Policy Compendium
Paragraph 49
“Outstanding Universal Value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole. The Committee defines the criteria for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List.”
Theme: | 2.2.1 - Outstanding Universal Value: definition and attributes |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 78
“To be deemed of Outstanding Universal Value, a property must also meet the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity and must have an adequate protection and management system to ensure its safeguarding.”
Theme: | 2.2.1 - Outstanding Universal Value: definition and attributes |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
3. "[The World Heritage Committee], conscious that outstanding universal value is a concept that shall embrace all cultures, regions and peoples, and does not ignore differing cultural interpretations of outstanding universal value because they originate from minorities, indigenous groups and/or local peoples,
4. Recognises that the identification of outstanding universal value on the basis of the established criteria needs to be analysed also in their cultural and natural context, and that in some instances, the tangible and intangible interpretations cannot be separated."
Theme: | 2.2.1 - Outstanding Universal Value: definition and attributes |
Decision: | 30 COM 9 |
a) the property must meet one or more of the 10 criteria (Paragraph 77);
b) the property must meet the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity (Paragraphs 79/95); and
c) the property must have an adequate protection and management system in place to ensure its safeguarding (Paragraph 78)."
Theme: | 2.2.1 - Outstanding Universal Value: definition and attributes |
Decision: | 32 COM 9 |
3. "[The World Heritage Committee considers that], in compliance with the Convention and the Operational Guidelines, Outstanding Universal Value is recognised at the time of inscription of a property on the World Heritage List and that no recognition of Outstanding Universal Value is foreseen prior to this stage (…)."
Theme: | 2.2.1 - Outstanding Universal Value: definition and attributes |
Decision: | 42 COM 8 |
Theme: | 2.2.1 - Outstanding Universal Value: definition and attributes |
Decision: | 43 COM 8 |
Paragraph 98
“Legislative and regulatory measures at national and local levels should assure the protection of the property from social, economic and other pressures or changes that might negatively impact the Outstanding Universal Value, including the integrity and/or authenticity of the property. States Parties should also assure the full and effective implementation of such measures.”Theme: | 2.2.5.2 - Legislative, regulatory and contractual measures for protection |
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) |
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 |
Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions
The World Heritage Committee requests to ensure the management of a serial property as a unified whole, with an effective and explicit operational coordination between management plans existing for individual component parts of the site and the overall management plan for the property (based on case law on decisions on Nomination).
Theme: | 2.7.3 - Serial properties |
See for examples Decisions: | 40 COM 8B.16 43 COM 8B.38 44 COM 8B.25 44 COM 8B.15 |
Paragraph 137
“Serial properties will include two or more component parts related by clearly defined links:
a) Component parts should reflect cultural, social or functional links over time that provide, where relevant, landscape, ecological, evolutionary or habitat connectivity.
b) Each component part should contribute to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property as a whole in a substantial, scientific, readily defined and discernible way, and may include, inter alia, intangible attributes. The resulting Outstanding Universal Value should be easily understood and communicated.
c) Consistently, and in order to avoid an excessive fragmentation of component parts, the process of nomination of the property, including the selection of the component parts, should take fully into account the overall manageability and coherence of the property (see paragraph 114).
and provided it is the series as a whole – and not necessarily the individual parts of it – which are of Outstanding Universal Value.”
Theme: | 2.7.3 - Serial properties |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 138
“A serial nominated property may occur:
a) on the territory of a single State Party (serial national property); or
b) within the territory of different States Parties, which need not be contiguous and is nominated with the consent of all States Parties concerned (serial transnational property).”
Theme: | 2.7.3 - Serial properties |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 139
“Serial nominations, whether from one State Party or multiple States, may be submitted for evaluation over several nomination cycles, provided that the first property nominated is of Outstanding Universal Value in its own right. States Parties planning serial nominations phased over several nomination cycles are encouraged to inform the Committee of their intention in order to ensure better planning.”
Theme: | 2.7.3 - Serial properties |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
35. (i) “States Parties may propose in one single nomination several individual cultural properties, which may be in different geographical locations but which should:
- be linked because they belong to the same historic-cultural group, or
- be the subject of a single safeguarding project, or
- belong to the same type of property characteristic of the zone
(…)
Each State Party submits only the cultural properties situated on its territory (even if these properties belong to an ensemble which goes beyond its borders) but it may come to an agreement with another State Party in order to make a joint submission”.
Theme: | 2.7.3 - Serial properties |
Decision: | 3 COM XI.35 |
19. "(...)
(e) States Parties may propose in a single nomination a series of cultural properties in different geographical locations, provided that they are related because they belong : (i) to the same historico-cultural group or (ii) to the same type of property which is characteristic of the geographical zone and provided that it is the series as such and not its components taken individually, which is of outstanding universal value."
Theme: | 2.7.3 - Serial properties |
Decision: | 4 COM VI.18-20 |
2. "[The World Heritage Committee notes] that some large complex serial transnational nominations may benefit from an agreed nomination strategy before their official submission, (…);
5. [The World Heritage Committee] emphasizes that, if and when, it takes note of a nomination strategy, this is not prejudicial and does not imply that the complex serial transnational nominations proposed would necessarily lead to an inscription on the World Heritage List."
Theme: | 2.7.3 - Serial properties |
Decision: | 41 COM 8B.50 |
Paragraph 47
Theme: | 2.7.4.1 - General |
Source: | WHC.21/01 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.21/01 2021) |
The World Heritage committee recommends addressing landscape surveys and the historic evolution of the landscape, as a holistic reflection of history and cultural traditions and of the interaction between culture and nature, including the way the landscape has been shaped by human practices and natural resources (based on Case law on decisions on Nominations).
Theme: | 2.7.4.1 - General |
See for examples Decisions: | 31 COM 8B.33 31 COM 8B.28 |
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.