Explore content Activity A.1.3.3 Develop guidance to fill gaps in existing guidance, including: a) the need for EIAs/HIAs of potential developments’ impact on Outstanding Universal Value, the range of proposed activities with a likely impact on Outstanding Universal Value to be reported on and the documentation required by the World Heritage Centre, b) the uses, limits and documentation requirements for traditional management systems and c) protection mechanisms for setting (beyond and including buffer zones) Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI.1.3.3 Submissions/ Consultancy undertaken to identify gaps and develop guidance on conservation requirements and practices; States Parties widely consulted on tools currently in use addressing gaps. Guidance provided on the website. Activity A.1.3.4 Confirm the degree to which management systems and legal frameworks need to be in place before inscription (paragraph 115 of the Operational Guidelines). Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.3.4 Para 115 of Operational Guidelines revised and provides greater clarity to States Parties. Activity A.1.3.5 Provide an inventory on the website, based on retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value and linked to indicators, of World Heritage properties which have all attributes /elements of Outstanding Universal Value in place, and which do not. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI.1.3.5 Details of missing attributes/element of Outstanding Universal Value are voluntarily submitted by States Parties for consideration of remedial actions. Activity A.1.1.1 Reconfirm the primacy of Outstanding Universal Value within the Convention and its purpose to protect and conserve places of Outstanding Universal Value that require the assistance of the international community. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.1.1 World Heritage nominations focus on the most outstanding properties and for others not meeting the threshold, develop new tools for recognition and preservation. Activity A.1.3.6 Develop and disseminate widely global standards for site management and tools for management effectiveness assessments, including risk and catastrophe planning for vulnerable sites. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI.1.3.6 Workshop/ consultancy undertaken to develop global management standards and tools; standards agreed by States Parties, subsequent voluntary submissions by States Parties and others, with best practice management recognised. Activity A1.1.2 Complete retrospective statements of Outstanding Universal Value for all World Heritage properties. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.1.2 100% of properties on the World Heritage List have approved statements of Outstanding Universal Value. Activity A.1.3.7 Prepare a thematic report on significant global and regional factors negatively impacting the Outstanding Universal Value of the properties, grouped according to the five categories of factors identified in the Periodic Report and any additional threats identified in the reporting process. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI.1.3.7 Thematic report produced on key threats on an agreed regular basis. Activity A.1.1.3 Statements of Outstanding Universal Value are included on web. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.1.3 From 37 COM onwards Statements of Outstanding Universal Value are the basis for decision making on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties. Activity A.1.3.8 Develop a four-year cycle for revisions to the Operational Guidelines. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI.1.3.8 Clarity provided regarding process and timelines for revisions to the Operational Guidelines. Activity A.1.2.1 Define monitoring Key Performance Indicator (KPI)s (related to the Outstanding Universal Value) for all properties that are the subject of state of conservation reports, including review of other standard setting exercises and lessons drawn from Periodic reporting. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.2.1 Agreed monitoring indicators used by States Parties and Advisory Bodies that give accurate snapshot of state of conservation of a property in relation to the attributes of its Outstanding Universal Value. Activity A.1.4.1 Use the Global Strategy for Capacity Building as a base to develop capacity building sub-strategies by region and sub-region, incorporating needs identified through periodic reporting. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.4.1 The Global Strategy of Capacity Building is funded and implemented and fewer capacity needs identified in future Periodic Reporting. Activity A.1.2.2 Create tools to recognise excellence (i.e. shift focus of Committee from sole focus on problems in SOC context) as reported by external bodies. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.2.2 Increased media reporting of state of conservation successes (e.g., recent monitoring mission, local or regional Advisory Bodies committees); Used as showcase models for capacity building and training by the centre and Advisory Bodies. Activity A1.4.2 Explore opportunities presented by Category 2 regional centres and new regional funds for capacity building on conservation methods and outcomes. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.4.3 As above. Activity A.1.2.3 Develop and disseminate widely a system to prioritise and systematically select properties for state of conservation reports (e.g. for properties on or proposed for in danger listing, then those who had missions, then routine reports). Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.2.3 Prioritisation system for examination of state of conservation reports established and on website; critical sites reported on via website and Committee meetings. Activity A.1.4.3 Consider establishment of a Site Management Network to facilitate exchange and sharing of information on best practice heritage management. Activity A.1.2.4 Strengthen monitoring of properties; hold a workshop to discuss establishment of a system of proactive monitoring without waiting for the occurrence of serious problems. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.2.4 Relevant tools developed for States Parties to establish a system of proactive monitoring at national level; States Parties have a system of proactive monitoring incorporated into Plan of Management for each inscribed property. Advisory Bodies also encouraged to develop local monitoring networks. Activity A.1.5.1 The In-Danger listing mechanism is used in conformity with the provision of the Operational Guidelines (both for inscription and removal). Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.5.1 Working group established at the 36 COM; Rules of Procedure revised to forbid a State Party serving on the Committee to take part in the decision following debates on state of conservation reports concerning a property located in its territory. Activity A.1.2.5 National governments encouraged to have regular dialogue with ICOMOS and IUCN about state of conservation of properties Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.2.5 Fewer irreversible impacts recorded by the World Heritage Committee; ICOMOS, IUCN and Centre record fewer unexpected issues arising; state of conservation monitoring mechanisms used by Advisory Bodies defined and understood by States Parties. Activity A.1.5.2 Draft decisions for inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger include a costed program of operations needed, based on the agreed Corrective Measures needed to achieve the Desired State of Conservation for the removal of the property from the Danger List (article 11.4 of the Convention) and encourage the use of international assistance in meeting these needs. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI.1.5.2 Draft decisions on Danger Listing incorporate costed programme of remedial actions for removal from the Danger List; States Parties have clear set of expectations about remedial actions required; programme of remedial actions remains constant; follow up reporting on meeting funding goals; States Parties meet funding gaps. Activity A.1.2.6 National governments encouraged involving ICOMOS and IUCN, including their regional structures, in process of preparing response to periodic reporting. Involvement includes Periodic Reporting training and information provision. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.2.6 Periodic Report training undertaken including local or regional structures of ICOMOS and IUCN; IUCN and ICOMOS demonstrating; active engagement between States Parties and Advisory Bodies. Activity A.1.5.3 Clarify criteria/thresholds for in danger listing and for delisting properties in relation to Outstanding Universal Value. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI.1.5.3 Decisions to inscribe on the Danger List or remove from World Heritage List are consistent across all States Parties World Heritage sites and clearly documented in relation to threats to Outstanding Universal Value or loss of Outstanding Universal Value. Activity A.1.2.7 Formally notify States Parties of the state of conservation reports on World Heritage properties in their territory which will be the subject of examination by the Committee at the session indicated; to enable dialogue, consider options for providing concerned State Party comment on state of conservation reports and/or State party right of reply (similar to nomination process). Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.2.7 States Parties notified of upcoming state of conservation report by Centre 2 months before Committee meeting and States Parties fully prepared to respond; reduction in provision of last minute information by States Parties (trend line down). Activity A.1.5.4 Analyse inscribed properties to identify key risks and publish a list of existing guidance on, risk assessment and threat management. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI.1.5.4 States Parties are assisted to develop (and use) a list of key risks associated with their properties and guidance to manage serious threats; all existing guidance material distributed through website and other communication channels. Activity A.1.2.8 Decisions to default to a minimum two-year cycle for the examination of state of conservation reports for individual properties on the World Heritage List, and for the discussion of those inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, except for cases of utmost urgency; World Heritage Fund to assist developing countries with state of conservation reporting and monitoring. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI 1.2.8 Increased compliance with remedial actions and reduced reports of little progress (trend line down); trend graphs show fewer properties on annual SOC reporting cycle; two year cycle implemented; increased on-going dialogue between States Parties and the Centre between Committee sessions. Activity A. 1.3.1 Develop a global conservation strategy that includes but is not limited to points below (these activities could be transferred to the conservation strategy once established) Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI. 1.3.1 Global conservation strategy developed and fully funded for implementation Activity A.1.3.2. Develop a database of existing guidance on key factors negatively impacting on the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties and tools for best management practice. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) KPI.1.3.2 Database updated annually including provision for States Parties and Advisory Bodies to contribute new advice as it arises. Awards provided to States Parties for best practice management at each Committee meeting.