World Heritage Process Connections
All connections part of World Heritage Process.
|Already inscribed still on T List||22|
|Controversial at inscription||Inscription was controversial, because:
- a ballot was needed, or:
- there were opposing groups or states within the WHC, or:
- there was controversy & diplomacy leading up to the WHC meeting, or:
- the AB was overruled from Not to inscribe (No OUV or other reasons) to Inscribe by the WHC
|Country gained extra WHS by an extension||(Now) Transnational WHS where an extension gave a country an additional WHS for its "Count".||13|
|Cultural landscape not recognized||WHS which were identified as a potential Cultural Landscape in the Nomination and/or the AB evaluation but have not been recognised as such in the "official" UNESCO List of Cultural Landscapes.||27|
|Cultural sites rejected for Natural criteria||Cultural sites for which UNESCO has, so far, declined also to inscribe on Natural criteria as requested by the state Party.||19|
|Derived from more than one TWHS||Sites that appeared as more than one T-site (extensions excluded as well as multinational sites with one T-site per country).||34|
|Developed since inscription||Sites where a "Significant Development" has taken place since inscription without delisting, placing on the danger list, general warnings etc.||11|
|Directly in Danger||Sites that were registered as WHS and listed on the Danger List simultaneously.
A special subgroup of these are sites that were processed following the "Emergency Procedure" in the Operational guidelines.
|Exact locations inscribed twice (or more)||58|
|Extended from original TWHS||42|
|Extended more than once||WHS that have had extensions added more than once.||8|
|Extensions on Tentative List||Inscribed WHS that also still are on the Tentative List, for a possible extension. Extension is named.||60|
|First inscriptions||WHS that were the first to be inscribed from their country.||167|
|First sites filling gaps cited by ICOMOS||Gaps and underrepresented categories as identified by ICOMOS in http://www.international.icomos.org/world_heritage/gaps.pdf. Only first sites that have filled the gap or boosted the underrepresented category are named. The report dates from 2005, but the sites included are up to 2004.||36|
|Former In Danger List sites||40|
|Incorrect UNESCO 'Number of locations'||WHS whose Serial ID number on the UNESCO Web site which identifies the number of separate locations is incorrect because they are shown either
a. As being single locations with no separate Serial IDs but whose map and/or description clearly shows that they contain multiple (i.e 2 or more) geographically separated locations.
b. As including locations which were not actually inscribed
c. Consisting of more separate geographical locations than the number of separate Serial IDs
Show the correct number of locations where known
|Industrial Landscapes||WHS that are both cultural and industrial landscapes. The broad definition of "Cultural landscape" is used here: declared as such in the AB evaluation, but not necessary registered like that by Unesco.||8|
|Inscribed at third attempt or more||Sites that have been discussed at the WHC at least 2 times before inscription.||35|
|Inscribed element(s) removed||WHS which have had elements of the original (or subsequently extended) inscribed area removed.
The removed area should be significant in terms of the case made when it was included - not just a minor "boundary adjustment".
The removal may or may not be officially documented as a "removal" but should be traceable via changed descriptions/maps etc across the period of Inscription.
|Inscribed on a single criterion only||175|
|Inscribed on all 4 Natural criteria||Sites inscribed on all 4 Natural criteria (Unesco guidelines)||21|
|Inscribed on all 6 Cultural Criteria||Sites inscribed on all 6 Cultural Criteria (Unesco guidelines)||3|
|Locations added by Advisory body||Cultural WHS whose inscribed area includes additional locations not originally nominated by the State Party but recommended for inclusion by the AB at the time of the evaluation and accepted by both the State Party and UNESCO. Excluding recommendations which simply required increases to the size of the original core nominated area.||3|
|Marine extension||WHS where an extension to the original WHS has lead to inclusion of a marine area.||4|
|Minor modifications after inscription||Sites labelled "Minor modification inscribed year" - where minor modifications (often to the boundaries of a site) have been made after the year of inscription. These modifications are accepted without discussion after proposal by IUCN or ICOMOS.||112|
|Mixed and Transboundary||Mixed WHS that are also Transboundary||3|
|Mixed sites inscribed on 5 or more criteria||11|
|Mixed sites which became so after original inscription||7|
|Name changes||Name changes of WHS during the "UNESCO related" life of the site (ie in the run up to inscription and thereafter).||101|
|Natural sites filling gaps cited by IUCN||Natural WHS that have been entered after the 2003/2004 publication of the "Filling the Gaps" document, which points out underrepresented themes and areas.
Filling the Gaps
|Natural sites rejected for cultural criteria||Natural sites for which UNESCO has, so far, declined also to inscribe on Cultural criteria as requested by the state Party.||6|
|Need for a Comparative Study||WHS that were deferred or referred, waiting for the results of a Comparative Study carried out by one of the Advisory Bodies or a third party.
Regular "brushing up" of the comparative analysis in the nomination dossier by the State Party is not included.
|No Buffer Zone||WHS without a Buffer Zone where this lack has been publicly acknowledged and accepted within UNESCO processes
The need for a Buffer Zone was first mentioned in the 1997 Operational Guidelines -
"17. Whenever necessary for the proper conservation of a cultural or natural property nominated, an adequate "buffer zone" around a property should be provided"
a further paragraph was added in the Feb 2005 version to strengthen the requirement -
"106. Where no buffer zone is proposed, the nomination should include a statement as to why a buffer zone is not required."
Subsequent to these 2 dates some sites which had been inscribed beforehand without buffer zones have formally created them - others have not and in some of these cases UNESCO (via its review processes) has not progressed the matter or else has merely asked that a buffer zone be created at some time in the future. Some sites, however, have come under active pressure to do so and some of these have argued (apparently successfully in that they have not been de-listed or placed under danger because of it) that formal buffer zones were unnecessary. Further, since 1997 (and particularly since the strengthening of the requirement in 2005), some sites have been inscribed without buffer zones such that this was clearly identified and accepted at the time of evaluation/inscription.
|On T List for a different nomination||Inscribed WHS (or parts thereof) which are on the T List for an additional (different) inscription from that already achieved||11|
|Only WHS in their country||30|
|OUV provided by Reconstructions||WHS whose OUV is derived in whole or part from reconstructions (taking place since mid 19th C). This aspect should either be identified in the "Statement of OUV" or else in statements in the AB Evaluation relating to the OUV.||5|
|Part of Cultural nomination rejected||Cultural WHS whose original nominations included a separate site which was rejected during the evaluation process.||14|
|Postponed sites||WHS that in their nomination process have been officially postponed to a future session of the Committee, in compliance with paragraph 61 of the Operational Guidelines (referring to the limitation of the number and type of nominations per year from a State Party) or on request of the State Party.||4|
|Potential Transboundary sites||WHS for which there exist an entry on another country's T List which could be inscribed to create or extend a Transboundary WHS. Specify the T List entry involved and the country to which it belongs.||12|
|Recommended for combination by AB||Separate WHS where the AB advised to pursue one combined WHS. The WHS is only listed when a combination was explicitly asked for and a listing is not automatically reciprocal.||15|
|Reconstruction regarded as unsatisfactory by UNESCO or ICOMOS||8|
|Reduced from broader TWHS||WHS that were originally nominated to cover a broader area or more locations, but were reduced to the current area during the process before AB evaluation.
For reductions during/after AB evaluation, see this connection: Part of Cultural nomination rejected.
|Rejected, and then inscribed||Sites that have been rejected by the WHC, but have got in at a later session.||12|
|Serial Transnational Sites||A site "within the territory of different States Parties, which need not be contiguous and is nominated with the consent of all States Parties concerned (serial transnational property)" (Operational Guidelines) - This in contrast to Transboundary sites, which are contiguous and have their own Connection.||22|
|Single Monuments||WHS Inscribed as a single "Monument" as per the World Heritage Convention.
"For the purpose of this Convention, the following shall be considered as 'cultural heritage'":
Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features,which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;
Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;
Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view."
|Sites for which a reduction is or was planned||6|
|Sites once situated in a non acceding country||Sites which were insciibed by one State party and subsequently were within the borders of another country which hadn't at that time acceded to the World Heritage Convention.||6|
|Situated in a UNESCO associate member state||See the associate member list at https://fr.unesco.org/countries.||3|
|Slow Starters||WHS that were inscribed at least 10 years after the State Party ratified the WH convention. Only refers to first inscription of the country.||39|
|Ten years or more to inscribe||WHS with 10 years or more between first attempt at inscription and the inscription itself.||28|
|Trans-regional WHS||WHS situated in more than one UNESCO region. See also http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/?action=statd1||3|
|Transboundary only||Sites from countries which have only transboundary sites representing them.||7|
|Transboundary sites||Sites "on the territory of all concerned States Parties having adjacent borders (transboundary property)." (Operational Guidelines) - this in contrast to Serial Transnational Sites, which are not contiguous and have their own Connection.||21|
|Twice on the endangered list||Sites that have been placed on the endangered list, then removed from the list and then registered again on it.||5|
|Upstream process||WHS that have been inscribed after successful use of the Upstream Process
|WHC locations||Correlation between the location of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) meeting and the inscription of sites in the same year which are very closely related to that location - whether the city itself, a nearby site, or another site in the same country. Paris / France is excluded because it is the seat of the WHC and hosted many meetings.||38|
|WHS inscribed solely on Criterion VI||The current UNESCO Operational Guidelines state that "The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria". This requirement was first introduced in the 1980 revision of the guidelines when the exact words were "the Committee considered that this criterion should justify inclusion in the List only in exceptional circumstances or in conjunction with other criteria". It was changed to the current wording in the Feb 2005 revision.||12|
|WHS with enclave||WHS whose inscribed boundaries completely surround one or more non-inscribed "enclaves".||13|