Policy Compendium
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
2.2.2 - World Heritage criteria
Paragraph 77
"Criterion vi [To] be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria)."
| Theme: | 2.2.2.2 - Specific considerations related to criterion (vi) |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
Paragraph 79
“Properties nominated under criteria (i) to (vi) must meet the conditions of authenticity. Annex 4 which includes the Nara Document on Authenticity, provides a practical basis for examining the authenticity of such properties and is summarized below.”
| Theme: | 2.2.3 - Authenticity |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
Paragraph 80
“The ability to understand the value attributed to the heritage depends on the degree to which information sources about this value may be understood as credible or truthful. Knowledge and understanding of these sources of information, in relation to original and subsequent characteristics of the cultural heritage, and their meaning as accumulated over time, are the requisite bases for assessing all aspects of authenticity.”
| Theme: | 2.2.3 - Authenticity |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
Paragraph 81
“Judgments about value attributed to cultural heritage, as well as the credibility of related information sources, may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture. The respect due to all cultures requires that cultural heritage must be considered and judged primarily within the cultural contexts to which it belongs.”| Theme: | 2.2.3 - Authenticity |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
Paragraph 84
“The use of all these sources permits elaboration of the specific artistic, historic, social, and scientific dimensions of the cultural heritage being examined. "Information sources" are defined as all physical, written, oral, and figurative sources, which make it possible to know the nature, specificities, meaning, and history of the cultural heritage.”
| Theme: | 2.2.3 - Authenticity |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
Paragraph 85
“When the conditions of authenticity are considered in preparing a nomination for a property, the State Party should first identify all of the applicable significant attributes of authenticity. The statement of authenticity should assess the degree to which authenticity is present in, or expressed by, each of these significant attributes.”| Theme: | 2.2.3 - Authenticity |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
Paragraph 86
“In relation to authenticity, the reconstruction of archaeological remains or historic buildings or districts is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances. Reconstruction is acceptable only on the basis of complete and detailed documentation and to no extent on conjecture.”| Theme: | 2.2.3 - Authenticity |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
2.2.6 - Boundaries and buffer zones
Paragraph 165
“If a State Party wishes to significantly modify the boundary of a property already on the World Heritage List, the State Party shall submit this proposal as if it were a new nomination (including the requirement to be previously included on the Tentative List – see paragraph 63 and 65). This re-nomination shall be presented by 1 February and will be evaluated in the full year and a half cycle of evaluation according to the procedures and timetable outlined in paragraph 168. This provision applies to extensions, as well as reductions.”| Theme: | 2.2.6.4 - Significant modifications to the boundaries |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
Paragraph 122
"122. The Preliminary Assessment is a mandatory desk-based process for all sites that may be nominated to the World Heritage List and is undertaken following a request by the relevant State(s) Party(ies). Information included in the Preliminary Assessment request should build on the information provided in the Tentative List and also on any Upstream Process advice and/or Preparatory Assistance and its outcome must be provided at least one year before a full nomination dossier can be submitted by the State(s) Party(ies).
In particular:
a) The Preliminary Assessment provides States Parties with an opportunity for enhanced dialogue with the Advisory Bodies, and it will help to establish the feasibility of a potential nomination and avoid the use of resources in the preparation of nominations that may be unlikely to succeed.
b) The Preliminary Assessment provides guidance on the potential of a site to justify Outstanding Universal Value, including integrity and/or authenticity, and, if information is provided, on the requirements for protection and management. The decision to prepare a full nomination dossier, regardless of the outcome of the Preliminary Assessment, will rest with the concerned State(s) Party(ies).
c) States Parties shall submit their Preliminary Assessment request to the World Heritage Centre according to the timetable set in paragraph 168, and using the standard format provided in Annex 3. The request shall be submitted in English or French, in paper and electronic formats (Word and/or PDF format) and in the required number of printed copies (same as for nomination dossiers): 2 identical copies for cultural and natural sites, and 3 identical copies for mixed sites and cultural landscapes.
d) On receipt of Preliminary Assessment requests from States Parties, the Secretariat will acknowledge receipt, check for completeness (in compliance with Annex 3) and register them. The Secretariat will forward, according to the timetable set in paragraph 168, complete Preliminary Assessment requests to the relevant Advisory Body(ies) for desk review. If necessary, the Advisory Body(ies) will request any additional information from the State(s) Party(ies), which should be submitted to the Secretariat. From the commencement of the Preliminary Assessment, the Advisory Body(ies) will initiate a dialogue with the concerned State(s) Party(ies) to establish a point of contact and agree on the process of exchange. States Parties are encouraged to appoint a technical focal point to ensure that dialogue is effective throughout the process, and to ensure that the conclusions of the Preliminary Assessment are communicated to the relevant stakeholders.
e) The Preliminary Assessment will be undertaken by ICOMOS and IUCN on a joint basis whenever relevant, and will be an independent desk review, which will include consultation with expert reviewers. No mission to the site will be undertaken (see Annex 6). Based on available information, the conclusions of the assessment will include an indication of whether the site may have potential to justify Outstanding Universal Value. If so, specific guidance and advice, in the form of recommendations, will be provided to assist the State(s) Party(ies) in the development of the nomination dossier. The Preliminary Assessment Report by the Advisory Bodies shall be provided to the State(s) Party(ies) via the Secretariat in one of the two working languages of the Convention.
f) The Preliminary Assessment Report by the Advisory Bodies is relevant for up to 5 years. A new Preliminary Assessment is required if a nomination is not submitted by 1 February on the fifth year following the transmission of the Report to the concerned State(s) Party(ies).
g) A State Party may withdraw a Preliminary Assessment request it has submitted, at any time. In such circumstances, any further consideration of a possible nomination will need to be subject to a new request for a Preliminary Assessment.
h) At each session of the World Heritage Committee, the Secretariat will provide a list of Preliminary Assessments requests received and those undertaken, but will not indicate the guidance given by the Advisory Bodies to the concerned State(s) Party(ies) in a completed Preliminary Assessment. However, once a nomination is submitted, the related Preliminary Assessment Report shall be annexed to it.
i) Both Upstream Process and Preliminary Assessment imply guidance at an early stage, prior to the preparation of a nomination, however they are different mechanisms. The Upstream Process is not mandatory. The Preliminary Assessment is a mandatory phase possibly allowing access to the preparation of a nomination dossier. Within an Upstream Process a visit to the site may be possible, while the Preliminary Assessment is carried out exclusively on the basis of a desk review. The Upstream Process may provide general advice, in relation to revision of a Tentative List, while the Preliminary Assessment is undertaken on a single site (whether serial or not) already included on a State Party’s Tentative List. While in general the costs of Upstream Process requests are borne by the requesting State(s) Party(ies), the costs of Preliminary Assessments, being part of the nomination process, are included in the related evaluation process (see also Paragraph 168bis). In terms of sequence, Upstream Process advice should precede the Preliminary Assessment."
| Theme: | 2.4 - Upstream Process |
| Source: | WHC.21/01 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.21/01 2021) |
The World Heritage Policy Compendium was elaborated thanks to the generous contribution of the Government of Australia.
The World Heritage Policy Compendium On-line tool was developed thanks to the generous contribution of the Government of Korea.
With the Support of
