Policy Compendium
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 |
Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions
The World Heritage Committee considers it is crucial to ensure the maintenance of ecological connectivity between the property’s component parts, by strengthening and improving measures to ensure consistency and greater functional linkages between component sites of a property and its surrounding, and to develop appropriate measures to minimize the effects of any activity on ecological connectivity and/or ensure its restoration (based on case law on decisions on State of Conservation and Nomination).
| Theme: | 3.5.5 - Biological resource use/modification |
| See for examples Decisions: | 35 COM 8B.9 41 COM 7B.37 43 COM 7A.8 43 COM 8B.10 44 COM 7B.175 44 COM 7B.174 44 COM 7B.114 |
The World Heritage Committee encourages States Parties to ensure that no commercial logging can be permitted within the property/to ban all commercial logging (based on Case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
| Theme: | 3.5.5 - Biological resource use/modification |
| See for examples Decisions: | 37 COM 7B.26 38 COM 7A.45 41 COM 7A.19 41 COM 7B.4 41 COM 7B.1 |
| Threats: | Aquaculture Commercial hunting Commercial wild plant collection Crop production Fishing/collecting aquatic resources Forestry /wood production Land conversion Livestock farming / grazing of domesticated animals Subsistence hunting Subsistence wild plant collection |
The World Heritage Committee requests to undertake research to determine the effects and impact from existing resource use, including fishing activities, grazing and collection of medicinal plants on the OUV of the property and to work with communities and to fully involve local resource users to promote sustainable resource uses and practices (based on Case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
| Theme: | 3.5.5 - Biological resource use/modification |
| See for examples Decisions: | 38 COM 7B.84 38 COM 7B.62 40 COM 7B.85 41 COM 7B.17 41 COM 7B.15 43 COM 7B.8 |
| Threats: | Aquaculture Commercial hunting Commercial wild plant collection Crop production Fishing/collecting aquatic resources Forestry /wood production Land conversion Livestock farming / grazing of domesticated animals Subsistence hunting Subsistence wild plant collection |
| Theme: | 3.5.13 - Management and institutional factors |
| Decision: | 38 COM 7 |
| Threats: | Financial resources Governance High impact research / monitoring activities Human resources Legal framework Low impact research / monitoring activities Management activities Management systems/ management plan |
23. [The World Heritage Committee,] noting with concern that the lack of an integrated management approach is reported to cause challenges to the coordination of management and decision making processes of properties where different authorities are involved, in particular in the cases of mixed, serial, and transboundary properties, urges States Parties to establish appropriate mechanisms in order to facilitate a coordinated approach to the management of all properties, in line with the requirements of the Operational Guidelines as laid out in Paragraphs 112, 114, and 135, and encourages States Parties with contiguous natural properties on either side of their international borders, which are not listed as transboundary properties, to establish appropriate mechanisms for cooperation between their respective management authorities and ministries;
24. Also encourages States Parties to promote recognition and awareness across all relevant national and regional agencies of the World Heritage status of the properties on their territory, and to develop mechanisms to ensure consideration of impacts on Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) in the decision making processes of relevant ministries, before permits are issued for developments that could negatively impact the OUV."
| Theme: | 3.5.13 - Management and institutional factors |
| Decision: | 40 COM 7 |
| Threats: | Financial resources Governance High impact research / monitoring activities Human resources Legal framework Low impact research / monitoring activities Management activities Management systems/ management plan |
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.
