1. Electronic Periodic Reporting Europe is pioneer in completion of electronic version of Section I in 2004/2005 100% of the States Parties prepared a report All answers are stored in a database 94% of the close-ended questions were answered An evaluation tool for statistical analysis was developed and used for synthesis reports "Year of Reflection" to be held in 2006/2007

2. Focal Points FPs often exchanged: loss of know-how Loss of accuracy through translations Dispersion of information sources Lack of cooperation/understanding from people not directly engaged in PR PR is a time-consuming and labour- intensive process Respect the FPs and their work, give adequate feedback and follow-up!

3. Questionnaire Need for clearer and more concise formulation of the questions Inconsistencies in the questionnaire and between questionnaire and Explanatory Notes Problems with Tentative Lists/Nominations Parallel MS Word version is problematic Size of textbox answers to be discussed Demand for attachment of files

8. Preparation of Tentative Lists

9. Tentative Lists

10. Most important perceived benefits of World Heritage listing

11. Evaluation Electronic tool for statistical evaluation of answers Tables as basis for graphic visualisation Regional and/or sub-regional approach Possible integration of additional components into the electronic tool Follow the development of answers to PR over several cycles Access for WHC and experts only

12. Electronic Periodic Reporting Electronic Questionnaire Database Statistical Evaluation Tool Graphic Presentation Synthesis Report Data from WHC

13. Other “Databases” Sites (SQL) Site Managers (diverse) Tentative Lists (MS ACCESS) Nominations (SQL and MS ACCESS) Committee Decisions (MS ACCESS) Advisory Body Evaluations (scanned) SOC Reports (MS ACCESS … ) International Assistance (several MS ACCESS) Country/Site Data Sheets (could be result of DB query) DG Briefings (could be result of DB query)

14. Information Management Link and standardize different databases (a “PR database” and other separate databases make no sense) Neither data from States Parties nor from WHC are totally reliable Continuous exchange of updated information through the database Give access to other partners (e.g. site managers, Advisory Bodies,...) Let SPs profit from the disposal of an updated and reliable database

15. Periodicity of Updating Depending on type of information: Once at the beginning: “historical data” According to statutory process (inscriptions with criteria, statements of significance etc., change of boundaries, names etc., new nominations, SOC reports, …) Six year cycle (general assessments, proposed actions, statistical indicators, …) Constantly (contact persons, addresses, inventories, projects, tentative lists, …)

16. Type of information Statistical Data Measurability | Electronic questionnaire and evaluation tool essential Qualitative Data Problems, comments, assessments, proposed actions | Electronic questionnaire and evaluation tool possible | But: Danger of undervaluing the information!

17. Thank you for your attention For more details: "Report on Electronic Periodic Reporting and Information Management“ Jorun Poettering