Transcript Retrospective Inventory, Periodic Reporting and State of

The revised Periodic Reporting
Questionnaires: general
features
Alessandra Borchi
Policy and Statutory Meetings Section
UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Sub-Regional Workshop for World Heritage
National Focal Points in Central, Eastern
and South-Eastern Europe
Tbilisi, Georgia, 14-16 November 2012
Section I and
Section II
Questionnaires
1978-1998
Retrospective
Statements of
Outstanding
Universal Value
Retrospective
Inventory
The « three pillars » of the
Periodic Reporting Exercise
Periodic Reporting
1978-2006
1978-2012
Origins of the revised
questionnaire
• After the First Cycle of Periodic Reporting, a number of States
Parties and the World Heritage Centre identified problems
concerning the questionnaires
• The World Heritage Committee requested in 2005 a
simplification of the Questionnaire and appointed a Working
Group to this purpose (Decision 30COM 11G)
• The Working group drafted (2005-2007) a revised questionnaire
• The revised questionnaire was field-tested in 2008 (20 States
Parties, 32 properties)
• A final consolidated version of the questionnaire, including
comments by States Parties participating in the field testing, was
approved by the World Heritage Committee in 2008 (Decision
32COM 11E)
How the revised questionnaires solve the
problems identified by States Parties in
the old questionnaires
• Request of data already available at the World
Heritage Centre → pre-filling
• Difficult access to the sources of information
→ pre-filling + links
• Too narrative/descriptive information (timeconsuming) → yes/no and multiple choice
questions + shorter questionnaire
How the revised questionnaires solve the
problems identified by the World Heritage
Centre in the old questionnaires
• Comparing results across regions → the
same questionnaire
• Difficult to retrieve data and elaborate
statistics → electronic tool
• Reliability of data → more qualitative than
quantitative approach
The differences between
Section I and Section II
• Section I concerns the implementation of the
World Heritage Convention at the national level,
while Section II concerns each World Heritage
property
• Section I concerns all cultural and natural
heritage (World Heritage or not), while Section II
only concerns World Heritage properties
• Section I is filled-in by the Focal Point, while
Section II is filled-in by the site manager and then
validated by the Focal Point, who submits it to the
World Heritage Centre
The structure of Section I
1. Introduction
2. Inventories/lists/registers for cultural and natural heritage
3. Tentative List
4. Nominations
5. General Policy Development
6. Status of Services for Protection, Conservation and Presentation
7. Scientific and Technical Studies and Research
8. Financial Status and Human Resources
9. Training
10. International Cooperation
11. Education, Information and Awareness Building
12. Conclusions and Recommended Actions
13. Assessment of the Periodic Reporting Exercise
The structure of Section II
1.
2.
3.
4.
World Heritage Property Data
Statement of Outstanding Universal Value
Factors affecting the Property
Protection, Management and Monitoring
of the Property
5. Summary and Conclusions
6. Conclusions of the Periodic Reporting
Exercise
The components
The number of
the question
The title of
the question
The pre-filled
information
The question and
the answer
The disclaimer
The space for
comments and
updates
The status of
the answer
The Users’
Guide
The types of questions:
1) check and up-date
The types of questions:
2) Yes/No
The types of questions:
3) Multiple choice
The types of questions:
4) Rating
The types of questions:
5) Percentages
N.B. Both cells have to be filled-in. Make sure that, if you
write «100» in one of them, you write «0» in the other
The types of questions:
6) Open fields
Maximum 500 characters allowed!
The types of questions:
7) Assessment
The Factors’ Cycle
2) The summary table
1) The identification
4) The identification of
management responses
3) The assessment
of the current
negative factors
The Management Needs’ Cycle
1) The identification
3) The identification of
management responses
2) The choice (6 key management needs)
Technical features:
1) the language
Technical features
2) Print/Export
Technical features:
3) Navigation and «thermometer»
Technical features:
4) saving and answering at
different times
Pre-filling: the process
The World Heritage Centre gathers baseline
data in cooperation with the States Parties
concerned
↓
The data gathered by the World Heritage Centre
are used to pre-fill the Periodic Reporting
questionnaires
↓
Every cycle of Periodic Reporting, the State
Party concerned checks the accuracy of
those data and if needed updates them
Pre-filling: the methodology
The methodology of pre-filling is based upon the
following principles:
• Only information submitted officially by the State Party is used
•
The pre-filling is made on the basis of what is available at the World
Heritage Centre, not necessarily of what exists at the national level
• The pre-filling is made in English or French: the choice is based on the
language of the State Party (Section I) and on the language of the
Nomination file (Section II)
• For the Section II, only data referring to the World Heritage property as
inscribed are included
• For the Section II, all documents mentioned in the questionnaire (map,
Management plan, etc.) can be downloaded
Pre-filling: which sections?
Section I
Section II
• Introduction
• Property data
• Tentative List
• Statement of OUV
• Nominations
• Protection and Management
• General Policy
Development
• International assistance
Pre-filling: the sources
• World Heritage Centre database
• Tentative Lists submitted by the States Parties
• Nomination files
• Questionnaires of the first cycle of Periodic Reporting
• Management Plans
• Maps
The exemption from the
Suzhou-Cairns quota
The World Heritage Committee (…)
11. Decides that significant modifications to
boundaries and changes to criteria (renominations) requested by States Parties as a
follow-up to the Second Cycle of the Periodic
Reporting Exercise will not fall within the limit of
two nominations per State Party per year
imposed by Paragraph 61 of the Operational
Guidelines, while they will still fall within the
overall limit of forty-five complete Nominations per
year. This decision shall apply for the 1st
February 2013 and 1st February 2014 deadlines
for the Asia and the Pacific Region, after which
time the normal limit established in Paragraph 61
will be resumed;
Decision 36 COM 10A
Frequently asked questions
•
What timeframe needs to be taken into
account when answering?
• Can the site manager submit the Section II
to the World Heritage Centre by mistake?
• Does the questionnaire need to be filled-in
at 100% in order to be sent?
• Is the electronic submission sufficient, or is
a paper submission also needed?
• In the case of transnational/transboundary
properties, who answers the questionnaire?
Thank you for your
attention