1. Periodic Reporting and the Questionnaire A preliminary analysis Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on Periodic Reporting Paris, 2-3 March 2006

4. Summary: Retrospective Inventory – Berlin mtg Insufficient planning at the start of the periodic reporting process: –How the data would be used – and hence what data should be requested -- was not analyzed –the time (and budget) necessary to examine each report was not considered –no procedure was put in place to evaluate Section II reports against the original nomination dossiers

5. Summary: Retrospective Inventory – Berlin mtg Insufficient planning at the start of the periodic reporting process Poor institutional memory at all levels

6. Summary: Retrospective Inventory – Berlin mtg Insufficient planning at the start of the periodic reporting process: Poor institutional memory at all levels Definition of Baseline data: –Geographic identification –Criteria and statements of significance (SP proposed, Advisory Body recommended; Committee decisions) –Legal protection –Management tools –Statistical indicators at the time of nomination Baseline data does not exist in any consistent, easily retrievable form for most World Heritage sites

7. Summary: Retrospective Inventory – Berlin mtg Insufficient planning at the start of the periodic reporting process: Poor institutional memory at all levels Baseline data does not exist in any consistent, easily retrievable form for most World Heritage sites No uniform approach was adopted by the Secretariat either to the questionnaire or to the analysis of the returns

8. Summary: Retrospective Inventory – Berlin mtg Recommendations –Pre-fill the questionnaire with data already available in the Centre –Pre-fill the questionnaire with data provided in Cycle 1 –Section II questionnaire should include provisions for serial, mixed, and transnational properties –Most non-European States will need to complete the form in an off-line mode

11. 2012 2006

13. Lines 126a – 127a

14. Some questions to consider in revising the questionnaire

15. How will the answers be used? By whom and for what purpose?

16. Some questions to consider in revising the questionnaire How will the answers be used? By whom and for what purpose? If statistical indicators are used, are the specific needs of each site being considered?

17. Some questions to consider in revising the questionnaire How will the answers be used? By whom and for what purpose? If statistical indicators are used, are the specific needs of each site being considered? What mechanism is being put in place to respond to requested changes in the status of the site? What is the timeframe envisaged and budget implications?

22. Summary: Retrospective Inventory – Berlin mtg Recommendations –Simplify the questionnaire

23. Summary: Retrospective Inventory – Berlin mtg Recommendations –Simplify the questionnaire –Make greater use of statistical indicators

24. Summary: Retrospective Inventory – Berlin mtg Recommendations –Simplify the questionnaire –Make greater use of statistical indicators –respond to questions raised in Cycle 1 before beginning on Cycle 2

25. Summary: Retrospective Inventory – Berlin mtg Recommendations –Simplify the questionnaire –Make greater use of statistical indicators –respond to questions raised in Cycle 1 before beginning on Cycle 2 requested changes to names. boundaries, criteria new or revised statements of significance / outstanding universal value

26. Summary: Retrospective Inventory – Berlin mtg Recommendations –Simplify the questionnaire –Make greater use of statistical indicators –respond to questions raised in Cycle 1 before beginning on Cycle 2 –put in place a process to address these issues

27. Circular Letter N°1 (2006)