- 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
1 Quality and complexity of nomination dossiers
Generally speaking, ICOMOS notes that nominations are increasingly complex, sometimes to the detriment of the dossiers’ clarity and coherence.
Certain nominations would benefit if more time were taken in preparing the nomination, for example to complete the legal protection process, finalise a management plan or undertake additional research.
ICOMOS hopes that the publication of the Resource Manual for the Preparation of Nominations, of which an electronic version is now available on its website, and on the World Heritage Centre website, will help the State Parties to improve the quality of nomination dossiers.
In most cases, the weakest parts of the nomination dossiers are the comparative analysis, integrity and/or monitoring.
When evaluating the comparative analysis included in nomination dossiers, ICOMOS examines the methodology used by the State Party and the relevance of the examples given by using the following parameters. Comparisons should be drawn with properties expressing the same values as the nominated property and within a defined geo-cultural area. Therefore the values need to be clearly defined and the geo-cultural framework should be determined according to these values. Comparisons should be drawn with similar properties already inscribed on the World Heritage List and with other examples at national and international level within the defined geo-cultural area.
On the basis of the above, ICOMOS indicates whether or not the comparative analysis is complete and whether or not the analysis justifies consideration of the property for the World Heritage List.
If the nomination is considered incomplete or insufficient according to the parameters indicated above, ICOMOS requests additional information from the State Party, checks relevant ICOMOS thematic studies, and the wealth of information available about properties already evaluated and/or inscribed on the World Heritage List, and on the Tentative Lists, and consults the ICOMOS network of experts to improve its understanding of the nomination.
ICOMOS wishes to point out that its role is to evaluate the properties on the basis of the information provided in the nominations (i.e. the dossiers), and on the basis of on-the-spot assessment and additional studies. Similarly, it evaluates the protection, conservation and management of the property at the time of the nomination and not at some unspecified time in the future after the adoption of the laws and management plans. It is the duty of ICOMOS to indicate to the Committee whether or not adequate protection and management are in place prior to inscription.