Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Current statutory monitoring processes Guy Debonnet Chief Special Projects Unit UNESCO World Heritage Centre Experts meeting on global challenges in the state of conservation of World Heritage properties April Dakar, Senegal

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Monitoring: at heart of the Convention Preamble Noting that the cultural heritage and the natural heritage are increasingly threatened with destruction not only by the traditional causes of decay, but also by changing social and economic conditions which aggravate the situation with even more formidable phenomena of damage or destruction, Art. 4 duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of natural and cultural heritage Art. 6 recognize that the protection of world heritage is the duty of the international community as a whole To achieve this, the State of Conservation of the WH sites needs to be monitored

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Monitoring: strength of the World Heritage Convention Periodic Reporting (OG 199 – 210): periodic report by State Parties on the implementation of the Convention and the state of conservation of the properties inscribed in their territoriesState Party driven Reactive monitoring (OG 169 – 176) reporting by secretariat and advisory bodies on the state of conservation of specific properties under threat to ensure that measures are taken to adress these threats - Possibility to inscribe on List of WH in Danger - Possibility to delete properties from WH List driven by WH Committee

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE MEETS CRTIERIA INTEGRITY AND AUTHENTICITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT Illustration of the three pillars of Outstanding Universal Value. All three must be in place for a property to meet the requirements of the World Heritage LIst The three pillars of Outstanding Universal Value (Note: Authenticity is not applicable to natural properties)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Basis for Monitoring Framework O utstanding U niversal V alue Monitoring should ensure that: -Values for which property was inscribed (based on the criteria for inscription) are being maintained -Integrity and/ or Authenticity is being maintained -Proper legal protection and management system is in place to ensure values and integrity

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Reactive monitoring process

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 How do sites get on to the reactive monitoring process? 1. Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines: “States Parties to inform the Committee, via the World Heritage Centre, of intention to undertake major restorations or new constructions…before making decisions that would be difficult to reverse.” 2. Information received through networks of the Advisory Bodies or UNESCO World Heritage Centre and UNESCO field offices 3. Missions by UNESCO/ World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM) 4. Other sources of information including specialized NGOs, individuals, press, other States Parties etc.

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Steps of the Reactive Monitoring Process/1 Information received by the World Heritage Centre or Advisory Bodies; Comments requested to State Party (Para 174 of OG) and review by Advisory Bodies (para 175 of OG) Based on comments from State Party and other information, WHC and Advisory Bodies decide whether case requires SOC Report to the Committee; If case is particularly urgent, a reactive monitoring mission can be dispatched immediately by the DG, in close consultation with State Party, including through the “Reinforced Monitoring Mechanism” (RMM).

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Steps of the Reactive Monitoring Process/2 If a SOC report is prepared and presented to the COM, the related Draft Decision may request a report from the State Party (1 February of the following year) and / or propose a reactive monitoring mission; Joint WHC-IUCN/ICOMOS/ICCROM mission is organised in consultation with State Party; Terms of Reference (TOR) are established based on COM Decision; Joint mission report is prepared and shared with State Party for comments; then, SOC Report for the Committee is drafted, integrating comments from State Party, if any / if on time; Decision by the Committee in June/July (State Party informed by letter in August/September)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Decisions by World Heritage Committee (OG para 175–176) -Might decide that more information is needed: request report to SP or send WHH/AB monitoring mission -If not seriously deteriorated, no further action required -If seriously deteriorated, recommend to the State Party necessary measures to restore the property within a resaonable timleframe; possibility for SP to request IA from WHF -If OUV is threatened with potential or ascertained danger: inscription on List of World Heritage in Danger -If OUV is irretrievably lost: Deletion from WH List

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Most recurrent types of problems Development and infrastructure (e.g. encroachment, urban pressure, dams, mining...) Other inappropriate human activities (e.g. poaching, logging, civil unrest, armed conflicts,...) Natural events and disasters (e.g. fires, extreme weather events, invasive species, climate change…) Management and legal issues (e.g. legal protection, enforcement, cooperation, boundaries) Other factors (decay, deterioration, etc.)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Threats Average percentage of natural (left) and cultural (right) properties affected by each of the five primary groups of threats between 2005 and 2009

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Threats Africa Arab States Asia- Pacific Europe and Latin Am. and the Development and infrastructure projects ===  Other human activities === Natural events and disasters ==== Management and legal issues ===== Other issues =  == ( INCREASING -  DECREASING - = STABLE HIGH - = STABLE LOW ) Trends showing how each region has been affected by each of the five primary groups of threats over the 5-year period studied ( )

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Success stories of the World Heritage Committee through reactive monitoring Lake Baikal

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Success stories of the World Heritage Committee through reactive monitoring Lake Baikal Abomey by Lazare Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Success stories of the World Heritage Committee through reactive monitoring Historic Centre of Vienna (Austria) Maya Site of Copan (Honduras)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Reinforced Monitoring New process since the 31st session of the World Heritage Committee (2007) : Reinforced Monitoring Mechanism adopted by Decision 31 COM 5.2 Should provide the Committee with information « between sessions » Applied to 3 cases by the World Heritage Committee in 2007 to sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger; applied to 8 more cases by the World Heritage Committee in 2008 (not on the List of World Heritage in Danger) and by the Director General to 2 cases in 2009 RMM will be evaluated by 35COM

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Inscription on List of World Heritage in Danger (OG § 177) If the values which constitute the OUV (including integrity and authenticity) of a property are threatened by serious and specific danger and major operations are necessary for its conservation: Inscription on LWHD Inscription on the LWHD is not a punishment but a call for action to the SP in cooperation with the other SP

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger Distinction between potential danger and ascertained danger (OG § 179, 180): Potential Danger: the property is faced with threats which could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics Ascertained Danger: the property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger In addition, the factor(s) threatening the integrity of the property must be those amenable to correction by human action (OG, § 181)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Programme of corrective measures (OG § 183 – 185) WHC / AB mission will ascertain the present condition of the property, evaluate nature and extent of threats develop corrective measures to be taken in consultation with State Party Objectives of the corrective measures: –Address urgent threats to the property through appropriate management and conservation actions –Restore integrity of the property –Allow for a regeneration of its OUV Corrective measures adopted by the Committee

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Programme of corrective measures (OG § 183 – 185) Inscription on LWHD WHC/AB mission Assessment of SOC Start Implementation of the corrective measures

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Properties inscribed on LWHD due to potential danger Potential Danger: an action is planned that could threaten the OUV and integrity of the site Corrective measure: decision to abandon the action Inscription on LWHD Start action which will affect OUV

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Examples of potential danger (OG § 170, 180) Cultural properties: -Modification of judicial status diminishing degree of protection -Threatening effects of regional planning projects, town planning -Gradual changes due to geological, climatic or other environmental factors Natural properties: -Modification of legal protective status -Planned resettlement or development projects that threaten the property -Management system is lacking, inadequate or not fully implemented

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Properties inscribed on LWHD as a result of potential danger Cultural property: Cologne Cathedral (Germany)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Properties inscribed on LWHD due to ascertained danger The property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger; degradation of OUV is on-going Inscription on LWHD WHC/AB mission Start Implementation of the corrective measures

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Examples of ascertained danger (OG § 170, 180) Cultural sites: -Serious deterioration of materials, structure, ornamental features, architectural or town-planning coherence, urban or rural space, or natural environment -Significant loss of historical authenticity -Loss of cultural significance Natural sites: -Serious decline in the population of endangered species by natural or man-made factors -Severe deterioration of natural beauty or scientific value by developmental activities (dams, mining, pollution, logging, public works, …) -Human encroachment on boundaries or upstream areas threatening the integrity

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Properties inscribed on LWHD as a result of ascertained danger: Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Case of ascertained danger: more complex than the case of potential danger - degradation is on-going as result of a combination of threats - restoration of OUV is often slow and complex, requiring a implementation of a series of corrective measures, regularly updated and sustained over time

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Specific case of properties inscribed LHWD as a result of conflict -Inscription on LWHD often without clear information on impact on OUV -Not immediately possible to identify corrective measures -As long as conflict is on going, objective of inscription on LWHD is to slow degradation -Rapidly changing situation in the field might result in new and additional threats over time -Restoration can only start after return of peace -Restoration can be long is degradation is severe -Examples: Dubrovnik, Rwenzori Mountains National Park, Manas, DRC properties, Comoé, Air et Ténéré

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Deletion from the World Heritage List (OG § 192 – 198) -Necessary corrective measures were not taken -Property has deteriorated to the extent that OUV is lost or can no longer be restored Inscription on LWHDDeletion WH List

Orientation session for Committee Members: 25 July 2010 Conclusions: State of conservation of properties 1.Key process under 1972 Convention, but linked with all other processes; 2.All World Heritage properties subject to threats; only specific cases with (potential) impacts on OUV, integrity/authenticity brought to attention of the World Heritage Committee; 3.Crucial: best practice management and effective conservation at site level; 4.Dialogue State(s) Party(ies)-Advisory Bodies–WHC essential; Convention: tool for global conservation action, including Danger Listing as a process.