Information Document: Report of the Expert Meeting on
Evaluation of general principles and criteria for nominations of
natural World Heritage sites (Parc national de la Vanoise,
France, 22 to 24 March 1996)
1. Introduction
The expert meeting on "Evaluation of general principles and
criteria for nominations of natural World Heritage sites" was held
from 22 to 24 March 1996 at the Parc National de la Vanoise
(France) at the kind invitation of the French Ministry for the
Environment. Twenty experts representing natural and cultural
heritage disciplines participated in their individual capacity (see
List of Participants in Annex I).
The meeting reviewed background papers prepared by Mr. Bing Lucas,
Mr. Henry Cleere, Mr. Adrian Phillips and Mr. Michel Le Berre (the
titles of these and other working documents are listed in Annex
II). The expert group adopted a revised agenda (see Annex III) focussing on three issues: 1.
Clarifying concepts, 2. Getting a better coverage of natural sites
and 3. Balance, manageability and credibility.
In an introductory statement, Mr. von Droste, Director of the
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, welcomed participants and commented
on lessons learnt from 18 years of implementation of the World
Heritage Convention. He reminded the expert group of the
significance of the unifying concept of World Heritage embracing
both cultural and natural heritage as outlined in the text of the
Convention. He considered that the World Heritage constitutes a
continuum which stems from the fact that all areas have been
influenced by humans to some degree. At the same time, these places
represent a modification of nature. He stressed the need for an
overarching Global Strategy for both natural and cultural heritage.
The expert group elected Mr. Adrian Phillips as Chairperson and Mr.
Ibrahim Thiaw as Rapporteur for the first day, and Mr. Alain Megret
as Chairperson and Mr. Warren Nicholls as Rapporteur for the second
and third day.
2. Clarifying concepts
(a) The expert group recalled that different interpretations have
been made of the term " outstanding universal value " which
is a key to the establishment of a selective World Heritage List.
In a number of cases the term has been also interpreted as implying
the " best of its kind ". The experts stressed that the
notion of outstanding universal value has been constructed over
time and may be interpreted as a concept incorporating both
uniqueness and representativeness. The experts considered that the
concept of "universality" was difficult to interpret without a
regional perspective. The experts also referred to the practical
applications of the criteria on the *[2] operational level
and discussed the general principles which guide the World Heritage
Committee in establishing the World Heritage List, which are
described in Paragraph 6 of the Operational Guidelines. The experts
stressed that there should be a strict application of Paragraph
6(i) of the Operational Guidelines and rigour in the process of
nomination and evaluation. With reference to Paragraph 6 (vii) of
the Operational Guidelines, it was furthermore agreed that the
Committee should consider requesting States Parties which had
already a large number of sites to delay submitting new nominations
for a specified period of time.
The experts recommended the following changes to the Operational
Guidelines:
Add to Paragraph 6 (i) of the Operational Guidelines the following
(changes in bold):
(i) The Convention provides for the protection of those
cultural and natural properties deemed to be of outstanding
universal value. It is not intended to provide for the
protection of all properties of great interest, importance or
value. Inscription on the World Heritage List is reserved
for only a selection of the most outstanding properties from
the international point of view. In accordance with Article 12
of the Convention, States Parties should not assume that a
site of national and/or regional importance will automatically
be included in the World Heritage List. The outstanding
universal value of cultural and natural properties is defined
by Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. These definitions are
interpreted by the Committee by using two sets of criteria:
one set for cultural property and another set for natural
property. The criteria and the conditions of authenticity
adopted by the Committee for this purpose are set out in
paragraphs 24 and 44 below.
Add to Paragraph 61 (c) of the Operational Guidelines the following
(changes in bold):
(c) A comparative evaluation of similar properties is an
essential part of the process of evaluation. ICOMOS and
IUCN are therefore requested to make such
comparative evaluations of properties belonging to the
same type of property;
Furthermore, the experts, in considering the current
representativeness of the World Heritage List, made the following
recommendation:
To review the World Heritage List on the occasion of the 25th
anniversary of the Convention, in order to take into account
the new and revised criteria and to give an accurate
reflection of the diversity of the heritage of humankind. The
outcome of such a review would also help to address
shortcomings and imbalances of the World Heritage List.
The expert group recognized that, while some previous
decisions may now be seen *[3] not to comply with the
rigour in evaluation called for by the provisions of the
Operational Guidelines, such decisions should not be taken as
a precedent for a less strict application of the criteria in
the evaluation at present or in the future. The critical issue
is maintaining the credibility of, and respect for, the World
Heritage List.
(b) The expert group discussed natural criterion (iii) of paragraph
44 of the Operational Guidelines: "contain superlative natural
phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic
importance". Concerning the concept of "natural beauty" the
experts reaffirmed the importance of this criterion, but also
acknowledged the difficulty of assessing it. The concept of natural
beauty is essentially subjective and a social construct. The
natural beauty and aesthetics of an area may be closely associated
with the cultural values. The experts noted that the natural
criterion (iii) relates to Article 2 (second paragraph) of the
Convention: "natural features consisting of physical and biological
formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding
universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view".
Despite the firm grounding of these notions in the Convention
itself, their application remains problematic. The experts
therefore considered that natural criterion (iii) should be used
only in conjunction with other natural and/or cultural criteria -
apart from very exceptional circumstances. It was noted that a
significant literature exists on methodologies for assessing
aesthetic and scenic values and the perception of natural beauty,
and that the Committee may consider requesting a desk study for
guidance.
The expert group recommended to amend Paragraph 44 (iii) of the
Operational Guidelines as follows (changes in bold):
(iii) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of
exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance (the
Committee considers that this criterion should justify
inclusion in the List only in exceptional circumstances or in
conjunction with other natural or cultural criteria);
or
(c) Concerning the interpretation of " natural ", it was
noted that human influence can be found in all natural sites and
that the notion of pristine nature is therefore a relative one.
The expert group recommended to include the following definition in
the Glossary:
A natural area is one where bio-physical processes and
landform features are still relatively intact and where a
primary management goal of the area is to ensure that natural
values are protected. The term "natural" is a relative one. It
is recognized that no area is totally pristine and that all
natural areas are in a dynamic state. Human activities in
natural areas often occur and when sustainable may complement
the natural values of the area.
(d) The expert group discussed the continuum from nature to culture
that is covered by World *[4] Heritage and acknowledged
the complexity of the interactions between nature and
culture. A number of World Heritage sites have been recognized
on both grounds, cultural and natural; These sites have been
referred to as "mixed". The different types of cultural landscapes,
as defined in Paragraph 39 of the Operational Guidelines are
considered as a component of the cultural heritage. However,
cultural landscapes, owing to their uniqueness and growing
importance in the implementation of the Convention, have frequently
been referred to as a special case. The expert group suggested that
the whole range of interactions between nature and culture be
explored to guide the Committee in better defining the scope of the
Convention. The objective has to be to better explain to States
Parties and to the public at large the different types of
properties and their relation to each other. The experts
acknowledged that use of terminologies such as natural, cultural,
mixed and cultural landscapes to distinguish World Heritage sites
was undermining the Convention's uniqueness in its recognition of
the nature - culture continuum. The experts proposed to examine the
possibility of one single set of criteria:
The expert group recommended that the Committee consider
developing one set of criteria, incorporating existing natural
and cultural heritage criteria and promoting a unified
identity for all World Heritage sites as the outstanding
heritage of humankind.
(e) Referring to Paragraph 44(b) of the Operational Guidelines, the
expert group stated that the notion of integrity has not
been fully examined to date and that its complexity needs to be
investigated. The expert group recognized that, from the point of
view of natural heritage, there are different notions of integrity,
including structural integrity (e.g. species composition of an
ecosystem), functional integrity (e.g. glacial series with the
glacier itself and its deposition patterns) and visual integrity (a
notion which relates to both natural and cultural heritage).
The expert group referred to the existence of separate criteria and
separate conditions of authenticity defined as "test of
authenticity" in Paragraph 24 (b)(i) for cultural heritage and
"conditions of integrity" described in Paragraph 44 (b) for natural
heritage. The experts suggested, that the notion of authenticity
and integrity could be reviewed to develop one common approach to
integrity. This would lead to a more coherent interpretation of the
Convention and its unique strength in bringing the protection of
both nature and culture together.
The experts recommended that the Committee consider the
preparation of a study concerning the possibility of applying
conditions of integrity to both natural and cultural heritage,
and thus of applying one common approach for the
identification and evaluation of World Heritage.
The expert group noted that the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention have been in a
constant state of revision and agreed that it would be timely to
undertake a thorough review in order to better promote the goals of
the Convention in a streamlined approach. Some aspects, mentioned
above, i.e. establishing one set of criteria for World Heritage
incorporating the natural and cultural heritage criteria, and
applying one common *[5] approach to integrity for all
World Heritage sites, should be given special attention during the
review. The experts considered that such a review of the
Operational Guidelines could be an important component of the 25
year anniversary of the Convention in 1997. The expert group also
recalled that the World Heritage Committee at its nineteenth
session in Berlin decided to request the Secretariat to initiate
the preparation of a Glossary of Terms independently from the
Operational Guidelines. It is envisaged that the initial phase of
the preparation of the Glossary of World Heritage Terms (involving
the extraction of terms and their definitions from the Convention
and the Operational Guidelines) may assist in identifying further
approaches to reviewing the Operational Guidelines.
The experts considered that there are numerous inconsistencies
in the Operational Guidelines and welcomed the decision by the
nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee to prepare
a Glossary of World Heritage Terms extracting definitions and
explanatory notes from the Operational Guidelines. A number of
revisions suggested by the experts are indicated in the
relevant chapters of this report and may be taken into
consideration.
3. Getting a better coverage of natural sites
The experts envisaged the building of a Global Strategy as a
process of designing comprehensive, overarching frameworks for the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention. This should be
seen therefore as an on-going process rather than a one-off
exercise.
The expert group recognized the applicability and usefulness of a
Global Strategy approach to the identification of properties of
World Heritage significance and underlined that a series of
thematic studies on natural heritage was required. Such studies, as
proposed in a project concept by IUCN, may include for example a
study on the circumpolar region, marine sites or mountains. As far
as fossil sites are concerned, the experts noted, that the study
"Earthþs Geological History. A contextual framework for assessment
of World Heritage fossil site nominations" prepared for IUCN by R.
T. Wells. The experts were of the opinion that this type of study
could serve as a model.
In order to improve the composition of the World Heritage List, the
experts emphasized that there is a need to apply both an inductive
and deductive approach. They emphazised at the same time the need
for improved global thematic frameworks and for the
preparation of national tentative lists. These tentative
lists should be made an obligatory requirement for all types of
properties, including natural heritage, as presently the case for
cultural heritage as indicated in Paragraph 7 of the Operational
Guidelines. The expert group considered that the
harmonization of these tentative lists in a cooperative
effort by States Parties would be the most appropriate way to
proceed. Global thematic frameworks should be seen as a tool for
helping States Parties to establish tentative lists and to
harmonize them.
*[6]
The expert group recommended to amend Paragraph 7 of the
Operational Guidelines as follows (changes in bold,
deletions crossed out *[in SMALL CAPS] ):
The Committee requests each State Party to submit to it a
tentative list of properties which it intends to nominate for
inscription to the World Heritage List during the following
five to ten years. This tentative list will constitute the
"inventory" (provided for in Article 11 of the Convention) of
the cultural and natural properties situated within the
territory of each State Party and which it considers suitable
for inclusion in the World Heritage List. The purpose of these
tentative lists is to enable the Committee to evaluate within
the widest possible context the "outstanding universal value"
of each property nominated to the List. The Committee hopes
that States Parties that have not yet submitted a tentative
list will do so as early as possible. States Parties are
reminded of the Committee's EARLIER decision
not to consider CULTURAL nominations unless
the nomination is contained in such a list of
properties.
4. Balance, Manageability and Credibility
The experts discussed balance, manageability and credibility of the
World Heritage List and noted that " balance " is not about
numbers, but about representativity for biogeographical regions or
events in the history of life. Furthermore, the inclusion of
cultural landscapes only under the category of cultural heritage is
not consistent with the reality of the nature - culture continuum.
Concerning the manageability of the World Heritage List, it was
underlined, that national tentative lists and regional
harmonization of these lists may be a tool to better manage the
List, rather than through excessively rigorous evaluation
procedures. The critical issue is to fill the gaps in the World
Heritage List while not losing the manageability and credibility of
the World Heritage List through an unreasonable number of
inscriptions. The meeting also expressed its concern that while
considerable resources were being spent on the nomination process
there was an even more urgent need to focus on the problems of
management and care of existing properties especially those listed
as in danger. Failure to do so would undermine the credibility of
the Convention. The experts considered that credibility of the List
concerns not only the number of sites inscribed, but the
representativeness of sites from the different regions of the world
and stages of the Earth's history, the quality of management in
designated World Heritage sites and the ability to address threats
and dangers to World Heritage sites and to bring them back to their
normal conditions. These efforts can only succeed if the List
remains credible and manageable. The experts thus, recommend:
For all purposes of standard setting, credibility,
manageability and commensurability with available resources,
inscription in the World Heritage List should be kept to a
*[7] strict minimum. A review of the properties
already in the World Heritage List should be carried out with
a view to re-assessing the World Heritage criteria in force.
States Parties should be consulted about any suggested changes
which may result from such an exercise. Priority should be
given to properties not yet represented in the World Heritage
List.
The experts stressed the crucial importance of international
cooperation in the efforts to protect sites of outstanding
universal value. The expert group was of the opinion that there is
need to further enhance cooperation with other international and
regional Conventions and Programmes in line with Paragraph 139 of
the Operational Guidelines. The experts welcomed existing
cooperation between the Convention Secretariats, including the
secondment of a specialist in marine sciences from UNESCO to the
Biodiversity Convention Secretariat. The expert group, considered
that there was a need for closer cooperation between Convention
Secretariats, for maximizing the potential for complementarity and
synergy, for reinforcing efforts on World Heritage sites which have
other international designations and for promoting the use of
regional Conventions to identify sites of regional and national
value.
5. Concluding remarks
The clear view of the meeting was its reaffirmation of the intent
of the Convention to bring together the protection of cultural and
natural heritage, within a framework of international cooperation.
Thus the expert meeting is to be understood to be a first step in
the process of developing an overall Global Strategy.
In his closing remarks, the Director of the Centre, Mr. Bernd von
Droste, thanked the French Ministry of the Environment, the
Conseiller de Haute Savoie, and the site manager of the Parc de la
Vanoise for their generosity and for the friendly atmosphere in
which the meeting was held. He considered that the meeting has
achieved important progress in setting out an ambitious future
agenda for the accomplishing a more unifying concept for the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention and a more
selective approach to balance the World Heritage List. The
obligatory preparation of tentative lists by States Parties which
wish to nominate properties for the World Heritage List would be an
important step in the direction of formulation of national policies
for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. At the
same time, global strategy frameworks would provide guidance.
ANNEX I: List of
participants/Liste des participants
Mr. Henry CLEERE
World Heritage Coordinator
Conseil International des Monuments et des Sites (ICOMOS)
75 rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
Tel : 42.77.35.76
Fax : 42.77.57.42
___________________________
M. Gérard Collin
Direction de la Culture
Conseil Regional Langedoc Roussillon
201 Av. de la Pompignane
34064 MONTPELLIER Cedex 2
Tel : 33-67.22.80.83
Fax : 33- 67.22.81.92
___________________________
Mr. Hans HURNI
University of Berne
Institute of Geography
Group for Development &
Environment
Hallerstrasse 12
CH-3012 Berne
Switzerland
Tel : 41 31 631 88 22
Fax : 41 31 631 85 44
________________________
Mr. N. ISHWARAN
UNESCO Jakarta, ROSTSEA
J.L. M.H. Thamrin 14
Tromolpos 1273/JKT
Jakarta 10012
Indonesia
Tel : 62 21 31 41 308
Fax : 62 21 31 50 382
_________________________
M. Michel LE BERRE
Délégué du Niger auprès du
Comité du patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO
Université Claude Bernard
43 Bd du 11 Novembre 1918
69622 Villeurbanne Cédex
Tél : 72.43.12.48
Fax : 72.43.12.47
___________________________
Mr. Bing LUCAS
Vice-Chair
Commission on National Parks & Protected Areas (CNPPA)
1/268 Main Road, TAWA
Wellington, New Zealand
Fax : 64 4 232 9129
____________________________
M. Alain MEGRET
Direction des Paysages
Ministère de l'Environnement
20 Avenue de Ségur
75007 PARIS
Fax : 42 19 19 77
____________________________
Mr. Rob MILNE
Former CNPPA Vice Chair Nearctic
22, av. Lowendal
75015 PARIS
Tel: 53 69 02 92
____________________________
Mr. Warren NICHOLLS
Director
World Heritage Unit
Dept. of the Environment, Sport and Territories
GPO Box 787
Canberra, ACT 2601
Australia
Tel : 6 274 11 11
Fax : 6 274 11 23
-----------------------------
Mr Adrian PHILLIPS
CNPPA Chair
Environment Consultant
2 Old Rectory
Dumbleton Nr. Evesham
Gloucestershire WR11 6TG
United Kingdom
Tel : 44 1 386 88 1973
_____________________________
Mr. Harald PLACHTER
Fachgebiet Naturschutz
Fachbereich Biologie
Karl-von-Frisch-Str.
35032 Marburg
Germany
Fax : 64 21 28 89 85
____________________________
M. Gèrard SOURNIA
Directeur UICN France
4, rue du Bel Air
37400 AMBOISE
Tél : 47.57.30.23
Fax : 47.23.12.82
_____________________________
M. Ibrahim THIAW
Coordinateur pour l'Afrique
Groupe d'Appui Régional
Union Mondiale pour la Nature
Rue Mauverney 28
CH-1196 GLAND
SUISSE
_____________________________
Mr Jim THORSELL
Senior Advisor Natural Heritage
The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
rue Mauverney 28
CH-GLAND
S U I S S E
Fax : 41 22 999 00 15
_____________________________
Ms Sarah TITCHEN
Dept. of Archaeology & Anthropology
The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200
Australia
Fax : 61 6 241 8621
____________________________
Resource persons :
M. Deguillebon, Directeur
Parc national de la Vanoise
B.P. 705 73007 Chambéry
Tel : 79 62 30 54
Fax : 79 96 37 18
----------------------------
M. Giulio Zanetti
Servizio Turismi - Communicazione
Ente Parco Nazionale Gran Paradiso
V. Della Rocca n. 47
10123 Torino
Italia
Tel : 011 - 87.11.87
Fax: 81.21.305
____________________________
M. Jean-Louis PONS
Ministère de l'Environnement
Direction de la Nature
et des Paysages
Affaires internationales
Tél : 42 19 19 48
Fax : 42 19 19 77
____________________________
UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Bernd von DROSTE
Director
Ms Mechtild RÖSSLER
Programme Specialist
Place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP
Annex II: List of
documents
- Documents prepared for the meeting:
- Bing Lucas: Background paper for the expert meeting on
evaluation of general principles and criteria for nominations of
natural World Heritage sites. March 1996.
- Michel Le Berre: Quel Patrimoine pour lþHumanité?
Principes généraux et critères de nomination
des sites naturels. Mars 1996.
- Henry Cleere: The concept of "outstanding universal value".
Revised Version 1995.
- Jim Thorsell: How natural are natural sites? (World Heritage
Newsletter, December 1995)
- Adrian Phillips: The Assessment of Natural Qualities in
Cultural Landscapes. A draft note by IUCN. 1995
- Reference documents
ANNEX III: Agenda of the
meeting as adopted on 22 March 1996
1. CLARIFYING CONCEPTS
a) What is " Outstanding Universal Value " ?
Issues include :
- Does this mean only the " best of its kind " ? ;
- The " Gothic cathedral " issue ;
- Should we bound by precedent ? (i.e. how far should we bound by
past decisions in assessing new nominations) ;
- Should there be more consistency between the cultural and natural
sides in interpreting outstanding universal value ? (Reference
annex to the Waterton Lakes/Glacier nomination).
b) What is meant by " Exceptional Natural Beauty and
Aesthetic Importance " ? (i.e. criterion (iii))
Issues include :
- If this is a social construct ;
- How can it be measured ? (Reference annex to the Waterton
Lakes/Glacier nomination)
(nb. " aesthetic " and " natural beauty " are specifically
identified in Article 2 of the Convention).
c) Interpretation of " natural "
Issues include :
- What is truly natural, if anything ? ;
- If anthropogenic influences are universal, how do we define
"natural " under the WHC ? ;
- Is it valuable to define " natural " as meaning when biological
and geophysical processes remain as the dominant forces in the
system ? ;
d) Interface between Natural sites and Cultural
Landscapes
Issues include :
- Is there a continuum from natural to cultural landscapes ? ;
- Are cultural landscapes best thought of as places where human and
natural influences have a roughly 50/50 impact ? ;
- How to relate to the associative landscapes, some of which are
also predominantly natural areas (e.g. Tongariro, Uluru) ? ;
e) Integrity
Issue :
In light of the above, does the integrity guidance in the
Operational Guidelines require significant alteration ?
Output : Amendments to the Operational Guidelines that can
be recommended to the World Heritage Committee
2. GETTING A BETTER COVERAGE OF NATURAL SITES
a) Biological Diversity (criteria (ii) and (iv))
suggest a global study as proposed in IUCN paper.
b) Record of life (criterion (i))
see paper by Prof. Wells on World Heritage fossil sites.
c) Geophysical/geomorphological diversity (criterion
(i))
Should there be a global study here too ? (is this where criterion
(iii) most applies ?)
Output : Action plan to improve coverage of natural sites,
including recommendations to World Heritage Committee on thematic
studies.
3. BALANCE, MANAGEABILITY AND CREDIBILITY
a) Balance
Is it a real issue ? and see the comments of the World Heritage
Committee at Berlin (in Bing Lucasþs paper) ?
b) Manageability
Issues include :
How do we " manage " an ever-expanding list of World Heritage sites
? Is there an upper limit?
c) Credibility
Issues include :
At what point does the list become so long that it ceases to be
credible as a list of exceptional places ?
Output : Advice on these matters to the World Heritage
Committee.
OVER-ARCHING GOAL :
TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS FOR AN HOLISTIC, INTEGRATED GLOBAL STRATEGY,
WHICH REPRESENTS THE CONTINUUM OF CULTURE AND NATURE IN CONFORMITY
WITH " THE CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD
CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE ".