SOC reports: their nature and the importance of the Committee deliberations and decisions Guy Debonnet Chief Special Pro

1. SOC reports: their nature and the importance of the Committee deliberations and decisions Guy Debonnet Chief Special Projects Unit UNESCO World Heritage Centre

2. Monitoring: at the heart of the 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 duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of natural and cultural heritage Art. 6 recognize that the protection of world heritage is the duty of the international community as a whole To achieve this, the State of Conservation of WH sites needs to be monitored

3. Monitoring: strength of the World Heritage Convention Periodic Reporting (OG, § 199-210): periodic report by State Parties on the implementation of the Convention and the state of conservation of the properties inscribed in their territories driven by State Party Reactive monitoring (OG, § 169-176) reporting by the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies on the state of conservation of specific properties under threat, to ensure that measures are taken to address these threats - Possibility to inscribe on List of WH in Danger - Possibility to delete properties from WH List driven by WH Committee

4. OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE MEETS CRTIERIA PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY AND AUTHENTICITY Illustration of the three pillars of Outstanding Universal Value. All three must be in place for a property to meet the requirements of the World Heritage List The three pillars of Outstanding Universal Value(Note: Authenticity is not applicable to natural properties)

5. 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. Information received through networks of the Advisory Bodies or UNESCO World Heritage Centre and UNESCO Field Offices 3. Missions by UNESCO/ World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM) 4. Other sources of information including specialized NGOs, individuals, press, other States Parties etc

6. Steps of the Reactive Monitoring Process / 1 • Information received by the World Heritage Centre or Advisory Bodies; • Comments requested from the State Party (OG, § 174) and review by the Advisory Bodies (OG, § 175) • Based on comments from State Party and other information, WHC and Advisory Bodies decide whether a case requires a SOC Report to the Committee; • If a case is particularly urgent, a reactive monitoring mission can be dispatched immediately by the DG, in close consultation with State Party, including through the “Reinforced Monitoring Mechanism” (RMM).

7. Steps of the Reactive Monitoring Process / 2 • If a SOC report is prepared and presented to the Committee, the related Draft Decision may request a report from the State Party (1 February of the following year) and / or propose a reactive monitoring mission; • Joint WHC (UNESCO)-IUCN/ICOMOS/ICCROM mission is organised in consultation with State Party; Terms of Reference (TOR) are established based on the Committee’s 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)

8. Reactive monitoring process

9. Decisions by World Heritage Committee (OG, § 175-176) • Might decide that more information is needed: request report to SP or send WHC/AB monitoring mission • If not seriously deteriorated, no further action required • If seriously deteriorated, recommend to the State Party necessary measures to restore the property within a reasonable timeframe; possibility for SP to request IA from WHF • If OUV is threatened with potential or ascertained danger: inscription on List of World Heritage in Danger • If OUV is irretrievably lost: Deletion from WH List

10. Success stories of the World Heritage Committee through reactive monitoring Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)

11. Success stories of the World Heritage Committee through reactive monitoring Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin)

12. Success stories of the World Heritage Committee through reactive monitoring Historic Centre of Vienna (Austria) Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin)

13. Reinforced Monitoring • New process since the 31st session of the World Heritage Committee (2007): Reinforced Monitoring Mechanism adopted by Decision 31 COM 5.2 • Should provide the Committee with information “between sessions” • Applied in 2007 to 3 sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger, in 2008 to 12 sites (including 5 which were not on the List of World Heritage in Danger), in 2009 to 14 sites and in 2010 to 8 sites • Only to be used in exceptional situations where there is a critical danger of loss of OUV

14. Inscription on List of World Heritage in Danger (OG, § 177) If the values which constitute the OUV (including integrity and authenticity) of a property are threatened with serious and specific danger and major operations are necessary for its conservation: Inscription on the LWHD is not a punishment but a call for action to the State Party in cooperation with the other State Parties

15. Inscription on List of World Heritage in Danger (OG, § 177) Distinction between potential danger and ascertained danger (OG, § 179-180): Potential Danger: the property is faced with threats which could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics Ascertained Danger: the property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger In addition, the factor(s) threatening the integrity of the property must be those amenable to correction by human action (OG, § 181)

16. Programme of corrective measures (OG, § 183-185) • WHC / AB mission will ascertain the present condition of the property, evaluate nature and extent of threats and develop corrective measures to be taken in consultation with State Party • Objectives of the corrective measures: • Address urgent threats to the property through appropriate management and conservation actions • Restore integrity of the property • Allow for a regeneration of its OUV • Corrective measures adopted by the Committee

17. Properties inscribed on LWHD as a result of potential danger Cultural property: Cologne Cathedral (Germany)

18. Properties inscribed on LWHD as a result of ascertaineddanger Natural property: Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)

19. Desired State of Conservation for removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger • Desired State of Conservation describes the objective for the regeneration of the OUV to allow removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger • Can only be developed when a Statement of OUV is available • Can be considered as a list of indicators to follow for the regeneration of the OUV for removal from Danger List

20. Conclusions: State of conservation of properties • Key process under 1972 Convention, but linked with all other processes; • All World Heritage properties subject to threats; only specific cases with (potential) impacts on OUV and integrity / authenticity brought to attention of the World Heritage Committee; • Crucial: best practice management and effective conservation at site level; • Dialogue State(s) Party(ies)-Advisory Bodies–WHC essential; • 1972 Convention: tool for global conservation action, including Danger Listing as a process.

21. Handling of SOC reports to be examined by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 213) Richard Veillon (UNESCO/CLT/WHC/PSM)

22. Timeline : submission of States Parties SOC reports Par.169 of the Operational Guidelines: 1 February

23. Timeline : submission of States Parties SOC reports • If not submitted on time: • Presented in the ADD document • Indication in the 1st dispatch that the report was not submitted within the statutory deadline

24. Process to finalize SOC reports SP SOC report + mission report Rev. ABs & WHC Prefilling SOC 1st draft xth draft Validation process final en. Translation Dispatch final Concordance check 03/ 05 / 2013 final fr.

25. Process to finalize SOC reports SP SOC report (+ mission report) Revision ABs & WHC Prefilling SOC 1st draft xth draft WE ARE HERE Validation process final en. Translation Dispatch final Concordance check 03/ 05 / 2013 final fr.

26. Availability of SOC reports Working documents will be available on the following Webpage as from 3 May 2013onwards: http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/37COM

27. Availability of SOC reports Previous SOC reports: http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc (SOC Information System)

28. Dialogue REMINDER: Decision 35 COM 12B.16 16. Requests States Parties to consider refrainingfrom providing additional information regarding nominations and/or state of conservation issues after the deadlines indicated in the Operational Guidelines, as this information is not able to be evaluated by the Advisory Bodies;

29. Dialogue • With dispatch of ADD documents: • Letter to Committee members • Submit list of SOC reports • for discussion • by 10 June 2013