Policy Compendium
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).
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
See for examples Decisions: | 40 COM 7B.1 42 COM 7B.33 44 COM 7B.20 44 COM 7B.2 |
C. 4) "Apply the Ecosystem Approach
(…)
18. c) Consider landscape/seascape level issues when monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage sites (…)."
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Source: | WHC-06/30.COM/INF.6A The World Heritage Centre's Natural Heritage Strategy |
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.”Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
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.”
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
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.”Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
"States Parties and managers of individual World Heritage properties will consider undertaking site-level monitoring, mitigation and adaptation measures, where appropriate”.
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Source: | Policy document on the impacts of climate change on World Heritage Properties (2008) |
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Decision: | 31 COM 5.2 |
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Decision: | 42 COM 7 |
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Decision: | 43 COM 5E |
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 |
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 |
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) |
Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions
The World Heritage Committee requests to develop effective traffic management studies and elaborate measures and strategies, including monitoring, when the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) could be affected by traffic (based on case law on decisions on the State of Conservation and Nomination).
Theme: | 3.5.2 - Transportation infrastructure |
See for examples Decisions: | 35 COM 7B.67 38 COM 7B.28 39 COM 7A.48 41 COM 7B.94 42 COM 7B.52 43 COM 7B.45 43 COM 8B.32 44 COM 7B.127 44 COM 7B.37 44 COM 8B.5 |
25. "[The World Heritage Committee] notes with concern that the number of cases of ground transport infrastructure having potential impact on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of World Heritage properties is continuing to grow, and calls upon States Parties to carry out Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) early in the process of transportation planning to allow for potential impacts of the OUV, including those resulting from foreseeable associated future developments, to be identified prior to the development of specific projects;
26. Encourages States Parties to carry out Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) on ground transport projects, once they are designed, with multiple options to ensure that transportation needs can be met with minimal impacts on the OUV of World Heritage properties."
Theme: | 3.5.2 - Transportation infrastructure |
Decision: | 40 COM 7 |
Threats: | Air transport infrastructure Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure Ground transport infrastructure Marine transport infrastructure Underground transport infrastructure |
The World Heritage Committee requests Heritage Impact Assessments and Environmental Impact Assessments of all significant development proposals in the property and of any major transportation infrastructure project, before approval for the schemes is granted and prior to making any decisions that would be difficult to reverse, including definitive location and plans for construction, in order to identify any adverse impacts on the property and ways to mitigate these impacts, and to submit the HIA and the EIA to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines (based on Case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
Theme: | 3.5.2 - Transportation infrastructure |
See for examples Decisions: | 32 COM 7B.122 36 COM 7B.100 36 COM 7B.80 37 COM 7B.65 38 COM 7B.62 39 COM 7B.91 40 COM 7B.55 41 COM 7B.69 41 COM 7B.59 41 COM 7B.31 |
Threats: | Air transport infrastructure Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure Ground transport infrastructure Marine transport infrastructure Underground transport infrastructure |
The World Heritage Committee requests the State Party to submit, in accordance to Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, details about any cable car project, including design, technical specifications and precise location of the route, in relation to the inscribed property, together with a HIA and an EIA, well before any irrevocable decisions are taken about the construction of the cable car (based on case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
Theme: | 3.5.2 - Transportation infrastructure |
See for examples Decisions: | 37 COM 7B.102 38 COM 7B.77 38 COM 7B.45 40 COM 7B.91 42 COM 7B.26 |
Threats: | Air transport infrastructure Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure Ground transport infrastructure Marine transport infrastructure Underground transport infrastructure |
Theme: | 3.6 - Tourism and visitor management |
Source: | Policy for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention (WHC-15/20.GA/INF.13) |
7. “If undertaken responsibly, tourism can be a driver for preservation and conservation of cultural and natural heritage and a vehicle for sustainable development. But if unplanned or not properly managed, tourism can be socially, culturally and economically disruptive, and have a devastating effect on fragile environments and local communities”.
18. “World Heritage and tourism stakeholders share responsibility for conservation of our common cultural and natural heritage of Outstanding Universal Value and for sustainable development through appropriate tourism management”.
Theme: | 3.6 - Tourism and visitor management |
Source: | WHC-12/36.COM/5E World Heritage Tourism Programme |
2. "(…) The relationship between World Heritage and tourism is two way: tourism, if managed well, offers benefits to World Heritage properties and can contribute to cross-cultural exchange but, if not managed well, poses challenges to these properties (…);
Attachment A. Policy orientations: defining the relationship between World Heritage and tourism2. (...)
Tourism is critical for World Heritage:
a. For States Parties and their individual properties,
i. to meet the requirement in the Convention to 'present' World Heritage;
ii. to realise community and economic benefits.
b. For the World Heritage Convention as a whole, as the means by which World Heritage properties are experienced by visitors travelling nationally and internationally,
c. As a major means by which the performance of World Heritage properties, and therefore the standing of the Convention, is judged,
i. many World Heritage properties do not identify themselves as such, or do not adequately present their Outstanding Universal Value;
ii. it would be beneficial to develop indicators of the quality of presentation, and the representation of the World Heritage brand.
d. As a credibility issue in relation to: i. the potential for tourism infrastructure to damage Outstanding Universal Value
i. the threat that World Heritage properties may be unsustainably managed in relation to their adjoining communities;
ii. sustaining the conservation objectives of the Convention whilst engaging with economic development;
iii. realistic aspirations that World Heritage can attract tourism."
Theme: | 3.6 - Tourism and visitor management |
Decision: | 34 COM 5F.2 |
5. "[The World Heritage Committee] also noting that tourism development in and around World Heritage properties is a key issue for their management, strongly encourages States Parties to ensure sustainable planning and management of tourism at World Heritage properties and to contribute to the implementation of the World Heritage Centre’s World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme."
Theme: | 3.6 - Tourism and visitor management |
Decision: | 38 COM 7 |
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.