The Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in 1972. To date 142 states are party to the Convention and 440 properties have been inscribed on the World Heritage List. Seventeen of them are also inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
It is clear that neither the physical condition of these World Heritage properties, nor the socio-economic circumstances within or surrounding them, remain static. The impact of changes in their conditions, therefore, should be carefully evaluated so that effective decisions can be taken to ensure the conservation of World Heritage Properties and to retain the values for which the properties were inscribed on the World Heritage List. Without precise knowledge of the physical conditions and the management system of the World Heritage sites it is not feasible for the World Heritage Committee to fulfil the responsibilities attributed to it under the Convention, which are primarily, to establish and keep up to date the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger, and to collaborate with the States Parties in the conservation of the World Heritage sites.
The question of what actions should be taken to ensure the proper conservation of World Heritage sites is increasingly asked by the World Heritage Committee, the scientific community and the public at large. As a consequence, the Committee has to examine at its session a growing number (an average of forty per session!) of reports on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties when it is reported that development, natural disasters or armed conflicts threaten their integrity and/or authenticity. Provisions for this kind of ad hoc reporting on properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger and for properties under threat were made years ago by the Committee and prescribed in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. The advisory bodies to the World Heritage Convention, ICOMOS and IUCN, play a central role in this kind of ad hoc or reactive monitoring and reporting.
A more systematic approach to the observation of the conditions of all World Heritage properties has been under discussion since 1982. After years of debate and experiments to collect information on the state of conservation on a more systematic basis, the World Heritage Committee adopted in December 1994 the principles of systematic monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties.
Twelve years have passed since systematic monitoring of the state of conservation of World Heritage properties was first discussed by the World Heritage Committee. Parallel to these discussions and the conceptual and methodological development of systematic monitoring, several regional and national monitoring activities had been initiated already in which different methodologies and institutional arrangements had been applied. In some cases for example, the preparation of state of conservation reports was undertaken through United Nations activities, such as the «Regional Project for Cultural Heritage and UNDP (United Nations Development Project) and UNESCO for Latin America and the Caribbean», and a project for monitoring cultural World Heritage Sites around the Mediterranean of UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). In other cases, the States Parties to the Convention undertook the preparation of the state of conservation reports by themselves (Mexico, Australia, Bulgaria), or in collaboration with non-governmental or inter-governmental organizations such as ICOMOS, ICCROM, and IUCN (United-Kingdom, Sri Lanka, Norway).
Based on these practical experiences, and after a long series of consultations and discussions, the Committee at its eighteenth session in December 1994 adopted the principles for the systematic monitoring and reporting of the state of conservation of World Heritage properties. These are now included in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Essentially they comprise the following:
The Committee defined the objectives of systematic monitoring and reporting to be: improved site management, preventive conservation, improved World Heritage policies on the national and the international level, more effective World Heritage cooperation and improved World Heritage decision-making. Thus, inspection is but a means to enhance the application of the convention and to make World Heritage cooperation more effective and efficient. In this sense, monitoring and reporting should be considered as a dynamic, rather than a linear, process that would involve all institutions, organizations and people involved in the preservation and management of the property. It would also mean a continuous reflection on the values of the property, particularly those on the basis of which the property was inscribed on the World Heritage List.
The basic idea of monitoring and reporting is that the information contained in the nomination dossier, together with the evaluation report of the advisory body(ies) and the Committee's statement of the World Heritage values at the moment of inscription, constitute the baseline information on the site. The periodic state of conservation report would then carefully review and update information contained in the original nomination dossier and would recommend actions to deal with problems or threats identified.
Monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of sites should obviously be based on reliable and factual information. However, an analysis of the nomination dossiers shows that many of them lack basic information on the World Heritage properties. In some cases, even maps of the inscribed properties are lacking, and in practically all cases no updated information is available on the state of conservation, the legal framework or the management structures for the sites. The first monitoring and reporting cycle for sites already inscribed on the List will, therefore, necessarily concentrate on establishing the baseline information on each of them. To improve the nomination dossiers and to facilitate future monitoring and reporting, the Committee is developing a completely revised nomination form and creating a format for periodic World Heritage state of conservation reports. Both forms follow the same structure and include , in a re-organized way, the items of the "old" nomination form. Some of them, such as description, documentation and above all management and legal protection, however, have been expanded considerably.
A new item called "factors affecting the site" asks to identify potential threats to the site such as development pressure (encroachment, agriculture, urbanization), environmental pressure, natural disasters and preparedness, visitor and tourism pressure and demographic pressure, It is forward looking and intends to help to identify from the outset the most appropriate actions that should be taken to preserve the values of the property.
Another new item requires the State Party to indicate the administrative arrangements for the monitoring of the site and to indicate key indicators for measuring the state of conservation of the property, such as the number of species on a natural site, or the stability or degree of movement in a particular building.
Obviously, the "factors affecting the site" and the corresponding responses will be the main references for the periodic state of conservation reports, whereas the key indicators will provide the scientific basis for measuring the state of conservation of the property over time.
The World Heritage Convention clearly states that the States Parties bear the prime responsibility for the conservation of the World Heritage sites on their territories. At the same time the States Parties to the Convention recognize that these sites constitute a World Heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate. In the light of this, the World Heritage Committee confirmed that the States Parties are responsible for monitoring the state of conservation of the sites, and invited them to inform the Committee, on a voluntary basis, on their state of conservation through the submission of the periodic World Heritage state of conservation reports.
The Committee decided that expert advice may be requested from the Secretariat or the advisory bodies and that the Secretariat may also commission expert advice with the agreement of the States Parties.
The Secretariat of the Convention, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, shall be responsible for the collection of the site-specific state of conservation reports and their presentation to the World Heritage Committee. This will be done per region on the basis of a five years cycle. The first such regional report, the one on the Latin American region was presented to the World Heritage Committee in December 1994.
For the voluntary monitoring and reporting system to be more successful than a previous effort in which questionnaires were sent out to the States Parties, full cooperation will be required from the States Parties, the national and local institutions and persons responsible for the sites, non-governmental organizations, the advisory bodies, the UNESCO offices, etc. A pro-active strategy will have to be developed for each of the regions for the promotion of monitoring and reporting, for training and assistance in setting up monitoring and reporting structures, and for making full use of regionally available expertise.
The decision taken by the Committee in December 1994 to introduce systematic monitoring and reporting was the result of a long process of consultations, discussions and practical experiences which started in 1982 and in which numerous States Parties and experts, as well as the advisory bodies were involved.
The periodic state of conservation report will verify all information provided in the original nomination dossier, will identify threats to the site, recommend actions to be taken and evaluate the impact of past interventions. It will thus record significant changes in the conditions of the site, its management structure and legal protection. It will help the State Party to identify and plan conservation measures and it will assist the World Heritage Committee in better targeting World Heritage cooperation with the State Parties and the World Heritage properties.
Undoubtedly, the introduction of the principles of monitoring and reporting will not be the final step in this process. Practical experiences, the further development of the World Heritage concept and the evolution in the interpretation and application of the World Heritage Convention will require a continuous reflection on the need and the principles of monitoring and reporting. Continuing discussions by the statuary bodies of UNESCO and the World Heritage Convention are a clear indication of its dynamic, and at times controversial nature.
Herman van Hooff is a programme specialist at the UNESCO World Heritage Centre.