General Analysis of the (European) Questionnaire

1. General Analysis of the (European) Questionnaire Jorun Poettering Consultant WHC

2. Synoptic Tables • Section I Comparison of Convention, PR Format/Explanatory Notes and Questionnaire Europe • Section II Comparison of Operational Guidelines, Nomination Format, PR Format/Explanatory Notes and Questionnaire Europe

3. General Structure • Types of questions Yes/No and multiple choice: Quantitative Data (quick to answer, suggest measurability and comparability, graphical presentation) Text: Qualitative Data (specific problems, comments, assessments, experiences, proposals, better understanding of the situation) • Actions taken or proposeddistributed over several paragraphs

4. Remarks on Section I • Clear shift from “heritage in general“ to “World Heritage“ between the Convention/Format/ Explanatory Notes and the Questionnaire. • No distinction between cultural and natural heritage in the Questionnaire, but very often different kinds of legislation, administration and conservation policies. • Questionnaire not compatible with federal systems.

5. General Remarks • Information related to the statutory process should be pre-filled from the WH archives/databases: Statement of OUV, Committee decisions, AB’s recommendations, SOC reports, financial assistance, tentative list, etc. • Geographical data should also be pre-filled from WH archives/databases: location, area, boundaries, buffer zones. • It should not be possible for the SPs to change these data.

6. General Remarks • Information on non-statutory general issues (like legislative and administrative arrangements or previous conservation projects) should be pre-filled from the nomination dossiers or former PR cycles. • They should be open for correction, completion and updating by the SPs.

7. General Remarks • Information on current problems and managing, visitors, staffing, education, awareness building, expertise and training should not be pre-filled. • Old problems, respective monitoring methods and actions have to be recalled (“pre-filled”) to be commented regarding the current status. • New problems call for new monitoring methods (key indicators) and new actions.

8. Assessment of the Clarity and User-Friendliness of the European Questionnaire

9. Users Criticisms • Repetitions • Ambiguities, Inconsistencies • Exaggerated formalism • Too rigid answer possibilities • Not adapted to complexity of the sites

10. Example for “Repetitions” #42 Does SoS still reflect OUV of site? #46 Have values of site changed since inscription? #68 Have there been significant changes in authenticity/integrity since inscription? #74 Will anticipated changes [in authenticity/integrity] affect OUV of site?

11. Example for “Repetitions” #264 Describe the facilities, visitor centre, site museum, trails, guides and/or information material available to visitors. #319 Briefly describe visitor facilities at the site. #322/323 If there is a Tourism/Visitor Mgmt plan for the site, please summarize the plan, or if available provide website address.

12. “Inconsistencies” #34 Should new criteria be considered? #42 Does SoS still reflect OUV of site? #48 Are boundaries adequate to reflect Signif? #52 If no buffer zone exists, is one needed? #456ff Is the a need to seek a Committee Decision on: • Change to criteria for inscription • Changes to SoS • New SoS • Changes to boundaries • Changes to buffer zone

13. Users Comments • “We want a manual or a good example.” • “The questionnaire should be rethought in terms of the definition of terminology.“ • “The questions could be more specific about the extent of the answers required.“ • “We consider the ‘closed’ type answers quite limiting – in many cases the answer requires explanatory notes and there is no space for such.”

14. User‘s Comments • Serial sites: “To some questions there were different answers for the different sites. So we missed possibilities to comment the answers, especially to the yes/no and multiple choice questions.” • “We believe it would be better to have different forms [questionnaires] reflecting the different types of property.”

15. Users Comments • “The sections that asked for conclusions and recommended actions did somehow seem unnecessary, or too detailed to be handled with.” • “The available pattern of the questionnaire anticipates an already defined project and does not give space to a general formulation of the needs for future action.”

16. Users Comments • “A narrative report would possibly serve the purpose better in order to go into more subtle details and create a basis for a general debate among all stakeholders about the heritage values and a possible improvement of the management policies.” • “If statistics are to be drawn up from the answers it is difficult to see the use of those statistics.”

17. What do you consider to be the main benefits of WH status? (Europe)

18. Are the current protection arrangements effective and/or sufficient? (Europe)

19. Most Visited Sites in Europe

20. What is the purpose of Periodic Reporting?

21. Need of clear objectivesNeed of clear indicators Need of clear methodology Standard indicators Site and threat specific indicators Training needs on the sites Fundamental role of the Advisory Bodies

22. Proposed Structure of the Questionnaire Informing (“Statutory information” constantly updated by WHC) (Contacts, websites, bibliographies, etc. could be constantly updated by very active SPs) Evaluating (Update according to PR cycle, or even more often, by SPs) Acting (Update according to PR cycle, or even more often, by SPs)

23. Important Points • PR is an important tool for information and communication • PR cannot be separated from the general Information Management • PR can be a tool for completion and updating of the most important information of the nomination dossiers • PR can be a tool for constant monitoring of the sites

24. Important Points • PR must recognize the differences between the regions, find a common denominator, and enhance solidarity • PR can be a basis for international cooperation and partnerships (exchange of expertise, common projects, twinning of sites) • Knowledge of WH terminology must not be a pre-condition • PR must be easily accessible and simple to use

25. Thank you for your attention