Policy Compendium
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Decision: | 42 COM 7 |
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Decision: | 43 COM 5E |
The World Heritage Committee encourages States Parties to monitor wildlife and populations, including key species, in order to assess the populations and trends (based on case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
See for examples Decisions: | 37 COM 7B.11 38 COM 7B.92 40 COM 7B.70 40 COM 7B.69 41 COM 7A.15 |
The World Heritage Committee recommends establishing key monitoring indicators to relate more directly to the Outstanding Universal Value to allow for judgment of changes in state of conservation, and adding specific indicators, periodicity and institutional responsibilities (based on Case law on decisions on Nominations).
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
See for examples Decisions: | 38 COM 8B.37 39 COM 8B.33 39 COM 8B.25 41 COM 8B.38 41 COM 8B.33 41 COM 8B.31 41 COM 8B.28 41 COM 8B.27 41 COM 8B.26 |
Paragraph 169
“Reactive Monitoring is the reporting by the Secretariat, other sectors of UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies to the Committee on the state of conservation of specific World Heritage properties that are under threat. To this end, the States Parties shall submit specific reports and impact studies each time exceptional circumstances occur or work is undertaken which may have an impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property or its state of conservation. Reactive Monitoring is also foreseen in reference to properties inscribed, or to be inscribed, on the List of World Heritage in Danger (…). Reactive Monitoring is also foreseen in the procedures for the eventual deletion of properties from the World Heritage List (…)”.
Theme: | 3.2.3 - Reactive Monitoring |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 170
“When adopting the process of Reactive Monitoring, the Committee was particularly concerned that all possible measures should be taken to prevent the deletion of any property from the List and was ready to offer technical co-operation as far as possible to States Parties in this connection.”Theme: | 3.2.3 - Reactive Monitoring |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Theme: | 3.2.3 - Reactive Monitoring |
Decision: | 43 COM 7.1 |
Theme: | 3.2.4 - List of World Heritage in Danger |
Decision: | 44 COM 7.1 |
Paragraph 9
“When a property inscribed on the World Heritage List is threatened by serious and specific dangers, the Committee considers placing it on the List of World Heritage in Danger. When the Outstanding Universal Value of the property which justified its inscription on the World Heritage List is destroyed, the Committee considers deleting the property from the World Heritage List.”Theme: | 3.2.4 - List of World Heritage in Danger |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 182
“The Committee may wish to bear in mind the following supplementary factors when considering the inclusion of a cultural or natural property in the List of World Heritage in Danger:
a) Decisions which affect World Heritage properties are taken by Governments after balancing all factors. The advice of the World Heritage Committee can often be decisive if it can be given before the property becomes threatened.
b) Particularly in the case of ascertained danger, the physical or cultural deteriorations to which a property has been subjected should be judged according to the intensity of its effects and analyzed case by case.
c) Above all in the case of potential danger to a property, one should consider that:
i) the threat should be appraised according to the normal evolution of the social and economic framework in which the property is situated;
ii) it is often impossible to assess certain threats such as the threat of armed conflict as to their effect on cultural or natural properties;
iii) some threats are not imminent in nature, but can only be anticipated, such as demographic growth.
d) Finally, in its appraisal the Committee should take into account any cause of unknown or unexpected origin which endangers a cultural or natural property.”
Theme: | 3.2.4 - List of World Heritage in Danger |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 183
“When considering the inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Committee shall develop, and adopt, as far as possible, in consultation with the State Party concerned, a Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, and a programme for corrective measures.”[1][1] In relation to the paragraph 183 of the Operational Guidelines, there are several decisions from different properties related to the desired state of conservation. See for example 31 COM 7A.16, 31 COM 7A.21, 36 COM 7A.34, 36 COM 7B.102, 37 COM 7A.40, 38 COM 7A.23, 39 COM 7A.13, 39 COM 7A.18, 41 COM 7A.19, 41 COM 7A.23.
Theme: | 3.2.4 - List of World Heritage in Danger |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 192
“The Committee adopted the following procedure for the deletion of properties from the World Heritage List in cases:
a) where the property has deteriorated to the extent that it has lost those characteristics which determined its inclusion in the World Heritage List; and
b) where the intrinsic qualities of a World Heritage site were already threatened at the time of its nomination by human action and where the necessary corrective measures as outlined by the State Party at the time, have not been taken within the time proposed (…)”.
Theme: | 3.2.5 - Deletion of a World Heritage property from the List |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
“The dynamic nature of living cities [must be recognized]. However, (…) rapid and frequently uncontrolled development is transforming urban areas and their settings, which may cause fragmentation and deterioration to urban heritage with deep impacts on community values, throughout the world”.
Preamble
“In order to support the protection of natural and cultural heritage, emphasis needs to be put on the integration of historic urban area conservation, management and planning strategies into local development processes and urban planning, such as, contemporary architecture and infrastructure development, for which the application of a landscape approach would help maintain urban identity”.
22. “Conservation of the urban heritage should be integrated into general policy planning and practices and those related to the broader urban context. Policies should provide mechanisms for balancing conservation and sustainability in the short and long terms. Special emphasis should be placed on the harmonious, integration of contemporary interventions into the historic urban fabric. In particular, the responsibilities of the different stakeholders are the following:
(a) Member States should integrate urban heritage conservation strategies into national development policies and agendas according to the historic urban landscape approach. Within this framework, local authorities should prepare urban development plans taking into account the area’s values, including the landscape and other heritage values, and features associated therewith;
(b) Public and private stakeholders should cooperate, inter alia, through partnerships to ensure the successful application of the historic urban landscape approach;
(c) International organizations dealing with sustainable development processes should integrate the historic urban landscape approach into their strategies, plans and operations;
(d) National and international non-governmental organizations should participate in developing and disseminating tools and best practices for the implementation of the historic urban landscape approach”.
Theme: | 3.5.1 - Buildings and development |
Source: | Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) |
Threats: | Commercial development Housing Industrial areas Interpretative and visitation facilities Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure |
Theme: | 3.5.1 - Buildings and development |
Decision: | 34 COM 7C |
Threats: | Commercial development Housing Industrial areas Interpretative and visitation facilities Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure |
(…)
34. [The World Heritage Committee] (s)tresses 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."
Theme: | 3.5.1 - Buildings and development |
Decision: | 44 COM 7.2 |
Threats: | Commercial development Housing Industrial areas Interpretative and visitation facilities Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure |
The World Heritage Committee recommends to develop a comprehensive urban land use plan, which includes provisions for protection mechanisms and regulatory measures to ensure the adequate protection and control of the property and its landscape setting (based on Case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
Theme: | 3.5.1 - Buildings and development |
See for examples Decisions: | 34 COM 7A.27 36 COM 7B.61 41 COM 7B.41 |
Threats: | Commercial development Housing Industrial areas Interpretative and visitation facilities Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure |
The World Heritage Committee recommends to put in place appropriate protection and planning measures and to develop an integrated urban conservation and development tool, in the urban settlement and its wider context, in order to address development pressures, to protect the urban landscape and prevent the construction of new buildings that could have a visual impact (based on Case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
Theme: | 3.5.1 - Buildings and development |
See for examples Decisions: | 32 COM 7B.84 32 COM 7B.72 33 COM 7B.67 36 COM 7B.88 37 COM 7B.71 40 COM 7B.49 41 COM 7 41 COM 7B.53 41 COM 7B.42 41 COM 7B.40 |
Threats: | Commercial development Housing Industrial areas Interpretative and visitation facilities Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure |
The World Heritage Committee recommends to enhance the regulation and monitoring of pollution, and to create management plans that consider options to address and to put in place adequate measures to mitigate the impact associated to the pollution, and its potential impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, including the control of sources of pollution affecting the property (based on Case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
Theme: | 3.5.4 - Pollution |
See for examples Decisions: | 31 COM 7B.31 31 COM 7B.4 33 COM 7B.28 35 COM 7B.23 36 COM 7B.22 41 COM 7B.25 |
Threats: | Air pollution Ground water pollution Input of excess energy Pollution of marine waters Solid waste Surface water pollution |
Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions
The World Heritage Committee considers it is crucial to ensure the maintenance of ecological connectivity between the property’s component parts, by strengthening and improving measures to ensure consistency and greater functional linkages between component sites of a property and its surrounding, and to develop appropriate measures to minimize the effects of any activity on ecological connectivity and/or ensure its restoration (based on case law on decisions on State of Conservation and Nomination).
Theme: | 3.5.5 - Biological resource use/modification |
See for examples Decisions: | 35 COM 8B.9 41 COM 7B.37 43 COM 7A.8 43 COM 8B.10 44 COM 7B.175 44 COM 7B.174 44 COM 7B.114 |
The World Heritage Committee requests to undertake research to determine the effects and impact from existing resource use, including fishing activities, grazing and collection of medicinal plants on the OUV of the property and to work with communities and to fully involve local resource users to promote sustainable resource uses and practices (based on Case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
Theme: | 3.5.5 - Biological resource use/modification |
See for examples Decisions: | 38 COM 7B.84 38 COM 7B.62 40 COM 7B.85 41 COM 7B.17 41 COM 7B.15 43 COM 7B.8 |
Threats: | Aquaculture Commercial hunting Commercial wild plant collection Crop production Fishing/collecting aquatic resources Forestry /wood production Land conversion Livestock farming / grazing of domesticated animals Subsistence hunting Subsistence wild plant collection |
3.2.1 - General
3.2.3 - Reactive Monitoring
3.2.4 - List of World Heritage in Danger
3.2.5 - Deletion of a World Heritage property from the ...
3.5.1 - Buildings and development
3.5.4 - Pollution
3.5.5 - Biological resource use/modification
3.5.6 - Physical resource extraction
3.5.8 - Social/cultural uses of heritage
3.5.9 - Other human activities
3.5.10 - Climate change and severe weather events
3.5.11 - Sudden ecological or geological events
3.5.12 - Invasive/alien species or hyper-abundant ...
3.5.13 - Management and institutional factors
3.6 - Tourism and visitor management
3.7 - Sustainable development
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.