Policy Compendium
“The tentative list of cultural and natural sites should be used in the future as a planning tool with a view to reducing any imbalances in the World Heritage List”.
“Regional Plans of Action should be updated and developed within the framework of the Global Strategy”.
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Source: | Working Group on the Representativity of the World Heritage List |
Paragraph 54
“The Committee seeks to establish a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List in conformity with the four Strategic Objectives adopted by the Committee at its 26th session (Budapest, 2002).”
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 55
“The Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List is designed to identify and fill the major gaps in the World Heritage List. It does this by encouraging more countries to become States Parties to the Convention and to develop Tentative Lists (…) and nominations of properties for inscription on the World Heritage List.”
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 57
“All efforts should be made to maintain a reasonable balance between cultural and natural heritage on the World Heritage List.”
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 59
“To promote the establishment of a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List, States Parties are requested to consider whether their heritage is already well represented on the List and if so to slow down their rate of submission of further nominations (…)”.
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 71
“Tentative Lists should be drawn selectively and on the basis of evidence that supports potential Outstanding Universal Value. States Parties are encouraged to consult the analyses of both the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists prepared at the request of the Committee by ICOMOS and IUCN to identify the gaps in the World Heritage List. These analyses could enable States Parties to compare themes, regions, geo-cultural groupings and bio-geographic provinces for prospective World Heritage properties (…).”
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 72
“In addition, States Parties are encouraged to consult the specific thematic studies carried out by the Advisory Bodies.”
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 74
“To implement the Global Strategy, cooperative efforts in capacity building and training for diverse groups of beneficiaries may be necessary to assist States Parties in acquiring and/or consolidating expertise in the preparation, updating and harmonization of their Tentative List and the preparation of nominations.”
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
1. “Agrees to give its full support for the implementation of the Convention, in the States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented on the List,
2. Recognizes the interest of all the States Parties and the advisory bodies in preserving the authority of the 1972 Convention, by improving, through appropriate means, the representativity of the World Heritage List which must reflect the diversity of all cultures and ecosystems of all regions,
3. Endorses the objectives of the Global Strategy while reaffirming the sovereign rights of the States Parties and the sovereign role of the General Assembly”.
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Source: | WHC-99/CONF.206/7 Summary Record of the 12th General Assembly of States Parties |
2. "The Global Strategy proposed specifically to ‘move away from a purely architectural view of the cultural heritage of humanity towards one which was much more anthropological, multi-functional and universal".
4. "(…) those aspects of the Global Strategy directly relevant to improving those three characteristics attributed to the List. As such, it is important to recall that:
-
Representativity refers to: ensuring representation on the World Heritage List of properties of outstanding universal value from all regions (2000 Working Group on the Representativity of the World Heritage List);
-
Balance refers to: ensuring that key bio-geographical regions or events in the history of life are reflected in the World Heritage List (Expert Meeting Parc de La Vanoise, 1996; WHC.96/CONF.201/INF.08);
-
Credibility refers to: ensuring a rigorous application of the criteria established by the Committee for both inscription and management, and ensuring representativity and balance of sites, in order that the World Heritage List as a whole is not undermined (Expert Meeting Parc de La Vanoise, 1996; WHC.96/CONF.201/INF.08; and as reviewed during the development of the 1992 ICOMOS Global Study)."
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Source: | WHC.07/16.GA/9 Progress in the implementation of the Global strategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List |
IX.22 "(…)
2) The Committee stressed the urgent need to establish a representative World Heritage List and considered it imperative to ensure more participation of those States Parties whose heritage is currently underrepresented on the World Heritage List. The Committee requested the Centre and the advisory bodies to actively consult with these States Parties to encourage and support their active participation in the implementation of the Global Strategy for a credible and representative World Heritage List through the concrete regional actions described in the Global Strategy Action Plan adopted by the Committee at its twenty-second session".Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Decision: | 22 COM IX1 |
X.2 "(…) The Committee, in the light of earlier discussions:
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Decision: | 19 COM X |
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Decision: | 27 COM 14 |
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Decision: | 35 COM 12B |
Theme: | 2.3 - Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List |
Decision: | 43 COM 5E |
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 |
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.