Policy Compendium
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Decision: | 31 COM 5.2 |
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Decision: | 42 COM 7 |
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
Decision: | 43 COM 5E |
The World Heritage Committee encourages States Parties to monitor wildlife and populations, including key species, in order to assess the populations and trends (based on case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
See for examples Decisions: | 37 COM 7B.11 38 COM 7B.92 40 COM 7B.70 40 COM 7B.69 41 COM 7A.15 |
The World Heritage Committee recommends establishing key monitoring indicators to relate more directly to the Outstanding Universal Value to allow for judgment of changes in state of conservation, and adding specific indicators, periodicity and institutional responsibilities (based on Case law on decisions on Nominations).
Theme: | 3.2.1 - General |
See for examples Decisions: | 38 COM 8B.37 39 COM 8B.33 39 COM 8B.25 41 COM 8B.38 41 COM 8B.33 41 COM 8B.31 41 COM 8B.28 41 COM 8B.27 41 COM 8B.26 |
Paragraph 169
“Reactive Monitoring is the reporting by the Secretariat, other sectors of UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies to the Committee on the state of conservation of specific World Heritage properties that are under threat. To this end, the States Parties shall submit specific reports and impact studies each time exceptional circumstances occur or work is undertaken which may have an impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property or its state of conservation. Reactive Monitoring is also foreseen in reference to properties inscribed, or to be inscribed, on the List of World Heritage in Danger (…). Reactive Monitoring is also foreseen in the procedures for the eventual deletion of properties from the World Heritage List (…)”.
Theme: | 3.2.3 - Reactive Monitoring |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Paragraph 170
“When adopting the process of Reactive Monitoring, the Committee was particularly concerned that all possible measures should be taken to prevent the deletion of any property from the List and was ready to offer technical co-operation as far as possible to States Parties in this connection.”Theme: | 3.2.3 - Reactive Monitoring |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
Theme: | 3.2.3 - Reactive Monitoring |
Decision: | 43 COM 7.1 |
Paragraph 192
“The Committee adopted the following procedure for the deletion of properties from the World Heritage List in cases:
a) where the property has deteriorated to the extent that it has lost those characteristics which determined its inclusion in the World Heritage List; and
b) where the intrinsic qualities of a World Heritage site were already threatened at the time of its nomination by human action and where the necessary corrective measures as outlined by the State Party at the time, have not been taken within the time proposed (…)”.
Theme: | 3.2.5 - Deletion of a World Heritage property from the List |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
a) Incorporate well-designed buffer zones based on a holistic understanding of natural as well as human induced factors affecting the property, supported by reinforcing relevant legal, policy, awareness and incentive mechanisms, into new nominations and where appropriate into existing properties to ensure enhanced protection of World Heritage properties,
b) Place particular emphasis on strategic environmental assessment and impact assessments for potential projects within buffer zones to avoid, negative impacts on OUV from developments and activities in these zones,
c) Develop buffer zone protection and management regimes that optimize the capture and sharing of benefits to communities to support the aspirations of the 2015 Policy for the integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention,
d) Ensure buffer zones are supported by appropriate protection and management regimes in line with the property’s OUV, that build connectivity with the wider setting in cultural, environmental and landscape terms."
Theme: | 3.3 - Impact assessments |
Decision: | 44 COM 7.2 |
9. "(…) appropriate balance, integration and harmonization between the protection of OUV and the pursuit of sustainable development objectives will include (…) provisions for the systematic assessment of environmental, social, and economic impacts of all proposed developments, as well as effective monitoring through continuity in data collection against agreed indicators."
Theme: | 3.3 - Impact assessments |
Source: | Policy for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention (WHC-15/20.GA/INF.13) |
Paragraph 172
“The World Heritage Committee invites the States Parties to the Convention to inform the Committee, through the Secretariat, of their intention to undertake or to authorize in an area protected under the Convention major restorations or new constructions which may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property. Notice should be given as soon as possible (…) and before making any decisions that would be difficult to reverse, so that the Committee may assist in seeking appropriate solutions to ensure that the Outstanding Universal Value of the property is fully preserved.”
Theme: | 3.3 - Impact assessments |
Source: | OG Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.19/01 - 10 July 2019) |
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."
Theme: | 3.3 - Impact assessments |
Decision: | 35 COM 12E |
Theme: | 3.3 - Impact assessments |
Decision: | 39 COM 7 |
(…)
34. [The World Heritage Committee] (s)tresses the importance of carrying out Heritage Impact Assessments to evaluate and thereby avoid or manage potential threats to the OUV of the property arising from new urban development projects."
Theme: | 3.3 - Impact assessments |
Decision: | 44 COM 7.2 |
Threats: | Commercial development Housing Industrial areas Interpretative and visitation facilities Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure |
Theme: | 3.3 - Impact assessments |
Decision: | 42 COM 7 |
The World Heritage Committee requests the States Parties to ensure that development is not permitted if it would impact individually or cumulatively on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property (based on Case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
Theme: | 3.3 - Impact assessments |
See for examples Decisions: | 36 COM 7B.8 38 COM 7B.69 38 COM 7B.62 39 COM 7B.15 40 COM 7B.105 41 COM 7B.42 43 COM 7B.4 44 COM 8B.38 |
The World Heritage Committee requests the States Parties to provide, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, detailed information on the planning and design of proposed and on-going projects, which may impact on the visual integrity of the World Heritage property or its immediate and wider setting, and undertake a visual impact study, for review by the Advisory Bodies, prior to approval and implementation and before making any decisions that would be difficult to reverse (Based on Case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
Theme: | 3.3 - Impact assessments |
See for examples Decisions: | 27 COM 7B.67 28 COM 15B.74 28 COM 15B.71 31 COM 7B.94 31 COM 7B.90 31 COM 7B.89 32 COM 7B.72 33 COM 7B.113 35 COM 7B.96 37 COM 7B.96 38 COM 7B.42 41 COM 7B.43 41 COM 7B.23 |
Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions
The World Heritage Committee requests to develop effective traffic management studies and elaborate measures and strategies, including monitoring, when the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) could be affected by traffic (based on case law on decisions on the State of Conservation and Nomination).
Theme: | 3.5.2 - Transportation infrastructure |
See for examples Decisions: | 35 COM 7B.67 38 COM 7B.28 39 COM 7A.48 41 COM 7B.94 42 COM 7B.52 43 COM 7B.45 43 COM 8B.32 44 COM 7B.127 44 COM 7B.37 44 COM 8B.5 |
25. "[The World Heritage Committee] notes with concern that the number of cases of ground transport infrastructure having potential impact on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of World Heritage properties is continuing to grow, and calls upon States Parties to carry out Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) early in the process of transportation planning to allow for potential impacts of the OUV, including those resulting from foreseeable associated future developments, to be identified prior to the development of specific projects;
26. Encourages States Parties to carry out Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) on ground transport projects, once they are designed, with multiple options to ensure that transportation needs can be met with minimal impacts on the OUV of World Heritage properties."
Theme: | 3.5.2 - Transportation infrastructure |
Decision: | 40 COM 7 |
Threats: | Air transport infrastructure Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure Ground transport infrastructure Marine transport infrastructure Underground transport infrastructure |
3.2.1 - General
3.2.3 - Reactive Monitoring
3.2.5 - Deletion of a World Heritage property from the ...
3.3 - Impact assessments
3.5.2 - Transportation infrastructure
3.5.4 - Pollution
3.5.5 - Biological resource use/modification
3.5.6 - Physical resource extraction
3.5.8 - Social/cultural uses of heritage
3.5.9 - Other human activities
3.5.10 - Climate change and severe weather events
3.5.11 - Sudden ecological or geological events
3.5.12 - Invasive/alien species or hyper-abundant ...
3.5.13 - Management and institutional factors
3.6 - Tourism and visitor management
3.7 - Sustainable development
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.