WORLD HERITAGE - EXPERT MEETING ON BENCHMARKS A CONTRIBUTION FROM IUCN WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union

NEED AGREEMENT ON TERMS FIVE MAIN POINTS: NEED AGREEMENT ON TERMS WE NEED TO RECOMMEND DEFINITIONS AND TO CLARIFY TERMS BETTER INFORMATION IS REQUIRED THERE ARE SPECIFIC ISSUES IN RELATION TO BENCHMARKS AND NATURAL SITES SOME OTHER (UNRESOLVED) ISSUES WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union

(1) NEED AGREEMENT ON TERMS The use of the term Benchmark is recent within the WH Committee – it was not mentioned within the recent review of the WH Operational Guidelines There is confusion over the term, in particularly how it relates to Corrective Measures We should keep our terms as clear and simple as possible – and always consider the end user, particularly the site manager IUCN recommends that we should use the terms Benchmarks and Corrective Measures and not formally use the term indicators Common agreement on terms is essential WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union

(2) WE NEED TO AGREE DEFINITIONS AT THIS MEETING Benchmarks: IUCN agrees with the background paper definition: a benchmark is a target or a condition which needs to be achieved in order for a property to be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger (or similarly for inclusion on the Danger List) Benchmarks: IUCN suggests benchmarks should: Represent the desired end point we are trying to achieve in relation to the restoration or rehabilitation of WH properties Relate to the attributes of OUV for which the property was inscribed, as well as to the conditions of integrity of the property at the time of inscription WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union

(2) AGREE DEFINITIONS Benchmarks: IUCN suggests benchmarks should: In the case of natural properties – should be based on the achievement of ecological or geological factors – this underlines the importance of clearly defining the values of the property at the time of inscription through a Statement of OUV Be as clear, measurable and simple as possible and thus enable the WH Committee to make informed judgements WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union

(2) AGREE DEFINITIONS Benchmarks: IUCN suggests benchmarks should: Be developed through a transparent and open process, involving key stakeholders and the WH Committee Be used as a role in stimulating action by a range of actors – SPs, NGO and concerned citizens. Benchmarks can provide a useful vehicle for raising awareness and support amongst the general community WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union

(2) WE NEED TO AGREE DEFINITIONS AT THIS MEETING Corrective Measures: are noted in the Operational Guidleines but are not defined. We suggest: Corrective measures are actions undertaken within or adjacent to a particular WH property to improve its conservation status and enable it to achieve defined benchmarks and be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger Corrective Measures: IUCN suggests they should: Be seen as the means to achieving the end point (benchmarks) Directly respond to threats to the OUV of the property (which can be site specific, such as a hotel development, or generic, such as climate change) WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union

(2) AGREE DEFINITIONS Corrective Measures: IUCN suggests corrective measures should: Comprise clear actions or activities which address the threats to the property Be clear and achievable. Realistic timeframes should be identified Be backed up with adequate resources Be developed through a clear and open process. Field managers must be involved Be regularly reviewed to assess if the actions are improving the conservation status of the property. If necessary they should be changed or modified WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union

(3) BETTER INFORMATION IS REQUIRED Good information is required for the definition of benchmarks. The level of information will vary from property to property. It is thus important to make use of quantitative and qualitative (particularly expert judgement) in the definition of benchmarks The UNESCO/IUCN project « Enhancing our Heritage » provides two points in relation to information needs for natural sites: (a) better data on management effectiveness, values and threats can aid decision making in relation to whether a site should be listed as in Danger; (b) participatory monitoring and assessment methodology can be useful in relation to the Listing and Delisting process WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union

(4) SPECIFIC ISSUES IN RELATION TO BENCHMARKS AND NATURAL SITES Criteria (vii) natural beauty – benchmarks can be challenging in view of the subjective nature of this criteria. Benchmarks can be clearer where there are specific developments which threaten the visual values of the property eg development of a hotel complex Criteria (viii) geological features – benchmarks would mainly relate to impacts on particular geological features which would generally be site specific WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union

(4) SPECIFIC ISSUES IN RELATION TO BENCHMARKS AND NATURAL SITES Criteria (ix) and (x) natural systems and biodiversity – challenges are posed by: (a) adequacy of information in relation to particular biological features, such as presence and population size of key species; and (b) the relative importance of key species and numbers of species versus to the overall value of the natural ecosystem as a whole. The trend has been to inscribe sites on the basis of assemblages of species and level of endemicity. Thus benchmarks should tend to be broader although the inclusion of the measurement of key species can be useful for inclusion as a benchmark, in certain cases eg where such species can provide an indicator of overall ecosystem health WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union

(5) SOME OTHER ISSUES Should benchmarks only apply to Danger Listed properties or should they apply to all properties ? IUCN thinks they should only apply to Danger Listing. There may be potential - in the future - for more wider application, with emphasis on those properties under threat Benchmarks are also useful after a property has been taken off the Danger List, as part of on-going monitoring processes How do we deal with the fact that the values of some properties are not well defined ? Emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring all properties have a well defined Statement of OUV, with priority to Danger Listed properties. This should be supported by updated data and information WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union

(5) SOME OTHER ISSUES How do we deal with the current confusion over benchmarks and corrective measures ? (1) Agree the definitions and supporting information; (2) ensure this is widely communicated; (3) ensure these are applied in a consistent and cohesive manner by States Parties, Advisory Bodies, the Centre and others WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING The World Conservation Union