Transcript World Heritage Periodic reporting Latin America and the Caribbean Carolina Castellanos / Mexico.

World Heritage
Periodic reporting
Latin America and the Caribbean
Carolina Castellanos / Mexico
LAC Periodic reporting
•
The Periodic reporting process in Latin America and the Caribbean has
been evaluated and summarized. The main conclusions from this report
were presented at the Berlin meeting (see N. Schulze, 2005).
This presentation will focus on some of the issues experienced through the
reporting process, mainly:
•
Methodology for report elaboration: role of State Parties, site managers
and advisory bodies and specific regional context;
•
Questionnaires for periodic reporting;
•
Considerations for periodic reporting and monitoring and potential
areas for improvement.
LAC Periodic reporting
Methodology for implementation of reporting process:
•
As per the WH Committee's mandates, the implemented process was
regional, participatory and forward-looking. It was structured so as to
allow flexibility and adaptation according to regional needs.
•
Creation of the regional groups of experts was distinctive from other
regions and allowed for information to be interpreted and put into the
context of larger issues affecting heritage in LAC.
•
The reporting process derived by-products useful for future endeavors
including preparation of reactive monitoring missions, state of
conservation reports, etc.
•
Critical evaluation of the process allows for adaptations and
extrapolation of lessons learnt to other regions with similar conditions.
LAC Periodic reporting
Implementation of reporting process: specific issues
•
In general, State Parties and site managers expressed their satisfaction
with the results and were critical of their own deficiencies.
•
State Parties were not sufficiently involved in the process, initiatives
had to be continually spearheaded by the WH regional advisor in the
Unesco office in Montevideo. This was largely related to the
understanding of the process and to the lack of continuity of personnel
involved with periodic reporting.
•
The separation of natural and cultural heritage continues to exist on the
political, institutional and site level in the region. This reflects a
tendency that goes against the very nature of the Convention.
LAC Periodic reporting
Questionnaires for periodic reporting
•
Quantitative information provides means to identify trends and a
framework to present qualitative data, which is needed to further
discuss specific needs or put particular problems into context.
•
In general, State Parties expressed positive opinions for both sections
although length and perceived repetitiveness was criticised. Although
wording and translation might explain some of the confusion, the fact
remains that many of these concepts are not widely understood by
people working with heritage in the region (e.g. values, authenticity,
integrity, management, monitoring, etc.)
•
Because concepts are not readily understood, there was difficulty in
extrapolating general questions to particular contexts which was
reflected in the submitted reports.
LAC Periodic reporting
Considerations for periodic reporting
•
Review the questionnaires to eliminate sources of confusion that were
expressed by the State Parties and the site managers in their reports. A
glossary of terms, which reflects the meaning and use of concepts in
context of the LAC region would be useful for a next cycle.
•
Main reflection should be on what is it we want to evaluate, for what
purposes, what is the expected outcome and how is it going to be used?
This will allow to develop a framework for the reporting exercise and
tailor questionnaires accordingly.
•
Periodic reporting is much more than collecting data. Results allows us
to elucidate the state of the art and formulate policies and strategic
plans to invest in enhancing conservation and management practices
and the implementation of the Convention. It is also a tool for regional
cooperation through the implementation of comprehensive actions and
to articulate funding amongst heritage investors to avoid duplicity and
overlap. It is also a leverage tool for site managers.
LAC Periodic reporting
Considerations for periodic reporting
•
In LAC, lack of involvement was largely due to misunderstandings on
the nature and benefits of reporting processes. For many, it was no
more than a bureaucratic requirement, almost like a certification
process. This might entail work with the State Parties to raise
awareness and show the usefulness of monitoring exercises, not only
for WH purposes but also to enhance heritage practices.
•
Feedback is expected from the State Parties and from the site
managers after the time and effort invested in the exercise.
•
Follow-up is needed on the implementation of the defined action plans,
which address critical issues in the region. If prescribed actions are not
implemented, it is likely the next reporting cycle will portray a very
similar situation.
LAC Periodic reporting
Considerations for periodic reporting
•
Different levels and types of participation in report producing according
to the scale. For section I, several institutions will need to collaborate
while in section II site managers will need to bring together diverse
interest groups to report. The choice of tools also varies according to
the scale.
•
Section I: what sort of data provides information on the implementation
of the Convention? Less information might be needed to identify trends
and cross cutting issues on different scales but precise indicators are
still needed to identify, measure and compare change.
•
Monitoring the state of implementation of the Convention can provide
useful data to enhance policies at the national and regional levels and
promote the development of better frameworks for heritage
conservation and evaluate in subsequent cycles how this has
contributed to the state of properties.
LAC Periodic reporting
Considerations for periodic reporting
•
For sites more detailed information might be needed. However, this will
be of limited use unless it is produced under precise and systematic
guidelines that will allow to gauge change and adapt management and
conservation systems accordingly.
•
Produced data should constitute baseline information for applications
beyond the scope of WH requirements. It should be actively used by
site managers and State Parties in the conservation and management
of sites.
LAC Periodic reporting
Considerations for periodic reporting
•
There are still critical issues to address for effective site monitoring to
occur particularly precise significance and value assessments
correlated with physical attributes and implementation of value-driven,
holistic, participatory planning processes.
•
Monitoring, evaluation and adaptation, at the core of heritage
management, is still not implemented at many sites because
management plans that prescribe the means for this to happen have
not been developed or have not been implemented. When this is
imbedded in the daily activities of site managers, periodic reporting will
not be considered a cumbersome but rather a regular, basic activity.