Orientation%20Session

1
Nominations to the World Heritage List
ICOMOS

• Orientation Session
• Tuesday 27th October 2009

2

• Purpose of Nominations
• How can Nominations be Given the Best Possible
  Chances of Success?
• The Evaluation Process
• Outcomes

3
Purpose of Nominations

• To achieve the inscription of a property on the
  World Heritage List
• Through persuading the Advisory Bodies, and
  ultimately the Committee, that the property has
• OUV
• Integrity and authenticity
• Adequate protection, conservation management

4
Purpose of Nominations

• Make a robust, well researched, well argued and
  well presented case for
• What the property is
• Why it has OUV
• What are the attributes that reflect OUV
• How OUV is sustained
• through adequate protection and management of the
  attributes that reflect OUV

5
Purpose of Nominations

• To gain understanding and support of
• Key Stakeholders
• At local, national and, if possible,
  international level

6

• Many properties fail to achieve inscription
• particularly at the first submission
• Although the ABs set out to find the most
  positive outcome possible
• Sometimes it is not possible to recommend
  inscription
• ABs always make recommendations for better
  protection, conservation and management

7
How can Nominations be Given the Best Chance of
Success?

• Tentative lists
• Time
• Focus

8
Tentative Lists

• Crucial starting point
• Essential that Tentative Lists reflect
• Emerging thinking of the Committee
• Global Strategy
• Advisory Body studies
• GAP Reports
• Thematic Studies
• Key World Heritage concepts
• Operational Guidelines

9
Tentative Lists

• Thinking on OUV evolves over time
• In response to changing perceptions of heritage
• Related to the implementation of the WH
  Convention
• Tentative Lists must be aware of, and to a degree
  reflect, the thinking of their time
• Recommended that Tentative Lists are reviewed at
  least every ten years

10
Tentative Lists

• Well-focused, well informed Tentative Lists
• Needs time, expertise and support
• Not the job of a few experts in isolation
• If nominations are to be fully supported at all
  levels
• Particularly by local communities
• It is essential that Tentative Lists are the
  opportunity for scoping of national heritage and
  full discussions as to what could be nominated

11
Tentative Lists

• The Tentative List should be the time to consider
  initial thoughts on
• SoOUV
• Comparative analysis to show whether
• Similar property already represented on the WH
  List
• Other similar properties might be nominated
  elsewhere in the future

12
Nominations Time

• Time the biggest enemy of successful nominations
• Time needed for
• Support mechanisms national and local
• Gathering material
• Research
• Mapping
• New management systems/coordination
• Specific legal protection

13
Nominations Time

• Lack of adequate time
• perhaps through political commitments
• May leads to dossiers that lack focus, not
  underpinned by sufficient justification, or
  incomplete
• This can lead to recommendations for referral or
  deferral
• Frustrating for States Parties, the Committee and
  the ABs

14
Nominations Focus

• Focused team collaborate as group
• Focused process
• Identify potential OUV and attributes
• Ensure this is
• Justified by comparative analysis
• Supported by documentation and research
• Make sure adequate protection and management is
  in place

15
Nominations Focus

• Focused dossier
• Justifying OUV most crucial part of the dossier
• Weighty dossier does not make up for weakness in
  justification of OUV
• Facts do not replace arguments
• OUV is about Why the property is of global
  significance Dossier presents this case

16
Nominations Focus

• Some dossiers
• Seem to have been written very quickly
• Lacking in evidence documented research
• Written by experts who do not relate the
  arguments well to the property
• OUV appears to have been written as the last part
  not the first part of the text
• Unbalanced too many facts, not enough analysis,
  argument and justification

17
Nominations Focus

• As many nominations have become more complex
• large cultural landscapes, serial properties
• Focus on key messages becomes much more important
• To achieve this, good project management systems
  are needed

18
Nominations Evaluation process

• All material must be submitted through World
  Heritage Centre
• Nomination deadline -1st February
• Voluntary pre-nomination completeness check end
  September

19

• Two main parts to the ABs evaluation
• OUV
• Protection Management
• Both must be in place before inscription
• A property may fail on one or both of these
  parts
• It may have OUV but not satisfactory protection
  and management
• It may be well protected and managed but not have
  OUV

20
Nominations Evaluation Process

• Nominations
• ?
• UNESCO
• ?
• ICOMOS
• ?
• World Heritage Group
• ?
• Desk Assessors Mission Desk Assessors
• ?
• ICOMOS Panel
• ?
• World Heritage Committee

21
Nominations Evaluation Mission

• Main interaction with States Parties
• Understanding of purpose
• Protection, conservation, management,
  presentation, community support
• Not about OUV
• Mission experts will not give an opinion
• Press conferences should not be arranged
• It is the dossier that is being evaluated
• Mission too late to bring in new arguments

22
Nominations Further Information

• Following mission or panel
• ABs may request further information
• Strengthening dialogue with State Parties
• Panels in November/December
• Request for additional information earlier
• Not all States Parties will be contacted during
  the evaluation process
• States Parties should endeavour to respond in
  succinct way
• Rather than submit new or heavily revised
  dossiers

23
Evaluation Outcome

• Outcome is the corporate view of the relevant
  Advisory Body or Bodies
• Not the single view of mission experts
• This outcome is presented to the Committee
  through the
• AB Report
• Short illustrated presentation

24
Committee Outcome

• Inscribe
• OUV justified, protection, management in place
• Not inscribe
• OUV not justified and could not be justified in
  the future

25
Committee Outcome

• Refer back
• OUV demonstrated
• Further information, clarification needed
• No new mission necessary
• Defer
• OUV not satisfactorily demonstrated
• New or amended dossier needed
• Mission necessary

26
Committee Outcome

• Whether deferral or referral, nomination may be
  re-submitted following year
• Deferral full evaluation process over 14 months
• With new mission and new desk reviews
• Referral short evaluation process over 2 months
  
• With no mission or desk reviews
• Not satisfactory for new boundaries,
  justification, criteria, where new or amended
  dossier necessary

27

• Advisory Bodies act in the best interests of the
  properties
• This sometimes means recommending more time to
• Define properly OUV and attributes
• Put in place robust protection and management
  arrangements
• To try and ensure that properties do not appear
  in the SOC list
• soon after inscription

28
Thank you
??
???????
?????
Merci
Gracias