soc reports: their nature and the importance of the committee deliberations and decisions guy...

Orientation session for Committee Members

SOC reports: their nature and the importance of the Committee deliberations and decisions

Guy DebonnetChief Special Projects Unit

UNESCO World Heritage Centre


Monitoring: at the heart of the World Heritage ConventionPreamble

Noting that the cultural heritage and the natural heritage are increasingly threatened with destruction not only by the traditional causes of decay, but also by changing social and economic conditions which aggravate the situation with even more formidable phenomena of damage or destruction,

Art. 4duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of natural and cultural heritage

Art. 6 recognize that the protection of world heritage is the duty of the international community as a whole

To achieve this, the State of Conservation of WH sites needs to be monitored


Periodic Reporting (OG, § 199-210): periodic report by State Parties on the implementation of the Convention and the state of conservation of the properties inscribed in their territories

driven by State Party

Reactive monitoring (OG, § 169-176)reporting by the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies on the state of conservation of specific properties under threat, to ensure that measures are taken to address these threats

- Possibility to inscribe on List of WH in Danger- Possibility to delete properties from WH List

driven by WH Committee

Monitoring: strength of the World Heritage Convention


OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUEM

EETS

CR

TIER

IA

INTE

GR

ITY

AN

D

AU

THEN

TIC

ITY

PRO

TEC

TIO

N A

ND

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

Illustration of the three pillars of Outstanding Universal Value. All three must be in place for a property to meet the requirements of the World Heritage List

The three pillars of Outstanding Universal Value(Note: Authenticity is not applicable to natural properties)


1. Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines:

“States Parties to inform the Committee, via the World Heritage Centre, of intention to undertake major restorations or new constructions…before making decisions that would be difficult to reverse.”

2. Information received through networks of the Advisory Bodies or UNESCO World Heritage Centre and UNESCO Field Offices

3. Missions by UNESCO/ World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM)

4. Other sources of information including specialized NGOs, individuals, press, other States Parties etc

How do sites get on to the reactive monitoring process?


• Information received by the World Heritage Centre or Advisory Bodies;

• Comments requested from the State Party (OG, § 174) and review by the Advisory Bodies (OG, § 175)

• Based on comments from State Party and other information, WHC and Advisory Bodies decide whether a case requires a SOC Report to the Committee;

• If a case is particularly urgent, a reactive monitoring mission can be dispatched immediately by the DG, in close consultation with State Party, including through the “Reinforced Monitoring Mechanism” (RMM).

Steps of the Reactive Monitoring Process / 1


• If a SOC report is prepared and presented to the Committee, the related Draft Decision may request a report from the State Party (1 February of the following year) and / or propose a reactive monitoring mission;

• Joint WHC (UNESCO)-IUCN/ICOMOS/ICCROM mission is organised in consultation with State Party; Terms of Reference (TOR) are established based on the Committee’s Decision;

• Joint mission report is prepared and shared with State Party for comments; then, SOC Report for the Committee is drafted, integrating comments from State Party, if any / if on time;

• Decision by the Committee in June/July (State Party informed by letter in August/September)

Steps of the Reactive Monitoring Process / 2


Reactive monitoring process


- Might decide that more information is needed: request report to SP or send WHC/AB monitoring mission

- If not seriously deteriorated, no further action required

- If seriously deteriorated, recommend to the State Party necessary measures to restore the property within a reasonable timeframe; possibility for SP to request IA from WHF

- If OUV is threatened with potential or ascertained danger: inscription on List of World Heritage in Danger

- If OUV is irretrievably lost: Deletion from WH List

Decisions by World Heritage Committee (OG, § 175-176)


Success stories of the World Heritage Committee through reactive monitoring

Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)



Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin)



Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin)

Historic Centre of Vienna (Austria)


• New process since the 31st session of the World Heritage Committee (2007): Reinforced Monitoring Mechanism adopted by Decision 31 COM 5.2

• Should provide the Committee with information “between sessions”

• Applied in 2007 to 3 sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger, in 2008 to 12 sites (including 5 which were not on the List of World Heritage in Danger), in 2009 to 14 sites and in 2010 to 8 sites

• Only to be used in exceptional situations where there is a critical danger of loss of OUV

Reinforced Monitoring


Inscription on List of World Heritage in Danger (OG, § 177)

If the values which constitute the OUV (including integrity and authenticity) of a property are threatened with serious and specific danger and major operations are necessary for its conservation:

Inscription on the LWHD is not a punishment but a call for action to the State Party

in cooperation with the other State Parties


Inscription on List of World Heritage in Danger (OG, § 177)

Distinction between potential danger and ascertained danger (OG, § 179-180):

Potential Danger: the property is faced with threats which could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics

Ascertained Danger: the property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger

In addition, the factor(s) threatening the integrity of the property must be those amenable to correction by human action (OG, § 181)


• WHC / AB mission will ascertain the present condition of the property, evaluate nature and extent of threats and develop corrective measures to be taken in consultation with State Party

• Objectives of the corrective measures:– Address urgent threats to the property through

appropriate management and conservation actions– Restore integrity of the property– Allow for a regeneration of its OUV

• Corrective measures adopted by the Committee

Programme of corrective measures (OG, § 183-185)


Properties inscribed on LWHD as a result of potential danger

Cultural property: Cologne Cathedral (Germany)


Properties inscribed on LWHD as a result of ascertained danger

Natural property: Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)


• Desired State of Conservation describes the objective for the regeneration of the OUV to allow removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger

• Can only be developed when a Statement of OUV is available

• Can be considered as a list of indicators to follow for the regeneration of the OUV for removal from Danger List

Desired State of Conservation for removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger


1. Key process under 1972 Convention, but linked with all other processes;

2. All World Heritage properties subject to threats; only specific cases with (potential) impacts on OUV and integrity / authenticity brought to attention of the World Heritage Committee;

3. Crucial: best practice management and effective conservation at site level;

4. Dialogue State(s) Party(ies)-Advisory Bodies–WHC essential;

5. 1972 Convention: tool for global conservation action, including Danger Listing as a process.

Conclusions: State of conservation of properties


Handling of SOC reports to be examined by the World Heritage Committee

at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 213)

Richard Veillon(UNESCO/CLT/WHC/PSM)


Par.169 of the Operational Guidelines: 1 February

Timeline : submission of States Parties SOC reports


If not submitted on time:

- Presented in the ADD document-Indication in the 1st dispatch that the report was not submitted within the statutory deadline

Timeline : submission of States Parties SOC reports


Process to finalize SOC reports

Dispatch03/ 05 / 201303/ 05 / 2013

final en.

final fr.

Concordance check

Translation

final

1st draft xth draft

Rev. ABs & WHCSP SOC report

+ mission report

PrefillingSOC

Validation process


Process to finalize SOC reports

Dispatch03/ 05 / 201303/ 05 / 2013

final en.

final fr.

Concordance check

Translation

final

1st draft xth draft

Revision ABs & WHCSP SOC report

(+ mission report)

PrefillingSOC

Validation process

WE ARE HERE


Availability of SOC reports

Working documents will be availableon the following Webpage as from 3 May 2013 onwards:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/37COM


Availability of SOC reports

Previous SOC reports:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc(SOC Information System)


Dialogue

REMINDERREMINDER: Decision 35 COM 12B.16

16. Requests States Parties to consider refraining from providing additional information regarding nominations and/or state of conservation issues after the deadlines indicated in the Operational Guidelines, as this information is not able to be evaluated by the Advisory Bodies;


Dialogue

With dispatch of ADD documents:With dispatch of ADD documents:Letter to Committee members

Submit list of SOC reports for discussion by 10 June 2013

soc reports: their nature and the importance of the committee deliberations and decisions guy...

Documents