1. Presentation of Nominations to the World Heritage Committee by the Advisory Bodies Presentation by ICOMOS Paris, January 2013

2. The Advisory Bodies present their evaluations of nominations to the WH Committee for: -New nominations, -Referred back or deferred nominations from previous Committee decisions, -Extensions of properties already inscribed Presentation of nominations during the WH Committee

3. The order of presentation is as follows: Natural properties are presented first, followed by Mixed and then Cultural properties; The order then follows the working document WHC-13/37.COM/8B, in English alphabetical order by Region and by country: Africa, Arab States, Asia - Pacific, Europe - North America, Latin America and the Caribbean; Within Regions, New Nominations are presented first, followed by Properties deferred or referred back by previous sessions of the World Heritage Committee and finally by the Extensions of properties already inscribed on the World Heritage List. Presentation of nominations during the WH Committee

4. The Advisory Bodies’ presentation includes: The identification of the property and of its history as a nomination The cartographic description of the property:  The nominated property or nominated properties  Their eventual buffer zones The description of the nominated property, in terms of cultural heritage in relation to attributes that convey its potential OUV Presentation of nominations during the WH Committee

5. Summary of whether the nominated properties meet the requirements of OUV as defined in the Operational Guidelines, in terms of: Comparative analysis Criteria for inscription Integrity and authenticity Adequate boundaries Protection Conservation Management Adequate responses to threats and vulnerabilities Presentation of nominations during the WH Committee

6. The evaluations of the Advisory Bodies conclude with one of the available recommendations: Inscription, if all the requirements are met Referral Deferral Not to inscribe, if the property is not seen to have the potential to meet the requirements for OUV The evaluation of the Advisory Bodies also includes technical recommendations related to the definition of the property, its protection, its conservation and its management Presentation of nominations during the WH Committee

7. Recommendation: Inscription Recommendation to inscribe if : OUV has been demonstrated: –Satisfactory comparative analysis –Justification of one or more criteria –Authenticity & integrity are satisfactory –Adequate protection is in place –Appropriate management is in place The Advisory Bodies might still make recommendations, but the inscription is not conditional on these being fulfilled.

8. Recommendation: Referral and Deferral Defined by Operational Guidelines Referral 159Nominations which the Committee decides to refer back to the State Party for additional information may be resubmitted to the following Committee session for examination Deferral 160The Committee may decide to defer a nomination for more in depth assessment or study, or a substantial revision by the State Party

9. Recommendation: Referral The ABs decide to recommend that a nomination should be referred back to the SP when additional information is needed that: –Is minor –Is supplementary to the original nomination –Can be provided in a short period of time –Does not need to be assessed through a new mission to the property ABs have less than three months to evaluate referred nominations –not enough time for a mission –or to assess a new or substantially changed nomination dossier

10. Recommendation: Referral Referred back properties should normally meet the following benchmarks: –Comparative analysis is appropriate –Conditions of authenticity and integrity have been met –Property could meet at least one criterion –OUV has been demonstrated (even if in some cases the selection of the attributes could be refined) –Management system or management plan is in place but could be reinforced

11. Recommendation: Referral The reasons for referral could be associated with –The lack of: adequate definition of the property legal protection processes to address threats that might have an impact on the property The additional information requested does not lead “to the requirement for more in depth assessment or study, or a substantial revision by the State Party”.

12. Recommendation: Deferral The ABs decide to recommend that a nomination should be deferred if the additional information from, or actions needed by the SP: –Are major –Would lead to a substantial revision of the nomination and thus a new or substantially revised nomination dossier –Would need to be assessed through a new mission to the property

13. Recommendation: Deferral The main reasons for deferral could be associated with: –The lack of: Adequate justification for OUV Appropriate choice of site(s) Adequate comparative analysis Adequate management Addressing these would call for more in-depth assessment or study, or a substantial revision by the State Party

14. Recommendations: Referral and Deferral Both Referral & Deferral can be seen as part of Upstream Processes –Where there is an opportunity for the ABs to work with SPs to address identified issues A decision to refer : –Is seen as being more encouraging to a SP –Might lead to a quicker inscription –Might preclude the SP from significantly improving its nomination A decision to defer allows a mission and possibility of refining what is nominated

15. Referral and Deferral Referral and Deferral are two different tools but the distinctions between the two processes are not always fully appreciated At its 35 th session the Committee requested a paper to consider the advantages and disadvantages of merging referral and deferral of nominations into a single mechanism with the characteristics of REFER and DEFER WHC-12/36.COM/8B

16. Merging referral & deferral: Conclusions Referral and deferral are both useful, but different processes to support the nominations submitted by States Parties. –They aim to ensure that nominations are as robust as possible in terms of how they meet the requirements of the Operational Guidelines, –and are able to address challenges Merging of referral and deferral would not benefit States Parties, but on the contrary, –they would be deprived of options that are more suitable to their case.

17. Merging referral & deferral: Conclusions If further work is needed before a property can be inscribed –the Committee might consider how this could be achieved through a dialogue with States Parties and the Advisory Bodies The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that –further reflection on this issue could be helpful in the context of the evolving discussion on the “upstream process” before any proposals are developed to amend the Op G

18. Merging referral & deferral: Conclusions At the 36 th session, the World Heritage Committee further requested the World Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies to: Elaborate further proposals on options concerning deferral and referral, (…) and to submit the findings and recommendations for examination at the 37th session of the World Heritage Committee (Decision 36 COM 13. I ) 10. (c))

19. Recommendation: Not to inscribe Recommendation not to inscribe In response to the property not demonstrating OUV, including the conditions of integrity and authenticity, and where it is does not have the potential to do so even with more work –Could only be re-nominated ‘in exceptional circumstances …[such as] new discoveries, new scientific information about the property, or different criteria not presented in the original nomination’ Deferral is not an alternative option as there would be no possibility of recommending measures that were needed for success.

20. Recommendation: Not to Inscribe In relation to serial nominations: Recommendation not to inscribe a nominated series: –Indicates that the rationale and composition of the series needs to be fully re-considered –Does not preclude a new series being nominated that overcomes the weaknesses of the first proposal

21. Dialogue with the AB’s The evaluation process offer opportunities for dialogue between the Advisory Bodies and State Parties Related to clarifying issues and requesting additional information; Specifically during the following stages of the process: Following receipt of the nominations, during and after the technical evaluation mission, and before and following the Panel meeting up until 28 th February –The Advisory Bodies welcome this dialogue The replies provided by the State Parties do in many cases confirm or assist the adoption of the final recommendations made by the AB’s

22. Dialogue with the AB’s AB’s recommendations are made available to World Heritage Committee members six weeks before the beginning of the session  The AB’s are at the disposal of States Parties to discuss and explain their recommendations;  However time constraint is an issue and the AB’s welcome further discussions on how to improve this dialogue.

23. Thank you