Case Law

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Documents WHC-14/38.COM/8B and WHC-14/38.COM/INF.8B1,
2. Defers the examination of the nomination of Tongo-Tangzuk Tallensi Cultural Landscape, Ghana, to the World Heritage List in order to allow the State Party to:
   1. develop, through survey and research, a database of the overall Tallensi cultural landscape and its context in order to allow a fuller understanding of its distinctiveness, structures and challenges,
   2. provide adequate protection to defeat major threats,
   3. put in place management measures to provide a framework within which traditional practices and rituals associated with building, farming, and forestry practices can be supported and encouraged through an appropriate collaborative management system,
   4. enhance capacity building for local committees on earthen architecture which can begin to reverse the decline of the traditional buildings;
3. Considers that such a new nomination would need to encompass a large enough area to provide a sustainable socio-economic unit that might be able to harness the benefits of cultural tourism and promote ways for farmers to add value to their local produce, and would need to cover all aspects of the cultural landscape, not just the shrines;
4. Also considers that any new nomination would need to include an augmented comparative analysis;
5. Further considers that any revised nomination would need to be considered by an expert mission to the site.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Documents WHC-14/38.COM/8B and WHC-14/38.COM/INF.8B1,
2. Defers the examination of the nomination of Mount Mulanje Cultural Landscape, Malawi, to the World Heritage List in order to allow the State Party, with the advice of ICOMOS, IUCN and the World Heritage Centre, if requested, to:
   1. Strengthen the justification of criterion (vi) and explore the applicability of criterion (iii) to illustrate in more detail how spiritual traditions as well as traditional management approaches for cultural and natural resources might be said to be of Outstanding Universal Value and illustrate the tangible attributes these are associated to,
   2. Identify in relation to the identified attributes of Outstanding Universal Value the information sources of authenticity,
   3. Augment the comparative analysis, in particular at a regional level, to highlight the specific aspects of cultural guardianship at Mount Mulanje that would demonstrate Outstanding Universal Value;
3. Considers that, if such studies suggest that a robust case could be made to justify the Outstanding Universal Value of the site, then the State Party should also:
   1. Initiate documentation and conservation activities for tangible cultural heritage resources, in particular those subject to regular visitation,
   2. Analyse and describe the traditional management mechanisms and establish closer ties between the three official management agencies and community elders in view of integrating the traditional and spiritual management practices in the overall property management,
   3. Promote a more active role of the Department for Culture in the management of the property, including – if necessary – additional financial resources and training to enable staff to fully commit to this responsibility,
   4. Explore options of extending the buffer zone towards the east,
   5. Prohibit mining activity in the property and carry out an impact study on any new project that may affect the integrity of the site prior to any new nomination;
4. Also considers that any revised nomination would need to be considered by an expert mission to the site;
5. Recommends that the State Party give consideration to the following:
   1. Developing a training program and a system of licensing for local guides to ensure consistent quality standards in guiding services,
   2. Exploring the qualities of Mount Mulanje with regard to natural heritage criteria as initially envisaged in the tentative list entry.

The World Heritage Committee,

Climate Action for World Heritage

1. Having examined Document WHC/23/45.COM/7,
2. Recalling Decisions 40 COM 7 and 44 COM 7C adopted at its 40th session (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016) and at its extended 44th session (Fuzhou/online, 2021),
3. Notes that the Panel of experts in relation to Decision 44 COM 7C concerning climate change and World Heritage met by end of March 2022 and made recommendations on the amendments proposed by the Members of the World Heritage Committee and provided a report to the Open-ended Working Group of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention on Climate Change;
4. Also notes that the Open-ended Working Group of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention on Climate Change has met seven times to discuss the proposed amendments and the recommendations of the Panel of experts;
5. Recognizes Climate Action for World Heritage as an important thematic area of work, thanks the Governments of Australia, Azerbaijan and the Netherlands for their generous financial support and invites States Parties to contribute towards this thematic area to enable the Secretariat to support activities related to the development of the updated Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage and its dissemination;
6. Recalls again Decision 41 COM 7 in which the Committee ‘reiterate[d] the importance of States Parties undertaking the most ambitious implementation of the Paris Agreement adopted under 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” ’, again strongly urges all States Parties 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 Outstanding Universal Value of all World Heritage properties;

    

   Improving the perception of the List of World Heritage in Danger

7. Recalling Decision 40 COM 7 adopted at its 40th session (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016),
8. Reaffirming the need to promote a better understanding of the implications and benefits of properties being inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger,
9. Takes note with appreciation of the thorough study on the perceptions of the List of World Heritage in Danger, together with its recommendations that could form the basis of a communication strategy and thanks the State Party of Norway for its financial support;
10. Expresses its gratitude to all the stakeholders of the 1972 World Heritage Convention who have actively contributed to this study;
11. Takes note with satisfaction of the recommendations formulated in the study on possible approaches to reverse negative perceptions and to raise the profile of the List of World Heritage in Danger as a positive tool, enhancing understanding and highlighting its importance for the protection of the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties and requests all stakeholders of the Convention to take them on-board and implement them at their level as soon as possible;
    

    
    Enhancing dialogue among States Parties, Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre
    

12. Recommends that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies ensure the following steps regarding the monitoring of state of conservation of the inscribed properties:
    
    1. Whenever an expert mission takes place within the framework of the reactive monitoring process, the draft mission report will be shared, prior to its publication, with the concerned State Party to allow them to review the report and to propose corrections on any factual inaccuracies and comment on other critical issues and/or misunderstandings, and consultations will be held, if necessary, between the concerned State Party and relevant Advisory Body/ies;
    2. Whenever an expert mission takes place within the framework of the reactive monitoring process and the inscription of the concerned property on the List of World Heritage in Danger is recommended in the mission report, consultations will be held between the concerned State Party and relevant Advisory Body/ies, and the State Party’s view will be referred to in the mission report or in its annex in the event that the views of both parties do not converge in the consultations;
    3. Whenever the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger is proposed in a working document on state of conservation produced by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to be examined by the Committee, consultations will be held, within the available deadlines, prior to the distribution of the document, between the concerned State Party, relevant Advisory Body/ies and the World Heritage Centre, and the State Party’s view will be referred to in the working document such as in its annex in the event that the views of the concerned parties do not converge;
13. Recommends that States Parties enhance dialogue among themselves regarding properties that are or may be proposed for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger, in particular cases in which causes of the danger are transboundary;
14. Recommends that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies continue to work on knowledge sharing of best practice cases in which the property was removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger, and also encourage them to enhance providing capacity building for the States Parties who have properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
15. Recommends that the budget of the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies be adjusted in proportion with the additional workload generated by the additional dialogue and consultations as well as for capacity building for States Parties with properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Documents WHC-14/38.COM/8B and WHC-14/38.COM/INF.8B1,
2. Defers the examination of the nomination of Khor Dubai (Dubai Creek), United Arab Emirates, to the World Heritage List in order to allow the State Party to:
   1. Reconsider the limits of the nominated property and its buffer zone in relation to the proposed criteria and ongoing urban development plans,
   2. Deepen the urban historic and comparative analysis in order to understand whether the property might be considered of Outstanding Universal Value,
   3. Develop the analysis of the role of Historic Dubai as international trade centre on a natural harbour, and demonstrate the uniqueness and the preservation of the waterway feature and role,
   4. Better explain the uniqueness of the technological elements characteristic of Historic Dubai buildings, particularly the wind-towers,
   5. Reinforce the existing legal and regulatory protection mechanisms for the historic areas and natural elements and prove the effectiveness of the management system to control and direct urban development plans within the property;
3. Recommends the State Party to invite an ICOMOS Advisory Mission.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC/23/45.COM/7,
2. Recalling Decisions 40 COM 7, 41 COM 7, 42 COM 7, 43 COM 7.2, and 44 COM 7.2 adopted at its 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016), 41st (Krakow, 2017), 42nd (Manama, 2018), 43rd (Baku, 2019) and extended 44th (Fuzhou/online, 2021) sessions respectively,
3. Also recalling that all proposed major interventions in and around World Heritage properties should be subject to rigorous impact assessments, as outlined in Paragraph 118bis of the Operational Guidelines, in line with the Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments in a World Heritage Context, and that both the proposals and the impact assessment-related documentation be submitted, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies, before any intervention for new construction, demolition, modification, recovery or reconstruction commences or decisions made that cannot be reversed;

    

   Emergency situations resulting from conflicts

4. Expresses utmost concern that conflicts (including armed conflict and civil unrest) continue to represent a major threat to World Heritage properties and remain one of the major reasons for the inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
5. Regrets the loss of human life and the degradation of humanitarian conditions resulting from the prevailing conflict situations in several countries, including threats to the personnel and local communities, as well as the continuing threats facing cultural and natural heritage in regions of armed conflict where there are significant concerns regarding security in and around World Heritage properties;
6. Welcomes protection and conservation efforts being undertaken by the concerned States Parties at World Heritage properties and that the States Parties are progressively proceeding with the development of corrective measures and the definition of the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the properties from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) for some cultural properties following due process;
7. Urges again all parties associated with conflicts to ensure the protection of cultural and natural heritage, including to avoid their use for military purposes and also urges States Parties to fulfil their obligations under international law, including the 1954 Convention and its two Protocols, by taking all possible measures to protect such heritage, including of World Heritage properties and sites included in Tentative Lists;
8. Reiterates its utmost concern about the continuing threats of wildlife poaching and illegal trafficking of wildlife and timber products linked to impacts of armed conflict and organized crime, which is eroding the biodiversity and Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties around the world, and further urges States Parties to take the necessary measures to curb this problem, including through the implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES);
9. Also reiterates its utmost concern at the increase in illicit trafficking of cultural objects, resulting from armed conflicts, and appeals to all States Parties to cooperate in the fight against these threats, and for cultural heritage protection in general, including through the ratification of the 1970 Convention and the 1954 Convention and its two Protocols, as well as the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2199 (2015), 2253 (2015) and 2347 (2017), and the implementation of the UNESCO Recommendations on Museums and Collections (2015);
10. Welcomes the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies’ continued actions in responding to emergencies and conflicts threatening cultural and natural heritage, including the Outstanding Universal Value, including through the Revive the Spirit of Mosul and the Li Beirut initiatives, the Heritage Emergency Fund (HEF) and the Rapid Response Facility (RRF) and also UNESCO actions in Ukraine and emergency programmes in Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, Central African Republic, Palestine, and other countries;
11. Reiterates its call upon the international community to further support the safeguarding of the cultural and natural heritage of countries affected by conflict, through earmarked funds or through contributions to the UNESCO World Heritage Fund, HEF and RRF;

    Recovery and Reconstruction

12. Recalls that reconstruction is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances, and should be based on thorough documentation, guided by conservation plans and policies that support the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), and as outlined in Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines;
13. Takes note of the various programmes initiated and implemented by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies and other international partners to respond to the destruction of heritage through documentation, emergency response, recovery and reconstruction;
14. Welcomes the continued efforts by States Parties in responding to post-conflict and post-disaster recovery and reconstruction, including the various reconstruction projects nearing completion, as well as their positive social and community interlinkages and thanks France, Germany, Japan, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Spain, the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, the European Union, the International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage in Conflict Areas (ALIPH), the Heritage Emergency Fund and the Arab Regional Centre for World Heritage (ARC-WH) for their generous support, including for the reconstruction of the House of Wonder, an emblematic building in East Africa, in the Stone Town of Zanzibar, United Republic of Tanzania;
15. Encourages all State Parties to prepare comprehensive risk preparedness strategies and emergency response plans for World Heritage properties that are exposed to risk from natural disasters;
16. Requests States Parties to ensure the integrity of the OUV of World Heritage properties and that all recovery and reconstruction projects be guided by thorough and comprehensive recovery proposals, including plans and drawings, integrated and aligned with the needs of local communities and subject to rigorous impact assessments as noted in Paragraph 3 above;

     

    Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

17. Welcomes the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) during the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in December 2022 to set the global pathway to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development;
18. Requests the States Parties to fully harness the World Heritage Convention in supporting the goals and targets of the GBF, including through effective collaboration among convention focal points, and by integrating World Heritage-related objectives within their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs);
19. Also requests the World Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, to identify and develop coordinated actions on World Heritage and the GBF, including specific guidance on how the World Heritage Convention might contribute to the aims of the Joint Programme of Work on the Links between Biological and Cultural Diversity, subject to the availability of resources, and to integrate reporting on progress regarding contributions of World Heritage to the GBF under the Committee’s item on Sustainable Development and invites States Parties to contribute financially for this purpose;

     

    Urban pressure

20. Notes that pressures on historic urban areas arising from inappropriate urban development interventions and inadequate development controls, rapid and inadequately planned development, including large development projects, additions that are incompatible in their volume, tourism and transportation infrastructure, as well as the accumulated impact of incremental changes, have continued within numerous World Heritage properties and in their buffer zones and settings, and considers that these present significant potential and ascertained major threats to the Outstanding Universal Value of properties, including their integrity and authenticity, and increase their vulnerability to disasters, such as those resulting from climate change;
21. Also noting that the findings of the UNESCO Third Member State Consultation on the Implementation of the 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (2011 Recommendation) request States Parties to implement the 2011 Recommendation in urban World Heritage properties and, with technical assistance from the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, to integrate it as a tool in the monitoring processes of the state of conservation, and the preparation and updating of management plans concerning nomination process for World Heritage properties in cities and settlements including with the support of the World Heritage Urban Heritage Atlas tool;
22. Recalls the essential contribution of local communities, and the importance of their participation in decision-making processes, as well as the need to support sustainable, compatible, and inclusive livelihoods for local communities and further requests States Parties to embed stakeholder engagement in management systems and processes, in line with Paragraph 12 of the Operational Guidelines, with the 2011 Recommendation and the Policy on the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention (2015);
23. Invites all States Parties to establish governance mechanisms for urban heritage that support coordination and coherence across different sectors such as infrastructure, tourism, transport, and urban development to integrate heritage management into the plans and processes of the settlement and the region;
24. Stresses the importance of carrying out impact assessments to evaluate and thereby avoid or manage potential threats to the OUV of properties, including their authenticity and integrity, arising from new urban development projects in line with paragraph 3 above;
25. Also emphasizes the need to enhance resilience of World Heritage properties in urban areas vulnerable to climate change-related impacts, in line with the 2011 Recommendation and the outcomes of the activities of the UNESCO World Heritage Cities Programme;
    
    Infrastructure development
26. Notes with concern the growing pressure of infrastructure development, such as extractive mining activities, dams, hydropower, transportation infrastructure, and the expansion of tourism infrastructure, on the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties;
27. Welcomes the commitment announced by the International Hydropower Association (IHA) that no new hydropower projects should be developed in World Heritage properties, and a duty of care pledge to implement high standards of performance and transparency for any hydropower projects outside of but affecting protected areas such as World Heritage properties;
28. Strongly urges all States Parties, development proponents and financiers to incorporate the Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments in a World Heritage Context into planning and decision-making processes to contribute to safeguarding the OUV of World Heritage properties, in line with Paragraph 3 above;
29. Requests all States Parties to:
    1. Inform the World Heritage Centre of any planned developments located within a World Heritage property, its buffer zone or in its wider setting that may impact on its OUV, prior to making any decision that would be difficult to reverse, in conformity with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines,
    2. Ensure that the potential impacts of developments on the OUV are appropriately assessed, in line with Paragraph 3 above,
    3. Ensure that no proposed developments proceed that would negatively impact on the OUV,
    4. Ensure that no deliberate measures are taken, which might damage directly or indirectly the inscribed properties situated on the territory of other States Parties to the Convention, in conformity with Article 6 of the World Heritage Convention;

    
    Corporate Sector and the World Heritage ‘no-go’ commitment

30. Welcomes the launch of the UNESCO Guidance for the World Heritage ‘No-Go’ Commitment: Global standards for corporate sustainability as a means to assist the corporate sector to develop or update their policies and strategies to safeguard World Heritage, and thanks the Government of Flanders (Belgium) for its financial support;

31. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies, to continue its collaboration with the corporate sector in view of supporting the adoption and implementation of World Heritage safeguard policies, and invites companies and relevant organisations to develop and update their corporate sustainability policies in line with the UNESCO guidance, and lodge them with UNESCO;

    Rights-based Issues

32. Recalling Article 5 of the Convention that each State Party shall adopt for each country a general policy, which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community, and the integration of the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes are means of ensuring effective protection, conservation and presentation of cultural and natural heritage,
33. Also recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
34. Further recalling the various provisions of the Operational Guidelines that encourage States Parties to adopt a human rights-based approach to the nomination and subsequent effective management of inscribed World Heritage properties,
35. Bearing in mind that specific and significant spiritual meanings are mentioned to justify the Outstanding Universal Value of a large number of the World Heritage properties to be found in most countries around the world, also recalling a number of research studies and analyses of religious heritage and sacred sites carried out by the Advisory Bodies,
36. Underlining that living religious and sacred sites require specific approach and policies for protection and management that take into account their distinct spiritual nature, crucial to their Outstanding Universal Value, as a key factor in their conservation and that such policies cannot be sustainable without in-depth consultation with the appropriate stakeholders;
37. Calls upon all States Parties to ensure that human rights, including cultural rights, are protected as an integral part of the management of World Heritage properties by establishing equitable and participatory governance arrangements;
38. Strongly condemns all forms of human rights violations and abuses towards indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs), including any forced eviction;
39. Notes with utmost concern the reported cases of alleged human rights abuses towards IPLCs in and around World Heritage properties and therefore, strongly urges the States Parties concerned to urgently investigate the allegations and take appropriate actions to address their findings, following an equitably governed consultative process with the participation and decision making of all rightsholders and stakeholders;
40. Reminds States Parties of their obligations to ensure that the management of World Heritage properties follows a rights-based approach that includes full involvement of all rightsholders and stakeholders, in particular IPLCs, in line with the 2015 Policy on World Heritage and Sustainable Development, the UNESCO Policy on Engaging with Indigenous Peoples and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and international human rights standards;
41. Requests the Secretariat, with the Advisory Bodies, to enhance activities in the framework of the Initiative on Heritage of Religious Interest and to resume elaboration of the thematic paper proposing to the States Parties general guidance regarding the management of their cultural and natural heritage of religious interest, and in compliance with the national specificities, and invites the States Parties to provide voluntary contributions to this end;

     

    Earth observation and spatial data for World Heritage conservation

42. Welcomes the development of the World Heritage Online Mapping Platform to provide a comprehensive, complete, accurate and geo-referenced dataset for the World Heritage properties that, in the pilot phase of the project, are in the Europe and North America region, and thanks the Government of Flanders (Belgium) for the support provided to the pilot phase of the project;
43. Also welcomes the Urban Heritage Atlas platform and tool for geo-referenced cultural mapping of the attributes of urban heritage and invites States Parties to use the tool for better managing their World Heritage properties and takes note with satisfaction of the continued activities of the Urban Heritage Climate Observatory applying earth observation tools for World Heritage cities;
44. Invites States Parties to contribute to the above-mentioned platforms and tools with already available GIS data, complementary narrative and visual analysis, expertise, networks, and financial resources;
45. Reiterates its request to States Parties, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, to strengthen collaborative partnerships with UNESCO Category 2 Centres and other relevant institutions with a view to furthering the necessary institutional and individual capacity needed to make full use of spatial data, Earth observation satellite technologies and analysis tools for the monitoring of the state of conservation of World Heritage properties.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC/21/44.COM/7,
2. Recalling Decisions 40 COM 7, 41 COM 7, 42 COM 7 and 43 COM 7.1, adopted at its 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016), 41st (Krakow, 2017), 42nd (Manama, 2018) and 43rd (Baku, 2019) sessions respectively,

Evaluation of the Reactive Monitoring process

3. Taking note with appreciation of the recommendations of the evaluation of the Reactive Monitoring process, as prioritized in line with Decision 43 COM 7.1, requests all stakeholders of the Convention to implement them at their level as soon as possible;
4. Welcomes the matrix structure developed by the World Heritage Centre in consultation with the Advisory Bodies, which provides a clear framework to report back to the Committee on the implementation of the priority recommendations, and requests them to prepare an Implementation Plan;
5. Also requests the World Heritage Centre, in consultation with the Advisory Bodies, and in line with Recommendation 34 of the evaluation, to present a progress report on the implementation of the recommendations, for examination at its 47th session;

Issues related to the List of World Heritage in Danger

6. Reaffirming the need to promote a better understanding of the provisions of the World Heritage Convention and in particular of the implications and benefits of properties being inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and the need to underline that removal of a World Heritage property from the List of World Heritage in Danger is a significant ‘success story’,
7. Mindful of its Decision 43 COM 8C.3, which recalled that the inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger aims to marshal international support to help the State Party effectively address the challenges faced by the property by engaging with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to develop a program of corrective measures to achieve the desired state of conservation for the property, as provided for under Paragraph 183 of the Operational Guidelines; and noting that inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger also alerts the State Party about the international community’s concern on the state of conservation of the property, provides a timely reminder of obligations that arise under the World Heritage Convention, highlights threats to the attributes of a property which contribute to its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), and, importantly, initiates a process and pathway to address those threats, including the availability of additional funding,
8. Also noting that the development of a Desired state of conservation for the removal of a property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) and a programme for corrective measures is a critical part of the procedure for managing and addressing threats to the OUV of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger,
9. Takes note with appreciation of the information contained in Document WHC/21/44.COM/7 (Part I.B.) and recognizes that the existing monitoring processes are leading over time to a significant improvement in the conservation status of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
10. Also recalling its previous request for States Parties to develop and submit DSOCRs for all properties included in the List of World Heritage in Danger by its 40th session in 2016 at the latest, expresses its concern however that less than half of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger have a DSOCR and therefore strongly urges all States Parties concerned to:
    1. Use the 2013 Guidance to develop and submit DSOCRs with quantifiable indicators to track progress for all remaining properties as soon as practicable, with a view to having them all in place by its46th session, with the support of the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies;
    2. Ensure that for any property newly inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, a DSOCR is developed and submitted no later than one year following inscription;
11. Acknowledging initial pilot activities to explore possible approaches and methodologies for costed action plans, requests these efforts to continue and calls upon all interested States Parties to support a workshop to develop a common methodology and guidelines for when and how corrective measures might be supported by costed action plans;
12. Also strongly urges States Parties, NGOs, private sector and donors to redouble efforts to prioritize attention to those World Heritage properties, which have been on the List of World Heritage in Danger for 10 years or longer;
13. Thanks the State Party of Romania for having hosted a multi-stakeholders international workshop in September 2019, providing a unique space for discussions and networking of professionals regarding the preservation of cultural and natural World Heritage facing dangers, including exchange of good practice, and highlighting the benefits of the List of World Heritage in Danger;
14. Expresses its gratitude to the State Party of Norway for its generous support for a project that aims to improve the perception of the List of World Heritage in Danger, and also requests the World Heritage Centre to present a progress report on this activity to its 45th session.

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Documents WHC-13/37.COM/8B and WHC-13/37.COM/INF.8B1 ,

2.  Refers the nomination of Isandra Zoma , Madagascar , back to the State Party, in order to allow it, with the advice of ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre, if requested, to:

a)  Complete the comparative analysis at the national level (historic areas of the Betsileo people and of the central highlands), to determine whether the property is the most representative and best preserved in Madagascar and in what way it is outstanding; and complete the comparative analysis at the regional level, notably in Africa,

b)  Review the property boundaries to include its various attributes currently in the buffer zone: tombs, vatolahy, defensive trenches, etc.,

c)  Update the property data with archaeological surveys and regular scientific monitoring,

d)  Implement a conservation plan for the property based on regular monitoring,

e)  Implement a management plan for the property by the overarching management body, which must include a tourism development and management plan, and be able to be incorporated into the local community development plans,

f)   Review and expand the notion of indicators for the property’s monitoring and conservation;

3.  Recommends that the State Party give consideration to the following:

a)  Making the property’s map boundaries identifiable on the ground,

b)  Developing tourism facilities and accommodation involving the local population.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC/21/44.COM/7,
2. Recalling Decisions 40 COM 7, 41 COM 7, 42 COM 7, 43 COM 7.2 and 43 COM 7.3, adopted at its 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016), 41st (Krakow, 2017), 42nd (Manama, 2018) and 43rd (Baku, 2019) sessions respectively,

Emergency situations resulting from conflicts

3. Deplores the loss of human life and the degradation of humanitarian conditions resulting from the prevailing conflict situations in several countries, and continues to express its utmost concern at the devastating damage sustained and the continuing threats facing cultural and natural heritage in regions of armed conflict;
4. Urges again all parties associated with conflicts to refrain from any action that would cause further damage to cultural and natural heritage, including their use for military purposes, and also urges States Parties to fulfil their obligations under international law by taking all possible measures to protect such heritage, in particular the safeguarding of World Heritage properties and sites included in Tentative Lists;
5. Reiterates its utmost concern about the continuing threats of wildlife poaching and illegal trafficking of wildlife and timber products linked to impacts of armed conflict and organized crime, which is eroding the biodiversity and Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of many World Heritage properties around the world, and further urges States Parties to take the necessary measures to curb this problem, including through the implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES);
6. Also reiterates its utmost concern at the increase in illicit trafficking of cultural objects, resulting from armed conflicts, and appeals to all States Parties to cooperate in the fight against these threats, and for cultural heritage protection in general, including through the ratification of the 1970 Convention and the 1954 Convention and its two Protocols, as well as the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2199 (2015), 2253 (2015) and 2347 (2017);
7. Reiterates its call upon the international community to further support the safeguarding of the cultural and natural heritage of countries affected by conflict, through earmarked funds or through contributions to the UNESCO Heritage Emergency Fund;

Recovery and Reconstruction

8. Welcomes the continued reflection on recovery and reconstruction and the broad dissemination of the Warsaw Recommendation in multiple languages as a basis for further reflections and also welcomes the dedicated webpage established by the World Heritage Centre;
9. Expresses its gratitude to the Polish authorities for the organization of the webinar “The invincible city: Society in cultural heritage recovery” in October 2020 and to the Arab Regional Centre for World Heritage (ARC-WH) for the “Conference on heritage reconstruction - its economic, social, and psychological aspects in the process of post-trauma recovery” (Bahrain, March 2021);
10. Takes note of the various resources already published and in the process of publication;
11. Noting the value of accurate pre-existing documentation in the recovery of built and other heritage following destruction, strongly encourages the States Parties and all other stakeholders of the Convention to stimulate the documentation of heritage structures, including through cutting-edge digital technologies, to create databases of documentation for future reference;

Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

12. Notes with utmost concern the results of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which shows that nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history and that no significant progress has been achieved on most of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and encourages the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to adopt an ambitious post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which can bring about the transformative change needed to halt the loss in biodiversity;
13. Considers that the post-2020 GBF should provide a common framework for all Biodiversity-related Conventions and build on the strengths of each convention, and strongly encourages the Parties of CBD to take into account the recommendations of the expert meeting “Harnessing the power of World Heritage for a better future: World Heritage and the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework” in the post-2020 GBF to recognize and better integrate the contribution of the World Heritage Convention to global biodiversity conservation;
14. Requests the World Heritage Centre and IUCN to continue to engage with the preparatory process of the post-2020 GBF, in order to advance consideration of the World Heritage Convention;
15. Also requests the States Parties to ensure that there is effective liaison between the respective national focal points for the CBD and the World Heritage Convention, to ensure that considerations relevant for the Convention are integrated in the GBF, and that the contributions of natural and cultural World Heritage properties, sites on national Tentative Lists, and other internationally designated sites are fully integrated and supported within National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs);
16. Further requests the World Heritage Centre and IUCN to report back at its 46th session, with recommended policies and actions to support the adopted post-2020 GBF be taken into account in the processes of the World Heritage Convention;
17. Requests furthermore the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to consider how the relevance of these proposals for mixed, cultural landscapes and other relevant cultural World Heritage properties, including those cultural properties that overlap with Key Biodiversity Areas, might contribute to the anticipated Joint Programme of Work on the Links between Biological and Cultural Diversity to ensure further integration of nature and culture in the post-2020 GBF and to help achieve its vision of living in harmony with nature by 2050, and report to its 46th session on the approved Programme and how the World Heritage Convention can contribute to its implementation;
18. Takes note of the need for additional funding to be provided to support the achievement of biodiversity goals within World Heritage properties, in order to address their contribution to the GBF, and invites the Conference of the Parties of the CBD, in accordance with its decision XIII/21, to take these resourcing needs into account in formulating strategic guidance for the eight replenishment of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Trust Fund and other international finance mechanisms to support the GBF, considering all elements provided in Section II.C of Document WHC/21/44.COM/7;

Buffer zones

19. Noting that a number of World Heritage properties lack formal buffer zones, in particular those on the List of World Heritage in Danger, reaffirms the increasing importance of effective buffer zones to support the protection and management of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and building greater resilience of properties to external threats,
20. Recalling Decision 32 COM 7.1 and the 2008 expert workshop on World Heritage and Buffer Zones with its specific recommendations to improve guidance, enhance capacity and refine the Operational Guidelines concerning buffer zones,
21. Urges States Parties, with the support of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, to:
    1. Incorporate well-designed buffer zones based on a holistic understanding of natural as well as human induced factors affecting the property, supported by reinforcing relevant legal, policy, awareness and incentive mechanisms, into new nominations and where appropriate into existing properties to ensure enhanced protection of World Heritage properties,
    2. Place particular emphasis on strategic environmental assessment and impact assessments for potential projects within buffer zones to avoid, negative impacts on OUV from developments and activities in these zones,
    3. Develop buffer zone protection and management regimes that optimize the capture and sharing of benefits to communities to support the aspirations of the 2015 Policy for the integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention,
    4. Ensure buffer zones are supported by appropriate protection and management regimes in line with the property’s OUV, that build connectivity with the wider setting in cultural, environmental and landscape terms;
22. Encourages the States Parties, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, through extra-budgetary support, to revisit and update the recommendations arising from the 2008 expert workshop to enhance capacity through the development of best practice guidelines for designing, establishing, protecting and managing World Heritage buffer zones;

“No-Go” commitment

23. Welcomes the continued efforts of the World Heritage Centre, IUCN and other partners to expand the “No-go” commitment to other extractive companies, the banking and insurance sector, the hydropower industry and other relevant companies, commends ENGIE and bp for subscribing to the commitment, and takes note of the initial commitment of Eni, noting the need to strengthen it in order to meet the requests made in previous Committee decisions;
24. Reiterates its request to all relevant private and public sector companies to integrate into their sustainability policies, provisions for ensuring that they are not financing or implementing projects that may negatively impact World Heritage properties and that the companies they are investing in subscribe to the “No-go” commitment, and invites these companies to lodge their adopted policies with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre;
25. Also welcomes the global insurance industry Statement of commitment to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties, developed with the UNEP Finance Initiative Principles for Sustainable Insurance (PSI), also commends the 17 major insurance companies and other supporting institutions of the insurance sector that have so far adhered to the Statement and invites other insurance companies to do so;
26. Further welcomes the guidance provided by the International Finance Cooperation (IFC) of the World Bank on Performance Standard 6 on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources that investment projects in natural and mixed World Heritage properties will not be acceptable for financing, with the possible exception of projects specifically designed to contribute to the conservation of the area;
27. Acknowledges with appreciation the financial support of the Government of Flanders (Belgium) for this work and reiterates its request to the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation with the Advisory Bodies, to continue the fruitful dialogue with extractive industries the hydropower industry and other industries, the banking, insurance and investment sector, in line with its Decision 40 COM 7;

Fire: impacts and management

28. Acknowledging the extensive damage of fires to natural and cultural World Heritage properties since 2019, and the growing threat of forest and bushfires to certain natural properties and their cultural values, including as a result of climate change impacts,
29. Requests States Parties to implement best practice fire management strategies to ensure the protection and management of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) including, where appropriate, to:
    1. Prepare site-level fire vulnerability and risk assessments, mitigation, Risk Preparedness, response and recovery plans in the event of potential severe fire impacts on heritage values,
    2. Incorporate fire research, monitoring of impact, emergency response and mitigation and preparedness measures into management decisions,
    3. Work with stakeholders to raise awareness on fire risks among communities and build greater capacity to respond and recover following fires,
    4. Consider customised approaches and strategies that reflect the characteristics and circumstances of naturally and anthropogenically generated fires,
    5. Explore the potential of new technologies for application in fire managing strategies, including monitoring, and firefighting systems, that will not have negative impact on OUV of the properties,
    6. Take strong actions to address human-induced climate change in line with global United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) commitments;

Urban pressures on cultural World Heritage properties

30. Notes that the pressures on historic urban areas arising from inappropriate or inconsistent development controls, rapid, uncontrolled and planned development, including large development projects, additions that are incompatible in their volume, mass tourism, as well as the accumulated impact of incremental changes have continued within numerous World Heritage properties and in their buffer zones and settings, and considers that these present potential and actual major threats to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of properties, including their integrity and authenticity, as well as increasing their vulnerability to disasters, including those resulting from climate change;
31. Also notes the unrelenting pressures of urbanization and urban development in recent years, the essential contribution of local communities, and the consequent need to support sustainable, compatible, and inclusive livelihoods for local communities and embed stakeholder engagement in management systems and processes, with a view to seeking solutions to protecting heritage in the framework of sustainable urban development to counter and manage the impacts of this ever-present threat;
32. Notes with appreciation the outcomes of the International Workshop on Historic Urban Contexts in Fukuoka, Japan, in January 2020 (Fukuoka Outcomes) as well as the World Heritage City Lab in June 2020 that proposed several useful recommendations;
33. Calls on States Parties to implement the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) in World Heritage properties with urban characteristics, in particular, following the methodology and recommendations of the Fukuoka Outcomes and the World Heritage City Lab, and use the opportunity of the 10th anniversary of the HUL Recommendation in 2021 to support key actions to implement the HUL Recommendation also in line with the 2030 Agenda and the New Urban Agenda;
34. Stresses the importance of carrying out Heritage Impact Assessments to evaluate and thereby avoid or manage potential threats to the OUV of the property arising from new urban development projects;
35. Also emphasizes the need to enhance resilience and recovery of World Heritage properties in urban areas vulnerable to climate change related impacts, in line with the HUL Recommendation and the World Heritage City Lab outcomes, while also enhancing the livability of the properties and their surrounding for their inhabitants;

Heritage Impact Assessments / Environmental Impact Assessments

36. Welcomes the new Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessment in a World Heritage context through collaboration between the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre, and thanks the State Party of Norway for supporting this work through the ICCROM-IUCN World Heritage Leadership Programme;
37. Requests States Parties to carry out subsequent Environmental Impact Assessment/Heritage Impact Assessment in line with the new guidance;
38. Calls upon States Parties and organizations to provide additional funding and support for compiling the guidance on Strategic Environmental Assessment and support other capacity building activities on impact assessments;

Conservation of fabric, skills and traditional and contemporary technologies

39. Recognizes that repair after disasters as well as continued maintenance over time of the integrity and authenticity of the fabric that contributes to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of cultural and mixed World Heritage properties require specific and specialist skills-sets and crafts, knowledge sets and systems often based in cultural-specific technologies developed over many generations;
40. Notes that the challenges encountered in the maintenance and restoration of the physical fabric of cultural and mixed World Heritage properties often arise from the lack of appropriate knowledge and skills among craftspeople, as well as a lack of appropriate historically developed and utilised materials;
41. Encourages the States Parties and all other stakeholders of the Convention to:
    1. Stimulate existing (and develop new) research programmes on traditional methods, technologies and materials, and encourage (and, where necessary support) the intergenerational transmission of traditional and contemporary restoration and maintenance skills, and also embed these in management systems, thereby supporting viable professions for the maintenance of physical human-made attributes that contribute to the OUV of cultural and mixed World Heritage properties,
    2. Facilitate the development of innovative bespoke technical approaches that enable the long-term sustainable physical conservation of significant fabric, where traditional practices can no longer address changing circumstance,
    3. Assist in the global dissemination of traditional knowledge, skills and methods for restoration and maintenance of physical fabric through exchanges, publications, digital and other media to benefit the maintenance and restoration of the physical fabric of cultural and mixed World Heritage properties;

Earth observation for World Heritage conservation

42. Recalling that Earth observation satellite technologies, spatial data and analysis tools have tremendously improved over the past decade and that they provide powerful additional means for decision-makers and stakeholders of the Convention to find comprehensive solutions to today’s global challenges for World Heritage properties,
43. Takes note with satisfaction that the World Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Group on Earth Observation (GEO) Secretariat and GEO Greek Office, has recently launched the Urban Heritage Climate Observatory (UHCO) as a GEO Community Activity that applies earth observation tools to understand and document the impacts of climate change on World Heritage cities and invites States Parties to contribute to the UHCO with data, expertise, networks, and financial resources;
44. Requests States Parties, the World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies, UNESCO Category 2 Centres and other relevant institutions to continue exploring collaborative partnerships, which apply innovative technological advances in remote sensing to the improved monitoring and protection of World Heritage properties;
45. Reiterates its encouragements to States Parties to invest in the necessary institutional and individual capacity needed to make full use of such Earth observation technologies for the early detection of activities potentially harmful to the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties and to better understand trends and respond appropriately.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Documents WHC-12/36.COM/8B and WHC-12/36.COM/INF.8B1,

2. Refers the nomination of the Russian Kremlins, Russian Federation, back to the State Party in order to allow it to:

a) Develop further, the important theme of Russian Kremlins to the World Heritage List and to strengthen the comparative analysis of the serial nomination of the three components considering the four Russian Kremlins already inscribed on the World Heritage List and other kremlins to be proposed as future extension of the series,

b) Further strengthen the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for the serial nomination,

c) Elaborate the functioning of the overarching Russian National World Heritage Committee set up to coordinate management across all Kremlin sites;

3. Recommends the State Party to invite a consultative mission by ICOMOS as soon as possible.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC/21/44.COM/7C,
2. Recalling Decisions 40 COM 7, 41 COM 7, 42 COM 7 and 43 COM 7.2, adopted at its 40th (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016), 41st (Krakow, 2017), 42nd (Manama, 2018) and 43rd (Baku, 2019) sessions respectively,
3. Takes note with satisfaction of the wide range of climate change-related activities undertaken by the World Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies;
4. Thanks the State Party of the Netherlands for having funded the project to update the 2007 Policy Document on the impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage properties, and expresses its gratitude to all the experts and representatives of States Parties, of the World Heritage Centre and of the Advisory Bodies who contributed to the meetings of the Technical Advisory Group;
5. Takes note with appreciation that a wide diversity of stakeholders of the World Heritage Convention (States Parties, site managers, Advisory Bodies, World Heritage Centre and representatives of local communities, indigenous peoples, academics, NGOs and civil society) were able to contribute to the updating process through the online consultation launched by the World Heritage Centre;
6. Takes note of the new title proposed for the updated Policy Document to become “Policy Document for Climate Action for World Heritage”;
7. Endorses the draft "Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage”, as presented in Annex 1 of Document WHC/21/44.COM/7C, and requests the World Heritage Centre, in consultation with the Advisory Bodies, to revise it by incorporating views expressed and amendments submitted during the extended 44th session and, as appropriate, to consult Committee members, especially concerning the following points:
   1. the fundamental principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), which is one of the basic pillars of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
   2. the alignment of climate change mitigation actions with the CBDR-RC and the Nationally Determined Contributions accepted under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, except on an entirely voluntary basis,
   3. the need for support and capacity-building assistance, as well as the encouragement of technology transfer and financing from developed to developing countries;
8. Recalls Decision 41 COM 7 and reiterates the importance of States Parties undertaking the most ambitious implementation of the Paris Agreement of the UNFCCC, 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 light of different national circumstances, that are fully consistent with their obligations within the World Heritage Convention to protect the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of all World Heritage properties;
9. Decides to transmit the draft "Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage”, following final revisions, for review and adoption at the 23rd session of the General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention in 2021;
10. Also requests the World Heritage Centre, jointly with the Advisory Bodies, once the "Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage” is adopted by the General Assembly of the States Parties and within the available resources, to elaborate proposals for specific changes to the Operational Guidelines that would be required to translate the principles of this Policy Document into actual operational procedures, and to develop education and capacity-building initiatives that would be needed to enable wide implementation of this Policy Document, and calls on States Parties to contribute financially to this end;
11. Further requests the World Heritage Centre, in parallel with the processes outlined in Paragraph 10, to convene a panel of experts drawn from the ad-hoc Working Group, World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies and other qualified experts in the field of climate science and heritage to meet by March 2022 and also calls on State Parties to contribute financially to this end;
12. Requests furthermore the World Heritage Centre, jointly with the Advisory Bodies, and subject to available resources, to consider preparing a Guidance Document to facilitate effective implementation of, and support for, the actions, goals and targets of this Policy Document, which could include indicators and benchmarking tools for measuring and reporting progress towards achieving the World Heritage Climate Action Goals, and further calls on States Parties to support this activity through extrabudgetary funding;
13. Encourages the States Parties, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to disseminate widely the "Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage”, once adopted, through appropriate means to the World Heritage community and the broader public, including in local languages, and to promote its implementation;
14. Recommends that the "Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage” be interpreted in the context of the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement (2015) and the United Nations 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, and in conjunction with the Policy Document for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention (2015);
15. Urges States Parties and all stakeholders of the Convention to urgently integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation actions in risk preparedness policies and action plans, in order to protect the OUV of all World Heritage properties, in line with the "Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage”;
16. Further recommends that World Heritage-related Category 2 Centres and UNESCO Chairs prioritize issues related to the implementation of the "Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage” within their capacity-building and research initiatives;
17. Finally requests the World Heritage Centre, in consultation with the Advisory Bodies, to present a progress report on the implementation status of the "Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage” at its 48th session, after four years of implementation.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Documents WHC-11/35.COM/8B, WHC-11/35.COM/INF.8B1 and WHC-11/35.COM/INF.8B2,

2. Defers the examination of the nomination of the Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park, Jamaica, to the World Heritage List under criteria (ix) and (x), to allow the State Party, with the assistance of the World Heritage Centre and IUCN as requested, to consider options for a future revised nomination related to natural criteria in Jamaica;

3. Notes the national and regional biodiversity importance of the nominated property and encourages the State Party to strengthen the management of the site to address threats to its natural values, including agricultural encroachment both for subsistence and commercial purposes, alien invasive species, unregulated non-timber products harvesting, fires and poaching;

4. Encourages the State Party to consider experience elsewhere with environmentally friendly forms of coffee production, including certification schemes and compensation schemes for water provision for industry, drinking water and agriculture;

5. Defers the examination of the nomination of Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park, Jamaica, to the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria in order to allow the State Party to:

a) Deepen the comparative analysis in order to demonstrate the Outstanding Universal Value of the property by examining how, and to what extent, the nominated property bears witness to the associated values in respect to other properties related to other relevant Maroon groups,

b) Revise the nomination dossier so that the values of the property can better present the proposed Justification for inscription and the selected criterion,

c) Modify the boundaries of the nominated property or of the buffer zone to include the cultural resources documented in the additional information, received by ICOMOS on 8 November 2010, as well as those areas with the potential to yield additional information on Maroon culture in future archaeological campaigns,

d) Develop and enforce as soon as possible protective measures, both legal and planning-based, for the cultural heritage of the nominated property,

e) Develop and adequately fund a comprehensive strategy for cultural heritage within the 2011-2016 Management Plan under elaboration, including inventorying, documentation, conservation, maintenance, disaster management, promotion and tourism,

f) Finalize and implement the 2011-2016 Management Plan without delay;

6. Recommends that the State Party gives consideration to criterion (iii) in a revised nomination;

7. Also recommends that the State party give consideration to the following:

a) Involve representatives of the Maroon community in the management framework,

b) Develop training programmes in cultural heritage for the Park rangers, so that they can be involved in the daily protection of cultural resources;

8. Requests the Advisory Bodies and World Heritage Centre to provide support, if required by the State Party, in order to assist it to identify and prioritise Jamaican sites which have the strongest potential for nomination to the World Heritage List, including an assessment of the potential of the Cockpit Country Forest Reserve.

The World Heritage Committee,

 1. Having examined Documents WHC-10/34.COM/8B and WHC-10/34.COM/INF.8B2,

 2. Defers the examination of the nomination of the Tajik National Park (Mountains of the Pamirs), Tajikistan, to the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (vii), (viii), (ix) and (ix), to allow the State Party to refocus the nomination and address issues related to the integrity, protection and management of the nominated property;

 3. Recommends the State Party to:

 a) Refocus the nomination on the values and features within the Tajik National Park (Mountains of the Pamirs) in relation to criteria (vii) and (viii);

 b) Enhance the global comparative analyses in relation to other World Heritage properties and protected areas, building upon the comparative analysis and thematic studies elaborated by IUCN and the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre and considering requesting IUCN, through its network of experts, to facilitate advice;

 c) Re-consider the design of the boundaries of the nominated property and its buffer zone based on a clear rationale;

 d) Provide a clear commitment and operational plan from the government that ensures effective long term protection and management, including the necessary human and financial resources, of the nominated property;

 e) Further develop and implement a realistic management plan that addresses the livelihood needs of local residents (grazing, firewood) and existing and future threats, such as trophy hunting, road construction and tourism;

 f) Consider jointly with neighbouring States Parties a future transboundary or transnational, potentially serial, nomination that would better represent the full range of biodiversity values of the Pamir Mountains and enhance the potential of the nomination in relation to criteria (ix) and (x);

4. Encourages communication and cooperation with the neighbouring State Party of Kyrgyzstan bordering the nominated property;

5. Requests IUCN to advise the State Party on the management and nomination of Tajik National Park through its network of experts, in particular through networks and expert groups specialised in mountain protected areas;

6. Encourages States Parties to the Convention to support efforts to manage Tajik National Park and further work on the deferred nomination, considering the above recommendations.

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Documents WHC-10/34.COM/8B and WHC-10/34.COM/INF.8B2,

2. Defers the examination of the nomination of Dinosaur Ichnites of the Iberian Peninsula, Portugal/Spain, to the World Heritage List on the basis of natural criteria in order to allow the State Party to develop a thorough global comparative analysis, including justifying the Outstanding Universal Value of a property based on dinosaur ichnites, and considerations for a serial nomination with existing properties