Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Policy Compendium

DecisionsYesclose
Themes2.7.4.1 - Generalclose2.2.5.4 - Sustainable useclose2.7.4 - Cultural Landscapesclose2.2.6 - Boundaries and buffer zonesclose2.2.3 - Authenticityclose2.2.2 - World Heritage criteriaclose2.6 - Comparative studiesclose2.4 - Upstream Processclose
Select source(s): 0
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
(iv) "The authenticity of a cultural property remains an essential criterion."
Theme: 2.2.3 - Authenticity
Decision: 3 COM XI.35
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions

The World Heritage Committee recommends paying particular attention to the conservation of authenticity and to inaccurate reconstructions and the risk of over-interpretation, with regard to restoration and development works, including architectural restorations and of technical historical reconstructions (based on Case law on decisions on Nominations).
Theme: 2.2.3 - Authenticity
See for examples Decisions:  37 COM 8B.41 38 COM 8B.34
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.2 - Outstanding Universal Value
Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions

The World Heritage Committee encourages the use of traditional materials and skills in restoration works and interventions (based on Case law on decisions on the State of Conservation).
Theme: 2.2.3 - Authenticity
See for examples Decisions:  34 COM 7B.53 38 COM 7B.52 40 COM 7B.41 41 COM 7B.46 43 COM 7A.33 43 COM 7B.76
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
4. "[The World Heritage Committee] (…) recalls that, in order to be effective, the upstream support should ideally take place at an early stage, preferably at the moment of the preparation or revision of the States Parties’ Tentative Lists."
Theme: 2.4 - Upstream Process
Decision: 41 COM 9A
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
(ii) "In its justification of the outstanding universal value of the property nominated, each State should, whenever possible, undertake a sufficiently wide comparison."
Theme: 2.6 - Comparative studies
Decision: 3 COM XI.35
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List

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."

Theme: 2.6 - Comparative studies
Decision: 7 EXT.COM 4A
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
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).
Theme: 2.6 - Comparative studies
See for examples Decisions:  34 COM 8B.7 34 COM 8B.3 35 COM 8B.16 36 COM 8B.35 37 COM 8B.21 37 COM 8B.17 37 COM 8B.11 38 COM 8B.22 38 COM 8B.18 38 COM 8B.17
2 - Policies Regarding CREDIBILITY of the World Heritage List
2.7 - Types of World Heritage properties
2.7.4 - Cultural Landscapes
Synthesis based on relevant Committee decisions

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.


With the Support of

top