Transcript IUCN - UNESCO World Heritage Centre

WORLD HERITAGE - EXPERT
MEETING ON BENCHMARKS
• A CONTRIBUTION FROM IUCN
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union
FIVE MAIN POINTS:
1.
NEED AGREEMENT ON TERMS
2.
WE NEED TO RECOMMEND DEFINITIONS AND
TO CLARIFY TERMS
3.
BETTER INFORMATION IS REQUIRED
4.
THERE ARE SPECIFIC ISSUES IN RELATION
TO BENCHMARKS AND NATURAL SITES
5.
SOME OTHER (UNRESOLVED) ISSUES
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union
(1) NEED AGREEMENT ON TERMS

The use of the term Benchmark is recent within the WH Committee
– it was not mentioned within the recent review of the WH
Operational Guidelines

There is confusion over the term, in particularly how it relates to
Corrective Measures

We should keep our terms as clear and simple as possible – and
always consider the end user, particularly the site manager

IUCN recommends that we should use the terms Benchmarks and
Corrective Measures and not formally use the term indicators

Common agreement on terms is essential
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union
(2) WE NEED TO AGREE DEFINITIONS AT THIS
MEETING
Benchmarks: IUCN agrees with the background paper definition:
a benchmark is a target or a condition which needs to be achieved in
order for a property to be removed from the List of World Heritage in
Danger (or similarly for inclusion on the Danger List)
Benchmarks: IUCN suggests benchmarks should:

Represent the desired end point we are trying to achieve in relation
to the restoration or rehabilitation of WH properties

Relate to the attributes of OUV for which the property was inscribed,
as well as to the conditions of integrity of the property at the time of
inscription
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union
(2) AGREE DEFINITIONS
Benchmarks: IUCN suggests benchmarks should:

In the case of natural properties – should be based on the
achievement of ecological or geological factors – this underlines the
importance of clearly defining the values of the property at the time
of inscription through a Statement of OUV

Be as clear, measurable and simple as possible and thus enable the
WH Committee to make informed judgements
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union
(2) AGREE DEFINITIONS
Benchmarks: IUCN suggests benchmarks should:

Be developed through a transparent and open process, involving
key stakeholders and the WH Committee

Be used as a role in stimulating action by a range of actors – SPs,
NGO and concerned citizens. Benchmarks can provide a useful
vehicle for raising awareness and support amongst the general
community
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union
(2) WE NEED TO AGREE DEFINITIONS AT THIS
MEETING
Corrective Measures: are noted in the Operational Guidleines but are not
defined. We suggest:
Corrective measures are actions undertaken within or adjacent to a
particular WH property to improve its conservation status and
enable it to achieve defined benchmarks and be removed from the
List of World Heritage in Danger
Corrective Measures: IUCN suggests they should:

Be seen as the means to achieving the end point (benchmarks)

Directly respond to threats to the OUV of the property (which can be
site specific, such as a hotel development, or generic, such as
climate change)
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union
(2) AGREE DEFINITIONS
Corrective Measures: IUCN suggests corrective measures should:

Comprise clear actions or activities which address the threats to the
property

Be clear and achievable. Realistic timeframes should be identified

Be backed up with adequate resources

Be developed through a clear and open process. Field managers
must be involved

Be regularly reviewed to assess if the actions are improving the
conservation status of the property. If necessary they should be
changed or modified
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union
(3) BETTER INFORMATION IS REQUIRED

Good information is required for the definition of benchmarks.

The level of information will vary from property to property. It is thus
important to make use of quantitative and qualitative (particularly
expert judgement) in the definition of benchmarks

The UNESCO/IUCN project « Enhancing our Heritage » provides
two points in relation to information needs for natural sites: (a) better
data on management effectiveness, values and threats can aid
decision making in relation to whether a site should be listed as in
Danger; (b) participatory monitoring and assessment methodology
can be useful in relation to the Listing and Delisting process
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union
(4) SPECIFIC ISSUES IN RELATION TO
BENCHMARKS AND NATURAL SITES

Criteria (vii) natural beauty – benchmarks can be challenging in
view of the subjective nature of this criteria. Benchmarks can be
clearer where there are specific developments which threaten the
visual values of the property eg development of a hotel complex

Criteria (viii) geological features – benchmarks would mainly relate
to impacts on particular geological features which would generally
be site specific
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union
(4) SPECIFIC ISSUES IN RELATION TO
BENCHMARKS AND NATURAL SITES

Criteria (ix) and (x) natural systems and biodiversity – challenges
are posed by: (a) adequacy of information in relation to particular
biological features, such as presence and population size of key
species; and (b) the relative importance of key species and
numbers of species versus to the overall value of the natural
ecosystem as a whole.

The trend has been to inscribe sites on the basis of assemblages of
species and level of endemicity. Thus benchmarks should tend to be
broader although the inclusion of the measurement of key species
can be useful for inclusion as a benchmark, in certain cases eg
where such species can provide an indicator of overall ecosystem
health
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union
(5) SOME OTHER ISSUES

Should benchmarks only apply to Danger Listed properties or
should they apply to all properties ? IUCN thinks they should only
apply to Danger Listing. There may be potential - in the future - for
more wider application, with emphasis on those properties under
threat Benchmarks are also useful after a property has been taken
off the Danger List, as part of on-going monitoring processes

How do we deal with the fact that the values of some properties are
not well defined ? Emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring all
properties have a well defined Statement of OUV, with priority to
Danger Listed properties. This should be supported by updated data
and information
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union
(5) SOME OTHER ISSUES

How do we deal with the current confusion over benchmarks and
corrective measures ? (1) Agree the definitions and supporting
information; (2) ensure this is widely communicated; (3) ensure
these are applied in a consistent and cohesive manner by States
Parties, Advisory Bodies, the Centre and others
The
WORLD
WorldHERITAGE
Conservation
BENCHMARKS
Union
MEETING
Pragmatic solutions
Thefor
World
sustainable
Conservation
development
Union