World Heritage

World Heritage status is among the most prestigious international recognitions that a property can be awarded, since it signifies that the property forms part of humanity’s shared heritage.

As a result, each property nominated to the World Heritage List undergoes a rigorous evaluation process to ensure that it meets the strict requirements for inscription.

As an Advisory Body to the World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS plays a key role in this evaluation process. In addition, ICOMOS can offer early assistance to States Parties, before the preparation of a nomination dossier, through the Upstream Process.

 

Evaluation: an introduction

ICOMOS is responsible for the evaluation of all cultural and mixed properties nominated by States Parties. With the introduction of Preliminary Assessment, this evaluation is now formed of two distinct phases. Throughout its evaluation, ICOMOS pays particular attention to determining whether or not the property demonstrates Outstanding Universal Value.

What is Outstanding Universal Value?

In order to be inscribed on the World Heritage List, a candidate property has to demonstrate Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). This means that the property has to meet at least one of the ten selection criteria that are outlined in the Operational Guidelines, satisfy the conditions of integrity and authenticity, and demonstrate that it is being adequately protected and managed.

 

Early Assistance

In addition, ICOMOS can provide pre-nomination assistance to States Parties through the Upstream Process, a voluntary procedure designed to provide technical advice at the earliest stages of the nomination process. This early guidance can focus on the State Party’s Tentative List in general or on a specific site and aims to improve the quality of a potential future nomination.

Before States Parties begin preparing a nomination dossier, ICOMOS can provide advice on the development or revision of their Tentative Lists or on the feasibility of a potential nomination. It is important to note that ICOMOS never participates in drafting nomination dossiers. Its role is limited to providing guidance to the State Party.

 

Tentative Lists

The process of inscribing a property on the World Heritage List starts with the inclusion of the site on the State Party’s Tentative List. The Tentative List is essentially an inventory of properties that the State Party considers to be suitable for nomination. Only the sites that have been included in the Tentative List can be nominated to the World Heritage List.

States Parties are encouraged to review their Tentative Lists on a regular basis and to involve a wide range of stakeholders, such as site managers and local communities, in this process.

ICOMOS can offer advice to States Parties on creating or updating their Tentative Lists as part of the Upstream Process.

In addition, and with the assistance of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, IUCN and ICCROM, ICOMOS has published a general guidance document in order to support States Parties in this work.

 

The Upstream Process

The Upstream Process is a voluntary exercise through which the Advisory Bodies can provide advice, consultation and analysis to States Parties at the earliest stage of the nomination process, prior to the Preliminary Assessment and the preparation of a nomination dossier.

The primary aim of the Upstream Process is to reduce the number of nominations that experience significant problems during the evaluation process. It helps States Parties to focus their time and resources on the sites most likely to be inscribed on the World Heritage List.

Through the Upstream Process, ICOMOS can assist States Parties with the preparation or revision of their Tentative List, or provide advice on a specific site before or after its inclusion in the Tentative List. This assistance may include desk reviews, site visits, expert meetings and/or workshops.

Upstream advice on creating and updating Tentative Lists

With regard to Tentative Lists, ICOMOS can support States Parties in compiling the available research and documentation, offering an initial perspective on potential themes and typologies, and identifying the most promising properties within the State Party’s national heritage inventory.

Upstream advice on a candidate site

When advising on a specific site in the framework of the Upstream Process, ICOMOS’ advice focuses on the technical merit of a potential nomination. This could include assessing the site’s potential to demonstrate Outstanding Universal Value, or guiding the development of a comparative analysis. This advice helps the State Party to assess whether the site warrants further consideration and to determine the actions required before preparing a nomination.

With the introduction of the Preliminary Assessment, the evaluation process now consists of two phases.

The Preliminary Assessment forms Phase I of the evaluation process, taking place before the preparation of a nomination dossier. In this phase, the State Party submits a Preliminary Assessment request, a concise and streamlined document that follows a standard format and focuses on a specific candidate property. ICOMOS presents States Parties with initial guidance on the potential of the property to demonstrate Outstanding Universal Value and offers advice on how a robust nomination dossier might be developed.

Phase II of the evaluation process begins once the State Party submits a full nomination dossier. In this phase, ICOMOS carries out a rigorous, in-depth examination focusing on whether or not the property demonstrates Outstanding Universal Value.

Preliminary Assessment is a desk-based review process that allows States Parties to engage in an enhanced, early dialogue with the Advisory Bodies. The advice provided by the Advisory Bodies helps to determine the feasibility of a potential nomination. As a result, States Parties can focus their time and resources on the properties that have the greatest potential to demonstrate Outstanding Universal Value.

ICOMOS is responsible for the Preliminary Assessment of cultural and mixed properties, the latter on a joint basis with IUCN.

The process lasts 12 months, starting with the submission of a Preliminary Assessment request by the State Party. This document is more succinct than a full nomination dossier, focusing on key aspects such as the initial reasons why a candidate property could be considered globally significant and which World Heritage criteria could potentially apply.

During this time, various exchanges are held between ICOMOS and the State Party to encourage a constructive dialogue.
The Preliminary Assessment is carried out on the basis of independent desk reviews supplied by international experts. ICOMOS also consults the relevant ICOMOS National Committee.

ICOMOS’ final recommendations are determined at the annual ICOMOS/IUCN Panel for Preliminary Assessment of Potential Nominated Properties.

Afterwards, ICOMOS’ Preliminary Assessment report is delivered to the State Party. This report includes guidance on whether or not the property could have  the potential to demonstrate OUV, and how it might do so, or if further exploratory work might be needed. It also provides advice on the next steps to be taken by the State Party in order to develop a robust nomination dossier. The report is not published unless the State Party decides to submit a nomination.

The Preliminary Assessment report is valid for 5 years. If the State Party does not submit a full nomination dossier within this timeframe, a new Preliminary Assessment request must be made.

 

What is the difference between the Upstream Process and the Preliminary Assessment?

While both the Upstream Process and the Preliminary Assessment take place at an early stage, before the development of a nomination dossier, there are key differences between the two.

The Preliminary Assessment is a mandatory phase of the evaluation process that is undertaken on a single property already included in the State Party’s Tentative List. It is carried out on the basis of desk reviews and does not involve a mission to the site in question.

The Upstream Process is a voluntary initiative, characterised by its flexibility. For example, it can include general advice in relation to the revision of a Tentative List or focus on an individual property that is not yet included in a State Party’s Tentative List, and it can involve site visits, workshops, reports and/or meetings.

Once the Preliminary Assessment has been completed, the State Party can submit a full nomination dossier to the World Heritage Centre for evaluation by the Advisory Bodies.

This marks the beginning of Phase II of the evaluation process. During this phase, ICOMOS carries out a detailed assessment of:

• The justification for the selection criteria on the basis of which the nominated property is proposed for inscription;
• The comparative analysis provided in the nomination dossier;
• The capacity of the nominated property to meet the conditions of authenticity and integrity, including an assessment of the proposed boundaries of the property and its buffer zone;
• The state of conservation and the factors affecting the nominated property, including the conservation measures and monitoring systems that have been put in place;
• The effectiveness of the legal protection and the management system of the nominated property.

 

The Phase II evaluation cycle in detail

Phase II of ICOMOS’ evaluation process lasts 15 months. The key stages of this process are illustrated in the figure below:

This phase of the evaluation process notably involves an ICOMOS evaluation mission to visit the nominated property. ICOMOS selects its mission experts from network of specialists, ensuring that the experts come from the same region as the nominated property but not from the same country. The evaluation process also includes desk reviews, carried out by international experts, and consultations with ICOMOS’ National and International Scientific Committees. The mission report, desk reviews and consultations remain confidential and are not shared with the State Party.

These documents are then presented to ICOMOS’ World Heritage Panel. The Panel meets twice during the Phase II evaluation cycle and is composed of some ICOMOS Board members, representatives from ICOMOS’ International Scientific Committees and independent experts. In line with an internal reform, ICOMOS ensures that all geographical regions are equally represented at the Panel. The exact composition of the Panel varies each year to ensure that it reflects, the typologies and historical periods represented in the nomination dossiers.

The Panel is responsible for formulating ICOMOS’ official recommendation:

• Inscription: The property demonstrates Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), meets the conditions of authenticity and integrity, and satisfies the management and protection requirements.
• Referral: The property demonstrates OUV but its legal protection and management system need improvement. The State Party is given three years to submit additional information showing that these issues have been resolved.
• Deferral: More evidence is needed to determine if the property demonstrates OUV. The State Party must submit a new nomination dossier.
• Non-inscription: The property does not demonstrate OUV.

This recommendation is shared by UNESCO with the State Party six weeks before the annual session of the World Heritage Committee and made public in ICOMOS’ evaluation volume.

Once a World Heritage property is inscribed on the World Heritage List, it is essential to monitor its state of conservation to ensure the preservation of its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Any threats to the property’s OUV must be identified as early as possible and acted upon. The World Heritage Committee examines the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List through processes of Reactive Monitoring and Periodic Reporting.

As an Advisory Body to the World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS plays a central role in monitoring World Heritage properties, by continuously collecting and analysing information on their state of conservation.

ICOMOS is particularly involved in Reactive Monitoring, which includes preparing state of conservation reports for the World Heritage Committee, carrying out Reactive Monitoring missions to specific World Heritage properties and providing technical reviews of projects that could have a negative impact on the OUV of World Heritage properties.

In addition, ICOMOS contributes to regional Periodic Reporting exercises by participating in various information meetings and training sessions.

 

What is Reactive Monitoring?

Reactive Monitoring is the system through which the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies report to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of specific World Heritage properties that are under threat. Possible threats include development or infrastructure projects, human activity, management and institutional factors, and the effects of climate change, amongst others.

Reactive Monitoring processes may be implemented for properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, those for which the Committee has requested state of conservation reports, and those which have come under threat since the last Committee session and require urgent follow-up.

 

What is Periodic Reporting?

Periodic reporting exercises focus on the long-term conservation of World Heritage properties and application of the World Heritage Convention. These exercises are primarily led by the States Parties, who provide reports every few years region by region to the World Heritage Committee. The World Heritage Centre assists with coordination and the Advisory Bodies may be called upon to offer guidance or training.

 

Monitoring resources

In addition to its monitoring work under the World Heritage Convention, ICOMOS has contributed to the development of various studies and practical tools to help States Parties address potential threats to World Heritage properties. These tools include the Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments in a World Heritage Context, the Guidance Note on Desired State of Conservation for the removal of a property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, and the online Guidance for Wind Energy Projects in a World Heritage Context, amongst others.

Every year, ICOMOS collaborates with the World Heritage Centre, ICCROM and IUCN to draft and review state of conservation (SOC) reports.

 

What are SOC reports?

SOC reports are concise documents presenting a property’s state of conservation, the analysis of the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies and a draft decision for the consideration of the World Heritage Committee.

ICOMOS bases its SOC reports on various sources, including mandatory reports submitted by States Parties, mission reports, technical reviews and third-party information previously verified with the State Party.

The drafting process is shared between the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies. Each draft report is then reviewed by the other institution(s) before being published among the Committee’s working documents.

 

Which properties are addressed by SOC reports?

With over 1200 World Heritage properties on the List, it is not feasible for the Committee to examine every property annually. Therefore, SOC reports are prepared only for:

• Properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger: Annual SOC reports are produced, with States Parties required to submit a report to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February each year.
• Properties for which the Committee has expressly requested a SOC report: The State Party must submit a report by 1 December of the year preceding the Committee session.
• Urgent cases: SOC reports can be prepared for properties facing new threats, with States Parties’ reports due by 1 February of the year of the Committee session.

 

What is the List of World Heritage in Danger?

The World Heritage Committee may decide to inscribe a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger if it faces ascertained or potential danger, as defined in the Operational Guidelines.

The aim of this listing is to raise international awareness and mobilise support. Properties receive an increased level of monitoring, with annual reviews of their state of conservation, and States Parties can apply for financing from the World Heritage Fund.

ICOMOS may be requested to carry out a Reactive Monitoring mission before the listing and before the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger. ICOMOS can also assist the State Party to develop a Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (a DSOCR) and related corrective measures.

Once the corrective measures have been implemented and the threats have been mitigated, the Committee can decide to remove the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

When examining the state of conservation of a World Heritage property, the World Heritage Committee may request the State Party to invite a Reactive Monitoring mission. ICOMOS carries out these missions in collaboration with the World Heritage Centre, and with the other Advisory Bodies as necessary.

Reactive Monitoring missions are undertaken in consultation with the relevant State Party to assess the current state of conservation of the property, factors affecting its Outstanding Universal Value, its legal framework and management system, and any specific issues in order to deliver conclusions, and provide recommendations to improve its state of conservation. The mission may also review the progress made by the State Party in the implementation of previously recommended measures and Committee decisions.

The scope and objectives of the mission are typically outlined in the Committee’s decision. The costs associated with Reactive Monitoring missions are covered by the World Heritage Fund.

 

Selection of experts and consultation with the National Committee

When ICOMOS is requested to carry out a Reactive Monitoring mission, it selects (a) suitable mission expert(s) from its membership. Experts usually come from the same region as the property, but not from the same country in order to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.

ICOMOS also notifies the relevant National Committee about the mission, with the aim of arranging a meeting between the National Committee and the expert team.

 

Reactive Monitoring mission reports

Following the mission, the expert team prepares a draft mission report, which is always peer reviewed by each institution involved before being submitted to the State Party for the identification of any factual errors. The report is then published on the UNESCO website before the upcoming Committee session.

The findings and recommendations from Reactive Monitoring missions are included in the state of conservation report prepared for the World Heritage Committee, so that the Committee can consider the mission’s results in their decision.

ICOMOS plays a key role in assessing projects that may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties by carrying out technical reviews.

 

Notification of projects potentially affecting OUV

According to the Operational Guidelines, States Parties are encouraged to inform the World Heritage Committee of any restoration or construction projects that could affect the Outstanding Universal Value of a World Heritage property. This notification should come as early as possible, before any decisions are made that could be difficult to reverse, so that solutions can be found to ensure the preservation of the property’s OUV.

If the World Heritage Centre receives information from a third party about a project or potential damage to a World Heritage property, it informs the State Party in order to verify the contents of the information and asks the State Party to submit all relevant details.

Based on the information provided by the State Party, whether at its own discretion or in response to third party reports, the World Heritage Centre requests ICOMOS to carry out a technical review.

 

ICOMOS’ technical review process

A technical review is a desk-based exercise that does not involve a site visit. It analyses the project and its potential impact on the OUV of the World Heritage property and offers advice on the next steps to be taken by the State Party to avoid negative impacts. ICOMOS prepares technical reviews by requesting comments from its network of experts and consulting its National Committees.

Technical reviews are not published. ICOMOS’ comments are provided to the World Heritage Centre and then shared with the relevant State Party.

When the World Heritage Committee examines the state of conservation of a World Heritage property, ICOMOS’ technical reviews may be referenced in the state of conservation report. This ensures that the Committee is able to consider ICOMOS’ findings when making decisions.

ICOMOS usually completes over 100 technical reviews per year.

In addition to evaluating and monitoring, ICOMOS also provides advice to States Parties on cultural and mixed World Heritage properties.

This advice can take place before the nomination of the property through the Upstream process. In this case, ICOMOS can assist the State Party with creating or revising their Tentative List or national cultural heritage inventory, or it can advise the State Party on the potential of a specific site to demonstrate Outstanding Universal Value.

The State Party can also request advice from ICOMOS after the property has been inscribed on the World Heritage List. For example, ICOMOS can undertake Advisory missions or provide Advisory assistance through a series of online meetings or workshops.

ICOMOS’ Advisory assistance is a voluntary procedure that takes place upon the invitation of the State Party. Unlike evaluation and monitoring activities, which are funded by the World Heritage Fund, States Parties usually bear the costs of any advisory assistance that ICOMOS provides, unless they are eligible to apply for International Assistance.

Once a property has been inscribed on the World Heritage List, the State Party may ask ICOMOS to provide it with advice on a specific issue that could have an impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property. ICOMOS can be invited to carry out an Advisory mission to the property, or it can provide general Advisory assistance through the form of online meetings, workshops or desk reviews.

 

Advisory missions

ICOMOS may be invited by the State Party to carry out an Advisory mission, whether alone, with the World Heritage Centre or with the other Advisory Bodies. Unlike Reactive Monitoring missions, which are requested by the World Heritage Committee, Advisory missions are voluntary and initiated at the request of the State Party. They often focus on specific matters such as assessing the potential impact of a major development or restoration project on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.

As with other activities, ICOMOS selects (a) suitable mission expert(s) from its network. Experts usually come from the same region as the property, but not from the same country to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.

ICOMOS also notifies the relevant National Committee about the mission, with the aim of arranging a meeting between the National Committee and the expert team.

Following the mission, the expert team prepares a draft mission report, which is always peer reviewed before being submitted to the State Party for the identification of any factual errors. The mission report is then published on the World Heritage Centre website.

 

Advisory assistance

ICOMOS can also offer Advisory assistance to States Parties in the form of workshops and expert meetings, whether in-person or online, or through desk reviews.

For example, ICOMOS can organise a consultation process to assist the State Party to develop a Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) and the associated corrective measures, or arrange a series of expert meetings to support the State Party in the preparation of a Management Plan or other planning instruments.

These key documents form the foundation of the World Heritage Convention and guide its implementation.

• The 1972 Convention : the international agreement that created the concept of World Heritage and its primary goals.
• The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention : regularly updated by the World Heritage Committee, this document describes the role of the Advisory Bodies in more detail, as well as the process for inscription on the World Heritage List and monitoring procedures.
• The World Heritage List : the list of all of the inscribed World Heritage properties, including relevant documentation and Committee decisions.
  

ICOMOS develops policy documents to uphold its credibility as Advisory Body to the World Heritage Committee. All ICOMOS experts and advisors must sign and adhere to these policies and immediately disclose any possible conflicts of interest.

ICOMOS produces guidance documents to assist States Parties in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

• Resource manuals : this series of texts has been prepared by the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre, and provides advice to States Parties and site managers on World Heritage nominations and management.
• Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments in a World Heritage Context : this document includes guidance for undertaking Impact Assessments on projects that could have a potential negative impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties.
• Guidance on Developing and Revising World Heritage Tentative Lists : this document was recently published by ICOMOS, with the assistance of the World Heritage Centre, IUCN and ICCROM, to support States Parties in preparing and updating their Tentative Lists
• ICOMOS-ICCROM Guidance on Post-Disaster and Post-Conflict Recovery and Reconstruction : this publication offers a framework for heritage experts, States Parties and community actors to guide the recovery and reconstruction of damaged heritage places and helps communities to navigate the trauma associated with destruction and loss in order to rebuild social cohesion and enhance resilience.

Since its inception, ICOMOS has played a key role in shaping conservation principles and advancing ideas for conserving World Heritage.

ICOMOS has produced a series of charters and doctrinal texts, while its Monument and Sites publication series includes volumes on defining Outstanding Universal Value and international preservation principles, amongst others.

ICOMOS’ work also involves exploring new approaches and undertaking various projects in order to refine conservation practices and strengthen the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

Recent projects and studies include:

• Connecting Practice in collaboration with IUCN: launched in 2013, this joint initiative by ICOMOS and IUCN aims to bridge the gap between cultural and natural heritage by developing integrated approaches to World Heritage conservation and management. Four phases of the project have been concluded so far.
• World Heritage and human rights: since 2007, ICOMOS has explored the role of human rights within World Heritage activities through the Our Common Dignity initiative and the Rights-Based Approach working group. The aim of these initiatives is to build awareness of human rights issues in World Heritage and to promote good practice through developing tools and guidelines.
• World Heritage and sustainable development: ICOMOS plays an active role in the topic of World Heritage and sustainable development by organising capacity building workshops.
• Recovery and reconstruction: this joint project by ICOMOS and ICCROM addresses post-trauma recovery and reconstruction in the context of cultural heritage. The initiative resulted in the ICOMOS-ICCROM Analysis of Case Studies in Recovery and Reconstruction, a publication in two volumes (Volume I / Volume II) that later informed the development of the ICOMOS-ICCROM Guidance on Post-Disaster and Post-Conflict Recovery and Reconstruction.
• Climate change: ICOMOS has long advocated for integrating cultural heritage into climate action, recognising climate change as one of the most significant threats to cultural heritage and communities worldwide. In 2019, its “Future of Our Pasts: Engaging Cultural Heritage in Climate Action” report called for new multi-disciplinary approaches in areas such as heritage documentation, disaster risk reduction and education, while in 2021 ICOMOS co-hosted an International Co-Sponsored Meeting on Culture, Heritage and Climate Change with UNESCO and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On the basis of this work, ICOMOS participated in updating the UNESCO Policy Document on Climate Action for World Heritage.

ICOMOS produces a range of studies and papers that reflect on heritage themes, explore emerging challenges and identify key areas for future research.

 

Thematic Studies

ICOMOS undertakes thematic studies to consolidate and analyse current research on specific themes and regions. These studies help States Parties to reflect on heritage themes, with a view to inscribing a property on the World Heritage List or to improving national heritage conservation. In recent years, ICOMOS has carried out thematic studies on the Cultural Heritages of Water (in three volumes), the Tea Landscapes of Asia and the Silk Roads.

 

Scoping Studies

ICOMOS develops scoping studies that identify key concepts and topics in heritage conservation and explore opportunities for further research.

In this regard, ICOMOS has published scoping studies aiming to achieve a more balanced and representative World Heritage List by identifying underrepresented regions on the World Heritage List and analysing possible gaps and promising themes and typologies. It published a first report in 2005, while a second report focusing particularly on the Arab region was published in 2021.

 

Discussion Papers

Furthermore, ICOMOS prepares discussion papers that present its reflections on emerging ideas and challenges in World Heritage.

For example, it has published two discussion papers (Document 1 / Document 2) focusing on sites associated with memories of recent conflicts, following extensive consultation with its National and International Scientific Committees as well as international experts. These papers provide ICOMOS’ perspective on whether and how sites of memory could relate to the purpose and scope of the World Heritage Convention and its Operational Guidelines, and on the evaluation of such sites within a World Heritage context.