UNESCO ‘Year of Reflection’ Workshop, Periodic reporting for World Heritage … Proposed list of ‘Factors affecting World Heritage’

List of factors affecting World Heritage property Initially proposed was a standardised list for all WH properties (natural & cultural) Previously referred to as proposed ‘list of threats’ but clearly some factors have positive impacts Based initially on the previous work of IUCN ‘Conservation Measures Partnership’ and then ICCROM list considered Process will assist managers to both identify relevant factors, as well as assess their impacts (-ve & +ve) Now a more systematic process that will feed into the Assessment Form and the Summary Table

Benefits of the proposed list of ‘Factors affecting World Heritage values’ Builds upon an existing lists IUCN, ICCROM Will assist whoever is completing Periodic Rpt (esp WH site managers) by prompting them…. 13 primary groupings of factors Two subsequent levels of factors (only need to go the subsequent layers if factor is relevant to WH property) Electronic (‘pull down’ boxes) …clickable answer Facilitate more regular assessment of what are important factors for the WH property Will assist WH Centre by enabling more effective analyses of factors: regionally/globally trends over time assist in determining capacity/training gaps

Benefits of the proposed list (cont) May similarly assist State Parties by enabling more effective regional analyses Key aspects (ie relevant factors) ‘exported’ automatically into the Summary Table Note factors identified as having positive impacts will also be listed in summary table, but not proposing to go through similar more detailed assessment process

Primary groupings of ‘factors’ 1. Regional development inside WHA 2. Regional development outside WHA 3. Biological resource utilisation 4. Geological resource utilisation 5. Transportation/ Infrastructure 6. Climate change/ severe weather 7. Invasive/alien species 8. Natural system and cultural site modifiers (see also 12 for other cultural site modifiers) 9. Pollution 10. Other human intrusions/ disturbances 11. Geological events 12. Cultural site modifiers 13. Management and institutional aspects (eg. deficiencies in …)

Assessment process Initially managers will use the standardised list to quickly indicate which factors are: Not applicable to their WH property Clear (or likely) negative impact Relevant but no impact Clear (or likely) positive impact (Note many managers will not need to go beyond the 1 st or 2 nd level; 3 rd level is for specific factors within a broader activity eg fishing) Managers will then go through a second assessment process to make ‘an informed’ assessment of the level of impact The aggregated ‘scores’ will then determine a relative list of the negative impact … the top 5-6 factors will be exported into the summary table

Assessment process (cont) For all those issues identified as having a negative impact on the property, assess each against the following criteria on a 1-4 scale: i. Spatial scale of factor (small/localised widespread/whole WHA) ii. Temporal scale (one-off/rare ongoing) iii. Impact on integrity and/or authenticity (minor/insignificant catastrophic) iv. Capacity for management response (low capacity/no resources high capacity)

Benefits of the proposed approach to assessing ‘Factors affecting World Heritage values’ Will assist WH site managers …. and hopefully may be applied more than just once every 6 years Will assist WH Centre Potential to assist State Parties IMPORTANT TO INITIALLY AGREE ON THE USE OF LIST OF FACTORS (ie PROCESS)… …. then the working group can refine the actual factors

Summary table - Part 1 (= summary of Periodic Reporting) 1. Criteria for WH listing 2. Exampl e of WH Values affected 3. Factors affecting WHA/ WH values 4. Manage ment actions 5. Monitor ing 6. Priority & scale 7. Lead agency (& others involved ) 8. More info/ comments From Data-sheet Example of the WH values affected From Assessment Form (ie‘assessme nt of factors’) From Assessment Form - the proposed manag’t actions underway to address the factors in (3) Describe the monitoring assessing (3) and effectivenes s of (4) Relative priority determine d by assessment process; scale (spatial and temporal scale) also pre-filled List lead agency first (and others involved) ‘Footnote’ format which may provide links to more information (eg website)

Summary table - Part 2 (= summary of Periodic Reporting) Identified need to improve management effectiveness Actions to address identified need Pre-filled from Assessment FormManager must describe actions that are underway and/or to be taken

Summary Report (ie previously called the matrix) Advantages Many parts ‘pre-filled’ from answers provided elsewhere: Criteria for WH listing (from Datasheet) Factors affecting the property (from Assessment Form) Forces managers to recognise the top 5-6 key factors affecting their WH property Will effectively shows linkages between key components (eg what management action is proposed against a key factor) Will highlight significant ‘gaps’ (eg no monitoring identified against important adverse impact) Will provide a concise summary of periodic reporting process Will assist in making better comparisons over successive Periodic Reports

Periodic reporting – purpose & recommended approach Electronic on-line forms (with e-links to good examples) Datasheets Use existing docs; pre-filled by WHC and corrected by S/Party if req’d Similar information often required for other Conventions Matrix provides many advantages: Retains main components of exiting report, but more effectively shows linkages between above components (eg threats/actions/monitoring etc) Highlights significant ‘gaps’ (eg monitoring lacking against important adverse impact) Provides concise summation of periodic report Would assist in making better comparisons over successive Periodic Reports Tracking tool provides many advantages: Shows managers what is ‘best practice’/can encourage this Can do statistical analysis of results Enables training gaps to be identified Can still add additional narrative text Common list of key factors affecting WH values (~’threats’)

Reporting for other conventions Many common elements required for reporting in: World Heritage Convention Convention on Biological Diversity CITES Convention on Migratory Species RAMSAR Many reports are onerous (CBD report is over 200 pp) Why not a common set of key elements for all these conventions (based on major impacts on values), followed by a small set of set of questions for the specific Convention?

Periodic reporting – purpose & recommended approach Purpose of PR (OG) Recommended approach 1. …assessment of application of WH Convention by State party (OG). Section I pre-filled from PR1 (corrected by State party if incorrect). Tracking tool approach will also indicate ‘best practice’ approach. Data sheet/ID card will also collate information. 2. …assessment of whether OUV is maintained over time (OG). Best achieved by comparing successive PRs applying matrix approach (using key aspects of OUV, applying threats & resulting mgt strategies & monitoring). Essential to agree on simple format that is repeatable over successive PRs. 3…provide up-to-date info about property to record changing circumstances & SOC (OG) Matrix approach will provide overview. Must first have up-to-date datasheets as baseline; may also use Retrospective Inventory. Once achieved, then Section II format (amended to new nomination format, but see also (4)); can also add additional narrative text. Also apply new ‘Threats’ checklist in PR. 4. …mechanism for regional cooperation & exchange info between State parties (OG) (also “… a dialogue tool among WH community”) Section II format, but use the Tracking tool approach to indicate ‘best practice’ approach; can also add additional narrative text. … a monitoring tool for State parties... Matrix approach (using key aspects of OUV, applying threats & resulting mgt strategies & monitoring) … a decision-making tool for WH committee… Using all the above approaches

Key principles for periodic reporting 1. Relatively simple – pre-filled AFAP; tick-a box where possible eg. against pre-designed list of threats 2. Focussed on the key issues (ie key threats & actions to address those threats) 3. Repeatable – it’s the trends that are important; also less effective if only done every 6-10 years! 4. ‘Linked’ - to explicitly show links between values and threats; threats and actions (ie the matrix); also linked to other WH tools

Key principles for periodic reporting 5. Practical/useful for management- espec to monitor change & progress (…must not be onerous; no use if its not real/correct) 6. Recognise there will be change in virtually all WH sites 7. Indicate complexity of the task – many actions required long term solutions; many actions also involved external agencies