1. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Orientation Session Tuesday 27 th October 2009 Nominations to the World Heritage List ICOMOS

2. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Purpose of Nominations How can Nominations be Given the Best Possible Chances of Success? The Evaluation Process Outcomes

3. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Purpose of Nominations To achieve the inscription of a property on the World Heritage List Through persuading the Advisory Bodies, and ultimately the Committee, that the property has OUV Integrity and authenticity Adequate protection, conservation & management

4. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Purpose of Nominations Make a robust, well researched, well argued and well presented case for: What the property is Why it has OUV What are the attributes that reflect OUV How OUV is sustained –through adequate protection and management of the attributes that reflect OUV

5. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Purpose of Nominations To gain understanding and support of Key Stakeholders At local, national and, if possible, international level

6. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Many properties fail to achieve inscription –particularly at the first submission –Although the ABs set out to find the most positive outcome possible –Sometimes it is not possible to recommend inscription –ABs always make recommendations for better protection, conservation and management

7. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL How can Nominations be Given the Best Chance of Success? Tentative lists Time Focus

8. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Tentative Lists Crucial starting point Essential that Tentative Lists reflect: –Emerging thinking of the Committee: Global Strategy –Advisory Body studies GAP Reports Thematic Studies –Key World Heritage concepts Operational Guidelines

9. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Tentative Lists Thinking on OUV evolves over time In response to changing perceptions of heritage –Related to the implementation of the WH Convention Tentative Lists must be aware of, and to a degree reflect, the thinking of their time –Recommended that Tentative Lists are reviewed at least every ten years

10. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Tentative Lists Well-focused, well informed Tentative Lists –Needs time, expertise and support –Not the job of a few experts in isolation If nominations are to be fully supported at all levels –Particularly by local communities It is essential that Tentative Lists are the opportunity for scoping of national heritage and full discussions as to what could be nominated

11. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Tentative Lists The Tentative List should be the time to consider initial thoughts on: SoOUV Comparative analysis to show whether: –Similar property already represented on the WH List –Other similar properties might be nominated elsewhere in the future

12. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Nominations: Time Time the biggest enemy of successful nominations Time needed for: Support mechanisms – national and local Gathering material Research Mapping New management systems/coordination Specific legal protection

13. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Nominations: Time Lack of adequate time –perhaps through political commitments May leads to dossiers that lack focus, not underpinned by sufficient justification, or incomplete This can lead to recommendations for referral or deferral Frustrating for States Parties, the Committee and the ABs

14. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Nominations: Focus Focused team – collaborate as group Focused process: –Identify potential OUV and attributes –Ensure this is Justified by comparative analysis Supported by documentation and research –Make sure adequate protection and management is in place

15. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Nominations: Focus Focused dossier: –Justifying OUV most crucial part of the dossier Weighty dossier does not make up for weakness in justification of OUV –Facts do not replace arguments OUV is about Why the property is of global significance: Dossier presents this case

16. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Some dossiers: Seem to have been written very quickly Lacking in evidence – documented research Written by experts who do not relate the arguments well to the property OUV appears to have been written as the last part not the first part of the text Unbalanced – too many facts, not enough analysis, argument and justification Nominations: Focus

17. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Nominations: Focus As many nominations have become more complex – large cultural landscapes, serial properties Focus on key messages becomes much more important To achieve this, good project management systems are needed

18. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Nominations: Evaluation process All material must be submitted through World Heritage Centre Nomination deadline -1 st February Voluntary pre-nomination completeness check – end September

19. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Two main parts to the ABs evaluation: 1.OUV 2.Protection & Management Both must be in place before inscription A property may fail on one or both of these parts: –It may have OUV but not satisfactory protection and management –It may be well protected and managed but not have OUV

20. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Nominations: Evaluation Process Nominations ↓ UNESCO ↓ ICOMOS ↓ World Heritage Group ↓ Desk Assessors + Mission + Desk Assessors ↓ ICOMOS Panel ↓ World Heritage Committee

21. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Nominations: Evaluation Mission Main interaction with States Parties Understanding of purpose: –Protection, conservation, management, presentation, community support –Not about OUV Mission experts will not give an opinion –Press conferences should not be arranged It is the dossier that is being evaluated –Mission too late to bring in new arguments

22. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Nominations: Further Information Following mission or panel ABs may request further information Strengthening dialogue with State Parties: –Panels in November/December Request for additional information earlier –Not all States Parties will be contacted during the evaluation process States Parties should endeavour to respond in succinct way Rather than submit new or heavily revised dossiers

23. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Evaluation Outcome Outcome is the corporate view of the relevant Advisory Body or Bodies –Not the single view of mission experts This outcome is presented to the Committee through the: –AB Report –Short illustrated presentation

24. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Committee Outcome Inscribe OUV justified, protection, management in place Not inscribe OUV not justified and could not be justified in the future

25. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Committee Outcome Refer back: OUV demonstrated Further information, clarification needed No new mission necessary Defer: OUV not satisfactorily demonstrated New or amended dossier needed Mission necessary

26. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Committee Outcome Whether deferral or referral, nomination may be re-submitted following year Deferral – full evaluation process over 14 months With new mission and new desk reviews Referral – short evaluation process over 2 months With no mission or desk reviews Not satisfactory for new boundaries, justification, criteria, where new or amended dossier necessary

27. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Advisory Bodies act in the best interests of the properties This sometimes means recommending more time to Define properly OUV and attributes Put in place robust protection and management arrangements To try and ensure that properties do not appear in the SOC list soon after inscription

28. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 17 th e ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DES ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Thank you Merci Gracias Спасибо 谢谢 ﺸﻜﺮﺍﻦ