Expert Workshop on Benchmarks and Chapter IV of the Operational Guidelines 2 – 3 April 2007

Benchmarks (targets): Is this Where we should be focusing our energy? Monitoring the State of Conservation and Management of World Heritage Sites seems to be the more promising focus (Chapter IV) Integration of the concepts of monitoring not just to Chapter IV, but also to all of the other World Heritage processes, in particular the Nomination Process (Chapter III) and the Periodic Reporting Process (Chapter V) Introduction

Definition (American Heritage Dictionary) 1. A standard by which something can be measured or judged 2. often bench mark A surveyor's mark made on a stationary object of previously determined position and elevation and used as a reference point in tidal observations and surveys Usually used to describe an industry standard/standards Tend to not change or at least not quickly/often For our own purposes, “Target” may be a better word as it is more flexible and does not imply one standard across all sites The selection of benchmarks/targets is only one small part of the overall monitoring process Benchmarks

Monitoring: Measuring Change Over Time Outstanding Universal Value (based on Statement of Significances and Criteria) Attributes that Carry the OUV Adequate Management of Site ExternalTreats

Attributes are the same ones with which we measure authenticity/integrity Tangible or Intangible – –Physical fabric of the building (tangible) – –Skyline or roofscape (tangible) – –Relation of open space to built up area (tangible) – –Construction know-how (intangible) Sites inscribed under Criterion vi may or may not have tangible attributes – –Example Robben Island Attributes

Monitoring: Measuring Change Over Time Outstanding Universal Value (based on Statement of Significances and Criteria) Targets (Benchmarks) Attributes that Carry the OUV State of Conservation and Management Indicators of Conservation and Management Adequate Management of Site ExternalTreats

Qualitative Indicators – –Photos, drawings, descriptions compared over time Quantitative Indicators – –Example: Percentage of Buildings in Good Condition Yes/No Indicators – –Example: Management Plan – Yes or No Indicators and Their Targets

Physical fabric of the building – –Structural and surface conditions of building adquate (qualitative) – –Number of buildings in good condition (how many is enough) Skyline or roofscape – –No encroachment of tall buildings (yes/no) Relation of open space to built up area – –Square meters of open space to built up areas (what is the proper ratio) – –Existing open spaces protected (yes/no) Construction know-how – –Number of young people learning the construction system (how many is enough??) Indicators and Targets

Nomination Process – –States Parties should develop nomination dossiers that include descriptions of attributes that carry OUV and indicators and targets for assessing change over time – –ICOMOS/IUCN must assess these as part of their evaluation to be reviewed and agreed to by the Committee Periodic Reporting Process – –Sites which have these mechanisms at inscription can measure changes over time – –Sites without can develop these mechanisms as part of the Periodic Reporting Process Reactive Monitoring Process – –Mechanisms should be developed as a matter of course during all reactive monitoring missions Process

In many cases, the indicators/targets already developed as part of the monitoring process will be sufficient for tracking identified problems In specific cases, an unforeseen threat may develop which require new indicators/targets to be developed Corrective measures can then be developed and adjusted over time to ensure that the State of Conservation is improving over time (as measured by the indicators) Corrective measures can be developed and introduced both at the Reactive Monitoring phase and the In-Danger phase Reactive Monitoring and In-Danger Listing

Final Thoughts A monitoring system may be quite complex so the Committee should be as clear as possible as to what it expects from site managers We need to avoid using jargon as much as possible We need to ensure we use the same language and processes across the various World Heritage processes such as nominations and inscriptions, periodic reporting, reactive monitoring, in-danger listing, etc. (for example, the periodic reporting questionnaires should be consistent with what is asked for during nominations and reactive monitoring)

Conserving culture, promoting diversity for more information: