Transcript Conclusions of the Berlin Meeting Lessons learned from Periodic Reporting and future directions 2nd Periodic Reporting Reflection Year Meeting UNESCO, 2-3 March 2006 A.

Conclusions of the Berlin Meeting
Lessons learned
from
Periodic Reporting and
future directions
2nd Periodic Reporting Reflection Year Meeting
UNESCO, 2-3 March 2006
A. Lemaistre/M. Rossler (EUROPOL)
History
1982:
1984:
1988:
1987:
1991:
1992:
1994:
1995:
1998:
2000:
2002:
2006:
2007:
Committee discussions on SOC
First IUCN SOC reports
First ICOMOS SOC reports
Questionnaire introduced (abandoned in 1991)
First systematic exercise by UNDP in LAC and
Mediterranean
Strategic Orientations: goal 4 introduced systematic
monitoring
Committee requested periodic reports
Discussion at the General Assembly
Format adopted by the Committee
First report presented
Budapest declaration
Last report to be presented
Reflection of process, results, and new strategic directions
Periodic Reporting serves following purposes:
1. to provide an assessment of the application of the World
Heritage Convention by the State Party;
2. to provide an assessment as to whether the outstanding
universal value of the properties is being maintained over
time;
3. to provide up-dated information about the properties to
record their state of conservation and the changing
circumstances;
4. to provide a mechanism for regional co-operation and
exchange of information and experiences
5. to ensure effective long term conservation of properties
(para 202)
Periodic Reporting Reflection Year
Objectives of the Periodic Reporting Year of Reflection:
1. Review the outcomes of and reflect on the first cycle of
Periodic Reporting
2. Develop strategic direction on the questionnaires and
format of Periodic Report
3. Streamline Committee’s consideration of matters raised
though Periodic Reporting (including House keeping
issues)
4. Ensure effective links between Soc and Periodic
Reporting
5. Identify training priorities from all Periodic Reports
6. Identify international cooperation priorities from all
Periodic Reports
7. Reflection on a new regional grouping
Periodic Reporting Reflection Year
First Workshop, 2 May 2005, WHC-Enhancing our
Heritage
•
•
•
•
•
•
Too many elements of information/data requested to SP
Too narrative-descriptive data
Difficulty to compare them (different questionnaires)
Reliability of data
No statistic indicators requested
No link yet between PR tool and other WH tools/documents (SOC,
Nomination dossier)
• SP : Time consuming and costly exercise
• Site managers not involved in the exercise
But positive results!
Arab Region
First cycle : 44 Properties in 12 States Parties (Report in 2000)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Low rate of answers for Section II (Section I: 11 out of 12, Section II: 6 out
of 12 )
Problems of understanding because of language and first to undertake the
exercise
Confusion and sometimes contradiction in answers
General absence of adequate information/documentation (no maps etc...)
GIS exists BUT usually in other ministries (ex: Ministry of equipment)
Lack of understanding of OUV of properties
Ignorance Lack of knowledge about WH Convention
No baseline for monitoring conservation
PR is the only existing monitoring system (are we sure of that?)
Central government driven initiative
No possibility (or could we say opportunity) to access directly to Site
Managers
The concept of one Site Management structure does not exist (Ichkeul : too
many administrative entities concerned)
Arab Region
Positive results of PR:
1. Regional Programme with a Monitoring Committee to
review the programme every 3 years. Adopted by the
WH Committee in 2003. Last Regional Meeting to
review the programme: 4-7 December 2005, Abu Dhabi
(United Arab Emirates)
2. Projects such as : Project for Development of
information management capacities in the Arab States
(two workshops : Saqqara, Egypt, 17 Feb-4 March 2004
Ichkeul, Tunisia, 3-16 May 2004)
3. Assistance Modules for a better understanding and
implementation of the Convention (drafted by IUCN and
ICCROM)
Africa
First cycle : 40 properties in 18 States Parties,
•
•
•
•
•
•
report in 2002
High central government driven initiative: focal
points have no contact with Site Managers
Lack of understanding of World Heritage values
Lack of scientific information
Lack of financial resources
Lack of mechanisms for addressing natural and
entropic threats to Heritage
No-existence of frameworks for transboundary
and serial transnational properties
Africa
Positive and concrete results of PR
1. Regional training Programmes: Africa
2009 and Africa Nature
2. Creation of African World Heritage Fund
3. Inscription of new categories
of African sites on the World Heritage List
Asia/Pacific
First cycle :88 properties in 39 States Parties
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SP sensitized on PR from 1998 when questionnaire was
adopted
Problem of language (Chinese/Russian)
Absence of Pacific Region (except NZ and Australia)
Involvement of UNESCO field Offices
Questionnaire : positive rate of answers, useful tool for
SP and site managers, appreciated by SP
No possibility for SP to retrieve the nominations dossiers
Useful as enhancing cooperation with other IGO’s and
NGO’s
SPs do not want to change the cycle
Asia/Pacific
Positive and concrete results of PR
•
Two Regional Programmes, ActionAsia2003-2009 and
World Heritage Pacific 2009, adopted in July 2003
•
Publication WH Paper 12: The State of World Heritage
in the Asia-Pacific Region; as well as CD-Rom of
summary of country and site-specific reports + National
Periodic Reports submitted to WHC;
•
A WHC based Web-page on APA Periodic Reporting
made available to SPs, site managers in March 2005
(http://whc.unesco.org/periodic reporting);
•
Regional, sub-regional meetings organized to develop
Action Plans on follow-up to PR (New Zealand,
Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia);
•
Assistance provided to SPs in addressing needs
identified
Latin America/Caribbean
-
-
High rate of response : section I :
75%/Section II : 90%
ABs fully involved with Regional Focal
points
SPs request for follow up
Detailed analysis of reports and results
What are the objectives of PR?
Indicators to improve decision-making
Role of site managers to be reassessed
USA/Canada:
North American report
First cycle : 31 properties in 2 States Parties
•
•
•
•
Useful activity: Close cooperation &
partnership, Senior level Steering
Committee, Joint Regional Report
Improvements needed at SP and site level
No guidance for regional report available
North America could be a model: strategic
focus
Europe
First cycle : 248 properties in 48 States Parties
•
•
•
Electronic tool: overall positive and results of
use encouraging; available for all regions; needs
improvements and streamlining
Clear approach needed as to how to deal with
follow-up;
Roles of ABs and Centre different in each
process: for Europe WHC in the steering and
guiding role; less involvement of ABs improved
however in process;
Electronic Tool
Link with other Conventions
•
•
•
•
•
Cooperation between biodi-conventions : often overlap,
formats complex, institutional linkages
Harmonization: avoid duplication/increase
efficiency/imprive access/above all : coherent national
implementation of Conventions (casestudies)
Biodiversity Liaison Group (webportal, common
reporting modules/facilitating harmonization)
Elements for the future : on line
reporting/indicators/shared lessons learnt
Overall World Heritage reporting process not bad
(output oriented)
PR Reflection Year
Role of Advisory Bodies in PR :
different involvement according to Regions
•
ICOMOS : Is PR a tool for conservation?
•
IUCN: is PR making a difference and how?
Simplified version needed.
•
ICCROM : PR as Training needs analysis but
does PR help for day to day site management?
PR Reflection Year
Assessment of the process of PR
Up-Stream
•
Lack of information/awareness
Format and questionnaire
•
Questionnaire too narrative-right questions were not
asked
•
Too complex (terminology not understood), too long,
too repetitive
•
Format did not fit with transboundary and serial
properties
Stakeholders
•
Significant workload at SP level
•
Site managers not involved in the process
•
No systematic involvement of Advisory Bodies
PR Reflection Year
Assessment of the process of PR
Reporting and Regional Report
•
Key documents are inaccessible to States Parties (including
nominations)
•
Lack of guidance for the Regional report
Impacts/results
•
Raised awareness at all levels
•
Regional cooperation
•
No link with other processes of teh WH Convention: Soc,
International Assistance etc..
Follow up
•
No systematic feed back to States Parties and to Sites Managers
•
Lack of assessment of mechanisms of the overall process
Conclusions
Who reads all the material and is it of practical use: PR has to
contribute to conservation of properties and the implementation
of the Convention
PR Reflection Year
Assessment of format and questionnaire
Section I: fine but scope needs to be clarified
Section II:
•
format is adequate & sake of continuity
•
only updates for next cycle/recent info,
•
new section on Follow up
•
Should be simplified
•
Streamlining: second round easier
•
Electronic tool: applicable for all regions?
•
Link to nominations
•
Link to SOC: longer term
•
Indicators: valuable tool
•
Authenticity/Integrity
•
Role of ABs
•
Site managers should be involved: awareness & knowledge
about Committee’s stewardship….
PR Reflection Year
A revised questionnaire?
•
•
•
a pre-filled questionnaire based on nomination dossiers, data already collected
during the 1er including Reactive monitoring and Retrospective Inventory
States parties will be requested to check data
A new part of the questionnaire should be created to assess the state of
conservation of World Heritage properties since last PR exercise
•
Two innovative proposals for the questionnaire:
- Matrix on the main conservations issues (inspired by Jon Day’s proposal)
- Monitoring indicators on management effectivness of the property (inspired
by the score card evaluation system developped by World Bank and Enhancing
our Heritage)
Period
covered
by PR
AFR
up to 1993
Number of
States
Parties
involved
in the 1st
cycle of
PR
Number of
properties
covered by
the 1st
cycle of PR
Total
number of
properties
per region
18
40
65
Number of properties never assessed
in the PR exercise
(28 Feb. 2006)
25
(38%)
APA
up to 1994
39
88
164
76
(46%)
ARB
up to 1992
12
44
61
17
(28%)
EUR
up to 1998
48
248
378
130
(34%)
NA
up to 2004
2
31
31
0
LAC
up to 1995
27 (?)
62
113
51
(45%)
TOTAL
496
812
316
(39%)
PR Reflection Year
1.
Review the outcome of and reflect upon the first cycle of Periodic
Reporting
2.
Develop strategic direction on the questionnaires and format of
Periodic Reports
For discussion on Friday 3 March 2006
3.
Streamline the Committee’s consideration of matters raised though
Periodic Reporting (including Housekeeping issues)
4.
Ensure effective links between Soc and Periodic Reporting
For discussion for next meeting on 26-27 October 2006 (to be confirmed)
5.
Identify training priorities from all Periodic Reports
6.
Identify international cooperation priorities from all Periodic
Reports
7.
Reflect on a new regional grouping
PR Reflection Year
“Housekeeping issues”:
•
•
•
•
•
statements of outstanding universal value/significance
name changes
boundary changes (confirmation of boundaries and
bufferzones)
cleaning up of criteria (renumbering; geological heritage
clarification)
re-nomination under other criteria
Understanding of potential workloads for
Centre, ABs and Committee
PR Reflection Year
Relation between SOC and PR (Decision 29 COM 7Bc)
Links between Periodic Reporting and Reactive Monitoring: How can this
work better in the future?
Number of properties Period covered
reviewed by PR
by PR
Number of SOC
Number of
reports
properties covered
examined by
by these SOC
Committee
reports
during same
period
AFR
40
> 1993
47
16
APA
88
> 1994
35
20
ARB
44
> 1992
13
10
EUR
248
> 1998
129
66
NA
14
> 2004
56
14
LAC
62
> 1995
34
16
Total
496
314
142
Data Management
Property data sheet
SOC
NOMINATIONS
Management
plans
DECISIONS
Thank you!