“States Parties are responsible for implementing effective management activities for a World Heritage property. States Parties should do so in close collaboration with property managers, the agency with management authority and other partners, local communities and indigenous peoples, rights-holders and stakeholders in property management, by developing, when appropriate, equitable governance arrangements, collaborative management systems and redress mechanisms.”
“If a State Party wishes to request a minor modification to the boundaries of a property already on the World Heritage List, it must be prepared in compliance with the format of Annex 11 and must be received by 1 February by the Committee through the Secretariat, which will seek the evaluation of the relevant Advisory Bodies on whether this can be considered a minor modification or not. The Secretariat shall then submit the Advisory Bodies’ evaluation to the World Heritage Committee. The Committee may approve such a modification, or it may consider that the modification to the boundary is sufficiently significant as to constitute a significant boundary modification of the property, in which case the procedure for new nominations will apply.”
“Upstream Process: In relation to the nomination of sites for inscription on the World Heritage List, the “Upstream Process” comprises advice, consultation and analysis that occurs prior to the preparation of a nomination and is aimed at reducing the number of nominations that experience significant problems during the evaluation process. The basic principle of the Upstream Process is to enable the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre to provide guidance and capacity building directly to States Parties, throughout the whole process leading up to the preparation of a possible World Heritage nomination. For the upstream support to be effective, it should be undertaken from the earliest stage in the nomination process, at the moment of the preparation or revision of the States Parties’ Tentative Lists.
The purpose of the advice given in the context of a nomination is limited to providing guidance on the technical merit of the nomination and the technical framework needed, in order to offer the State(s) Party(ies) the essential tools that enable it(them) to assess the feasibility and/or actions necessary to prepare a possible nomination.
Requests for the Upstream Process shall be submitted using the official format (Annex 15 of the Operational Guidelines). Should the number of requests exceed the capacity, then the prioritization system as per paragraph 61.c will be applied.”
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."
“[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 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.”
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."
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).
“Cultural landscapes are cultural properties and represent the "combined works of nature and of man" designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal.”
7. “[Cultural Landscapes] … should be selected on the basis both of their Outstanding Universal Value and of their representativity in terms of a clearly defined geo‑cultural region and also for their capacity to illustrate the essential and distinct cultural elements of such regions”.
9. “Cultural landscapes often reflect specific techniques of sustainable land‑use, considering the characteristics and limits of the natural environment they are established in, and a specific spiritual relation to nature. Protection of cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques of sustainable land‑use and can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape. The continued existence of traditional forms of land‑use supports biological diversity in many regions of the world”.
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).