Transcript Monitoring Indicators - UNESCO World Heritage Centre

Periodic Reporting Reflection Experts Group (PRREG)
Group Name: Subgroup 4
Theme: Monitoring Indicators
Mandate: Identify monitoring indicators to improve follow-up on
progress made by States Parties in the implementation of the World
Heritage Convention, following the recommendation of the Evaluation
of UNESCO’s Standard-Setting Work of the Culture Sector.
Group Members: Lydia Deloumeaux (Leader), Ole Eriksen, Matea Osti,
Tarek Abulhawa, ICOMOS, ICCROM
September 18th 2016
Recap on June 2nd Meeting
Indicators recommended by the Audit of WMCC.
Need to resolve the absence of heritage indicators issue.
Heritage-related CDI indicator part inadequately developed for the PR.
A proposal to consult the UNESCO UK National Commission.
Make available data on economic benefits of World Heritage Inscription.
Include questions on studies quantifying economic benefits of sites.
Development and economic development perspective represents a significant
gap.
General and specific indicators should focus on attributes and OUV.
Sustainable development approach to be integrated into indicators.
Inventory needed on of pre-existing indicators within other conventions.
Monitoring Indicators Subgroup (4) Tasks
Task
Prepare an inventory of pre-existing
indicators within the UN system and
study other conventions and reporting
formats for their respective indicators.
Preliminary recommendations in bullet
points.
Develop further indicators based on
recommendations
Lead
Deadline
Lydia Deloumeaux
and WHC
15 August 2016
Lydia, Ole, Matea,
Tarek, ICOMOS,
ICCROM
Lydia, Ole, Matea,
Tarek, ICOMOS,
ICCROM
15 September 2016
Mid October 2016
Task One: Inventory of Existing Indicators in UN
System and other Conventions
# countries # countries
participating with sites
Total
# sites
Reporting
Category Website
MAB
Ramsar
Geo-parks
CITES
UNWTO SD 1
UNWTO SD 2
CDIS
CBD
Inventory Sheet
Key
indicators/indicat
Responsibility ors pertinent or
comparative to
WHC
Task Two: Preliminary Recommendations (1)
Potential Broad Thematic Indicators and Characterizing their Types
I. Conservation and natural characteristics: OUV assessment.
II. Economic significance.
III. Social and cultural significance.
IV. Education and science.
V. Networking/Synergies.
VI. Governance and management.
VII. Sustainable development (including climate change).
Task Two: Preliminary Recommendations (2)
Recommendations for Indicators Development Process
 Include both quantitative and qualitative data in the PR. They are both important for
monitoring purposes, especially for the 2030 SDG agenda;
 In order to identify benchmark and undertake trend analysis, key benchmark data
should be established and remain through successive cycles;
 The work of UIS on heritage statistics in regards to SDG-2030 agenda will be taken
into account;
 Staff number could be asked in the PR, in addition to their relevant characteristics
such as their permanency status;
 Funding data should be requested as well as funding source by type of expenditure.
 A monitoring indicator framework may need to be established
Task Two: Preliminary Recommendations (3)
Key Questions for the September Meeting
 Are the broad thematic indicators relevant?
 What is missing?
 Do we systematically distinguish between cultural and natural sites?
o Possible avenues:
 Aim at the best possible synergy between cultural and natural sites in developing indicators
and measuring them.
 Recommending to define a shared part and develop more specific parts for site typologies
 Section 4.8 Monitoring asks countries if they have monitoring indicators. Can we ask the question whether
State Parties have indicators available/what type of indicators they are using?
o If yes, several factors need to be taken into consideration:
 Give to SP the ability to provide/upload lists of indicators in use.
 Undertake an analysis of SP indicators to understand the types of indicators being used for
monitoring purposes. Based on the results to produce best practices and make them available to
SPs.
 How to assess OUV? Is Bonn Matrix (John Day proposal) a potential avenue? Do we need specific impact
assessment measure? Is the PR the adequate instrument to do so?
 Which method should we use to develop these monitoring indicators?
 What should be included in the section on Sustainable development?
Note: this section could be quite broad. We may need to narrow down to a few topics such as
climate change, biodiversity. The analysis of the threats could be also part of this subsection.
Thank You