Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Reactive monitoring process World Heritage Convention Preamble 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. 4; Art 5., Art. 6 Operational Guidelines: Chapter IV Process for monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage properties Reactive monitoring: paragraphs

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June How do sites get on to the reactive monitoring process? 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. Missions by UNESCO/ World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM) or information from UNESCO field offices; 3. Other sources of information including specialized NGOs, individuals, press, other States Parties etc.

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Success stories of the World Heritage Committee through reactive monitoring Lake Baikal

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Success stories of the World Heritage Committee through reactive monitoring Historic Centre of Vienna (Austria) Maya Site of Copan (Honduras)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Success stories of the World Heritage Committee through reactive monitoring Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls (Zambia / Zimbabwe)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Success stories of the World Heritage Committee through reactive monitoring

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Success stories of the World Heritage Committee through reactive monitoring

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Most recurrent types of problems Development and infrastructure (e.g. encroachment, urban pressure, dams, mining...) Other inappropriate human activities (e.g. poaching, logging, civil unrest, armed conflicts,...) Natural events and disasters (e.g. fires, extreme weather events, invasive species, climate change…) Management and legal issues (e.g. legal protection, enforcement, cooperation, boundaries) Other factors (decay, deterioration, etc.)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Threats Number of properties affected by each threat mentioned in the SOC reports examined during the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee Other inappropriate human activites

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Threats Percentage of properties affected by each primary group of threats in 2008 and 2009 Other inappropriate human activites

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Threats % of properties affected by types of threats by region: Development/infrastructure (black); Other human activities (white); Management / legal issues (grey); Natural events and disasters (dots); Other factors (stripes)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Steps of the Reactive Monitoring Process/1 Information received by the World Heritage Centre; Comments requested to State Party and review by Advisory Bodies; Based on comments from State Party and other information, WHC and Advisory Bodies decide whether case requires SOC Report to the Committee; If case is particularly urgent, a reactive monitoring mission can be dispatched immediately by the DG, in close consultation with State Party, including through the recently established “reinforced monitoring mechanism”.

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Steps of the Reactive Monitoring Process/2 If a SOC report is prepared and presented to COM at its forthcoming session, the related Draft Decision may request a report from the State Party (1 February of the following year) and propose a reactive monitoring mission; Joint AB-WHC mission is organised in consultation with State Party; Terms of reference are established based on COM 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)

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Agreed format for joint UNESCO/WHC/AB mission reports REPORT ON THE REACTIVE MONITORING MISSION TO (World Heritage property), (Country) FROM … TO …. (Year) 1.TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS 4.BACKGROUND TO THE MISSION (including OUV) 5.NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTY 6.IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES / THREATS 7.ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF THE PROPERTY 8.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.ANNEXES

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Structure of SOC reports (item 7B) Name of the property (State Party) (ID number); Year of inscription on the World Heritage List; Inscription criteria; Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger ; Previous Committee Decisions; International Assistance; UNESCO Extra budgetary Funds ; Previous monitoring missions ; Main threats identified in previous reports ; Illustrative material; Current conservation issues; Draft Decision.

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Possible outcomes (Decisions by COM) The World Heritage Committee, Expresses its serious concern about the state of conservation of the property… Requests the State Party to provide detailed information / urgently prepare, approve and submit to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies… / reduce height of proposed development… Requests the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS /IUCN reactive monitoring mission to the property…; Welcomes the progress made… Decides to inscribe (…) on the List of the World Heritage in Danger… Decides to remove (…) from the List of the World Heritage in Danger… Decides to delete (…) from the World Heritage List

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Some examples/1 Hue (Vietnam): RM process reveals larger issues

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Hue as a cultural landscape?

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June …But inscribed area includes only buildings…

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Some examples/2 Macao: RM leads to new protection measures

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June

Some examples/3 Luang Prabang: RM process facilitates cooperation…

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June e.g. new urban plan at territorial scale…

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June …but new questions are raised…

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Reinforced Monitoring New process since the 31st session of the World Heritage Committee (2007) : Reinforced Monitoring Mechanism adopted by Decision 31 COM 5.2 Applied to 3 cases by the World Heritage Committee in 2007 to sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger:  Dresden Elbe Valley (Germany)  Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls  five natural heritage properties in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Applied to 8 more cases by the World Heritage Committee in 2008 (not on the List of World Heritage in Danger) and by the Director General to 2 cases in 2009

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Conclusions: State of conservation of properties 1.Key process under the 1972 Convention, but linked with all other processes; 2.All World Heritage properties subject to threats; only specific cases with (potential) impacts on OUV, 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; Convention: tool for global conservation action, including Danger Listing as a process

Orientation session for Committee Members: 21 June Questions for discussion Calendar: should RM Missions take place between July and December to feed into State Party report (1 February) and how to obtain invitations from SPs on time? Linkage with Periodic reporting: Should the COM identify properties to go under RM based on outcomes of PR? Heritage and sustainable development: should RM missions only look into specific heritage impacts or rather consider the larger development context? And what expertise would be required? Community: How could RM missions ensure consultations with NGOs/other stakeholders/representatives of civil society?