Policy Compendium

15.c) "[The World Heritage Committee encourages States Parties to] (…) be proactive in relation to development and conservation of World Heritage properties by conducting a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) at the time of nomination to anticipate the impact of any potential development on the Outstanding Universal Value."

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."

(ii) "In its justification of the outstanding universal value of the property nominated, each State should, whenever possible, undertake a sufficiently wide comparison."

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."

Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions

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).

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).”

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.”

Paragraph 136

“Extensions to an existing World Heritage property located in one State Party may be proposed to become transboundary properties.”

 “II. TRANSBOUNDARY AND TRANSNATIONAL NOMINATIONS

6) [The World Heritage Committee] decides to consider as:

(a) transboundary nomination, only a property jointly nominated as such, in conformity with Article 11.3 of the Convention, by all concerned States Parties having adjacent borders;

(b) transnational nomination, a serial nomination of properties located in the territory of different States Parties, which need not be contiguous and which are nominated with the consent of all States Parties concerned”.

3. "[The World Heritage Committee] aware of the need to specify the submission modalities for the nomination of transboundary or transnational serial properties on the World Heritage List,

4. (…):

a) The States Parties co-authors of a transboundary or transnational serial nomination can choose, amongst themselves and with a common understanding, the State Party which will be bearing this nomination; and

b) This nomination can be registered exclusively within the ceiling of the bearing State Party."

"The World Heritage Committee, (…)

4. Encourages States Parties to integrate the notion of historic urban landscape in nomination proposals and in the elaboration of management plans of properties nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List;

5. Also encourages States Parties to integrate the principles expressed in the Vienna Memorandum into their heritage conservation policies;

6. Requests the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre to take into account the conservation of the historic urban landscape when reviewing any potential impact on the integrity of an existing World Heritage property, and during the nomination evaluation process of new sites."