Policy Compendium

Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions

Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions

The World Heritage Committee requests States Parties to commit towards the protection of the intangible heritage attributes of the property and to ensure that sufficient attention is given to safeguarding these important attributes, as by developing a monitoring system of intangible heritage elements (based on case law on decisions on State of Conservation).

C. 4) "Apply the Ecosystem Approach

(…)

18. c) Consider landscape/seascape level issues when monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage sites (…)."

Paragraph 96

“Protection and management of World Heritage properties should ensure that their Outstanding Universal Value, including the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity at the time of inscription, are sustained or enhanced over time. A regular review of the general state of conservation of properties, and thus also their Outstanding Universal Value, shall be done within a framework of monitoring processes for World Heritage properties, as specified within the Operational Guidelines.”

Paragraph 173

“The World Heritage Committee requests that reports of missions to review the state of conservation of the World Heritage properties include:

a) an indication of threats or significant improvement in the conservation of the property since the last report to the World Heritage Committee;

b) any follow-up to previous decisions of the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the property;

c) information on any threat or damage to or loss of Outstanding Universal Value, integrity and/or authenticity for which the property was inscribed on the World Heritage List.”

Paragraph 181

“In addition, the threats and/or their detrimental impacts on the integrity of the property must be those which are amenable to correction by human action. In the case of cultural properties, both natural factors and human-made factors may be threatening, while in the case of natural properties, most threats will be human-made and only very rarely a natural factor (such as an epidemic disease) will threaten the integrity of the property. In some cases, the threats and/or their detrimental impacts on the integrity of the property may be corrected by administrative or legislative action, such as the cancelling of a major public works project or the improvement of legal status.”

"States Parties and managers of individual World Heritage properties will consider undertaking site-level monitoring, mitigation and adaptation measures, where appropriate”.

5. "[The World Heritage Committee] (…) underlines that reinforced monitoring is a constant cooperative process with the State Party concerned, which will always be undertaken in full consultation and with its approval."

54. "[The World Heritage Committee] encourages States Parties to make full use of such Earth Observation technologies for the early detection of activities potentially harmful to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of World Heritage properties, such as deforestation, mining, illegal fisheries, agricultural encroachment, etc. and to better understand trends and respond appropriately."

9. "[The World Heritage Committee] Invites the Advisory Bodies to engage in effective and constructive dialogue with States Parties in the preparation of Tentative Lists, in the nomination process, including before the publication of recommendations, and post inscription (including monitoring missions), with the aim of achieving more effective credibility, transparency and better implementation of the Convention and Sustainable Development Goals."

Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions

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).

Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions

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).

"7. [The World Heritage Committee considers] 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 [notes] 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."

 

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.”

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.”

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.

3. "Noting with regret that issues related to Management Plan / System remain a serious cause for concern, [the World Heritage Committee] requests all States Parties to ensure that all World Heritage properties are managed in such a manner that their Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) is not put at risk and, whenever necessary, develop/update and fully implement Management Plans or Systems."

"Integrated management, Decision making, Governance

23. [The World Heritage Committee,] noting with concern that the lack of an integrated management approach is reported to cause challenges to the coordination of management and decision making processes of properties where different authorities are involved, in particular in the cases of mixed, serial, and transboundary properties, urges States Parties to establish appropriate mechanisms in order to facilitate a coordinated approach to the management of all properties, in line with the requirements of the Operational Guidelines as laid out in Paragraphs 112, 114, and 135, and encourages States Parties with contiguous natural properties on either side of their international borders, which are not listed as transboundary properties, to establish appropriate mechanisms for cooperation between their respective management authorities and ministries;

24. Also encourages States Parties to promote recognition and awareness across all relevant national and regional agencies of the World Heritage status of the properties on their territory, and to develop mechanisms to ensure consideration of impacts on Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) in the decision making processes of relevant ministries, before permits are issued for developments that could negatively impact the OUV."

2. “In the current context of changing demographics and climate, growing inequalities, diminishing resources, and growing threats to heritage, the need has become apparent to view conservation objectives, (…) with a broader range of economic, social and environmental values and needs encompassed in the sustainable development concept”.

4. “In addition to protecting the OUV of World Heritage properties, States Parties should, (…) recognise and promote the properties' inherent potential to contribute to all dimensions of sustainable development and work to harness the collective benefits for society, also by ensuring that their conservation and management strategies are aligned with broader sustainable development objectives. In this process, the properties’ OUV should not be compromised”.

5. “The integration of a sustainable development perspective into the World Heritage Convention will enable all stakeholders involved in its implementation, in particular at national level, to act with social responsibility (…)”.

6. “States Parties should recognise, by appropriate means, that World Heritage conservation and management strategies that incorporate a sustainable development perspective embrace not only the protection of the OUV, but also the wellbeing of present and future generations”.

7. (…) the overarching principles are (…):

- “Human Rights - The human rights embedded in the UN Charter and the range of broadly ratified human rights instruments reflect fundamental values that underpin the very possibility for dignity, peace and sustainable development. In implementing the World Heritage Convention, it is therefore essential to respect, protect and promote these environmental, social, economic, and cultural rights.

- Equality: The reduction of inequalities in all societies is essential to a vision of inclusive sustainable development. The conservation and management of World Heritage properties should therefore contribute to reducing inequalities, as well as its structural causes, including discrimination and exclusion.

- Sustainability, through a long-term perspective: Sustainability, broadly defined, is inherent to the spirit of the World Heritage Convention. It should serve as a fundamental principle for all aspects of development and for all societies. In the context of the World Heritage Convention, this means applying a long-term perspective to all processes of decision-making within World Heritage properties, with a view to fostering intergenerational equity, justice, and a world fit for present and future generations”.

8. “States Parties should (…) recognize the close links and interdependence of biological diversity and local cultures within the socio-ecological systems of many World Heritage properties”.

9. “All dimensions of sustainable development should apply to natural, cultural and mixed properties in their diversity. These dimensions are interdependent and mutually reinforcing, with none having predominance over another and each being equally necessary. States Parties should therefore review and reinforce governance frameworks within management systems of World Heritage properties in order to achieve the appropriate balance, integration and harmonization between the protection of OUV and the pursuit of sustainable development objectives”.

13. “The role of World Heritage properties as a guarantee of sustainable development needs to be strengthened. Their full potential to contribute to sustainable development needs to be harnessed”.

14. “The World Heritage Convention promotes sustainable development, and in particular environmental sustainability, by valuing and conserving places of outstanding natural heritage value, containing exceptional biodiversity, geodiversity or other exceptional natural features, which are essential for human well-being. A concern for environmental sustainability, however, should equally apply to cultural and mixed World Heritage properties, including cultural landscapes. In implementing the Convention, States Parties should therefore promote environmental sustainability more generally to all World Heritage properties to ensure policy coherence and mutual supportiveness with other multilateral environmental agreements. This involves a responsible interaction with the environment in both cultural and natural properties, to avoid depletion or degradation of natural resources, ensuring long-term environmental quality and the strengthening of resilience to disasters and climate change”.

15. “States Parties should ensure that biological and cultural diversity, as well as ecosystem services and benefits for people that contribute to environmental sustainability, are protected and enhanced within World Heritage properties, their buffer zones and their wider settings (…)”.

24. “World Heritage properties, as cultural and natural heritage in general, offer great potential to alleviate poverty and enhance sustainable livelihoods of local communities, including those of marginalized populations. (…) The Convention should therefore contribute to promoting sustainable forms of inclusive and equitable economic development, productive and even employment and income-generating activities for all, while fully respecting the OUV of World Heritage properties”.

“The principle of sustainable development provides for the preservation of existing resources, the active protection of urban heritage and its sustainable management is a condition sine qua non of development”.

Paragraph 6

“(…) The protection and conservation of the natural and cultural heritage are a significant contribution to sustainable development.”

4. "[The World Heritage Committee] reiterates the need to achieve the right balance between environmental, social and economic sustainability, while fully respecting and protecting the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties."

37. "Recalling that the World Heritage Convention explicitly links the concepts of cultural and natural heritage, highlights the importance of promoting integrated approaches that strengthen holistic governance, improve conservation outcomes and contribute to sustainable development;

38. [The World Heritage Committee] notes with appreciation the growing interest and efforts by the States Parties and heritage practitioners to develop and apply integrated approaches to conservation of natural and cultural heritage, and encourages the States Parties, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, in cooperation with universities and other relevant actors, to continue and expand these efforts, in accordance with the Policy Document for the integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the Convention (2015)."

4. "[The World Heritage Committee] (...) requests the States Parties to take a systematic and holistic approach to mainstreaming the WH-SDP [(Policy Document for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention)] into their national and local policies, processes, and initiatives related to the implementation of the Convention and to development in and around World Heritage properties."

5. "[The World Heritage Committee] Invites the States Parties undertaking activities towards the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to include synergies with the WH-SDP [(Policy Document for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention)], whenever possible, in order to tap into the potential of the World Heritage Convention to contribute to sustainable development."

5. "[The World Heritage Committee] Recognizes the specifically delicate task of balancing World Heritage and Sustainable Development by the least developed countries, notably of the African region, given that it is faced with a disproportionally higher level of poverty globally;

6. Further recognizes the need to employ innovative and transformative solutions for reconciling World Heritage and Sustainable Development that will take into account the nature, complexity and specificity of socio-economic constraints that these less developed countries continue to face;

(...)

11. Further calls upon African States Parties to focus their development efforts to benefit local communities, including them in the decision-making, and building on their knowledge and needs with progressive and proactive conservation of natural and cultural heritage; and to create enabling environments for innovative solutions inclusive of green and blue economies while progressing towards other SDGs."