Position Paper: IUCN

1
WORLD HERITAGE - EXPERT MEETING ON BENCHMARKS

• A CONTRIBUTION FROM IUCN

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING
2

• FIVE MAIN POINTS
• NEED AGREEMENT ON TERMS
• WE NEED TO RECOMMEND DEFINITIONS AND TO CLARIFY
  TERMS
• BETTER INFORMATION IS REQUIRED
• THERE ARE SPECIFIC ISSUES IN RELATION TO
  BENCHMARKS AND NATURAL SITES
• SOME OTHER (UNRESOLVED) ISSUES

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING
3

• (1) NEED AGREEMENT ON TERMS
• The use of the term Benchmark is recent within
  the WH Committee it was not mentioned within
  the recent review of the WH Operational
  Guidelines
• There is confusion over the term, in particularly
  how it relates to Corrective Measures
• We should keep our terms as clear and simple as
  possible and always consider the end user,
  particularly the site manager
• IUCN recommends that we should use the terms
  Benchmarks and Corrective Measures and not
  formally use the term indicators
• Common agreement on terms is essential

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING
4

• (2) WE NEED TO AGREE DEFINITIONS AT THIS MEETING
• Benchmarks IUCN agrees with the background paper
  definition
• a benchmark is a target or a condition which
  needs to be achieved in order for a property to
  be removed from the List of World Heritage in
  Danger (or similarly for inclusion on the Danger
  List)
• Benchmarks IUCN suggests benchmarks should
• Represent the desired end point we are trying to
  achieve in relation to the restoration or
  rehabilitation of WH properties
• Relate to the attributes of OUV for which the
  property was inscribed, as well as to the
  conditions of integrity of the property at the
  time of inscription

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING
5

• (2) AGREE DEFINITIONS
• Benchmarks IUCN suggests benchmarks should
• In the case of natural properties should be
  based on the achievement of ecological or
  geological factors this underlines the
  importance of clearly defining the values of the
  property at the time of inscription through a
  Statement of OUV
• Be as clear, measurable and simple as possible
  and thus enable the WH Committee to make informed
  judgements

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING
6

• (2) AGREE DEFINITIONS
• Benchmarks IUCN suggests benchmarks should
• Be developed through a transparent and open
  process, involving key stakeholders and the WH
  Committee
• Be used as a role in stimulating action by a
  range of actors SPs, NGO and concerned
  citizens. Benchmarks can provide a useful vehicle
  for raising awareness and support amongst the
  general community

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING
7

• (2) WE NEED TO AGREE DEFINITIONS AT THIS MEETING
• Corrective Measures are noted in the Operational
  Guidleines but are not defined. We suggest
• Corrective measures are actions undertaken within
  or adjacent to a particular WH property to
  improve its conservation status and enable it to
  achieve defined benchmarks and be removed from
  the List of World Heritage in Danger
• Corrective Measures IUCN suggests they should
• Be seen as the means to achieving the end point
  (benchmarks)
• Directly respond to threats to the OUV of the
  property (which can be site specific, such as a
  hotel development, or generic, such as climate
  change)

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING
8

• (2) AGREE DEFINITIONS
• Corrective Measures IUCN suggests corrective
  measures should
• Comprise clear actions or activities which
  address the threats to the property
• Be clear and achievable. Realistic timeframes
  should be identified
• Be backed up with adequate resources
• Be developed through a clear and open process.
  Field managers must be involved
• Be regularly reviewed to assess if the actions
  are improving the conservation status of the
  property. If necessary they should be changed or
  modified

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING
9

• (3) BETTER INFORMATION IS REQUIRED
• Good information is required for the definition
  of benchmarks.
• The level of information will vary from property
  to property. It is thus important to make use of
  quantitative and qualitative (particularly expert
  judgement) in the definition of benchmarks
• The UNESCO/IUCN project  Enhancing our
  Heritage  provides two points in relation to
  information needs for natural sites (a) better
  data on management effectiveness, values and
  threats can aid decision making in relation to
  whether a site should be listed as in Danger (b)
  participatory monitoring and assessment
  methodology can be useful in relation to the
  Listing and Delisting process

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING
10

• (4) SPECIFIC ISSUES IN RELATION TO BENCHMARKS AND
  NATURAL SITES
• Criteria (vii) natural beauty benchmarks can be
  challenging in view of the subjective nature of
  this criteria. Benchmarks can be clearer where
  there are specific developments which threaten
  the visual values of the property eg development
  of a hotel complex
• Criteria (viii) geological features benchmarks
  would mainly relate to impacts on particular
  geological features which would generally be site
  specific

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING
11

• (4) SPECIFIC ISSUES IN RELATION TO BENCHMARKS AND
  NATURAL SITES
• Criteria (ix) and (x) natural systems and
  biodiversity challenges are posed by (a)
  adequacy of information in relation to particular
  biological features, such as presence and
  population size of key species and (b) the
  relative importance of key species and numbers of
  species versus to the overall value of the
  natural ecosystem as a whole.
• The trend has been to inscribe sites on the basis
  of assemblages of species and level of
  endemicity. Thus benchmarks should tend to be
  broader although the inclusion of the measurement
  of key species can be useful for inclusion as a
  benchmark, in certain cases eg where such species
  can provide an indicator of overall ecosystem
  health

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING
12

• (5) SOME OTHER ISSUES
• Should benchmarks only apply to Danger Listed
  properties or should they apply to all properties
  ? IUCN thinks they should only apply to Danger
  Listing. There may be potential - in the future -
  for more wider application, with emphasis on
  those properties under threat Benchmarks are also
  useful after a property has been taken off the
  Danger List, as part of on-going monitoring
  processes
• How do we deal with the fact that the values of
  some properties are not well defined ? Emphasis
  needs to be placed on ensuring all properties
  have a well defined Statement of OUV, with
  priority to Danger Listed properties. This should
  be supported by updated data and information

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING
13

• (5) SOME OTHER ISSUES
• How do we deal with the current confusion over
  benchmarks and corrective measures ? (1) Agree
  the definitions and supporting information (2)
  ensure this is widely communicated (3) ensure
  these are applied in a consistent and cohesive
  manner by States Parties, Advisory Bodies, the
  Centre and others

The World Conservation Union
WORLD HERITAGE BENCHMARKS MEETING