Presentation on theme: "Conclusions of the Berlin Meeting Lessons learned from Periodic Reporting and future directions 2 nd Periodic Reporting Reflection Year Meeting UNESCO,"— Presentation transcript:
Conclusions of the Berlin Meeting Lessons learned from Periodic Reporting and future directions 2 nd Periodic Reporting Reflection Year Meeting UNESCO, 2-3 March 2006 A. Lemaistre/M. Rossler (EUROPOL)
History 1982:Committee discussions on SOC 1984:First IUCN SOC reports 1988:First ICOMOS SOC reports 1987:Questionnaire introduced (abandoned in 1991) 1991:First systematic exercise by UNDP in LAC and Mediterranean 1992: Strategic Orientations: goal 4 introduced systematic monitoring 1994: Committee requested periodic reports 1995: Discussion at the General Assembly 1998:Format adopted by the Committee 2000: First report presented 2002:Budapest declaration 2006: Last report to be presented 2007: 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 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, ActionAsia 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);http://whc.unesco.org/periodic 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;
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 1 er 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 (38%) APA up to (46%) ARB up to (28%) EUR up to (34%) NA up to LAC up to (?) (45%) TOTAL (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 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 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?
Data Management Property data sheet SOC NOMINATIONS Management plans DECISIONS