1. Evaluation of New World Heritage Nominations 2013-14 2012

2. OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE CRITERIA MET INTEGRITY PROTECTION MANAGEMNT OG: Paras 77 & 78 The 3 pillars of the concept of Outstanding Universal Value ( natural sites)

3. Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) Emphasis: Representativeness: ecosystem, landscape, habitat and species conservation through effective PA systems and ecological networks Determinant: Outstanding Universal Value Sites nominated individually or serially can cross the threshold if they meet one or more WH criteria and stringent requirements of integrity Relationship of World Heritage Sites to other types of protected areas (PAs) in terms of Outstanding Universal Value versus Representativeness as key determinants Decreasing Global Numbers; Increasing International Recognition Potential OUV (T/Lists)

4. FOUR PRINCIPLES GUIDE IUCN’S EVALUATIONS Highest standards of assessment based on independent expert analysis and field assessment, and consistent with the Operational Guidelines; Partnership with the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM, and UNEP-WCMC; Promotion of World Heritage properties as “flagships” of conservation; Use of IUCN and other specialist networks - including with IUCN World Commission for Protected Areas, Species Survival Commission as well as new agreements with the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) and International Association of Geomorphologists (IAG)

5. IUCN Technical Evaluation Report to World Heritage Committee Field Mission (1-2 experts) External Reviews (10-20 experts) Consultation with National and Local Authorities, Local Communities, NGOs, Other Stakeholders IUCN World Heritage Programme Nomination Dossiers from World Heritage Centre IUCN World Heritage Panel

6. IUCN Technical Evaluation Report to World Heritage Committee Field Mission (1-2 experts) External Reviews (10-20 experts) Consultation with National and Local Authorities, Local Communities, NGOs, Other Stakeholders IUCN World Heritage Programme Nomination Dossiers from World Heritage Centre IUCN World Heritage Panel March-June 2013

7. IUCN Technical Evaluation Report to World Heritage Committee Field Mission (1-2 experts) External Reviews (10-20 experts) Consultation with National and Local Authorities, Local Communities, NGOs, Other Stakeholders IUCN World Heritage Programme Nomination Dossiers from World Heritage Centre IUCN World Heritage Panel June- November 2013 March-June 2013

8. IUCN Technical Evaluation Report to World Heritage Committee Field Mission (1-2 experts) External Reviews (10-20 experts) Consultation with National and Local Authorities, Local Communities, NGOs, Other Stakeholders IUCN World Heritage Programme Nomination Dossiers from World Heritage Centre IUCN World Heritage Panel Panel 1: December 2013 June- November 2013 March-June 2013

9. IUCN Technical Evaluation Report to World Heritage Committee Field Mission (1-2 experts) External Reviews (10-20 experts) Consultation with National and Local Authorities, Local Communities, NGOs, Other Stakeholders IUCN World Heritage Programme Nomination Dossiers from World Heritage Centre IUCN World Heritage Panel Panel 1: December 2013 June- November 2013 March-June 2013 Suppleme ntary Info: Feb 2014

10. IUCN Technical Evaluation Report to World Heritage Committee Field Mission (1-2 experts) External Reviews (10-20 experts) Consultation with National and Local Authorities, Local Communities, NGOs, Other Stakeholders IUCN World Heritage Programme Nomination Dossiers from World Heritage Centre IUCN World Heritage Panel Panel 1: December 2013 June- November 2013 March-June 2013 Panel 2: March 2014 Suppleme ntary Info: Feb 2014

11. IUCN Technical Evaluation Report to World Heritage Committee Field Mission (1-2 experts) External Reviews (10-20 experts) Consultation with National and Local Authorities, Local Communities, NGOs, Other Stakeholders IUCN World Heritage Programme Nomination Dossiers from World Heritage Centre IUCN World Heritage Panel Panel 1: December 2013 June- November 2013 March-June 2013 Panel 2: March 2014 Suppleme ntary Info: Feb 2014 Finalisation of reports, translation, printing and layout.

12. IUCN Technical Evaluation Report to World Heritage Committee Field Mission (1-2 experts) External Reviews (10-20 experts) Consultation with National and Local Authorities, Local Communities, NGOs, Other Stakeholders IUCN World Heritage Programme Nomination Dossiers from World Heritage Centre IUCN World Heritage Panel Evaluation report completed six weeks before COM (mid May 2014) Panel 1: December 2013 June- November 2013 March-June 2013 Panel 2: March 2014 Suppleme ntary Info: Feb 2014 Finalisation of reports, translation, printing etc.

13. IUCN Technical Evaluation Report to World Heritage Committee Field Mission (1-2 experts) External Reviews (10-20 experts) Consultation with National and Local Authorities, Local Communities, NGOs, Other Stakeholders IUCN World Heritage Programme Nomination Dossiers from World Heritage Centre IUCN World Heritage Panel Exchange of letters with State Party before and after Panel as required. Supplementary information. Meetings if possible. Calls, email frequent. Exchange of letters with State Party before mission, including questions. Mission arranged in partnership with State Party.

14. EVALUATION PROCESS: SOME ISSUES Communication between the State Party and AB during the nomination process is helpful but challenging and limited by available time, and the nature of the evaluation which is a report for the Committee. Time very short especially at the end of the process. More interaction with nominating States Parties would be welcome but we seem to be at the limit of possibilities within the current process and timelines. The most helpful times to increase interactions are before nominations are submitted, and also before discussion at the Committee when the evaluation has been concluded. The clear need for the upstream process implies a new way of working, but we have to also work within the existing process until a new one is defined … so how to institutionalise upstream processes into the Operational Guidelines is now a key question requiring a forward plan.