This ICOMOS analysis on the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists should be seen as a contribution to the further development of the Global Strategy for a credible, representative and balanced World Heritage List. This analysis is a response to the invitation by the World Heritage Committee at its 24th Session in Cairns (2000) to: “proceed with an analysis of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and the Tentative List on a regional, chronological, geographical and thematic basis”. The proposed scope of the analysis was to “provide States Parties with a clear overview of the present situation, and likely trends in the short- to medium- term with a view to identifying under-represented categories”.
Organisation of the Analysis
The ICOMOS analysis has been based on three complementary approaches to the analysis of the representivity of the World Heritage List:
- Typological Framework based on categories
- Chronological-Regional Framework
- Thematic Framework
The study was carried out in two phases: the first phase was undertaken by Henry Cleere in 2002 and early 2003. It focused on a typological analysis of the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists and it included two meetings of an international working group, in Paris, France (March 2002) and Zaragoza, Spain (December 2002).
The second phase was carried out by an ICOMOS team coordinated by Michael Petzet in the second half of 2003 and in early 2004. This focused on an analysis of the World Heritage List in terms of chronological-regional and thematic frameworks, to complement the typological framework. This phase included working group meetings in Munich, Germany (July 2003) and in Paris, France (January 2004).
Understanding the results
The analysis of the Lists was followed by an analysis of the results in terms of understanding the reasons for gaps in the World Heritage List.
The reasons for the gaps in the World Heritage List fall into two main categories:
- Structural – relating to the World Heritage nomination processes and to managing and protecting cultural properties
- Qualitative – relating to the way properties are identified, assessed and evaluated
Structural: The structural constraints relate to lack of technical capacity to promote and prepare nominations, lack of adequate assessments of heritage properties, or lack of an appropriate legal or management framework, which either individually or collectively hinders the preparation of successful nominations. Some of these problems are susceptible to training and support programmes and these are addressed in the Action Plan presented in chapter 5 below.
Qualitative: The second main constraint relates to gaps in the World Heritage List, which can be seen to be associated with certain types or themes of properties. One way to address these gaps is to promote the preparation of Tentative Lists for those States Parties, which do not have them. However in order that these lists reflect the overall cultural assets of countries adequately, new ways of identifying cultural properties need to be considered. It is suggested that a positive way forward could be for the formation of Tentative Lists to be based on an assessment of the cultural qualities of potential sites, thus reflecting the way properties are assessed for Outstanding Universal Value when they are submitted for inclusion on the World Heritage List. In summary, support is needed to encourage States Parties to undertake research to identify their heritage resources. There are some 48 States which do not yet have any properties on the World Heritage List. Support for producing Tentative Lists is a way forward. The second main focus is on the need to identify properties, which are either under-represented on the World Heritage List, or not represented at all, through assessments of cultural qualities of heritage assets. This may also highlight types of properties not previously considered for nomination.