Conclusions of the Berlin Meeting Lessons learned

fromPeriodic Reporting and

future directions

2nd Periodic Reporting Reflection Year Meeting

UNESCO, 2-3 March 2006

A. Lemaistre/M. Rossler (EUROPOL)

History

1982: Committee discussions on SOC1984: First IUCN SOC reports1988: First ICOMOS SOC reports1987: Questionnaire introduced (abandoned in 1991)1991: First systematic exercise by UNDP in LAC and

Mediterranean1992: Strategic Orientations: goal 4 introduced systematic

monitoring1994: Committee requested periodic reports1995: Discussion at the General Assembly1998: Format adopted by the Committee2000: First report presented2002: Budapest declaration2006: Last report to be presented2007: Reflection of process, results, and new strategic

directions

Periodic Reporting Periodic Reporting serves following purposes: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 YearFirst 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 RegionFirst 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)

AfricaFirst 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/PacificFirst 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/PacificPositive 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 YearAssessment of the process of PRUp-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 YearAssessment of the process of PRReporting 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 questionnaireSection 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

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 (28 Feb. 2006)

Number of properties never assessed in the PR exercise

AFR up to 1993 18 40 65 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 ReportingFor 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 reviewed by PR

Period covered by PR

Number of SOC reports

examined by Committee

during same period

Number of properties covered

by these SOC reports

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!