- ICOMOS Analysis of 2013 nominations
- 1 Quality and complexity of nomination dossiers
- 2 ICOMOS evaluations
- 3 Strengthening of dialogue with State Parties
- 4 “Referred back” nominations – “Deferred” nominations
- 5 "Minor" modifications to boundaries
- 6 Serial nominations and extensions
- 7 Development projects
- 8 Issue of calendar and timing
- 9 Upstream process
- 10 Integrated management in natural reserves
- All Pages
6 Serial nominations and extensions
ICOMOS wishes to point out that the Operational Guidelines of November 2011 (paragraph 137) validated a change in the approach to serial properties. Serial nominations should not consist merely of a catalogue of sites, but should instead concern a collection or ensemble of sites with specific cultural, social or functional links over time, in which each site contributes substantially to the Outstanding Universal Value of the serial property as a whole.
ICOMOS wishes to encourage States Parties to give consideration to the implications of this change when preparing serial nominations.
This year, ICOMOS has examined 9 serial nominations, including 93 monuments, ensembles and sites. These nominations require a more substantial investment in terms of human and financial resources at all levels of evaluation of the properties. Because the number of serial nominations is growing, this needs to be taken into account in the budgets and contracts. Furthermore, ICOMOS notes that there are also calendar pressures arising from the task of evaluating these large and complex serial nominations and repeats its suggestion, supported by the Jade Tabet review, that the World Heritage Committee give consideration to an extended timeframe for these kinds of nominations.
A specific evaluation format was set up in 2009 for the serial nominations and extensions. ICOMOS explicitly informs the Committee of the questions it asks in relation to the nature of serial nominations:
a) What is the justification for the serial approach?
b) How were the chosen sites selected? How do they each relate to the overall Outstanding Universal Value of the property?
c) Does the comparative analysis justify the selection of properties?
d) Are the separate components of the property functionally linked?
e) Is there an overall management framework for all components?
The answers to these questions have been integrated in the evaluation format under relevant sections.