1. Standardized Self-Reporting in World Heritage Sites Dr. V.B. Mathur, Prof. & Head, Department of Protected Area Network, Wildlife Management & Conservation Education Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun,India Email: vbm@wii.gov.in

2. Outline of Presentation  Review of the existing reporting procedures  Proposed modifications in reporting procedures  Review of the guidelines for establishment of the list of World Heritage in Danger

3. Periodic Reporting from World Heritage Sites Article 29 of the World Heritage Convention (WHC) obligates the State Parties to report on the legislative and administrative provisions adopted by them for application of the WHC including the status of conservation of the World Heritage Sites

4. Objectives of Periodic Reporting from World Heritage Sites  To ensure that the World Heritage values for which a site was inscribed are maintained over time  To improve site management and to reduce cost through preventive conservation  To ensure that State Party implements World Heritage policies  To facilitate better application of World Heritage policies targetted to the specific needs of the regions

5. Periodic Reporting Process  Every six years a Periodic Report is submitted by the State Party to the World Heritage Committee (WHC)  WHC reviews National Reports by Regions and reports to the UNESCO Secretariat

6. Format and Content of Periodic Report  Section I: Reporting by the State Party on the application of relevant articles of WHC  Section II: Reporting by Sites on the state of conservation

7. Gaps in Self-Reporting Process  Descriptive and not analytical  Superficial and not rigorous assessment of threats  Scientific monitoring covering all management aspects is lacking

8. Recommended Changes in Self-Reporting Process  Adopt the WCPA Framework for evaluating management effectiveness

9. Strengths of the WCPA Management Effectiveness Evaluation Process  Comprehensive identification of the Focal Management Targets  Precise and dynamic assessment of threats  Rigorous Biodiversity Health Assessment

10. Recommendations….  Harmonise WCPA Management Effectiveness Assessment Process with the WHC Periodic Self-Reporting Process by establishing a WCPA Task Force and/or building strong linkages with the UNESCO-IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project  Reduce the periodicity of the Self-Reporting Process

11. Listing of the World Heritage Sites in Danger  Existing guidelines are somewhat subjective in nature  Do not provide enough guidance on how and when to bring a site off from the danger list

12. Recommendation….  Set up a WCPA Task Force to develop objective criterion and process for listing and de-listing sites on the World Heritage in Danger List

13. T H A N K S