Policy Compendium
Paragraph 107
“Although buffer zones are not part of the nominated property, any modifications to or creation of buffer zones subsequent to inscription of a property on the World Heritage List should be approved by the World Heritage Committee using the procedure for a minor boundary modification (see paragraph 164 and Annex 11). The creation of buffer zones subsequent to inscription is normally considered to be a minor boundary modification.”
Theme: | 2.2.6.2 - Buffer Zones |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
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) |
Theme: | 2.4 - Upstream Process |
Decision: | 41 COM 9A |
Paragraph 132
3. Justification for Inscription
“[For a nomination to be considered as “complete”, the following requirements (see format in Annex 5) are to be met:] (…) In section 3.2, a comparative analysis of the nominated property in relation to similar properties, whether or not on the World Heritage List, both at the national and international levels, shall be provided. The comparative analysis shall explain the importance of the nominated property in its national and international context."
Theme: | 2.6 - Comparative studies |
Source: | WHC.21/01 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.21/01 2021) |
Theme: | 2.6 - Comparative studies |
Decision: | 3 COM XI.35 |
III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSES
7. "[The World Heritage Committee] decides that comparative analyses by States Parties as part of the nomination dossier shall be undertaken in relation to similar properties, whether or not on the World Heritage List, both at the national and international levels."
Theme: | 2.6 - Comparative studies |
Decision: | 7 EXT.COM 4A |
The World Heritage Committee recommends undertaking a deep comparative analysis in order to demonstrate the Outstanding Universal Value of the property by fully assessing the relative values of the nominated property against other sites (based on Case law on decisions on Nominations).
Theme: | 2.6 - Comparative studies |
See for examples Decisions: | 34 COM 8B.7 34 COM 8B.3 35 COM 8B.16 36 COM 8B.35 37 COM 8B.21 37 COM 8B.17 37 COM 8B.11 38 COM 8B.22 38 COM 8B.18 38 COM 8B.17 |
2.2.1 - Outstanding Universal Value: definition and ...
2.2.3 - Authenticity
2.2.5.2 - Legislative, regulatory and contractual ...
2.2.5.3 - Management systems
2.2.5.4 - Sustainable use
2.2.6.2 - Buffer Zones
2.2.6.4 - Significant modifications to the boundaries
2.4 - Upstream Process
2.6 - Comparative studies
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.