Notifications
Clear all

Removing World Heritage Sites from in-Danger list


Hiba.Alkhalaf
(@hiba-alkhalaf)
Member Moderator
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 4
Topic starter  

Hello everyone,

I am interested in hearing from other experiences working on World Heritage Sites (WHS) that are inscribed on the in-Danger list, related to two points:

-writing the ‘Retrospective Outstanding Universal Value’ report for sites that were inscribed a long time ago. Since the date of their inscriptions the criteria has been revised such as criteria V.

-writing the ‘Desired state of conservation for the removal of properties from the List of World Heritage in Danger’ (DSCOR).

I think it is important to compare notes and share similar challenges and obstacles, giving the number of the sites that are inscribed on the Danger list during the last decade.  


Quote
mike
 mike
(@mike)
Member Moderator
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 9
 

Hi Hiba

These are two distinct issues:

Retrospective OUV, indeed is for properties that were inscribed before the new format. Many questions were raised including whether the management should relate to the time of inscription (retrospective) or be relevant for the current time.

As for the DSoCR, this is a document that is best prepared as a matrix, with values in the first column with their criteria, attributes in the second column and then threats in the third. It then becomes clear what steps may need to be taken - a new ICCROM document on Impact Assessment and Evaluation is addressing these issues.

The actions taken by the World Heritage committee in monitoring WH sites in danger needs to be more consistent bringing us to the second set of questions. Should the removal of the site from the WH list in danger be:

at the same point that it was listed in danger, or at an earlier point in time in a zone of encouragement, or when it returns to its original state at the time of inscription?

See the attached document which I wrote in 2007 after a WH experts meeting in Thailand. The sketch is most relevant.

 


ReplyQuote
Hiba.Alkhalaf
(@hiba-alkhalaf)
Member Moderator
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 4
Topic starter  

Dear @mike

Thank you for your reply and for attaching the interesting document.

Indeed, these are two distinct and yet interrelated issues. For instance, sites that had been inscribed in mid-80’s followed the criteria’s definition at that time. However, they had been put on the danger list during the past few years following the armed conflict (i.e. in Syria, Libya…etc). According to the explanation you provided above regarding the DSoCR, we need to add the main attributes and values and the main threats caused by the conflict (direct or indirect). This requires identifying the rSOUV of the site following the revised criteria (such as criteria v) before preparing the DSoCR. In that case, we are updating the set of attributes that were considered in mid 80’s. Accordingly, should the proposed ‘corrective measures’ aim to return to the state of conservation at the time of inscription or when it became on the in-Danger list?

P.S. the sketch in the document sounds interesting, but it is a bit hard to understand few parts. Do you have a better version of this graph?


ReplyQuote
Share: