World Heritage	26 COM	

Distribution limited	
WHC-02/CONF.202/10 Rev.1
Budapest, 25 June  2002
Original : English/French	

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD
CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

30th Anniversary
(1972-2002)

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Twenty-sixth session

Budapest, Hungary
24 - 29 June 2002

Item 14 of the Provisional Agenda:  Examination of nominations in 2003 and 2004

SUMMARY

This document, requested by the 26th session of the Bureau (April 2002), presents the status of nominations submitted by States Parties to be examined by the World Heritage Committee in 2003 and later years, details of the procedure applied by the Centre to determine whether a nomination was “full and complete” on 1 February 2002, and an examination of issues raised by the 26th session of the Bureau concerning the selection of nominations .

The document is divided into five parts:
	I. 	Background
	II.	Definition of completeness of nominations
	III.	Status report on all nominations received as of 17 June 2002
	IV. 	Issues discussed by the 26th session of the Bureau
	V.	 Summary

Decision required:
The Committee is requested to examine this document and decide how to manage the examination of nominations in 2004. 

I.	BACKGROUND

1.	At its 24th session (Cairns, 2000), the World Heritage Committee decided to limit the number of new nominations it would examine in 2003 to 30; and to examine only those nominations which were "full and complete" by the deadline of 1 February 2002.

2.	At its 26th session (April 2002), the Bureau examined the list and status of nominations which had been received by 1 February 2002 (WHC-02/CONF.201/3). The document prepared for the Bureau outlined the terms used in evaluating the technical completeness of the nominations:

"A nomination was considered to be "full and complete" if all information requested by the World Heritage Committee in the Nomination Format was submitted in the required number of copies by 1 February 2002.

A nomination was determined to be "almost complete" if the missing information could be supplied without modification to the nomination text.  For example, if the only missing elements were a map or slides, or there were an insufficient number of copies, the nomination was considered "almost complete".

If the nomination required textual changes (for instance, if no justification was provided, or sections of the nomination were omitted), the nomination was considered "incomplete"."

3.	The Bureau requested that the Centre produce a document for the Committee that presented:

(i)	definition of the categories of completeness of nominations; 
(ii)	a status report on all nominations received and a final list of nominations to be 	examined by the Committee in 2003; and 
(iii)	an examination of the issues discussed by the Bureau, including:
•	respect for the deadline for submission of nominations (1 February 2002)
•	completion of the analysis of the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists and its implications
•	Nomination of more than one property per year per State Party
•	analysis of the decision of the 24th session of the World Heritage Committee (Cairns, 2000)

II.	DEFINITION OF "COMPLETENESS"

4.	As noted above, if a nomination required textual changes it was determined to be "incomplete." Nominations could be incomplete in five main areas:

(i)	geographic identification; 
(ii)	presentation of criteria for which the property was nominated; 
(iii)	description;  
(iv)	management issues; and 
(v)	missing sections.

(i) Geographic identification. Was the property adequately defined geographically? Were there clearly defined boundaries, distinguishing between core and buffer zone? Did the area (hectares) and coordinates provided match those provided on the maps?  For serial nominations in particular, were the core and buffer zones adequately defined? Where the text was considered complete, but a new or better map was all that was required, the nomination was considered "almost complete."  

(ii) Presentation of criteria for which the property was nominated
Did the nomination clearly present the criteria for which the site was being proposed for inscription? If the nomination made no reference to the criteria in the Operational Guidelines, the nomination was considered "incomplete".

(iii) Description
Section 3 of the Nomination Format asks for a description of the property being proposed for inscription. The description of the property should match the identification of the property presented in the Identification section (section 1). For instance, if an area is mapped or described as a "core area" in Section 1, it should also be described in Section 3. Where serial nominations are proposed, each of the component parts should be described in this section. The Centre has prepared and distributed to those States Parties concerned a brief "guide to the preparation of serial nominations". This information was also reviewed in the context of the revision to the Operational Guidelines Annex 6 (Nomination Format).

(iv) Management issues
The questions in Section 4 of the Nomination Format presume that a management plan exists for the property. If it was apparent that neither a management plan nor a draft management plan pending approval existed, the nomination was considered "incomplete". If the nomination only lacked an attached copy of the management plan (as requested by Section 4.j of the Nomination Format), the nomination was considered "almost complete."

(v) Missing sections
Four nominations were submitted with entire sections missing from the Nomination Format.

Submission of incremental additional material

5.	Over the last several years, States Parties have submitted additional material for nominations, sometimes three or four times for a single nomination. The end result is a nomination text that is a collection of partial documents, which, with the passage of time, may not be fully comprehensible to later reviewers. 

6.	In order to avoid nominations becoming collections of additional material,  changes should be integrated into the main text before the nomination is re-submitted.. As this is usually difficult for States Parties to do within the timeframe necessary to allow the Advisory Bodies to begin preparation for evaluation missions, nominations which require textual changes should be resubmitted for the following year. This point was also advocated by Bureau members attending the March 2002 Drafting Group of the revision to the Operational Guidelines, who also called upon the Centre and the Advisory Bodies to be rigorous in their application of the deadlines and in processing only those nominations which were "full and complete".

7.	Many of the issues indicated above were addressed in discussions concerning the revision to the Nomination Format, Annex 6 in the revised Operational Guidelines. Annex 6 therefore addresses the means to improve the quality of nominations. In addition, at the request of the Bureau, the definitions of "full and complete", "almost complete", and "incomplete" were included in the revised Annex 6 of the Operational Guidelines (WHC-02/CONF.202/14B).

III.	STATUS REPORT ON ALL NOMINATIONS RECEIVED

8.	The Bureau asked that the Committee be presented with a complete list of nominations which will be presented for review by the Committee in 2003 and 2004. This list is presented below in four groups:

GROUP A - 	Nominations determined to be "full and complete" or "almost complete" as of 1 February 2002; 
GROUP B - 	Nominations which were "incomplete" on 1 February 2002; 
GROUP C - 	Supplementary nominations submitted for consideration by future sessions of the Committee. 
GROUP D - 	Nominations submitted after the deadline of 1 February 2002 

9.	The tables indicate the status of completeness of the nominations on February 1 and their status at the time of the publication of this document (17 June 2002). This information will be updated at the time of the Committee session in Budapest. 

Key

In the tables below, the following key is used to indicate the status of  nominations on 1 February 2002 and currently:

	F	Nomination was “full and complete”
	A	Nomination was "almost complete" 
	I	Nomination was "incomplete"

Group A. 	Nominations determined to be "full and complete" or "almost complete" as of 1 February 2002

10.	26 nominations, 4 extensions and 5 previously deferred nominations

As of 1 February 2002:
•	7 nominations "full and complete"
•	19 nominations "almost complete"
•	1 Extension "full and complete"
•	3 Extensions "almost complete"
•	1 Deferred nomination "almost complete"

As of 17 June 2002:
•	20 nominations "full and complete"
•	6 nominations "almost complete"
•	4 Extensions "full and complete"
•	1 Deferred nomination "almost complete"

These nominations, listed below in Table A, have been transmitted to the Advisory Bodies for evaluation and will be presented to the 27th session of the Bureau in April 2003.

Table A.  	Nominations determined to be "full and complete" (F) or "almost complete" (A) as of 1 February 2002

State Party	Site name	Id No	Date Received	Status @1/2/02	Current Status	
Argentina	Quebrada de Humahuaca	C 1116	31/01/02	A	F	
Australia	Purnululu National Park	N/C 1094	25/01/02	A	F	
Brazil	Rio de Janeiro: Sugar Loaf, Tijuca Forest and the Botanical Gardens	N/C 1100	29/01/02	F	F	
Chile	A Section of the Historical Area of Valparaiso	C 959 Rev	21/01/02	A	F	
China	Three Parallel Rivers National Park	N 1083	14/01/02	A	F	
Czech Rep.	The Jewish Quarter and St Procopius' Basilica in Trebíc	C 1078	16/11/01	A	F	
Dem. People's Rep. of Korea	Nominated Complex of Koguryo Tombs	C 1091	25/01/02	F	F	
Dominican Republic	Parque Nacional del Este and its buffer zone	N/C 1080	08/01/02	F	F	
Egypt	Ras Mohammed	N 1086	22/01/02	A	F	
Germany	The Town Hall and Roland on the Marketplace of Bremen	C 1087	22/01/02	A	F	
India *	Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park 	C 1101	29/01/02	A	A	

*  This State Party submitted two nominations by 1 February 2002, one of which was completed after the deadline. The State Party has indicated that the  "Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka" (in Group B) be examined by the Committee in 2003.

Table A (continued)

State Party	Site name	Id No	Date Received	Status @1/2/02	Current Status	
Israel	The White City of Tel-Aviv	C 1096	28/01/02	A	F	
Kazakstan	Steppe and Lakes of Northern Kazakhstan	N 1102	29/01/02	A	F	
Kazakstan	The Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi	C 1103	29/01/02	F	F	
Mexico	Franciscan Missions in the Sierra Gorda of Queretaro	C 1079	05/12/01	A	F	
Mongolia	Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape	C 1081	09/01/02	F	F	
Poland	The Valley of the Pradnik River in the Ojcowski National Park - a unique complex of cultural landscape	C 1085	21/01/02	A	A	
Portugal	Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture	N/C 1117	31/01/02	A	F	
Russian Federation	Citadel, Ancient City and Fortress buildings of Derbent	C 1070	28/06/01	A	A	
Slovenia	Franja Partisan Hospital
	C 1088	22/01/02	A	F	
South Africa	Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape	C 1089	29/01/02	F	F	
Spain	Ubeda-Baeza: Urban duality, cultural unity	C 522 Rev	25/01/02	A	F	
Sudan	Gebel Barkal et les sites de la région napatéenne	C 1073	28/06/01	A	A	
Switzerland	Monte San Giorgio	N 1090	24/01/02	A	A	
Turkey	Historic City of Mardin	C 1098	29/01/02	A	F	
United Kingdom	Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew	C 1084	17/01/02	F	F	

Extensions
	
Brazil	Jaú National Park (extension to form the Central Amazon Protected Areas)	N 998 Bis	01/02/02	F	F	
Brazil	Parc National Serra da Capivara	N/C 606 Bis	29/01/02	A	F	
China	Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties (extension to include the Ming Dynasty Xiaoling Tomb and the 13 tombs north of Beijing)	C 1004 Bis	31/01/02	A	F	
Panama	Archaeological Site of Panamá Viejo  (extension to the Historic District of Panamá)	C 790 Bis	01/02/02	A	F	

Nominations to be presented in 2003 which were deferred from earlier sessions
	
Bosnia & Herzegovina	The Old City of Mostar 	C 946	15/07/98	--	Information requested by Bureau received too late for examination in 2002.	
Gambia	James Island and Related Sites 	C 761 Rev	31/01/02	A	A	

Table A (continued)

State Party	Site name	Id No	Date Received	Status @1/2/02	Current Status	
Italy	Val d'Orcia	C 1026 Rev		--	Information requested by Bureau received too late for examination in 2002.	
Russian Federation	Natural System of "Wrangel Island" Sanctuary	N 1023	23/06/00	--		
Viet Nam	Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park	N 951 Rev	05/07/02	--		

Group B. 	Nominations which were "incomplete" on 1 February  2002

11.	10 nominations, 2 extensions
Of this group, all but two nominations were still incomplete as of the date of preparation of this document. These nominations have not been transmitted to the Advisory Bodies for evaluation.

Table B. 	Nominations which were "incomplete" on 1 February 2002

State Party	Site name	Id No	Date Received	Status @1/2/02	Current Status	
Austria	National Park Hohe Tauern (core zone) Carinthia, Salzburg and the Tyrol and Großglockner High Alpine Road	N/C 1089	24/01/02	I	I	
Azerbaijan	Gobustan Reservation	C 1076	24/10/01	I	I	
Benin	Route de l'Esclave au Bénin	C 1109	30/01/02	I	I	
Colombia	Cultural Coffee Landscape	N/C 1121	01/02/02	I	I	
France (New Caledonia)	Le massif corallien et les écosystèms associés de Nouvelle-Calédonie	N 1115	31/01/02	I	I	
India * 	Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka 	C 925	29/01/02	I	F	
Iran	Takht-e Soleyman	C 1077	14/11/01	I	F	
Mongolia	Hovsgol Lake and nearby Shamanistic and Tsaatan Landscape	N/C 1082	09/01/02	I	I	
Nigeria	Osun-Osogbo Cultural Landscape	N/C 1118	31/01/02	I	I	
Slovakia	Meadow-Pasture Landscape of Slovakia	C 1095	28/01/02	I	I	
Extensions						
Iran	Naqsh-e Rustam and Naqsh-e Rajab (Extension to Persepolis)	C 114 Bis	29/01/02	I	I	
South Africa	Cape Floral Region of South Africa... Phase 2 **	N 1007 Bis	29/01/02	I	I	

* This State Party submitted two nominations by 1 February 2002, one of which was completed after the deadline. The State Party has indicated that the "Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka" be examined by the Committee in 2003. 

** This nomination is a proposed extension to a property not yet inscribed. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN have proposed to the State Party that the two phases of this nomination be combined and resubmitted as a deferred nomination .

Group C.	Nominations submitted prior to 1 February 2002 as supplementary nominations for consideration by future sessions of the Committee

12.	Fourteen nominations are in this group. Where State Parties had submitted more than one supplementary nomination, they provided a ranking order to indicate the priority in which the nominations should be processed beginning with the cycle 1 February 2003 - June 2004 (indicated in parenthesis following the site name). This group includes nominations in all three stages of completeness: "full and complete", "almost complete", and "incomplete".

Table C.	Supplementary Nominations submitted for consideration by future sessions of the Committee

State Party	Site name 	Id No	Date Received	Status @1/2/02	Current Status	
Azerbaijan *	The Mausoleum of Yusif ibn Kuseyr, the Mausoleum of Momine-Khatun, "Gyulistan" Mausoleum, "Karabaglar" Mausoleum 	C 1075	24/10/01	I	I	
Azerbaijan *	Fire worshippers Temple in Surakhani 	C 1074	24/10/01	I	I	
China	The Historic Monuments of Macao (1)	C 1110	31/01/02	A	A	
China	Kaiping Diaolou (2)	C 1112	31/01/02	A	A	
China	Fujian Tulou (3)	C 1113	31/01/02	A	A	
China	Yin Xu (4)	C 1114	31/01/02	F	F	
China	Honghe Hani Terraced Rice Fields (5)	C 1111	31/01/02	A	A	
Iran	Monumental Complex of the Mausoleum of Sheykh Safi al-Din-e Ardabili (1)	C 1104	29/01/02	I	I	
Iran	Pasargadae (2)	C 1106	29/01/02	I	I	
Israel *	The Biblical Tel	C 1108	28/01/02	I	I	
Israel *	Incense and Spice Road and its Sites (The Negev Segment)	C 1107	28/01/02	I	I	
Nigeria	Benin Kingdom Earthworks: Ekhor-Udo Cultural landscape (1)	C 1119	31/01/02	I	I	
Russian Federation	The Ensemble of the Novodevichy Convent (1)	C 1097	28/01/02	A	A	
Russian Federation	Historical Centre of the City of Yeniseisk (2)	C 1072	28/06/01	A	A	

* This State Party has not yet provide a priority order for these nominations.

Group D. 	Nominations submitted after the deadline of 1 February 2002

13.	So far, nine nominations are in this group.As these nominations were submitted after the deadline of 1 February 2002, they have not been transmitted to the Advisory Bodies for evaluation.  

Table D. 	Nominations submitted after the deadline of 1 February 2002
	(ordered by date of receipt)

State Party	Site name	Id No	Date Received	Status on receipt	Current Status	
Armenia	Amaghu Valley Cultural Landscape	C 1092	05/02/02	I	I	
Cyprus	Wine Village Terraces	C 1122	05/02/02	A	A	
India	Victoria Terminus 	C 925 Rev	13/02/02	I	I	
Zimbabwe	Matobo Hills	C 306 Rev	19/02/02	I	F	
Jordan	Um er-Rasas (Kastrom Mefa'a)	C 1093	21/02/02	I	I	
Ecuador	Lakes of El Cajas and Ruins of Paredones	N/C 1124	12/03/02	I	I	
Slovakia	Slovak Tokay Viticulture and Winegrowing Region	C 1123	15/04/02	A	A	
Estonia	Kuressaare Fortress	C 1125	22/05/02	A	A	
Albania	La ville musée de Gjirokastra	C 569 Rev	23/05/02	I	I	

Observations

14.	While the technical examination process (using the determination of completeness of the nomination as the sole criterion for selection of the nominations to be examined by the Committee in 2003) worked successfully in 2002 to limit the number of new nominations that will be examined by the Committee in 2003, an examination of the number of nominations  potentially pending examination in 2004 (in tables B, C, and D above) suggests that it may not work again in future years.

IV.	ISSUES DISCUSSED BY THE 26TH SESSION OF THE BUREAU (APRIL 2002)

15.	The 26th session of the Bureau discussed the following issues with reference to the decision of the Committee at its 24th session (Cairns 2000) to limit the number of new nominations to be considered in 2003 to a total of 30 "full and complete" nominations.

Respect of the deadline for the submission of nominations (1 February 2002)

16.	Several delegates expressed their concern that the 24th session of the Committee (Cairns, 2000) had not provided an interim-phase period. Furthermore, they expressed concern that more time had not been granted to States Parties to make "incomplete" nominations "full and complete". Other Bureau members, however, insisted on respect for the deadline (1 February 2002) for new nominations of properties to be examined by the 27th session of the Committee in 2003. This point was also advocated by Bureau members attending the March 2002 Drafting Group of the revision to the Operational Guidelines, who also called upon the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to be rigourous in their application of the deadline and in processing only those nominations which were "full and complete" at the time of the deadline of 1 February 2002.

Completion of the analysis of the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists and its implications

17.	The Bureau expressed its concern that the analysis of the World Heritage List and the Tentative Lists had not yet been completed by the Advisory Bodies due to lack of funding for the work.  The Advisory Bodies expect this work, begun earlier this year, to be completed by the start of 2003.

18.	As the analysis must still be examined by the Committee in June 2003 before the Committee can make any recommendations for its application, States Parties are encouraged to voluntarily nominate the properties they view as under-represented until the analysis is examined and approved by the Committee, and then to use that analysis and the recommendations of the Committee as a means of guiding the preparation of tentative lists and nominations on a voluntary basis. This was indeed envisaged by the Cairns decision, which encouraged States Parties "to prepare, revise and/or harmonise their tentative list, taking into account, where appropriate, regional considerations, and to take the results of the [preliminary] analyses into consideration for the submission of future nominations."

Nomination of more than one property per year per State Party

19.	This point was raised during the 25th session of the Committee in Helsinki (2001) and at the 26th session of the Bureau (April 2002), specifically by States Parties with multi-ethnic populations and a diverse heritage. In response, however, the Committee recalled that the decision to limit the number of nominations to one per State Party "had been taken as a result of long deliberation in the Twelfth and Thirteenth General Assemblies, in the Working Group on Representivity, and in the twenty-fourth session of the Committee in Cairns. These meetings had consistently argued for a limit on the number of nominations examined by the Committee."  In the final analysis, there will be opportunities for these properties to be nominated over time in a yearly rhythm, allowing careful and considered preparation of each nomination according to the priorities of a State Party.

Analysis of the decision of the 24th session of the World Heritage Committee (Cairns, 2000) 

20.	During the Bureau session, the Observer of the United Kingdom recalled that the Cairns decision allied two separate processes:

(i) an attempt to limit the workload of the Committee, Advisory Bodies and the Centre by setting an upper limit on the number of nominations it would examine each year, derived from the work of the Task Force on the Implementation of the Convention; and

(ii) a study of the categories of un- and under-represented properties, which came out of the Working Group on the Representivity of the List.

The Observer noted that these two initiatives were linked in Cairns into one decision, but perhaps as several delegates had already noted, the full implications of implementing all elements of the Cairns decision were not foreseen. Furthermore the Observer noted that the analysis of the List and Tentative Lists by the Advisory Bodies would not necessarily provide the guidance needed. Perhaps the process might benefit from a return to the thematic approach adopted in the 1994 Global Strategy.

21.	By linking these two separate processes, which had quite different objectives at the outset (one to manage workload and the other to ensure representivity of the List), the selection of the limited number of nominations to be examined by the Committee has become very much dependent on the results of the analysis of the List and the Tentative Lists.  

V.	SUMMARY 

22.	In the absence of the final results of the analysis of the List and Tentative Lists, the Committee is not in a position to implement all of the elements of its decision made in Cairns (2000) for the selection of nominations to be examined in 2003 or in 2004.  The results of the analyses will not be available until late 2002 or early 2003 and the Committee will not meet until June 2003.  Therefore there will be no opportunity for the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies to communicate the results of the analyses to the World Heritage Committee and, following the Committee's examination, for the results to be conveyed to States Parties to the Convention, together with the Committee's recommendations as indicated in the Cairns decision.

23.	As noted above, however, assuming, that the analyses were available, as noted by the United Kingdom Observer, "the analysis of the List and Tentative Lists by the Advisory Bodies would not necessarily provide the guidance needed." As envisioned by the Cairns decision, if the number of new, "full and complete" nominations received by the Centre as of 1 February were greater than 30, it would be necessary to identify the category to which each nomination belonged. The placement of a nomination in a category already well-represented could be considered subjective, and might be contested. The element of uncertainty thus introduced by this process would make management of a large number of nominations difficult for the Centre, for the Advisory Bodies, and ultimately for the Committee.

24. 	It is to be recalled that the Committee at its 24th session (Cairns, 2000) limited the number of nominations to be examined by providing a limit of one new nomination per State Party (except where that State Party had no sites on the List and could therefore nominate two or three properties), This decision by itself may prove to be a way to moderate the number of nominations received within manageable limits.

25. 	In addition, when the analysis becomes available, it could be used to assist individual States Parties to broaden the diversity of cultural and natural properties in their tentative lists. Furthermore, the Cairns decision presents four other means for improving the representativity of the List: 1) respecting the Convention; 2) Tentative Lists; 3) Nominations (as discussed here); 4) Resolution of the Twelfth General Assembly (1999); 5) capacity-building for under-represented regions.