Kiri

Culture Sector Division for Heritage United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Organisation des Nations Unies pour I' education, To: States Parties to the World Heritage Convention Ia science et Ia culture Organizaci6n de las Naciones Unidas para Ia Educaci6n, cc : Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee Ia Ciencia y Ia Cultura UNESCO Field Offices OpraH~>~3a4~>~R 06beA111HeHHbiX Ha1..1111ill no BOnpocaM o6pa30BaHIIISI, HayKI-1 1>1 KYilbTYPbl ~~I ~)'1 LJ:.:..... Ref.: CL/WHC-18/16 9 November 2018 Ul..iiii.J ,..WI,., ~..>ill IOCirOO~ff, Subject: Nomination Process Reflection Survey - Follow-up to Decision f4~ ffi.Jt ft £.§JR 42 COM 12A Sir/Madam, By Decision 42 COM 12A, the World Heritage Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to organize a reflection meeting to examine different possibilities for reforming the nomination and evaluation process and to propose recommendations for consideration by the World Heritage Committee in view of increasing the balance and credibility of the World Heritage List, as outlined in document WHC/18/42. COM/12A. To this end, the Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to consult with States Parties and other relevant stakeholders of the Convention on the matters that should be addressed at the reflection meeting. The full text of Decision 42 COM 12A is enclosed as Annex for ease of reference. Therefore, the World Heritage Centre kindly invites you to participate in the online Nomination Process Reflection Survey which you will find at the following link: http://whc.unesco.org/en/nominations/. For easy reference, you will find attached a PDF version of the questions included in the survey. Please note however, that all feedback should be submitted through the online survey, to allow for fast and efficient processing of the replies. Should you have any questions about this survey, please contact Mr Alessandro Balsamo by e-mail ([email protected]) or telephone (+33(0)1 45 68 11 36). We kindly request that States Parties complete the online form by Friday 14 December 2018 at the latest. Allow me once again to express my sincere thanks for your continued support to the World Heritage Convention. Please accept, Sir/Madam, the assurances of my highest consideration. l-t.d&~/ Mechtild Rossler Director World Heritage Centre 7, place de Fontenoy Enc. 75352 Paris 07 SP, France Tel. : +33 (0)1 45 68 11 36 www.unesco.org  - 2- ANNEX 12A. Follow-up to Recommendations of Evaluations and Audits on Working Methods: outcomes of the ad-hoc working ,group Decision: 42 COM 12A The World Heritage Committee, 1. Having examined document WHC/18/42.COM/12A, 2. Expresses its appreciation to the ad-hoc Working Group for its work and recommendations; 3. Takes note of the recommendations related to upstream, International Assistance and sustainability of the World Heritage Fund which have been included accordingly in the related Decisions (42 COM 9A, 42 COM 13 and 42 COM 14); 4. In relation to Recommendation no3 of the lOS study, notes with concern the number of deviations of the decisions of the World Heritage Committee from the recommendations of the Advisory Bodies and considers that, in order to address them, it is necessary to review the nomination process, tentative lists and upstream process, bearing in mind the Global Strategy, and to consider other possible measures, such as a Code of conduct of the World Heritage Committee; 5. Decides to extend the mandate of the adhoc Working Group, to be composed of members of the Committee and up to two non-members per Electoral Group, to: • Examine different possibilities of reforming the nomination process and propose recommendations in view of increasing the balance and credibility of the World Heritage List; • Discuss the modalities for the possible use of advisory services of other entities with suitable experience and knowledge, in line with UNESCO's rules and regulations, and in addition to the current three Advisory Bodies; 6. Noting that the ad-hoc Working Group identified the need for reform of the nomination and evaluation process, considers that this would benefit from further reflection from a representative panel of experts drawn from the ad- hoc Working Group, the World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies and other experts, to feed into the work of the ad-hoc Working Group; 7. Requests in this regard, the World Heritage Centre to organize, by March 2019, a reflection meeting to examine different possibilities for reforming the nomination and evaluation process and to propose recommendations for consideration by the World Heritage Committee in view of increasing the balance and credibility of the World Heritage List, as outlined in document WHC/18/42.COM/12A; 8. Calls upon interested States Parties to contribute extrabudgetary funds towards the organisation of the reflection meeting; 9. Requests the Secretariat to consult with States Parties and other relevant stakeholders of the Convention on the matters that should be addressed at the reflection meeting;  - 3- 10. Further requests the ad-hoc Working Group to review the reflection meeting report and recommendations and to submit these together with the advice of the ad-hoc Working Group, to the 43rd session of the Committee with a view to revising the Operational Guidelines. Nomination Process Reflection Survey 1. PURPOSE By Decision 42 COM 12A, the Committee noted that the ad-hoc Working Group identified the need for reform of the nomination and evaluation process. The Committee considered that this reform would benefit from further reflection from a representative panel of experts drawn from the ad-hoc Working Group, the World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies and other experts, to feed into the work of the ad-hoc Working Group. In this regard, the Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to organize, by March 2019, a reflection meeting to examine different possibilities for reforming the nomination and evaluation process and to propose recommendations for consideration by the World Heritage Committee in view of increasing the balance and credibility of the World Heritage List. In view of feeding this reflection with the widest possible range of comments and suggestions, the Committee requested the Secretariat to consult with States Parties and other relevant stakeholders of the Convention on the matters that should be addressed at the reflection meeting. 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The capacity for adaptation over time is one of the main assets of the World Heritage Convention. Whereas the text of the Convention is essentially immutable, its Operational Guidelines allow for the integration and evolution of new concepts and processes. Each revision of the Operational Guidelines addresses not only these new notions, but also reflects our growing collective experience. As a consequence of the greater prominence and recognition accorded to World Heritage, there is a growing range of interests and motivations behind seeking World Heritage inscription. The current nomination process is basically composed of four different phases: a) inclusion of sites on the national Tentative List; b) preparation and submission of nomination files by States Parties; c) evaluation by the Advisory Bodies and d) decision by the World Heritage Committee. The Upstream Process has become a statutory process but is requested by States Parties on a voluntary basis only. The 2017-2018 Ad hoc working group had been mandated by the World Heritage Committee to look into, inter alia, the recommendations made by the Internal Oversight Service of UNESCO in its “Comparative Mapping of Forms and Models for Use of Advisory Services by International Instruments and Programmes” (May 2017). Recommendation n°3 was “to identify the root cause(s) for Committee decisions deviating from Advisory Bodies advice, procured at a significant cost to the World Heritage Fund, and take action to address them”. It had emerged from the discussions of the group that it would be worth exploring a modified nomination process, designed in such a way as to help States Parties to avoid investing expertise, money and time in developing nominations of sites with no potential for Outstanding Universal Value. Furthermore, it would be expected that such an approach would contribute to enhancing the credibility of the Convention and reducing the number of nominations which experience significant problems during the whole nomination process, including the decision-making by the Committee. page 1 The Committee at its 42nd session (Manama, June/July 2018) was also of the view that the nomination process needs to undergo some serious re-shaping. A revision of this fundamental process may be needed for multiple reasons, the most important of which is the equity of the nomination process for all States Parties, and the need to contribute towards improving the establishment of a balanced, representative and credible World Heritage List, and overall towards achieving the Convention’s objectives. In addition, the increasing costs and complexity of the development of a nomination file have not allowed establishing so far equal chances for all States Parties alike, as many of them still lack both funding and expertise, despite efforts to address these issues, including capacity building. Ever since 2010, States Parties have shown growing interest in the Upstream Process. Recognizing that this process has become an important part of the nomination process, the World Heritage Committee officially integrated it in the Operational Guidelines at its 39th session in 2015 by including a definition and amending Paragraphs 71 and 122. Its definition was slightly amended at the last session of the Committee (see Decision 42 COM 9A), but the substance did not change. The experience with Upstream Process so far has highlighted ways in which it can be made more effective and can increase the capacity of States Parties to implement the Convention. At the same time, it has also highlighted a number of challenges for its effective implementation and a need for a realistic appraisal of the resources that such work entails. Along with increasingly comprehensive requirements the nomination process may be perceived as rather complex. However, it has to be acknowledged that this process is critical in terms of the credibility of the Convention as it strengthens its implementation, notably by ensuring a thorough justification for inscription, which provides a solid basis for evaluation and also by enhancing and facilitating monitoring of the state of conservation of inscribed properties. Sound nominations are the basis for all decision making at local and national level as well as by the World Heritage Committee. 3. OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES REFERENCES The Operational Guidelines describe the Nomination Process mainly in Chapter III, from Paragraph 120 to 168. In addition, it is also addressed in Chapter II.C, Paragraph 62 to 76 concerning Tentative Lists, as well as in Annexes 2A, 2B, 3, 5 and 6. The nomination process could be summarized as follows: the first step a country must take is to make an ‘inventory' of its important natural and cultural heritage sites located on its territory. From this inventory the State Party draws a Tentative List that provides a forecast of the sites that a State Party may decide to submit for inscription in the next five to ten years and which may be updated at any time. The State Party then selects one site from this list and starts preparing the nomination. If requested, the World Heritage Centre offers advice and guidance to the State Party in preparing the nomination file, which needs to be as focused as possible, making sure the necessary documentation is included. When officially submitted, the nomination undergoes the completeness check undertaken by the World Heritage Centre. If considered complete, the nomination is transmitted to the appropriate Advisory Bodies for evaluation. Each nominated property is independently evaluated by the Advisory Bodies mandated by the World Heritage Convention: ICOMOS or IUCN, respectively for cultural and natural sites (and both for mixed sites). The full evaluation cycle takes page 2 roughly 13 months during which the Advisory Bodies are requested to provide a short interim report outlining the status of and any issues relevant to the evaluation. The final evaluation report includes the Advisory Body/ies’ recommendation. Finally, the recommendation is submitted to the World Heritage Committee which is the only body entitled to take decisions on whether to inscribe (or not) properties on the World Heritage List. page 3  QUESTIONNAIRE Noting Recommendation n°3 of the IOS Comparative Mapping Study of Forms and Models for Use of Advisory Services by International Instruments and Programmes (see Document WHC/17/41.COM/INF.14.II), which acknowledges that deviations between recommendations of the Advisory Bodies and decisions taken by the World Heritage Committee are jeopardizing the credibility of the Convention, the World Heritage Committee decided (see Decision 42 COM 12A) to review the nomination process, tentative lists and upstream process, bearing in mind the Global Strategy, and to consider other possible measures, such as a Code of conduct of the World Heritage Committee. It also decided to extend the mandate of the ad hoc Working Group to examine different possibilities of reforming the nomination process and propose recommendations in view of increasing the balance and credibility of the World Heritage List. In this regard, the Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to organize, by March 2019, a reflection meeting and to consult with States Parties and other relevant stakeholders of the Convention on the matters that should be addressed at the reflection meeting. It is in this context that the World Heritage Centre launches this questionnaire. QUESTION 1 In your opinion, on which of the following areas should the reform of the nomination process focus? (multiple choices possible) a) Upstream Process b) Tentative Lists c) Nomination format d) Voluntary submission of draft nominations for review e) Evaluation by the Advisory Bodies f) Interactions and linkages between different steps of the process g) Timeline of the evaluation process h) Evaluation report i) Referral and/or deferral provisions j) Examination of nominations by the World Heritage Committee k) Decision making process by the World Heritage Committee l) Code of conduct of the World Heritage Committee or m) Other (pls specify) – max. 200 characters. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… QUESTION 2 Over the last years, more time for dialogue during the evaluation of nomination files has been requested by some States Parties. Do you think that the extension of the current evaluation process with an additional period (i.e. 12 months) can be the solution to the current problems? YES / NO page 4 QUESTION 3 The overwhelming majority of respondents to the “Online consultation survey on the Upstream process” (see Document WHC/17/41.COM/9A) considered that the preliminary assessment of the potential for Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of a site or sites on the Tentative Lists (TL) by the relevant Advisory Body(ies), before a full nomination for inscription on the World Heritage List is developed and submitted, would contribute towards a more representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List. Do you consider that such preliminary assessment should be mandatory or voluntary? YES / NO QUESTION 4 Do you think that a systematic, fair and equitable application of the Upstream Process could improve the current situation and contribute towards a more representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List, in line with the Global Strategy? a) Yes, very much b) It could help c) It won’t change anything substantially d) No, not at all e) It could worsen the situation QUESTION 5 Which of the following measures in the list below you would consider relevant? (multiple choice possible). a) Request the most represented States Parties to refrain from nominating more sites; (see Operational Guidelines paragraph 59) b) Support the least represented States Parties to submit a higher quantity and quality of nominations; c) Give absolute priority to nominations of States Parties falling under the category of Least Developed Countries, Low-Income and Lower Middle Income Countries and Small Islands Developing States; d) Further strengthen the limitations indicated in paragraph 161 of the Operational Guidelines; e) Prioritize nominations of sites that would undergo a preliminary assessment of their potential OUV; f) Introduction of a “code of conduct for Committee Members” whereby they refrain from submitting nominations while serving on the Committee (as recommended by the Auditors); g) Undertake more capacity building activities especially on preparing nominations and management plans; h) Other (max. 300 characters) ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… page 5 QUESTION 6 Over the years, it has been repeatedly affirmed that States Parties of the 1972 World Heritage Convention should focus their efforts more on conservation than on nomination of new sites. Currently, with almost 1100 inscribed on the World Heritage List, do you think that: a) The List is already well beyond the limit of what it should look like, in order to be credible; b) The List has just reached its ideal size; c) In order to complete the List the focus should be on under-represented Regions of the world and types of heritage; d) There are still hundreds of sites of potential Outstanding Universal Value FINAL COMMENTS QUESTION 7 Do you have any further suggestion/comment beyond the answers you already provided? (Please provide a succinct answer - max. 400 characters.) ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… page 6