World Heritage Periodic reporting Latin America and the Caribbean Carolina Castellanos / Mexico

LAC Periodic reporting The Periodic reporting process in Latin America and the Caribbean has been evaluated and summarized. The main conclusions from this report were presented at the Berlin meeting (see N. Schulze, 2005). This presentation will focus on some of the issues experienced through the reporting process, mainly: Methodology for report elaboration: role of State Parties, site managers and advisory bodies and specific regional context; Questionnaires for periodic reporting; Considerations for periodic reporting and monitoring and potential areas for improvement.

LAC Periodic reporting Methodology for implementation of reporting process: As per the WH Committee's mandates, the implemented process was regional, participatory and forward-looking. It was structured so as to allow flexibility and adaptation according to regional needs. Creation of the regional groups of experts was distinctive from other regions and allowed for information to be interpreted and put into the context of larger issues affecting heritage in LAC. The reporting process derived by-products useful for future endeavors including preparation of reactive monitoring missions, state of conservation reports, etc. Critical evaluation of the process allows for adaptations and extrapolation of lessons learnt to other regions with similar conditions.

LAC Periodic reporting Implementation of reporting process: specific issues In general, State Parties and site managers expressed their satisfaction with the results and were critical of their own deficiencies. State Parties were not sufficiently involved in the process, initiatives had to be continually spearheaded by the WH regional advisor in the Unesco office in Montevideo. This was largely related to the understanding of the process and to the lack of continuity of personnel involved with periodic reporting. The separation of natural and cultural heritage continues to exist on the political, institutional and site level in the region. This reflects a tendency that goes against the very nature of the Convention.

LAC Periodic reporting Questionnaires for periodic reporting Quantitative information provides means to identify trends and a framework to present qualitative data, which is needed to further discuss specific needs or put particular problems into context. In general, State Parties expressed positive opinions for both sections although length and perceived repetitiveness was criticised. Although wording and translation might explain some of the confusion, the fact remains that many of these concepts are not widely understood by people working with heritage in the region (e.g. values, authenticity, integrity, management, monitoring, etc.) Because concepts are not readily understood, there was difficulty in extrapolating general questions to particular contexts which was reflected in the submitted reports.

LAC Periodic reporting Considerations for periodic reporting Review the questionnaires to eliminate sources of confusion that were expressed by the State Parties and the site managers in their reports. A glossary of terms, which reflects the meaning and use of concepts in context of the LAC region would be useful for a next cycle. Main reflection should be on what is it we want to evaluate, for what purposes, what is the expected outcome and how is it going to be used? This will allow to develop a framework for the reporting exercise and tailor questionnaires accordingly. Periodic reporting is much more than collecting data. Results allows us to elucidate the state of the art and formulate policies and strategic plans to invest in enhancing conservation and management practices and the implementation of the Convention. It is also a tool for regional cooperation through the implementation of comprehensive actions and to articulate funding amongst heritage investors to avoid duplicity and overlap. It is also a leverage tool for site managers.

LAC Periodic reporting Considerations for periodic reporting In LAC, lack of involvement was largely due to misunderstandings on the nature and benefits of reporting processes. For many, it was no more than a bureaucratic requirement, almost like a certification process. This might entail work with the State Parties to raise awareness and show the usefulness of monitoring exercises, not only for WH purposes but also to enhance heritage practices. Feedback is expected from the State Parties and from the site managers after the time and effort invested in the exercise. Follow-up is needed on the implementation of the defined action plans, which address critical issues in the region. If prescribed actions are not implemented, it is likely the next reporting cycle will portray a very similar situation.

LAC Periodic reporting Considerations for periodic reporting Different levels and types of participation in report producing according to the scale. For section I, several institutions will need to collaborate while in section II site managers will need to bring together diverse interest groups to report. The choice of tools also varies according to the scale. Section I: what sort of data provides information on the implementation of the Convention? Less information might be needed to identify trends and cross cutting issues on different scales but precise indicators are still needed to identify, measure and compare change. Monitoring the state of implementation of the Convention can provide useful data to enhance policies at the national and regional levels and promote the development of better frameworks for heritage conservation and evaluate in subsequent cycles how this has contributed to the state of properties.

LAC Periodic reporting Considerations for periodic reporting For sites more detailed information might be needed. However, this will be of limited use unless it is produced under precise and systematic guidelines that will allow to gauge change and adapt management and conservation systems accordingly. Produced data should constitute baseline information for applications beyond the scope of WH requirements. It should be actively used by site managers and State Parties in the conservation and management of sites.

LAC Periodic reporting Considerations for periodic reporting There are still critical issues to address for effective site monitoring to occur particularly precise significance and value assessments correlated with physical attributes and implementation of value-driven, holistic, participatory planning processes. Monitoring, evaluation and adaptation, at the core of heritage management, is still not implemented at many sites because management plans that prescribe the means for this to happen have not been developed or have not been implemented. When this is imbedded in the daily activities of site managers, periodic reporting will not be considered a cumbersome but rather a regular, basic activity.