Policy Compendium
Paragraph 163
“A minor modification is one which has not a significant impact on the extent of the property nor affects its Outstanding Universal Value.”
| Theme: | 2.2.6.3 - Minor modifications to the boundaries |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 164
“If a State Party wishes to request a minor modification to the boundaries of a property already on the World Heritage List, it must be prepared in compliance with the format of Annex 11 and must be received by 1 February by the Committee through the Secretariat, which will seek the evaluation of the relevant Advisory Bodies on whether this can be considered a minor modification or not. The Secretariat shall then submit the Advisory Bodies’ evaluation to the World Heritage Committee. The Committee may approve such a modification, or it may consider that the modification to the boundary is sufficiently significant as to constitute a significant boundary modification of the property, in which case the procedure for new nominations will apply.”
| Theme: | 2.2.6.3 - Minor modifications to the boundaries |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 122
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) |
| Theme: | 2.4 - Upstream Process |
| Decision: | 41 COM 9A |
Article 11
1. "Every State Party to this Convention shall, in so far as possible, submit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory of property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage, situated in its territory and suitable for inclusion in the list provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article. This inventory, which shall not be considered exhaustive, shall include documentation about the location of the property in question and its significance."
| Theme: | 2.5 - Tentative Lists |
| Source: | Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage |
Paragraph 62
“A Tentative List is an inventory of those properties situated on its territory which each State Party considers suitable for nomination to the World Heritage List. States Parties should therefore include, in their Tentative Lists, details of those properties which they consider to be of potential Outstanding Universal Value and which they intend to nominate during the following years.”
| Theme: | 2.5 - Tentative Lists |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 63
“Nominations to the World Heritage List are not considered unless the nominated property has already been included on the State Party's Tentative List.”
| Theme: | 2.5 - Tentative Lists |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 64
“States Parties are encouraged to prepare their Tentative Lists with the full, effective and gender-balanced participation of a wide variety of stakeholders and rights-holders, including site managers, local and regional governments, local communities, indigenous peoples, NGOs and other interested parties and partners. In the case of sites affecting the lands, territories or resources of indigenous peoples, States Parties shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before including the sites on their Tentative List.”
| Theme: | 2.5 - Tentative Lists |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 65
“States Parties shall submit Tentative Lists to the Secretariat, at least one year prior to the submission of any nomination. States Parties are encouraged to re-examine and re-submit their Tentative List at least every ten years.”
| Theme: | 2.5 - Tentative Lists |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 68
“(…) The sole responsibility for the content of each Tentative List lies with the State Party concerned. The publication of the Tentative Lists does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever of the World Heritage Committee or of the World Heritage Centre or of the Secretariat of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its boundaries.”
| Theme: | 2.5 - Tentative Lists |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 70
“Tentative Lists are a useful and important planning tool for States Parties, the World Heritage Committee, the Secretariat, and the Advisory Bodies, as they provide an indication of future nominations.”
| Theme: | 2.5 - Tentative Lists |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 73
“States Parties are encouraged to harmonize their Tentative Lists at regional and thematic levels. Harmonization of Tentative Lists is the process whereby States Parties, with the assistance of the Advisory Bodies, collectively assess their respective Tentative List to review gaps and identify common themes. The harmonization has considerable potential to generate fruitful dialogue between States Parties and different cultural communities, promoting respect for common heritage and cultural diversity and can result in improved Tentative Lists, new nominations from States Parties and cooperation amongst groups of States Parties in the preparation of nominations.”
| Theme: | 2.5 - Tentative Lists |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
2. "Stressing the importance of the process of revision and updating of Tentative Lists, as a tool for regional harmonisation of the World Heritage List and long-term planning of its development,
3. [The World Heritage Committee] encourages States Parties to seek as early as possible upstream advice from the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies during the development or revision of their Tentative Lists as appropriate."
| Theme: | 2.5 - Tentative Lists |
| Decision: | 41 COM 8A |
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 |
Paragraph 134
“A nominated property may occur:
a) on the territory of a single State Party, or
b) on the territory of all concerned States Parties having adjacent borders (transboundary property).”
| Theme: | 2.7.2 - Transboundary and transnational properties |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 135
“Wherever possible, transboundary nominations should be prepared and submitted by States Parties jointly in conformity with Article 11.3 of the Convention. It is highly recommended that the States Parties concerned establish a joint management committee or similar body to oversee the management of the whole of a transboundary property.”
| Theme: | 2.7.2 - Transboundary and transnational properties |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 136
“Extensions to an existing World Heritage property located in one State Party may be proposed to become transboundary properties.”
| Theme: | 2.7.2 - Transboundary and transnational properties |
| Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
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.
