versions of the Operational Guidelines.

[1] The adopted version, dated 8 July 2015, is available in PDF format at the following web address: https://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/39COM/decisions

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/12,

2.  Recalling Decisions 36 COM 13.I and 36 COM 13.II adopted at its 36th session (Saint Petersburg, 2012) and 35 COM 12B adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3.  Noting Decisions 7.COM 3 and 7.COM 6 adopted by the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict at its seventh meeting in December 2012, and welcoming the reflections on the interaction between the World Heritage Convention and the Second Protocol (1999) to the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict;

4.  Requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to develop, in cooperation with the Secretariat of the Hague Convention (1954), a revision of Annex 5 of the Operational Guidelines (Format for the Nomination of Properties for Inscription on the World Heritage List) in order to allow Parties to the Second Protocol (1999) to request, if they wish so, the inscription of the nominated property on the List of Cultural Property under Enhanced Protection;

5.  Takes note of the recommendations of the International World Heritage Expert Meeting on Earthen Architecture and further requests the World Heritage Centre to prepare, in the framework of the World Heritage Earthen Architecture Programme (WHEAP), a draft text and review the best place in which such a proposal could be reflected (e.g. Resource Manuals, web-pages or Operational Guidelines );

6.  Notes the results of the International Expert Meeting on Visual Integrity (India, 2013) following the International Expert Meeting on Integrity for Cultural Heritage (UAE, 2012) and considers that further examination of proposed revisions may be brought to the 38th session of the World Heritage Committee after the expert meeting on the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape and World Heritage (Brazil, September 2013), which should reflect upon the identification of urban heritage within the categories of the Convention and propose the appropriate revisions to the Operational Guidelines , together with the proposed revisions of the relevant section in Annex 3 to reflect the guidance required for the nomination, evaluation and management of urban heritage, for examination by the Committee when establishing the next cycle of revision of the Operational Guidelines ;

7.  Also notes the results of the International Expert Meeting on World Heritage Convention and Indigenous Peoples (Denmark, 2012) and decides to re-examine the recommendations of this meeting following the results of the discussions to be held by the Executive Board on the UNESCO Policy on indigenous peoples for further steps;

8.  Approves the revisions of the Operational Guidelines for these paragraphs: 127, 128, 132, 150, 161, 162 and 240 as follows:

Paragraph 150 of the Operational Guidelines

Letters from the concerned State ( s ) Part y( ies ) , submitted in the appropriate form in Annex 12, detailing the factual errors th at ey might have been identified in the evaluation of their nomination made by the Advisory Bodies, must be received by the Chairperson World Heritage Centre at least no later than 14 days before the opening of the session of the Committee with copies to the relevant Advisory Bod y( ies ) . Provided that the Chairperson, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Body, is satisfied that the letter deals only with factual errors and contains no advocacy, t T he letter s shall be distributed in the working languages to the members of the Committee and may be read out by the Chairperson  the presentation of the   evaluation made available as an annex to the documents for the relevant agenda item, and no later than the first day of the Committee session. If a letter contains both notification of factual errors and advocacy, only those parts of it dealing with factual errors shall be distributed. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies may add their comments to the letters, in the relevant section of the form, before they are made available.

Paragraph 161 of the Operational Guidelines

The normal timetable and definition of completeness for the submission and processing of nominations will not apply in the case of properties which in the opinion of the relevant Advisory Bodies, would unquestionably meet the criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List and which would be in Danger, as a result of having have suffered damage or face facing serious and specific dangers from natural events or human activities , which would constitute an emergency situation for which an immediate decision by the Committee is necessary to ensure their safeguarding, and which , according to the report of the relevant Advisory Bodies, may unquestionably justify Outstanding Universal Value.

Such nominations will be processed on an emergency basis and their examination is included in the agenda of the next Committee session. may be These properties may be inscribed simultaneously on the World Heritage List . They shall, in that case, be simultaneously inscribed and on the List of World Heritage in Danger (see paragraphs 177-191).

Paragraph 162 of the Operational Guidelines

The procedure for nominations to be processed on an emergency basis is as follows:

a)  A State Party presents a nomination with the request for processing on an emergency basis. The State Party shall have already included, or immediately include, the property on its Tentative List.

b)  The nomination shall:

i)   describe the property and identify precisely its boundaries the property ;

ii)  justify its Outstanding Universal Value according to the criteria;

iii)  justify its integrity and/or authenticity;

iv) describe its protection and management system;

v)  describe the nature of the emergency, including and the nature and extent of the damage or specific danger and showing that immediate action by the Committee is necessary to ensure the safeguarding for the survival of the property.

c)  The Secretariat immediately transmits the nomination to the relevant Advisory Bodies, requesting an assessment of the qualities of the property which may justify its Outstanding Universal Value, and of the nature of the danger and the urgency of a decision by the Committee . emergency, damage and/or danger . A field visit may be necessary if the relevant Advisory Bodies consider it appropriate and if the time allows ;

d)   If the relevant Advisory Bodies determine that the property unquestionably meets the criteria for inscription, and that the requirements (see a) above) are satisfied, the examination of the nomination will be added to the agenda of the next session of the Committee.

d e )  When reviewing the nomination the Committee will also consider:

i)   inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger;

ii) i) allocation of International Assistance  to complete the nomination; and

iii) ii) follow-up missions as necessary by the Secretariat and the relevant Advisory Bodies as soon as possible after inscription to fulfil the Committee’s recommendations.

Paragraph 240 of the Operational Guidelines

A balance will be maintained in the allocation of resources between cultural and natural heritage and between Conservation and Management and Preparatory Assistance. This balance is reviewed and decided upon on a regular basis by the Committee and during the last 3 months during the second year of each biennium by the Chairperson of or the World Heritage Committee.

Paragraph 128 of the Operational Guidelines

Nominations may be submitted at any time during the year [original in bold], but only those nominations that are "complete" (see paragraph 132) and received by the Secretariat on or before 1 February ³ [original in bold] [ ³ If 1 February falls on a weekend, the nomination must be received by 17h00 GMT the preceding Friday.] will be considered for inscription on the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee during the following year. Only nominations of properties included in the State Party's Tentative List will be examined by the Committee (see paragraph s 63 and 65 ).

Paragraph 132 of the Operational Guidelines

For a nomination to be considered as "complete", the following requirements (see format in Annex 5) are to be met:

1. Identification of the Property

The boundaries of the property being proposed shall be clearly defined, unambiguously distinguishing between the nominated property and any buffer zone (when present) (see paragraphs 103-107). Maps shall be sufficiently detailed (see Explanatory Note of section 1.e in Annex 5) to determine precisely which area of land and/or water is nominated. Officially up-to-date published topographic maps of the State Party annotated to show the property boundaries and any buffer zone (when present) shall be provided if available in printed version. A nomination shall be considered "incomplete" if it does not include clearly defined boundaries.[…]

10. Number of printed copies required (including map annexed)

- Nominations of cultural properties (excluding cultural landscapes): 2 identical copies

- Nominations of natural properties and cultural landscapes: 3 identical copies

- Nominations of mixed properties: 4 identical copies

Explanatory Notes of Annex 5

1.e Maps and plans, showing the boundaries of the nominated property and buffer zone [original in bold]

Annex to the nomination, and list below with scales and dates:

(i) An o O riginal cop y ies of a topographic map s showing the property nominated, at the largest scale available which show s the entire property. The boundaries of the nominated property and buffer zone should be clearly marked . Either on this map, or on an accompanying one, there should also be a record of t The boundaries of zones of special legal protection from which the property benefits should be recorded on maps to be included under the protection and management section of the nomination text . Multiple maps may be necessary for serial nominations (see table in 1.d). The maps provided should be at the largest available and practical scale to allow the identification of topographic elements such as neighbouring settlements, buildings and routes in order to allow the clear assessment of the impact of any proposed development within, adjacent to, or on the boundary line. The choice of the adequate scale is essential to clearly show the boundaries of the proposed site and shall be in relation to the category of site that is proposed for inscription: cultural sites would require cadastral maps, while natural sites or cultural landscapes would require topographic maps (normally 1:25 000 to 1:50 000 scale).

Utmost care is needed with the width of boundary lines on maps, as thick boundary lines may make the actual boundary of the property ambiguous.

Maps may be obtained from the addresses shown at the following Web address https://whc.unesco.org/en/mapagencies.

If topographic maps are not available at the appropriate scale other maps may be substituted. All maps should be capable of being geo-referenced, with a minimum of three points on opposite sides of the maps with complete sets of coordinates. The maps, untrimmed, should show scale, orientation, projection, datum, property name and date. If possible, maps should be sent rolled and not folded.

Geographic Information in digital form is encouraged if possible, suitable for incorporation into a GIS (Geographic Information System), however this may not substitute the submission of printed maps. In this case the delineation of the boundaries (nominated property and buffer zone) should be presented in vector form, prepared at the largest scale possible.  The State Party is invited to contact the Secretariat for further information concerning this option. […]

Paragraph 127 of the Operational Guidelines

States Parties may submit draft nominations to the Secretariat for comment and review at any time during the year. However States Parties are strongly encouraged to transmit to the Secretariat by 30 September [original in bold] of each the preceding year (see paragraph 168) the draft nominations that they wish to submit by the 1 February deadline . This submission of a draft nomination is voluntary should include maps showing the boundaries for the proposed site. Draft nominations could be submitted either in electronic format or in printed version (only in 1 copy without annexes except for maps). In both cases they should be accompanied by a cover letter.

9.  Decides not to approve the changes proposed for paragraphs 61, 141 and 168;

10. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to proceed with the corrections of language inconsistencies between the English and French versions of the Operational Guidelines .