Results of January 2007 Meeting of Working Group on the Questionnaire and Indicators 24 January 2007

Background 30 COM 11.G created small working group to discuss questionnaire and indicators results of 1 st meeting (6-7 Nov 06) reported to previous meeting on Reflection Year on Periodic Reporting (9-10 Nov 06) since Nov, sub-groups worked to elaborate elements of proposed approach Jan meeting refined work of sub-groups

Committee Direction on Periodic Reporting Operational Guidelines describe objectives, procedures and general format Operational Guidelines Annex 7 describes detailed format and contents of reports State Party driven exercise working group proposals respect this direction and make process easier for States Parties

Periodic Report – Section II Addresses two main purposes of periodic reporting –para 201 b) provide assessment of whether OUV of the property is being maintained over time –para 201 c) provide up-dated information about the property to record changing circumstances and state of conservation of the property

Information Iceberg Periodic Reporting Monitoring and assessment (Reactive monitoring; national monitoring etc) Site Monitoring

Proposed approach electronic questionnaire, hosted on website, to achieve –information updates partially pre-filled by WH Centre verified by State Party para 201c –assessment of state of OUV, state of conservation and current conditions completed by State Party para 201b and 201c –conclusions and future actions

II. Statement of OUV Question (pre-filled) Answer (pre-filled) Source (pre-filled) Is this information correct? YesNoIf no, please correct 15. Statement of Outstanding Universal Value The World Heritage Committee, 1. Having examined Document WHC- 05/29.COM/8B, 2. Inscribes the property on the World Heritage ………. Decision of the 29 th Session ….. -- Up-date Assessment (State Party) 15.1 Does the statement of OUV adequately reflect the values for which the property was inscribed on the WH List? (If no) Provide details of why the statement of OUV should be revised and submit proposed revision YesNo 15.2 Is the WH property being managed to maintain its OUV? (LINK TO QUESTIONS ON EFFECTIVENESS) Tick one box only The WH property is not managed to maintain its OUV The WH property is only partially managed to maintain its OUV The WH property is managed to maintain and promote the OUV

II.4 Management Question (pre-filled) Answer (pre-filled) Source (pre-filled) Is this information correct? YesNoIf no, please correct 19. Financial Resources US$800,000 ( )Annual Financial report Up-date Assessment (State Party) 19.1 Is the current budget sufficient to manage the WH property effectively? Tick one box only There is no budget for effective management of the WH property. The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage. The available budget is sufficient and meets the management needs of the WH property. The available budget is sufficient but further funding would enable effective management to international best practice standards?

II.5 FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY (based on IUCN Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) Primary grouping of ‘factors’Not applicable Negative impact No impactPositive impact Regional development inside WHA Regional development outside WHA Biological resource utilisation Geological resource utilisation Transportation/ Infrastructure Climate change/severe weather Invasive/alien species Natural system and cultural site modifiers Pollution Other human intrusions/ disturbances Geological events Cultural site modifiers Management and institutional aspects (eg. deficiencies in … )

Primary grouping of ‘factors’Not applicable Negative impact No impactPositive impact Regional development inside WHA Regional development outside WHA Biological resource utilisation Geological resource utilisation Transportation/ Infrastructure Climate change/severe weather Invasive/alien species Natural system and cultural site modifiers Pollution Other human intrusions/ disturbances Geological events Cultural site modifiers Management and institutional aspects (eg. deficiencies in … ) II.5 FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY (based on IUCN Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) Third level factors Second level factors

II.7 Summary of Conclusions and Recommended Actions Criteria for WH listing WH values affected Factors affecting the property Proposed future actions MonitoringPriority and scale and timeframe Lead agency (& others involved) More info/ comment Pre-filled from up- dated data in previous section of PR Example of the WH values affected Pre-filled after assessing factors in previous section of PR Proposed management actions underway to address factors Describe system to monitor actions Pre-filled priority determined by scale (spatial and temporal) and timeframes relating to urgency List lead agency first (and others involved) i.e. links to website, plans or papers etc

Management needs Proposed future actions MonitoringTimeframeLead agency (& others involved) More info/ comments Pre-filled after assessing management in previous section of PR Proposed actions underway to address management needs Describe the monitoring system assessing factors and effectiveness of management Describe timeframe for completing actions List lead agency first (and others involved) ‘Footnote’ format which may provide links to website, plans or papers etc

Comparison - Section II European questionnaire 47% open text fields 0% pre-filled 36% yes/no Detail 166 questions 77 open text fields 59 yes/no 12 multiple choice 7 yes/no lists Proposed approach 4% open text fields 44% pre-filled 48% multiple choice or ranked Detail 124 questions 56 assessment questions –5 open fields (but not included comments) –5 yes/no –34 multiple choice –13 ranked lists 55 pre-filled data 13 headline factors affecting property assessment

Section I Proposed questionnaire following same principles as for Section II –Pre-filled with existing data and State Party verification –Fewer open-ended questions –Yes/No and multiple-choice questions amenable to statistical analysis

Benefits for WH Property Managers and States Parties Quicker and easier to do –fewer questions –less text to compose –data pre-filled Documents shared understanding of each WH property – facilitate all future discussions Assessment questions encourage best practise in management Illustrates utility of assessing management effectiveness regularly

Benefits for WH Committee Uniform approach and common terms for all regions Enables data analysis for future uses –eg training, global threat analyses Strong information base for State of Conservation, Reactive Monitoring and other discussions

Benefits for WH Centre Data input electronically –no reprocessing required –storage Facilitates information sharing with other Conventions

Indicators Determining appropriate indicators requires an agreed statement of OUV Indicators relevant to all processes (eg SoC, Danger Listing), not just Periodic Reporting –should be discussed at Benchmarks meeting For WH properties, two major categories of indicators –conservation indicators (OUV, integrity, authenticity) –management effectiveness (protection and management)

Next steps Revisions to and distribution of proposal to working group: 9 Feb Informal field testing and final working group comments: 31 March Final revisions to proposal: 20 April Draft Committee decision prepared: 11 May