IUCN - OUV Standards For Natural Heritage

Outstanding Universal Value
Standards for Natural World Heritage
A Compendium on Standards for inscriptions of

Natural Properties on the World Heritage List
IUCN Protected Areas Programme - World Heritage Studies

About IUCN
IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most
pressing environment and development challenges.
IUCN works on biodiversity, climate change, energy, human livelihoods and greening the world economy by
supporting scientific research, managing field projects all over the world, and bringing governments, NGOs,
the UN and companies together to develop policy, laws and best practice.
IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organization, with more than 1,000 government
and NGO members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by
over 1,000 staff in 60 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world.
www.iucn.org
This study is produced as part of IUCN’s role as advisory body to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention on natural
heritage.
IUCN
Programme on Protected Areas
Rue Mauverney 28
CH-1196 Gland
Switzerland
www.iucn.org/wcpa
The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression
of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.
Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
Copyright: © 2008 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission
of the copyright holder.
Citation: Badman, T., Bomhard, B., Fincke, A., Langley, J., Rosabal, P. and Sheppard, D. (2008). Outstanding univer-
sal value: Standards for natural world heritage. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 52pp.
Cover photo: Ngorongoro Conservation Area World Heritage Property. United Republic of Tanzania, © IUCN/David
Sheppard
Layout by: Delwyn Dupuis
Produced by: IUCN Protected Areas Programme
Printed by: IUCN
Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)

Publications Services
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland
Switzerland
Tel +41 22 999 0000
Fax +41 22 999 0020
[email protected]
www.iucn.org/publications
A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available.
The text of this book is printed on paper made from wood fibre from well-managed forests certified in accordance with
the rules of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
Standards for Natural World Heritage
A Compendium on Standards for inscriptions of

Natural Properties on the World Heritage List
A Compendium on Standards for Inscriptions of Natural
Properties on the World Heritage List
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL NOMINATIONS 2

• Principles and regulations of the World Heritage Convention and its Operational Guidelines 2
• Applying Outstanding Universal Value to natural and cultural properties 4
• General trends for inscription of natural and mixed World Heritage Properties 5
• Trends for application of the natural criteria for World Heritage properties 7
• Trends in decisions to not inscribe World Heritage properties 16
• Wider trends in inscriptions (e.g. serial sites, transboundary sites) 17
• Potential Implications for the World Heritage Committee 18
3. WHAT WAS THE THRESHOLD FOR SUCCESSFUL INSCRIPTION? 19

4. HOW DID COMMITTEE DECISIONS RELATE TO THE DECISIONS OF THE ADVISORY BODIES? 21
5. HOW WAS REFERENCE TO VALUES OF MINORITIES, INDIGENOUS AND/OR LOCAL PEOPLE MADE 24
OR OBVIOUSLY OMITTED IN COMMITTEE DECISIONS?
6. INFLUENCE OF THE GLOBAL STRATEGY 26

• Influence of the Global Strategy over Committee decisions 27
7. CONCLUSION 27
ANNEXES 28
• ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THIS COMPENDIUM 29
• ANNEX 2: LIST OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED UNDER THE DIFFERENT WORLD HERITAGE 30
NATURAL CRITERIA
• ANNEX 3: NATURAL AND MIXED NOMINATIONS NOT INSCRIBED OR WITHDRAWN 36
• ANNEX 4: KEY IUCN REFERENCES ON OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE 37
• ANNEX 5: LANDMARK CASES RELATED TO WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATIONS 38
• ANNEX 6: OTHER SIGNIFICANT CASE STUDIES RELEVANT TO THE CONCEPT OF OUTSTANDING 40
UNIVERSAL VALUE
A Compendium on Standards for Inscriptions of Natural
Properties on the World Heritage List
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The 2006 World Heritage Committee called for the development of “compendiums of
relevant material and decisions, compiled into the form of guidance manuals, from which
precedents on how to interpret and apply discussions of Outstanding Universal Value can
be clearly shown”. The full Terms of Reference are attached as Annex 1 of this report. The
Committee requested1 that these guidance manuals should identify good practices and
some emblematic cases and, in particular, show:
• the application of the relevant criteria for successful nominations;
• what was the threshold for successful inscription, under each criterion applied;
• how the justification for inscription proposed by the State/s Party/ies for each
relevant property was interpreted and adopted at the moment of inscription by the
Committee;
• to what extent and how the recommendations from the Advisory Bodies had been
taken into account by the Committee at the moment of inscription;
• how reference to values of minorities, indigenous and/or local people were made or
obviously omitted; and
• how the Global Strategy has influenced or not the Committee’s decisions since
1994 (launch of the Global Strategy).
1.2 This compendium is IUCN’s response to that decision, as the advisory body to the World
Heritage Committee on Natural Heritage. The report is structured around the above 6
points and provides an initial analysis of decisions of the Committee. Landmark cases
highlighting World Heritage Committee decisions in relation to particular cases are
highlighted throughout the text and are elaborated in Annex 2 of the report. IUCN notes:
• The concept of Outstanding Universal Value has evolved and continues to evolve.
Most notably in relation to key decisions, the criteria for inscription have been changed
over time linked to revisions of the Operational Guidelines. This makes the evaluation
of a number of the questions complex, and ultimately there are significant areas where
the answers are subjective. This is especially the case for earlier decisions of the
Committee.
• The concept of Outstanding Universal Value has been debated in depth by the
Committee and by supporting expert groups on a number of occasions. The most
notable recent discussion was at the Expert Meeting held in Kazan in 19952. IUCN has
avoided repeating the general discussions from that have been reported to the
Committee, but has included updated material from the Kazan meeting to form a single
Compendium.
1
See Decision 30COM9 of the World Heritage Committee taken in Vilnius in 2006.
2
Special meeting of experts (Kazan, Russian Federation, 6-9 April 2005). See Paper 29COM INF.9B of the World Heritage Committee
(Durban, 2005): Keynote speech by Ms Christina Cameron and presentations by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies
1
Outstanding Universal Value (IUCN, 2008)
2. THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL NOMINATIONS3
Principles and regulations of the World Heritage Convention and its Operational Guidelines4
2.1 The preamble of the World Heritage Convention recognises the importance of the concept
of Outstanding Universal Value by stating that “parts of the cultural and natural heritage are
of outstanding interest and therefore need to be preserved as part of the world heritage of
mankind as a whole”. Two things are important to note from this statement:
• The Convention was not conceived to ensure the protection of all cultural and natural
heritage, but only those parts that are universally outstanding; and
• A global approach is emphasized by stressing that this heritage is to be preserved for

mankind as a whole.
2.2 This view is elaborated in the Operational Guidelines of the Convention which define
Outstanding Universal Value as “cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional
as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and
future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of
the highest importance to the international community as a whole.” (Section II. A. paragraph
49)
2.3 Outstanding Universal Value is thus the central construct of the Convention and IUCN
considers the following issues are relevant in defining its meaning:
• Outstanding: For properties to be of Outstanding Universal Value they should be

exceptional. IUCN has noted in several expert meetings that: “the World Heritage
Convention sets out to define the geography of the superlative – the most outstanding
natural and cultural places on Earth”;
• Universal: The scope of the Convention is global in relation to the significance of the
properties to be protected as well as its importance to all people of the world. By
definition properties cannot be considered for Outstanding Universal Value from a
national or regional perspective; and
• Value: What makes a property outstanding and universal is its “value” which implies
clearly defining the worth of a property, ranking its importance based on clear and
consistent standards, including the recognition and assessment of its integrity.
2.4 The last point takes up an important requirement defined by the Operational Guidelines:
that for a property to be of Outstanding Universal Value it needs to meet the criteria defined
by the World Heritage Committee. The revised Operational Guidelines (latest revision
2008), Section II.D, paragraph 77 set out a single set of ten criteria for the assessment of
Outstanding Universal Value, listed in Box 1. These criteria offer an entry point for:
(a) States Parties to justify the nomination of a property for World Heritage listing, and;
(b) Advisory Bodies and the Committee to evaluate whether that property meets one or
more of the criteria and its associated conditions of integrity. Therefore the Outstanding
Universal Value concept cannot be interpreted or applied without consideration of the
ten World Heritage criteria.
3
Much of this section is based on IUCN’s submission to the Expert Meeting in Kazan (see footnote 2)
4
The Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention are the key governing document of the Convention and are updated
regularly by the World Heritage Committee. The last major revision took place in 2005. The latest version with minor amendments
since that dates can be obtained from UNESCO’s website: whc.unesco.org
2
2.6 Furthermore, as noted in paragraph 78 of the Box 1: The World Heritage Criteria
Operational Guidelines; it is not enough for a
site to meet the World Heritage criteria, but it (Extract from Operational Guidelines to the World
Heritage Convention)
must also meet the conditions of integrity and/or
authenticity and must have an adequate 77. The Committee considers a property as having
protection and management system to ensure outstanding universal value (see paragraphs 49-53) if
its safeguarding. Thus, the conditions of integrity the property meets one or more of the following
and/or authenticity are an integral element when criteria. Nominated properties shall therefore:
considering the concept and application of (i) represent a masterpiece of human creative
Outstanding Universal Value and without both genius;
having been met a property should not be listed.
(ii) exhibit an important interchange of human values,
over a span of time or within a cultural area of the
2.7 In assessing nominated properties, IUCN is
world, on developments in architecture or
again guided by the Operational Guidelines, technology, monumental arts, town-planning or
which request Advisory Bodies to be objective, landscape design;
rigorous and scientific in their evaluations that
should be conducted in a consistent standard of (iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to
a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or
professionalism (Paragraph 148, (b) and (c)). which has disappeared;
2.8 In evaluating a nominated property and (iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building,
assessing its potential Outstanding Universal architectural or technological ensemble or landscape
which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human
Value, IUCN considers a number of factors and
history;
draws upon a wide range of information and
international expertise which include, but are not (v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human
limited to, the following: settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is
representative of a culture (or cultures), or human
interaction with the environment especially when it
• The nomination dossier and its justification has become vulnerable under the impact of
for the Outstanding Universal Value of the irreversible change;
property, based in particular on the criteria
and a Global Comparative Analysis, (vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or
living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with
• Data analysis and desk reviews of literature artistic and literary works of outstanding universal
(with the support of UNEP-WCMC), significance. (The Committee considers that this
• Global Thematic studies by IUCN and others criterion should preferably be used in conjunction
(including those listed in annex 1), with other criteria) ;
• Analysis in relation to Global Classification (vii) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas
and Prioritisation Systems (see section 3.1 of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic
and 3.2 below) and the IUCN Analysis of the importance;
World Heritage List,
(viii) be outstanding examples representing major
• Views and recommendations of expert stages of earth’s history, including the record of life,
reviewers drawn from IUCN’s extensive significant on-going geological processes in the
range of specialist networks (WCPA5 and development of landforms, or significant geomorphic
other IUCN Commissions, IUCN Regional or physiographic features;
and Country Offices, Global Thematic (ix) be outstanding examples representing significant
Programmes, IUCN Members and partners), on-going ecological and biological processes in the
• Views and recommendations from the field evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water,
evaluation mission, and coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of
plants and animals;
• The final review of all the above information
and recommendation by the IUCN World (x) contain the most important and significant natural
Heritage Panel. habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity,
including those containing threatened species of
outstanding universal value from the point of view of
science or conservation.
78. To be deemed of outstanding universal value, a

property must also meet the conditions of integrity
and/or authenticity and must have an adequate
protection and management system to ensure its
safeguarding.
5
WCPA – World Commission on Protected Areas
3
Applying Outstanding Universal Value to natural and cultural properties
2.9 As the Advisory Bodies responsible for the evaluation of new nominations, IUCN and
ICOMOS take forward this task in relation to natural properties (nominated under criteria vii-
x) and cultural properties (nominated under criteria i-vi) respectively. There has been some
discussion in recent years amongst the World Heritage Committee as to whether the two
bodies apply the concept of Outstanding Universal Value differently. It is important to note,
however, that there are intrinsic differences between cultural and natural properties, some
of which are summarised in Box 2 below. But this issue is not new to the Convention. The
World Heritage Committee, as early as 1979, noted that universal value was difficult to
define and that even using comparative surveys it was more difficult to select cultural
places than natural places for inclusion in the World Heritage List. The differences between
these two groups of properties have sometimes led to the incorrect conclusion that IUCN
and ICOMOS do not have equivalent standards in interpreting and applying the concept of
Outstanding Universal Value. This point of view fails to take into account the fact that the
underlying construction and definition of Outstanding Universal Value is different for cultural
and natural features, and this difference is ultimately reflected in the carefully drafted
criteria for the Convention. IUCN and ICOMOS have jointly stressed on a number of
occasions that an appreciation of this fundamental difference in cultural and natural
properties, reflected in the World Heritage criteria, is essential in addressing the application
and development of the concept of Outstanding Universal Value. The advice provided by
the Advisory Bodies therefore reflects this difference through the development of distinctive
but complementary assessment frameworks to equivalent professional standards.
Box 2: Key differences between cultural and natural properties (not exclusive)
Cultural Properties Natural Properties
• Sites tend to be fragmented, diverse • Most sites are discreet territorial units,
and not evenly distributed worldwide. are often large, and are distributed in
most biomes and ecoregions of the
• The value or quality of sites tends to world.
depend on things such as materials
used; when and how a certain property • The value or qualities tend to be
was created; the history behind the associated to measurable
property and the value that society may characteristics such as the diversity of
attribute to those qualities. species, number of endemic species,
etc. (as far as that information and
• Values of sites are usually linked to data is available).
regional cultural identity for which
assessment is often subjective. • The values of properties are usually
linked to scientific information which
• The combination of the above tends to facilitates objective assessment.
result in a high diversity of situations,
thus making cultural heritage less • Scientific assessment (both in relation
predisposed to evaluation through clear to geographical and biodiversity
classifications systems. features) are reflected in classification
systems.
• A typological framework (based on
similarities) is generally used to assess •
A topological framework (based on
cultural heritage, which is biogeographical differences and
complemented by a unique characteristics) is generally
chronological/regional framework and a used to assess natural heritage,
thematic framework. complemented by a thematic
framework.
Note: Information based on the IUCN and ICOMOS Analyses of the World Heritage List
4
General trends for inscription of natural and mixed World Heritage properties6
2.10 There are currently 166 natural7 and 25 mixed World Heritage properties that have been
inscribed under the World Heritage Convention. Trends in inscription since 1978 are shown
below in Table 1 and in Figures 1 and 2. Note that the figures cited include natural and
mixed properties. Note that these figures including agreed extensions to properties, as well
as sites that may have been referred or deferred from previous years.
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
No. of
nominations 6 17 11 15 11 13 13 8 8 17 11 6 9 12 14
No.
properties
inscribed 4 11 5 11 7 10 7 5 6 9 8 3 5 6 4
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
No. of
nominations 14 13 9 16 15 8 22 23 20 5 15 17 16 11 13
No.
properties
inscribed 4 8 6 7 8 3 13 11 6 1 5 5 8 3 7
Table 1: World Heritage Convention: Numbers of natural and mixed nominations and inscriptions.
Trends in numbers of nominations and

inscriptions
25
20
15
10
0
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
No. properties not inscribed

No. properties inscribed
Figure 1: Trends in numbers of World Heritage nominations and inscriptions
6
All analyses are based on data within the World Heritage Centre databases on past decisions, and do not account for changes to the
wording of criteria or other variation in detail within the data presented.
7
The Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman) was deleted from the World Heritage List in 2007 so 167 sites have been inscribed in total.
5
Trends in success of natural site inscriptions

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Proportion of successful inscriptions 5 year average
Figure 2: Trends in the rate of success for inscriptions of natural and mixed World Heritage properties.
Success rate is expressed as the percentage the nominated sites that were inscribed in the same year – e.g. 50%
indicates half of the nominated sites were inscribed). The five year average (dotted line) shows the average for
the previous five years inscriptions to illustrate more clearly the overall trend in success rates.
2.11 A number of observations can be made in relation to Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2. During
the first decade of the Convention, many of the most iconic, well-known and outstanding
natural properties, such as Galápagos, were inscribed on the List. This was rightly noted in
an analysis presented by Christina Cameron to the expert meeting in Kazan meeting. This
is reflected in a high rate of inscriptions, averaging around 65%. Many of the properties
inscribed were assessed and proposed in the first IUCN Global Study, the World’s Greatest
Natural Areas: an indicative inventory of natural properties of World Heritage Quality
(1982).
2.12 The average number of nominations has risen in subsequent decades, but the rate of
inscription has fallen to be within the range of around 30 to 50% per year. This trend
towards decreasing inscription rates of properties over the last 20 years of the Convention
reflects a variety of factors, including:
• the fact that many of the most iconic properties were inscribed in the early years of the
Convention, as reflected by the high rate of inscription at this time;
• stricter application over time of Outstanding Universal Value by the World Heritage
Committee and by IUCN as its Advisory Body on Natural Heritage. The application of
the concept of Outstanding Universal Value has become increasingly sophisticated,
largely as a result of better information becoming available to facilitate more objective
comparative analyses. This has been guided by various Expert Meetings convened by
the World Heritage Centre and also by the preparation of a number of strategy
documents by IUCN and by other organizations which have increased knowledge and
awareness of the concept of Outstanding Universal Value8;
• more rigorous application by the World Heritage Committee and IUCN of the Conditions
of Integrity, in accordance with the Operational Guidelines;
• as more and more properties are inscribed, it has become easier to determine a
baseline of standards against which to assess new nominations, and hence the World
Heritage Committee can reject nominations with more confidence; and
8
For example, see references outlined in Annex 2 of this paper, covering some sources of information for Global Comparative Analyses
and the review and update of Tentative Lists.
6
• the increasing number of properties deferred or referred, many of which have

subsequently come back for consideration by the World Heritage Committee and have
been inscribed, such as the Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary (China) and the Cape
Floral Region (South Africa).
2.13 The rigorous approach of the World Heritage Committee and by IUCN in relation to the
assessment of natural World Heritage properties is one of the reasons why they are held up
as models of best practice within the identification of protected areas. These high standards
are also reflected by recent decisions by Shell and ICMM (International Council of Mining
and Metals) to avoid operating within natural World Heritage properties. These decisions
cited, inter alia the high standards applied in the selection of these properties.
Trends for application of the natural criteria for World Heritage properties
2.14 The application of the Outstanding Universal Value concept needs to be seen in the context
of the four criteria for assessing natural World Heritage properties, as defined in Paragraph
77 of the Operational Guidelines. The application of the natural World Heritage criteria (vii –
x) and how IUCN assesses them is described below in relation to each of the criteria.
Uses of World Heritage Natural Critera (All Inscriptions)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
vii viii ix x
Count 120 72 100 120
Figure 3: Overall figures for the use of the four natural World Heritage criteria
2.15 Figure 3 shows the overall numbers of times each criteria has been used in relation to the
properties currently inscribed on the World Heritage List. From this graphic it can be seen
that the most used criteria over the history of the Convention are criteria vii (related to
natural sites of aesthetic significance and superlative natural phenomena) and criterion x
(related to biodiversity and threatened species).
2.16 The next three pages present graphical and statistical analysis of the use of the different
World Heritage criteria through the history of the Convention. Table 2 overleaf provides a
summary of the numbers of times the different natural criteria have been used and in which
combinations. Figures 4 to 12 on the following pages set out a range of analyses of the use
of the natural World Heritage criteria for both natural sites and for mixed sites. The rest of
this chapter of the Compendium refers to the information presented in these graphics as
part of the analysis of the application of the different natural criteria.
7
NUMBER OF CRITERIA NATURAL CRITERIA NATURAL MIXED SITES NATURAL

SITES USED SITES ONLY ONLY AND MIXED
SITES
vii 6 7 13
One Natural Criterion 33 viii 12 1 13
ix 3 0 3
x 12 1 13
vii, viii 21 3 24
vii, ix 10 2 12
Two Natural Criteria 86

vii, x 19 3 22
viii, ix 2 0 2
viii, x 2 0 2
ix, x 32 3 35
vii, viii, ix 3 1 4
28 vii, viii, x 4 0 4
Three Natural Criteria
vii, ix, x 18 3 21
viii, ix, x 3 0 3
Four Natural Criteria 19 vii, viii, ix, x 19 1 20
TOTAL 166 166 25 191
Table 2: Summary of the combinations of uses of the different natural World Heritage criteria within
inscriptions of natural and mixed properties to the World Heritage List.
2.17 Two observations should be made in relation to the interpretation of Table 2:
• In terms of frequency, criteria appear to have been applied fairly evenly across natural
properties with the apparent exception of criterion (viii). Some changes in the wording
and interpretation of the criteria have largely been taken into account in reassignment of
properties to the new criteria, however the changes in wording of the criteria should be
borne in mind in interpreting the table.
• The table refers to the criteria under which current World Heritage properties are
currently inscribed. A small number of properties which have been initially inscribed on
the basis of one natural criterion and which have been subsequently re-nominated on
the basis of additional criteria. For example, Ha Long Bay (Viet Nam) was inscribed
under criteria (vii) (scenic values) in 1994 and then was subsequently inscribed in 2000
under the additional natural criteria (viii) (geological values).
8
2.18 Further analysis of the data for natural properties in Table 2 shows that the majority (80%)
has been inscribed on the basis of two or more criteria, with two criteria being the most
frequent category (51%). In the case of the application of two criteria, there is a high
coincidence (38%) of criteria (ix) and (x) (i.e. biological processes and biodiversity
conservation) being applied in conjunction, reflecting the fact that properties representing
biological processes of outstanding universal value are likely to contain the most important
habitats for biological diversity conservation. Criterion (viii) (geological processes) features
in combination with (vii) in fewer cases (14%) and rarely with either criterion (ix) or (x).
2.19 There have been some significant changes in relation to the application of specific natural
criteria. The most significant change was the development of an integrated list of World
Heritage properties, reflected in the shift from criteria being arranged in two separate lists -
six cultural (i-vi) and four natural (i-iv), prior to the 2005 Operational Guidelines, to a single
list of ten criteria (i-vi cultural and vii-x natural). The relative order of the old natural criteria
was changed, with natural criterion (iii) becoming new criterion (vii), followed by the other
natural criteria in their former order. Also, the precise wording of the criteria has changed
over time, with the most significant amendments being made in 1992. These changes have
given rise to some confusion particularly amongst field managers of World Heritage
properties and it is important that future changes are kept to a minimum.
Use of Natural Criteria
Four Natural Criteria

10% One Natural
Criterion
22%
Three Natural
Criteria
17%
Two Natural Criteria

51%
Figure 4: Numbers of natural World Heritage criteria used in decisions to inscribe sites on the World Heritage
List. This diagram shows the use of the criteria in natural and mixed site inscriptions. It can be seen that the
most common situation if for inscription under two criteria, accounting for about half the sites on the World
Heritage List.
9
Combinations of natural criteria used in inscriptions (all sites)
40
30
Count
20
10
0 vii, viii, vii, viii, vii, ix, viii, ix, vii, viii,
vii viii ix x vii, viii vii, ix vii, x viii, ix viii, x ix, x
ix x x x ix, x
Count 13 13 3 13 24 12 22 2 2 35 4 4 21 3 20
Combination of criteria
Figure 5: Numbers of instances of the use of different combinations of natural World Heritage criteria in
inscriptions of natural and mixed World Heritage properties to the World Heritage List. This shows
approximately four different levels of frequency. Inscription under the two biological criteria is significantly
more common than all other combinations – over 30 occurrences. Four groups (vii and viii; vii and x; vii, ix
and x; and vii, viii, ix and x) are also relatively common, more than 20 occurrences each, four groups (vii
only; viii only; x only; and vii and x) are relatively uncommon –with just over 10 occurrences each. The
remaining combinations have occurred much more infrequently (less than 5 times each).
Use of World Heritage Natural Criteria (Mixed Sites)
25
20
15
10
0
vii viii ix x
Count 20 6 10 11
Figure 6: Use of World Heritage natural criteria in inscriptions of mixed World Heritage properties. The key
observation of this analysis is that criterion vii has been used much more frequently in mixed site inscriptions
than any of the other criteria. 80% of 25 mixed site inscriptions use this criterion.
10
Use of natural WH criteria by year
8
7
6
vii
5 viii
4 ix
x
3
2
1
0
Figure 7: Trends in the use of World Heritage Criteria over time – numbers of times the criteria were used.
This analysis shows a decrease in the instances of the use of all criteria, in line with the decrease in the
number of inscriptions. However the decline has been continuous and steepest for criterion vii. There was a
peak of inscriptions under the biological criteria (ix and x) between 1998 and 2005.
Relative use of natural criteria

50%
45%
40%
35%
vii
30%
viii
25%
ix
20%
x
15%
10%
5%
0%
Figure 8: Trends in the relative degree of use of the different natural World Heritage criteria over time. This
graph shows the relative use of the different criteria, so removes the effect of the decrease in the number of
sites considered. It also shows the average for the five years prior to the date on the graph to try to illustrate
trends more clearly. The graph shows that there have been changing trends in the relative “popularity” of
different criteria over time, notable criterion vii, however a more stable and balanced use of all of the criteria
may have emerged since 2003
11
2.20 The remainder of this section of the manual discusses the trends for the use of the different
natural criteria in the inscription of World Heritage properties. It discusses the following
topics in relation to each of the criteria:
• standards and trends in inscription for each of the natural World Heritage criteria
• standards and trends in the use of the criteria in combination within natural sites
• standards and trends in the use of criteria within mixed sites.
Finally it discusses a range of decisions to not inscribe properties on the World Heritage
List.
Criterion (vii): Contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural

beauty and aesthetic importance.
Inscriptions using criterion vii
10
0 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
vii 4 9 3 8 6 8 7 3 5 5 6 2 5 6 4 2 5 4 4 3 0 5 3 2 0 2 3 2 1 3
Figure 9: Trends in the use of criterion vii for World Heritage inscriptions over time
2.21 A total of 120 properties have been inscribed in the World Heritage List under this criterion
to date, most commonly in association with other criteria. It can be noted from Figure 9 and
other preceding graphs that the overall trend with time has been to see a decrease in the
use of criterion vii within inscriptions. In the view of IUCN this is partly because this
criterion is most strongly associated with the iconic sites that were the early preoccupation
of the Convention. Such sites have established a general level of value that is difficult to
match, and thus comparative analysis is more likely to conclude that existing properties on
the World Heritage List exceed a new nomination in their demonstration of this value.
Nevertheless criterion vii remains an active part of new inscriptions to the list with an
average of two sites meeting this criterion each year (based on the trends since 2000). A
list of sites inscribed under criterion vii is included in Annex 2.
2.22 Two distinct ideas are embodied in this criterion. The first, ‘superlative natural phenomena’,
can often be objectively measured and assessed (the deepest canyon, the highest
mountain, the largest cave system, the highest waterfall, etc.). The second concept, that of
‘exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance’ is harder to assess and evaluation
tends to be more subjective. IUCN’s decisions in relation to this aspect are based on
comparison with properties previously inscribed by the World Heritage Committee under
this criterion and, to the extent possible; they also involve a comparison of measurable
indicators of scenic value. The nature of this criterion is that the types of properties that are
proposed for inscription will have comparable sites distributed on a worldwide, rather than
regional basis, so standards applied under this criterion need to meet a global standard of
proof to be regarded as of Outstanding Universal Value.
2.23 Another point worthy of note with criterion vii is that it its association with mixed properties,
an in particular those dating from the earlier part of the history of the Convention. Criterion
12
vii has been used 13 times as the only natural criterion recognised in an inscription, and 7
of these occasions were in relation to the inscription of mixed properties. It is notable that a
number of those properties were inscribed prior to the recognition of World Heritage cultural
landscapes, and it may be that more recent practice cultural landscapes have provided a
different means of recognizing sites with mixed culture-nature values.
Criterion (viii): Be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history,

including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of
landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features
Inscriptions using criterion viii
10
0 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
viii 3 7 1 4 3 6 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 3 3 3 5 0 3 4 2 0 4 2 3 0 3
Figure 10: Trends in the use of criterion viii for World Heritage inscriptions over time
2.24 As noted in Figure 10, values recognised under criterion viii have been inscribed
consistently throughout the history of the Convention. Overall this is the most stable
criterion in terms of its use over time and it also is the least used of the natural criteria with
72 properties inscribed in relation to the values that it addresses. A list of sites inscribed
under criterion viii is included in Annex 2.
2.25 One reason for the relatively smaller number of sites (although still more than one third of
natural and mixed sites) is that the assessment framework for this criterion is fully global,
and not regional. This reflects both the global distribution of geomorphological features and
the world-wide perspective required to encompass the representation of the 4.6 billion
years of Earth history, address the evolution of life on Earth as well as the changes in the
geography of the planet. Natural properties where the values of universal appeal to human
understanding of Earth history and geological processes are considered, rather than very
narrow ranging and highly specialized features recognised only by scientists. In view of the
technical nature of some geological nominations, IUCN takes advice from geological
experts to strengthen the review base for geological properties, and has good contacts
within international geoscience groups.
2.26 This criterion involves four distinct, although closely linked, natural elements relevant to
geological and geomorphological science:
• Earth’s history - This subset of geological features includes phenomena that record
important events in the past development of the planet such as the record of crustal
dynamics, the genesis and development of mountains, plate movements, continental
movement and rift valley development, meteorite impacts, and changing climate in the
geological past. Properties that may be considered for inscription on the World Heritage
List under this category would primarily involve major places where discoveries have
been made that have led to our overall understanding of earth processes and forms as
revealed by rock sequences or associations rather than fossil assemblages.
13
• The record of life - This subset includes palaeontological (fossil) sites. For evaluating
such nominations IUCN has developed a checklist which has been used consistently
and to good effect for more than 10 years to guide the evaluation of fossil sites (see
Box 3).
• Significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms -

Geomorphological properties record current geological processes and their relationship
to landforms and landscapes (or physiography). This subset of criterion (viii) features
represents active geomorphological processes such as those associated with glaciers,
mountains, deserts, active volcanoes, rivers and deltas, island and coasts.
• Significant geomorphic or physiographic features - This subset includes landforms that

are the products of active processes, and is intimately linked with the consideration of
processes listed above. This group also includes features resulting from earlier or long-
standing periods of activity, such as relict glacial landforms; extinct volcanic systems;
and karst features. These features may sometimes also be considered in relation to the
application of criterion (vii), in view of the aesthetic quality of some spectacular
landforms.
Box 3: IUCN Fossil Site Evaluation Checklist
(i) Does the site provide fossils which cover an extended period of geological time: i.e. how wide is
the geological window?
(ii) Does the site provide specimens of a limited number of species or whole biotic assemblages: i.e.
how rich is the species diversity?
(iii) How unique is the site in yielding fossil specimens for that particular period of geological time: i.e.
would this be the ‘type locality’ for study or are there similar areas that are alternatives?
(iv) Are there comparable sites elsewhere that contribute to the understanding of the total ‘story’ of
that point in time/space: i.e. is a single site nomination sufficient or should a serial nomination be
considered?
(v) Is the site the only main location where major scientific advances were (or are) being made that
have made a substantial contribution to the understanding of life on Earth?
(vi) What are the prospects for ongoing discoveries at the site?
(vii) How international is the level of interest in the site?
(viii) Are there other features of natural value (e.g.scenery, landform, and vegetation) associated with
the site: i.e. does there exist within the adjacent area modern geological or biological processes
that relate to the fossil resource?
(ix) What is the state of preservation of specimens yielded from the site?
(x) Do the fossils yielded provide an understanding of the conservation status of contemporary taxa
and/or communities: i.e. how relevant is the site in documenting the consequences to modern
biota of gradual change through time?
Source: Earth’s Geological History – A contextual Framework for Assessment of World Heritage Fossil site
nominations, IUCN, 1996.
14
Criterion (ix): Be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and

biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal
and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals.
Inscriptions using criterion ix

10
0 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
ix 2 6 1 5 4 8 4 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 1 3 4 2 5 4 2 8 7 4 0 2 3 3 1 3
Figure 11: Trends in the use of criterion ix for World Heritage inscriptions over time
2.27 Criterion ix has been used reasonably consistently throughout the history of the
Convention. As noted above this criterion is very infrequently used on its own (only three
sites). By contrast it has been used very often in combination with the other
biological/ecological criterion (criterion x). A list of sites inscribed under criterion ix is
included in Annex 2.
2.28 The assessment of this criterion depends on the scientific knowledge and understanding of
Earth’s ecosystems and the ecological and biological processes associated with their
dynamics. To assess this criterion in an objective manner IUCN and partners have
developed a number of global thematic studies (on forests, wetlands, marine and coastal
areas, mountains, small island ecosystems, and boreal forests) that have guided IUCN’s
evaluation of this criterion. The full list is provided in Annex 4. Further studies continue to
be carried out as funding allows.
Criterion (x): contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ
conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of
outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.
Inscriptions using criterion x

10
0 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
x 3 6 4 8 6 8 4 3 3 4 5 1 4 6 0 2 5 1 6 4 2 11 8 4 0 2 3 4 1 2
Figure 12: Trends in the use of criterion x for World Heritage inscriptions over time
2.29 As with criterion ix, this biological criterion is associated with one of the core competencies
of IUCN. In assessing this criterion, IUCN draws on expertise in its Commissions (with
more than 10,000 expert members worldwide) and key IUCN members such as BirdLife
International, WWF, Conservation International (CI), Flora and Fauna International and The
15
Nature Conservancy (TNC). There are a range of tools available to assess this criterion,
including the IUCN Red List, Centres of Plant Diversity, Endemic Birds Areas of the World,
the CI’s Biodiversity Hotspots and WWF’s Global 200 Ecoregions for Saving Life on Earth.
Annex 3 provides a list of references regularly consulted in this regard while section 3.2
below provides more detail on the application of these global classification systems. A list
of sites inscribed under criterion x is included in Annex 2.
Trends in decisions to not inscribe World Heritage properties
2.30 It is instructive to also consider the properties that were not inscribed, and to a lesser extent
sites that were withdrawn during the inscription process (especially if in response to a
recommendation not to inscribe the property by the Advisory Bodies). A list of properties
that were not inscribed or withdrawn is provided in Annex 3 of this report.
2.31 The number of sites that were either not inscribed or withdrawn is also shown in Figure 13
below. This diagram clearly illustrates the complementary picture to the decreasing rate of
inscriptions, and it can clearly be seen that since 1994 (the introduction of the Global
Strategy) there has been a significant increase in the number of nominations that are not
successful. The reasons for this are similar to those noted above.
Sites Not Inscribed or Withdrawn
10
0
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Withdrawn 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 4 7 0 3
Not inscribed 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 5 0 3 1 1 0 0
Figure 13: Trends in decisions to not inscribe natural properties and in the withdrawal of properties during the
inscription process. Note that the dates in this diagram relate to the date of submission of the
nomination dossier and not the date of the World Heritage Committee.
16
Wider trends in inscriptions
2.32 It is also clear that there have been a number of trends emerging in relation to natural and
mixed World Heritage properties. These include the increasing inscription by the World
Heritage Committee of serial and transnational properties. Other trends have included the
use of deferral and referral as a tool for improving management of World Heritage
properties;and also the focused extension of World Heritage properties.
2.33 The landmark property in relation to serial properties was the inscription of the Central
Eastern Rainforest Reserves (Australia, 1986 and 1994). (Landmark Case 1, Annex 5).
This property was one of the first serial properties and provided the standard by which other
properties have been assessed by IUCN and considered by the World Heritage Committee.
2.34 An important case in relation to transnational properties is the Transboundary Rainforest

Heritage of Borneo (Indonesia, 2006), Decision 30 COM 8B.23. (Landmark Case 2, Annex
5). The property was put forward as a transnational property between Indonesia and
Malaysia and was agreed by the Committee of having outstanding biodiversity. The
Committee however noted that the Conditions of Integrity had not been met and also lack of
effective joint management frameworks. This established an important standard regarding
the need to have in place effective joint management and planning protocols and
frameworks.
.
2.35 Recent years have also witnessed increasing use of deferral or referral by the Committee
as a basis for improving integrity and management of the World Heritage properties (e.g.
Cape Floral Region, Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary). By paying careful attention to
integrity concerns raised by the Advisory Bodies and others, at an early stage, the World
Heritage Committee has been able to ensure that the properties finally inscribed are those
which are the most effectively managed and best able to represent World Heritage values.
The Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary (China, 2006) (Landmark Case 3, Annex 5) provides
an excellent example of this as the property was finally inscribed in 2006 after being earlier
deferred by the World Heritage Committee in 1986 and in 2000. Deferral provided a vehicle
to address management issues and to enlarge the property. This provides an excellent
example of how deferral can be a useful tool to improve the quality of nominations and to
address management issues.
2.36 There have been a number of extensions of World Heritage properties. These have aimed
to either ensure more effective management and protection of outstanding universal value
and/or to ensure additional World Heritage values are protected. An example is provided by
the extension of the High Coast (Sweden) to include the Kvarken Archipelago (Finland)
(Landmark Case 4, Annex 5). This property is inscribed on the basis of its geological
features, in particular its isostatic uplift. This property represents a model of an extension as
it is based on a thorough and systematic assessment of values which could complement
those present in an existing property. Further this case demonstrates an excellent example
of cooperation between two countries. It establishes a useful model for extension of World
Heritage properties and for the development of joint management frameworks between
countries.
17
Potential Implications for the World Heritage Committee
2.37 The main points emerging from this analysis of historic trends and practice are:
• the rigorous approach applied by the World Heritage Committee to natural and mixed
properties, as noted above, highlights the need for States Parties to improve the
Tentative Listing and nomination processes so that properties with a higher likelihood of
meeting the criteria of Outstanding Universal Value and associated conditions of
integrity are identified and nominated by States Parties. Also that properties which are
unlikely to pass the test of Outstanding Universal Value are not bought forward for
consideration by the World Heritage Committee;
• the increased rate of unsuccessful nominations is a cause of concern and is an
unfortunate by-product of the process of inscription necessary to maintain the standards
and credibility of the World Heritage List. The above analysis highlights the importance
of providing clear and relevant information to States Parties to help guide their analysis.
IUCN considers that it would be helpful to increase the level of proactive advice
available to States Parties to assist in the early analysis of the values of properties,
without compromising its role as the Advisory Body to the Committee. A number of
global and thematic studies have been prepared by IUCN and other partners, thus
increasing the rigour and objectivity of the evaluation process. IUCN notes that a
number of successfully listed nominations coming from Latin America and Asia in
recent years were guided by recommendations from global and thematic studies; such
as the Global Overview of Wetland and Marine Protected Areas on the World Heritage
List (IUCN, 1997) and recommendations from the Expert Meeting on Tropical Forests
held in Berastagi, Indonesia in 1998. There is a need to continue and accelerate this
process and ensure that the results are clearly and effectively communicated to States
Parties;
• the increasing trend towards the application of serial and transnational properties is a
positive trend and should be encouraged. It is clear that the identification and
management of these properties pose particular problems and challenges, both at
technical and political levels, and there is a need for the preparation of more detailed
guidance on the application of these models and the required process needed to
develop them, given the potential operational and political complexities involved;
• changes made to the numbering and description of natural World Heritage criteria
underline the importance of ensuring that future changes to the criteria are avoided, or
certainly kept to a minimum.
2.38 This analysis of the decisions of the World Heritage Committee in relation to natural and
mixed World Heritage properties provides a reasonably thorough overview, however further
analysis would be useful and is recommended. Possible areas for analysis could include,
for example, an analysis of the extent to which nominated properties have not met any of
the criteria for Outstanding Universal Value as opposed to failing the tests for integrity or
protection and management. It would be useful to have further guidance on the specific
questions and information required from the World Heritage Committee.
18
3. WHAT WAS THE THRESHOLD FOR SUCCESSFUL INSCRIPTION?
3.1 The threshold for successful inscription has varied over time. As noted above the World
Heritage Committee has progressively applied more rigorous standards for inscription.
Fundamental to thresholds for inscription have been the refinement and more effective
application of the concept of Outstanding Universal Value, guided by Experts meetings,
such as those held on the topics of particular biomes. The expert meeting in Kazan (2005)
and the approval of the new Operational Guidelines also provided critically important steps
towards a better definition of Outstanding Universal Value.
3.2 The starting point for any consideration of thresholds is the World Heritage Convention
and the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO, 2005). The exclusive focus of the Convention
on only those parts of heritage deemed to be of outstanding universal value applies
consistently across the various types of natural heritage. The selective nature of the
Convention is emphasised in paragraph 52 of the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO,
2005): “The Convention is not intended to ensure the protection of all properties of great
interest, importance or value, but only for a select list of the most outstanding of these
from an international viewpoint. It is not to be assumed that a property of national and/or
regional importance will automatically be inscribed on the World Heritage List.”
3.3 IUCN’s advice to the Kazan Expert Meeting in 2005 noted that there are a range of
instruments for recognizing the different categories of protected areas and these are set
out in Table 3 below.
Property (name and Decision and Reason why threshold was not met and
country)9 Committee Implications for the general issue of thresholds
Reference
Ecosystems and Relict Refer – 29 This property was referred back two times by the
Cultural landscapes of COM 8B.17 Committee (in 2005 and in 2006) with the
Lope-Okanda (Gabon) recommendation that an improved comparative
analysis be developed that better demonstrates the
OUV of the property. This case establishes a
threshold in relation to the need for an importance
of a comprehensive comparative analysis to
demonstrate OUV.
Kopacki rit (Croatia) Not to inscribe This property was not inscribed as the Committee
– Decision of noted the natural values were more significant at
the 24th the regional (European) rather than the global scale
session This demonstrates an approach often applied by
the Committee. That is that properties must be of
international rather than regional significance if they
are to be inscribed on the World heritage List.
Transboundary Rainforest Defer – 30 Conditions of Integrity not met and also lack of
Heritage of Borneo COM 8B.23 effective joint bilateral frameworks and
(Indonesia) management strategy. Threshold established in
relation to the need for effective joint planning
frameworks.
Western Caucasus Not to inscribe This was not inscribed on the basis that the
(Russian Federation) – 28 COM Committee thought there were likely to be other
14B.15 properties within the Western Caucuses with
potential for inscription under natural criteria.
Table 3: Relationship between World Heritage and different categories of protected areas and
international and other conventions and agreements
9
Arranged alphabetically by the name of the property
19
3.4 Some potential implications for the World Heritage Committee include the need:
• to continue to develop the body of experience in relation to thresholds for successful

inscription and to ensure that knowledge arising from such an assessment is clearly
distilled and widely disseminated;
• to continue to further develop exercises and programs such as the Global Strategy for
natural World Heritage properties and the development of better guidance in relation to
natural properties of Outstanding Universal Value.
20
4. HOW DID COMMITTEE DECISIONS RELATE TO THE DECISIONS OF THE ADVISORY

BODIES?
4.1 IUCN has reviewed the relationship between its advice and the decisions of the World
Heritage Committee; given resources this has only been possible for the last 10 years of
decisions. The results are shown in Tables 4a/b and 5 below.
Year Agree I Agree N Agree D Agree R Annual Total

2007 6 2 8
2006 3 1 3 7
2005 8 1 9
2004 6 1 7
2003 5 3 2 10
2002 1 2 3
2001 8 8 16
2000 11 1 2 1 15
1999 10 1 4 15
1998 3 3 1 7
TOT 61 19 13 4
Table 4a: Numbers of sites where the Committee agreed with IUCN advice. (The codes used are as
follows: I=Inscribe, D=Defer, R=Refer, N=Not inscribe.)
Withdrawn
Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Annual
Year Nomin-
D>I R>I D>R N>D N>R Total
ations
2007 part 2 2 3
2006 1 1 2 2
2005 2 2 3
2004 1 3 4 5
2003 1 1 1 3 1
2002 0 1?
2001 1 1 1
2000 2 2 2
1999 1 1 2 ?
1998 0 1
TOT 3 2 3 9 1 18 19
Table 4b: Numbers of sites where the Committee did not agreed with IUCN advice. (In the codes
A>B, A is the IUCN recommendation and B the Committee decision. E.g. D>R, means that IUCN
recommended deferral but the Committee decision was referral. The codes uses are as follows:
I=Inscribe, D=Defer, R=Refer, N=Not inscribe.)
21
4.2 Tables 4a/b summarise the cases where the Committee declined to accept the advice of
IUCN. Key points from this analysis are as follows:
• 84% of the decisions of the Committee followed the advice of IUCN.

• No cases where IUCN recommended inscription were disagreed with by the World
Heritage Committee.
• In every case of inscription the criteria proposed by IUCN were supported without
amendment.
• Apart from the cases where IUCN recommended inscription, the Committee
accepted IUCN advice in around two-thirds of cases (36 agreements), and did not
accept it in one third of cases (18 disagreements).
• In six cases, just under 10% of nominations, the Committee recommended
inscription (in whole or partly) against the advice of IUCN.
4.3 The nominations where the Committee did not agree with IUCN’s advice in the last ten
years are noted in Table 5 below. The cases where the Committee recommended
inscription against the advice of IUCN are noted in bold.
Year IUCN Committee Property
2007 Defer Inscribe South China Karst (China)10

2007 No Defer Ba Be National Park (Viet Nam)
2007 No Defer Banco Chinchorro Biosphere Reserve (Mexico)
2006 No Defer The Hula (Israel)
2006 Defer Refer Lopé-Okanda (Gabon)
2005 Defer Refer Minkébé (Gabon)
2005 Defer Refer Lopé-Okanda (Gabon)
2004 Defer Inscribe Pitons Management Area (St Lucia)
2004 No Defer Hawar Islands (Bahrain)
2004 No Defer Palaeohabitat of Tarnóc (Hungary)
2004 No Defer Coiba National Park (Panama)
2003 Defer Inscribe Phong Nha Ke Bang National Park (Viet Nam)
2003 No Refer Parque Nacional del Este (Dominican Republic)
2003 No Defer Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
2001 No Defer Makhteshim Country (Israel)
2000 Refer Inscribe Gunung Mulu National Park (Malaysia)
2000 Refer Inscribe The High Coast (Sweden)
1999 Defer Inscribe Ibiza, Biodiversity and Culture
1999 No Defer Parco Nazionale di Gran Paradiso (Italy)
Table 5: Nominations where the Committee did not agreed with IUCN’s advice in the last ten years.
4.4 Since 2007, a precedent has also been set in terms through the first deletion of a property
from the World Heritage List, the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman). In fact this is also a
case where the original inscription was made contrary to an IUCN recommendation to defer
the property due to concerns over its integrity. After lengthy debate at the World Heritage
Committee (Phuket, 1994) this property was inscribed under what is now criterion (x). In
relation to the decision to delete the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary from the List in 2007, the
eventual Committee decision was in line with IUCN advice that the property had lost the
values that had been the basis for the Committee agreeing to the site’s inscription, and
faced exceptional integrity issues. IUCN considered that these issues, when considered
together, represent a loss of Outstanding Universal Value and constitute a case for de-
listing this property. Whilst deeply regretting that this property has lost its natural values,
IUCN considers that the delisting of properties which have lost their Outstanding Universal
10
This was only a partial disagreement as IUCN recommended inscription of two clusters of a three part serial nomination, but deferral
for the third cluster.
22
Value is an essential element of maintaining the credibility of the World Heritage

Convention.
4.5 The World Heritage Committee has also included many of the recommendations from IUCN
in relation to the management of specific natural properties. These have usually resulted
from the IUCN evaluation mission to a property and these recommendations have usually
been discussed and agreed with the State Party at the time of the mission or subsequently.
In most cases, recommendations have suggested actions to improve the management of
the property and have usually resulted in significant actions taken by the State Party, often
supported by international donors and partners, to improve the integrity of the property.
4.6 IUCN also notes that the incidence of challenges to Advisory Body recommendations by
the World Heritage Committee and by States Parties has increased in recent years. The
recent trend to allow for the identification of “factual errors” has provided one platform for
these increased challenges. There have been questions raised whether these “factual
errors” are indeed errors or reflect different interpretations of issues, or in some cases are
overt lobbying. There is a need to define more clearly the meaning of “factual errors” within
the context of Advisory Body evaluations and recommendations.
4.7 Better application of the process of Tentative Listing provides one means of maximizing the
likelihood of bringing forward properties which have a high likelihood of successful
inscription. There are several model approaches to the preparation of Tentative Listing,
such as that undertaken by the State Parties of Canada, Norway and Japan, and these
could be used as models by other State Parties. A key feature of these examples is a
lengthy scientific based assessment of those most outstanding properties with the greatest
potential to meet the criteria of Outstanding Universal Value and the conditions of Integrity.
In the case of Japan, for example, this process resulted in the nomination and inscription of
Shiretoko in 2005; in the case of Norway, this process resulted in the nomination and
inscription of the West Norwegian Fjords, also in 2005
4.8 Some potential implications for the World Heritage Committee include the need:
• to ensure that the process of Tentative Listing is used more effectively to identify and
bring forward properties which have a high likelihood of successful inscription, as noted
above. Also the need to communicate models of best practice in relation to Tentative
Listing;
• for Advisory Bodies to provide support and advice to States Parties in relation to the
identification of potential World Heritage properties. It is noted that the provision of
advice should be consistent with the objective role of the Advisory Bodies in
evaluations, and this generally implies that such assistance should be through the
provision of advice and information, such as that available and outlined in Annex 3; and
• to more clearly define the term “factual errors” within the context of Advisory Body
evaluation reports and the way these are presented to the World Heritage Committee
and responded to by the Advisory Bodies.
23
5. HOW WAS REFERENCE TO VALUES OF MINORITIES, INDIGENOUS AND/OR LOCAL

PEOPLE MADE OR OBVIOUSLY OMITTED IN COMMITTEE DECISIONS?
5.1 IUCN has long emphasized the importance of involving indigenous people in the planning
and management of protected areas. This was particularly highlighted in the outcomes of
the World Parks Congress (Durban, 2003) and the World Conservation Congress
(Bangkok, 2004). IUCN has consistently argued that indigenous people and local
communities must be more effectively engaged in the establishment of protected areas,
and natural World Heritage properties, if such areas are to have a viable future. IUCN
therefore welcomed the formal extension of the mission of the World Heritage Convention
to embrace formally a “Fifth C” of Community “to enhance the role of communities in the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention”.11
5.2 IUCN has reviewed the last 10 years of Committee decisions on natural sites for relevant
notice being taken of the values of minorities, indigenous and local people. IUCN notes
that, in line with point 5.1 above, IUCN evaluations pay particular regard to this aspect of a
nomination to the World Heritage List, and a number of examples of Committee decisions
that make specific reference to communities are noted in Annex 6 of this report.
5.3 In terms of landmark cases regarding communities and natural World Heritage properties,
IUCN draws particular attention the case of East Rennell in the Solomon Islands.
(Landmark Case 5, Annex 5). This was the first natural World Heritage property to be
inscribed while being under customary ownership. There was considerable debate at the
World Heritage Committee meeting (Kyoto, 1998) as to whether customary protection and
management was sufficient for inscription under the terms of the Operational Guidelines.
However the Committee inscribed this property and noted that a property protected by
customary law is breaking new ground, and that the inclusion of this type of property is in
line with the Global Strategy. This case established an important standard and precedent in
relation to the acceptance of customary law and management as a sufficient basis for the
management and long term protection of natural World Heritage properties. Appropriate
reference is also made to such values in the Operational Guidelines.
5.4 The values and beliefs of indigenous people have gained increased recognition under the
World Heritage Convention by the inclusion of the status Cultural Landscapes within the
Operational Guidelines in 1992, and its application to existing natural World Heritage
properties, including Tongariro National Park (New Zealand, 1993) and Uluru-Kata Tjuta
(Australia, 1994). Both Tongariro and Uluru-Kata Tjuta were initially inscribed under natural
criteria alone, but subsequently also inscribed under cultural criteria in the sub-category of
associative Cultural Landscapes. Tongariro is of particular significance as it was the first
property inscribed on the World Heritage List as a Cultural Landscape (Landmark Case 6,
Annex 1). The mountains at the heart of the park have cultural and religious significance
for the Maori people and symbolize the spiritual links between this community and its
environment. This case set an important standard in relation to the application of the
Cultural Landscapes criteria to natural properties and underlined that many natural World
Heritage properties have very significant cultural and spiritual values for local communities
and customary owners3.
5.5 The issue of conflicts between local communities and natural World Heritage properties has
been noted in a number of cases. IUCN has advocated that such issues need to be
addressed through dialogue and consultation. For example, conflicts with local rights for
grazing in the Simien National Park (Ethiopia) were recently defused by excluding some
critical zones from the park and adding others of high natural values. IUCN has also argued
against the involuntary relocation of local communities from within natural World Heritage
properties, in a number of evaluation reports.
11
See Decision 31 COM 13B of the World Heritage Committee taken in Christchurch in 2007.
24
5.6 However, in recent years, the natural World Heritage nominations of the States Parties only
rarely reflect on local cultures, the rights of these cultures, and prospective conflicts
between these cultures and international efforts for protection. East Rennell (Solomon
Islands, 1998) is the first natural World Heritage property under customary land ownership
and management.
5.7 Some potential implications for the World Heritage Committee include the need to:
• request State Parties to more effectively involve minorities, indigenous and local people
in the planning and management of natural and mixed World Heritage properties;
• ensure that nominations adequately incorporate the rights of minorities, indigenous and
local people, where this is of particular relevance;
• identify and communicate lessons learnt and implications from the landmark cases of
both Rennell Island (Solomon Islands) and Tongariro (New Zealand), as well as
properties such as Uluru-Kata Tjuta (Australia) and relevant properties in Africa;
• ensure that conflicts in relation to indigenous and local people and natural World
Heritage properties are addressed through open dialogue and consultation;
• The assessment of OUV in properties nominated as Cultural Landscapes is a
responsibility of ICOMOS but in many cases IUCN advises on the significance of
natural values and their connection to local communities and indigenous peoples.
25
6. INFLUENCE OF THE GLOBAL STRATEGY
6.1 In 1994, the World Heritage Committee launched its Global Strategy for a Balanced,
Representative and Credible World Heritage List to address the then preponderance of
cultural over natural properties and the fact that most properties were located in developed
countries, notably in Europe. Its aim was to ensure that the List reflects the world's cultural
and natural diversity of outstanding universal value. Although the Committee is on record
as seeking to establish a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List in
accord with the Budapest Declaration on World Heritage12, IUCN considers that it is not
intended that the List should be completely representative of the earth’s entire natural
heritage as this would be contrary to the concept of outstanding universal value.
6.2 In the case of natural areas, conserving ecosystems, landscapes, habitats and species is
the role of national, regional and other international protected area systems. The
relationship between World Heritage properties and other types of protected areas with
respect to outstanding universal value and representation is shown diagrammatically in
Figure 14 below. While all protected areas are important for ensuring adequate protection,
natural World Heritage properties are the only protected areas which can be considered to
have met the threshold of Outstanding Universal Value.
Figure 14: The relationship of natural World Heritage properties to other types of protected areas
(adapted from Magin & Chape 2004).
6.3 There are a range of different and complementary instruments to the World Heritage
Convention, including:
• UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Programme adopts representation at the international

level as an explicit objective since it seeks to establish a network of biosphere reserves
“representative” of the world’s biogeographic provinces.
• the UNESCO Geoparks initiative aims to recognize a global series of geological
properties in which protection of geological heritage is integrated with sustainable
resource use and economic development.
• other international conventions, agreements and programmes that promote the
identification and protection of representative networks of important properties include
the Ramsar Convention for wetlands of international significance and, at the regional
12 th
Adopted at the 26 Session of the World Heritage Committee, 2002.
26
level, the European Union Natura 2000 Network, the Alpine and Carpathian
Conventions, and protected area agreements that form part of the UNEP regional seas
programme.
• effective national systems of protective areas.
• In addition, there are areas, such as the High Seas and Antarctica, for which the World
Heritage Convention is less suited. In the latter case, the Antarctic Treaty offers a
mechanism for collaboration in relation to the conservation of this exceptional place.
Influence of the Global Strategy over Committee decisions
6.4 The observation of IUCN is that the Global Strategy has had a significant influence over
Committee decisions and the preceding analysis in this paper regarding the trends in
inscriptions supports this analysis. IUCN consider that the Strategy has had influence in
three important ways:
• First it has served to focus the attention of the Advisory Bodies and State Parties on the
better identification and clarification of which properties may have Outstanding
Universal Value.
• Second, it encouraged a broader range of countries to identify and nominate properties
for consideration by the World heritage Committee.
• Thirdly, and importantly, it has encouraged the initiation of innovative models of World
Heritage, such as in relation to the application of customary land tenure (Landmark
Case 5, Annex 5). Some of the trends and implications of the Global Strategy are also
illustrated in this paper by IUCN but further work and analysis are required.
6.5 Some potential implications for the World Heritage Committee include the need to:
• continue to develop and refine the Global Strategy and ensure that it is evolving to meet
changing needs and circumstances;
• identify Best Practice and landmark cases and ensure these are applied to the further
development of the Global Strategy; and
• ensure that processes such as periodic and reactive monitoring are closely and
effectively integrated under the umbrella of the Global Strategy.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 This compendium reinforces the discussion on the concepts underlying the World Heritage
Convention, and in particular the centrality and sophistication of the concept of Outstanding
Universal Value. As stressed in the introductory sections of this compendium the retention
of the highest standards on the application of the concept of Outstanding Universal Value
and its associated conditions of integrity needs to remain at the heart of the work of the
World Heritage Committee. The credible application of World Heritage Listing to only sites
with the most significant natural values, and which demonstrate integrity and effective
management is vital to the effectiveness of the World Heritage Convention as one of the
most significant international instruments for global nature conservation and cooperation.
IUCN remains fully committed to providing the highest standards of advice to the World
Heritage Committee to help maintain the standards of the Convention in the future.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

April 2008
27
ANNEXES
1. TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THIS COMPENDIUM
2. PROPERTIES INSCRIBED UNDER THE DIFFERENT WORLD HERITAGE NATURAL

CRITERIA
3. NATURAL AND MIXED NOMINATIONS NOT INSCRIBED OR WITHDRAWN
4. KEY IUCN REFERENCES ON OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE
5. LANDMARK CASES RELATED TO WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATIONS
6. OTHER SIGNIFICANT CASE STUDIES RELEVANT TO THE CONCEPT OF

OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE
28
ANNEX 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THIS COMPENDIUM
Within the framework of the exercise of evaluation of Outstanding Universal Value, started on the
occasion of the Kazan Meeting of Experts (April, 2005) and continued at the 29th (Durban, 2005)
and 30th (Vilnius, 2006) sessions of the World Heritage Committee, and following Decision 30
COM 9 (Vilnius, 2006), which requested the World Heritage Centre, in close cooperation with the
Advisory Bodies, to “create two compendiums of relevant material and decisions, compiled into the
form of guidance manuals, from which precedents on how to interpret and apply discussions of
Outstanding Universal Value […] can be clearly shown”, it is requested to:
Review past Committee decisions regarding inscriptions of properties and proceed to a statistical
analysis of the application per criteria;
Interview key people (Committee members, representatives of the Advisory Bodies, staff of the
World Heritage Centre, etc.) who have been involved in the implementation of the Convention, in
order to capture the milestones that have influenced the Committee’s decisions in terms of
nominations;
On the basis of the above-mentioned documentation, prepare a document to be presented at the

31st session of the World Heritage Committee (Christchurch, 2007), which identifies good
practices and some emblematic cases, and shows:
a) the application of the relevant criteria for successful nominations
b) what was the threshold for successful inscription, under each criterion applied
c) how the justification for inscription proposed by the State/s Party/ies for each relevant property
was interpreted and adopted at the moment of inscription by the Committee
d) to what extent and how the recommendations from the Advisory Bodies had been taken into
account by the Committee at the moment of inscription
e) how reference to values of minorities, indigenous and/or local people were made or obviously
omitted
f) how the Global Strategy has influenced or not the Committee’s decisions since 1994 (launch of
the Global Strategy).
29
ANNEX 2: PROPERTIES INSCRIBED UNDER THE DIFFERENT WORLD HERITAGE NATURAL

CRITERIA
CRITERION VII
UNESCO Name State(s) Party/ies Date inscribed criteria
Reference
1264 Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes Republic of Korea 2007 (vii)(viii)
1258 Teide National Park Spain 2007 (vii)(viii)
1248 South China Karst China 2007 (vii)(viii)
1216 Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary Colombia 2006 (vii)(ix)
1195 West Norwegian Fjords - Geirangerfjord and Norway 2005 (vii)(viii)
Nærøyfjord
1182 Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of Mexico 2005 (vii)(ix)(x)
California
1167 Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra Indonesia 2004 (vii)(ix)(x)
1161 Pitons Management Area Saint Lucia 2004 (vii)(viii)
1149 Ilulissat Icefjord Denmark 2004 (vii)(viii)
1094 Purnululu National Park Australia 2003 (vii)(viii)
1083 Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas China 2003 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
1000rev Brazilian Atlantic Islands: Fernando de Noronha Brazil 2001 (vii)(ix)(x)
and Atol das Rocas Reserves
1037bis Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn Switzerland 2001 (vii)(viii)(ix)
999 Pantanal Conservation Area Brazil 2000 (vii)(ix)(x)
985 uKhahlamba / Drakensberg Park South Africa 2000 (i)(iii)(vii)(x)
1013 Gunung Mulu National Park Malaysia 2000 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
911 Mount Wuyi China 1999 (iii)(vi)(vii)(x)
893rev Atlantic Forest South-East Reserves Brazil 1999 (vii)(ix)(x)
889 Desembarco del Granma National Park Cuba 1999 (vii)(viii)
914 Greater St Lucia Wetland Park South Africa 1999 (vii)(ix)(x)
652rev Puerto-Princesa Subterranean River National Philippines 1999 (vii)(x)
Park
773bis The Pyrénées - Mont Perdu (extension) France/Spain 1997 (iii)(iv)(v)(vii)(viii)
800 Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest Kenya 1997 (vii)(ix)
629rev Macquarie Island Australia 1997 (vii)(viii)
754 Lake Baikal Russian Federation 1996 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
765bis Volcanoes of Kamchatka Russian Federation 1996 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
774 Laponian Area Sweden 1996 (iii)(v)(vii)(viii)(ix)
764 Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System Belize 1996 (vii)(ix)(x)
354rev Waterton Glacier International Peace Park United States of America/Canada 1995 (vii)(ix)
740bis Gough and Inaccessible Islands (extension) United Kingdom of Great Britain 1995 (vii)(x)
and Northern Ireland
721 Carlsbad Caverns National Park United States of America 1995 (vii)(viii)
719 Virgin Komi Forests Russian Federation 1995 (vii)(ix)
682 Bwindi Impenetrable National Park Uganda 1994 (vii)(x)
684 Rwenzori Mountains National Park Uganda 1994 (vii)(x)
685bis Doñana National Park Spain 1994 (vii)(ix)(x)
701 Canaima National Park Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic 1994 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
of)
672bis Ha Long Bay Viet Nam 1994 (vii)(viii)
653 Tubbataha Reef Marine Park Philippines 1993 (vii)(ix)(x)
662 Yakushima Japan 1993 (vii)(ix)
637 Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest China 1992 (vii)
Area
640 Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area China 1992 (vii)
630 Fraser Island Australia 1992 (vii)(ix)
638 Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area China 1992 (vii)
608 Ujung Kulon National Park Indonesia 1991 (vii)(x)
591 Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries Thailand 1991 (vii)(ix)(x)
588 Danube Delta Romania 1991 (vii)(x)
578 Shark Bay, Western Australia Australia 1991 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
573 Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves Niger 1991 (vii)(ix)(x)
609 Komodo National Park Indonesia 1991 (vii)(x)
421bis Tongariro National Park New Zealand 1990 (vi)(vii)(viii)
547 Mount Huangshan China 1990 (ii)(vii)(x)
548 Río Abiseo National Park Peru 1990 (iii)(vii)(ix)(x)
551 Te Wahipounamu – South West New Zealand New Zealand 1990 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
494rev Tsingy de Bemaraha Strict Nature Reserve Madagascar 1990 (vii)(x)
516 Cliff of Bandiagara (Land of the Dogons) Mali 1989 (v)(vii)
509 Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls Zambia/Zimbabwe 1989 (vii)(viii)
335bis Nanda Devi and Valley of Flowers National Parks India 1988 (vii)(x)
454 Mount Athos Greece 1988 (i)(ii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)
455 Meteora Greece 1988 (i)(ii)(iv)(v)(vii)
485 Hierapolis-Pamukkale Turkey 1988 (iii)(iv)(vii)
487 Henderson Island United Kingdom of Great Britain 1988 (vii)(x)
486 Wet Tropics of Queensland Australia 1988 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
410 Sian Ka'an Mexico 1987 (vii)(x)
403 Kilimanjaro National Park United Republic of Tanzania 1987 (vii)
447rev Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Australia 1987 (v)(vi)(vii)(ix)
437 Mount Taishan China 1987 (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)
419 Gros Morne National Park Canada 1987 (vii)(viii)
355 IguaÃ§u National Park Brazil 1986 (vii)(x)
30
CRITERION VII
Reference
380 Garajonay National Park Spain 1986 (vii)(ix)
387bis St Kilda United Kingdom of Great Britain 1986 (iii)(v)(vii)(ix)(x)
369 Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast United Kingdom of Great Britain 1986 (vii)(viii)
390 Škocjan Caves Slovenia 1986 (vii)(viii)
357 Göreme National Park and the Rock Sites of Turkey 1985 (i)(iii)(v)(vii)
Cappadocia
338 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary India 1985 (vii)(ix)(x)
333 HuascarÃ¡n National Park Peru 1985 (vii)(viii)
303 Iguazu National Park Argentina 1984 (vii)(x)
280 Salonga National Park Democratic Republic of the 1984 (vii)(ix)
Congo
284 Royal Chitwan National Park Nepal 1984 (vii)(ix)(x)
302 Mana Pools National Park, Sapi and Chewore Zimbabwe 1984 (vii)(ix)(x)
Safari Areas
304bis Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks Canada 1984 (vii)(viii)
308 Yosemite National Park United States of America 1984 (vii)(viii)
289 Lake Malawi National Park Malawi 1984 (vii)(ix)(x)
205bis Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves / La Panama/Costa Rica 1983 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
Amistad National Park
260 Sangay National Park Ecuador 1983 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
225 Pirin National Park Bulgaria 1983 (vii)(viii)(ix)
256 Wood Buffalo National Park Canada 1983 (vii)(ix)(x)
259 Great Smoky Mountains National Park United States of America 1983 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
261 Vallée de Mai Nature Reserve Seychelles 1983 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
274 Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu Peru 1983 (i)(iii)(vii)(ix)
258 Gulf of Porto: Calanche of Piana, Gulf of Girolata, France 1983 (vii)(viii)(x)
Scandola Reserve
196 Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve Honduras 1982 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
195 Taï National Park Côte d'Ivoire 1982 (vii)(x)
186 Lord Howe Island Group Australia 1982 (vii)(x)
185 Aldabra Atoll Seychelles 1982 (vii)(ix)(x)
181bis Tasmanian Wilderness Australia 1982 (iii)(iv)(vi)(vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
179 Tassili n'Ajjer Algeria 1982 (i)(iii)(vii)(viii)
145 Los Glaciares Argentina 1981 (vii)(viii)
25 Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary Senegal 1981 (vii)(x)
159 Darien National Park Panama 1981 (vii)(ix)(x)
154 Great Barrier Reef Australia 1981 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
151 Olympic National Park United States of America 1981 (vii)(ix)
150 Mammoth Cave National Park United States of America 1981 (vii)(viii)(x)
156 Serengeti National Park United Republic of Tanzania 1981 (vii)(x)
147ter Kakadu National Park Australia 1981 (i)(vi)(vii)(ix)(x)
136 Garamba National Park Democratic Republic of the 1980 (vii)(x)
Congo
134 Redwood National and State Parks United States of America 1980 (vii)(ix)
100bis Durmitor National Park Montenegro 1980 (vii)(viii)(x)
63 Virunga National Park Democratic Republic of the 1979 (vii)(viii)(x)
Congo
33bis Belovezhskaya Pushcha / Bialowieza Forest Belarus/Poland 1979 (vii)
39 Ngorongoro Conservation Area United Republic of Tanzania 1979 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
71 Dinosaur Provincial Park Canada 1979 (vii)(viii)
72ter Kluane / Wrangell-St Elias / Glacier Bay / Canada 1979 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
Tatshenshini-Alsek
75 Grand Canyon National Park United States of America 1979 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
98bis Plitvice Lakes National Park (extension) Croatia 1979 (vii)(viii)(ix)
99 Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid region the Former Yugoslav Republic of 1979 (i)(iii)(iv)(vii)
Macedonia
120 Sagarmatha National Park Nepal 1979 (vii)
28 Yellowstone National Park United States of America 1978 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
24 Nahanni National Park Canada 1978 (vii)(viii)
9 Simien National Park Ethiopia 1978 (vii)(x)
1bis Galápagos Islands (extension) Ecuador 1978 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
CRITERION VIII
Reference
1258 Teide National Park Spain 2007 (vii)(viii)
1248 South China Karst China 2007 (vii)(viii)
1264 Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes Republic of Korea 2007 (vii)(viii)
1195 West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Norway 2005 (vii)(viii)
Nærøyfjord
1186 Wadi Al-Hitan (Whale Valley) Egypt 2005 (viii)
1162 Vredefort Dome South Africa 2005 (viii)
1149 Ilulissat Icefjord Denmark 2004 (vii)(viii)
1161 Pitons Management Area Saint Lucia 2004 (vii)(viii)
951rev Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park Viet Nam 2003 (viii)
1090 Monte San Giorgio Switzerland 2003 (viii)
1094 Purnululu National Park Australia 2003 (vii)(viii)
31
CRITERION VIII
Reference
1029 Dorset and East Devon Coast United Kingdom of Great Britain 2001 (viii)
898 High Coast Sweden/Finland 2000 (viii)
908 Isole Eolie (Aeolian Islands) Italy 2000 (viii)
966 Ischigualasto / Talampaya Natural Parks Argentina 2000 (viii)
889 Desembarco del Granma National Park Cuba 1999 (vii)(viii)
686rev Miguasha National Park Canada 1999 (viii)
955 Lorentz National Park Indonesia 1999 (viii)(ix)(x)
801bis Lake Turkana National Parks Kenya 1997 (viii)(x)
577rev Heard and McDonald Islands Australia 1997 (viii)(ix)
629rev Macquarie Island Australia 1997 (vii)(viii)
814 Morne Trois Pitons National Park Dominica 1997 (viii)(x)
773bis The Pyrénées – Mont Perdu (extension) France/Spain 1997 (iii)(iv)(v)(vii)(viii)
725bis Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst Slovakia/Hungary 1995 (viii)
(extension?!)
720 Messel Pit Fossil Site Germany 1995 (viii)
721 Carlsbad Caverns National Park United States of America 1995 (vii)(viii)
672bis Ha Long Bay Viet Nam 1994 (vii)(viii)
698 Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh / Australia 1994 (viii)(ix)
Naracoorte)
of)
421bis Tongariro National Park New Zealand 1990 (vi)(vii)(viii)
509 Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls Zambia/Zimbabwe 1989 (vii)(viii)
419 Gros Morne National Park Canada 1987 (vii)(viii)
409 Hawaii Volcanoes National Park United States of America 1987 (viii)
369 Giant’s Causeway and Causeway Coast United Kingdom of Great Britain 1986 (vii)(viii)
368bis Gondwana Rainforests of Australia Australia 1986 (viii)(ix)(x)
390 Škocjan Caves Slovenia 1986 (vii)(viii)
333 HuascarÃ¡n National Park Peru 1985 (vii)(viii)
308 Yosemite National Park United States of America 1984 (vii)(viii)
304bis Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks Canada 1984 (vii)(viii)
Scandola Reserve
205bis Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves / La Costa Rica/Panama 1983 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
179 Tassili n’Ajjer Algeria 1982 (i)(iii)(vii)(viii)
167 Willandra Lakes Region Australia 1981 (iii)(viii)
145 Los Glaciares Argentina 1981 (vii)(viii)
76 Everglades National Park United States of America 1979 (viii)(ix)(x)
72ter Kluane / Wrangell-St Elias / Glacier Bay / United States of America/Canada 1979 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
Tatshenshini-Alsek
71 Dinosaur Provincial Park Canada 1979 (vii)(viii)
Congo
24 Nahanni National Park Canada 1978 (vii)(viii)
1bis Galápagos Islands (extension?) Ecuador 1978 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
CRITERION IX
Reference
1147rev Ecosystem and Relic Cultural Landscape of Lopé- Gabon 2007 (iii)(iv)(ix)(x)
Okonda
1133 Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians Slovakia/Ukraine 2007 (ix)
1257 Rainforests of the Atsinanana Madagascar 2007 (ix)(x)
1216 Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary Colombia 2006 (vii)(ix)
California
32
CRITERION IX
Reference
1138rev Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Panama 2005 (ix)(x)
Marine Protection
1193 Shiretoko Japan 2005 (ix)(x)
1023rev Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve Russian Federation 2004 (ix)(x)
1007rev Cape Floral Region Protected Areas South Africa 2004 (ix)(x)
769rev Uvs Nuur Basin Russian Federation/Mongolia 2003 (ix)(x)
839rev Alejandro de Humboldt National Park Cuba 2001 (ix)(x)
1035 Cerrado Protected Areas: Chapada dos Veadeiros Brazil 2001 (ix)(x)
and Emas National Parks
917 Greater Blue Mountains Area Australia 2000 (ix)(x)
1017 Central Suriname Nature Reserve Suriname 2000 (ix)(x)
1012 Kinabalu Park Malaysia 2000 (ix)(x)
998bis Central Amazon Conservation Complex Brazil 2000 (ix)(x)
967 Noel Kempff Mercado National Park Bolivia 2000 (ix)(x)
934 Laurisilva of Madeira Portugal 1999 (ix)(x)
900 Western Caucasus Russian Federation 1999 (ix)(x)
928bis Area de Conservación Guanacaste (extension) Costa Rica 1999 (ix)(x)
892rev Discovery Coast Atlantic Forest Reserves Brazil 1999 (ix)(x)
417rev Ibiza, Biodiversity and Culture Spain 1999 (ii)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x)
854 East Rennell Solomon Islands 1998 (ix)
877 New Zealand Sub-Antarctic Islands New Zealand 1998 (ix)(x)
577rev Heard and McDonald Islands Australia 1997 (viii)(ix)
820bis Cocos Island National Park (extension) Costa Rica 1997 (ix)(x)
798 The Sundarbans Bangladesh 1997 (ix)(x)
800 Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest Kenya 1997 (vii)(ix)
749 W National Park of Niger Niger 1996 (ix)(x)
719 Virgin Komi Forests Russian Federation 1995 (vii)(ix)
354rev Waterton Glacier International Peace Park United States of America/Canada 1995 (vii)(ix)
698 Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh / Australia 1994 (viii)(ix)
Naracoorte)
of)
711 Los Katíos National Park Colombia 1994 (ix)(x)
662 Yakushima Japan 1993 (vii)(ix)
663 Shirakami-Sanchi Japan 1993 (ix)
630 Fraser Island Australia 1992 (vii)(ix)
551 Te Wahipounamu â€“ South West New Zealand New Zealand 1990 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
506 Banc d’Arguin National Park Mauritania 1989 (ix)(x)
405 Sinharaja Forest Reserve Sri Lanka 1988 (ix)(x)
475 Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park Central African Republic 1988 (ix)(x)
402 Manú National Park Peru 1987 (ix)(x)
452 Sundarbans National Park India 1987 (ix)(x)
407 Dja Faunal Reserve Cameroon 1987 (ix)(x)
447rev Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Australia 1987 (v)(vi)(vii)(ix)
380 Garajonay National Park Spain 1986 (vii)(ix)
337 Kaziranga National Park India 1985 (ix)(x)
Safari Areas
280 Salonga National Park Democratic Republic of the 1984 (vii)(ix)
Congo
33
CRITERION IX
Reference
227 Comoé National Park Côte d’Ivoire 1983 (ix)(x)
274 Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu Peru 1983 (i)(iii)(vii)(ix)
199 Selous Game Reserve United Republic of Tanzania 1982 (ix)(x)
155bis Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve Guinea/Côte d’Ivoire 1981 (ix)(x)
151 Olympic National Park United States of America 1981 (vii)(ix)
134 Redwood National and State Parks United States of America 1980 (vii)(ix)
Tatshenshini-Alsek
64 Tikal National Park Guatemala 1979 (i)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x)
1bis Galápagos Islands (extension?) Ecuador 1978 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
CRITERION X
Reference
X dossier name_en states_name_en date_inscribed criteria
1147rev Ecosystem and Relic Cultural Landscape of Lopé- Gabon 2007 (iii)(iv)(ix)(x)
Okonda
1257 Rainforests of the Atsinanana Madagascar 2007 (ix)(x)
1213 Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuaries China 2006 (x)
1193 Shiretoko Japan 2005 (ix)(x)
California
1138rev Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Panama 2005 (ix)(x)
Marine Protection
590rev Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex Thailand 2005 (x)
1023rev Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve Russian Federation 2004 (ix)(x)
1007rev Cape Floral Region Protected Areas South Africa 2004 (ix)(x)
769rev Uvs Nuur Basin Russian Federation/Mongolia 2003 (ix)(x)
839rev Alejandro de Humboldt National Park Cuba 2001 (ix)(x)
1035 Cerrado Protected Areas: Chapada dos Veadeiros Brazil 2001 (ix)(x)
and Emas National Parks
766rev Central Sikhote-Alin Russian Federation 2001 (x)
998bis Central Amazon Conservation Complex Brazil 2000 (ix)(x)
917 Greater Blue Mountains Area Australia 2000 (ix)(x)
967 Noel Kempff Mercado National Park Bolivia 2000 (ix)(x)
1012 Kinabalu Park Malaysia 2000 (ix)(x)
1017 Central Suriname Nature Reserve Suriname 2000 (ix)(x)
985 uKhahlamba / Drakensberg Park South Africa 2000 (i)(iii)(vii)(x)
911 Mount Wuyi China 1999 (iii)(vi)(vii)(x)
900 Western Caucasus Russian Federation 1999 (ix)(x)
928 Area de Conservación Guanacaste Costa Rica 1999 (ix)(x)
934 Laurisilva of Madeira Portugal 1999 (ix)(x)
937 Península Valdés Argentina 1999 (x)
417rev Ibiza, Biodiversity and Culture Spain 1999 (ii)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x)
652rev Puerto-Princesa Subterranean River National Philippines 1999 (vii)(x)
Park
892rev Discovery Coast Atlantic Forest Reserves Brazil 1999 (ix)(x)
768rev Golden Mountains of Altai Russian Federation 1998 (x)
877 New Zealand Sub-Antarctic Islands New Zealand 1998 (ix)(x)
798 The Sundarbans Bangladesh 1997 (ix)(x)
801bis Lake Turkana National Parks Kenya 1997 (viii)(x)
814 Morne Trois Pitons National Park Dominica 1997 (viii)(x)
820bis Cocos Island National Park (extension) Costa Rica 1997 (ix)(x)
779 Mount Emei Scenic Area, including Leshan Giant China 1996 (iv)(vi)(x)
Buddha Scenic Area
34
CRITERION X
Reference
718 Okapi Wildlife Reserve Democratic Republic of the 1996 (x)
Congo
749 W National Park of Niger Niger 1996 (ix)(x)
740bis Gough and Inaccessible Islands (extension) United Kingdom of Great Britain 1995 (vii)(x)
682 Bwindi Impenetrable National Park Uganda 1994 (vii)(x)
684 Rwenzori Mountains National Park Uganda 1994 (vii)(x)
of)
711 Los Katíos National Park Colombia 1994 (ix)(x)
554bis Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino Mexico 1993 (x)
588 Danube Delta Romania 1991 (vii)(x)
608 Ujung Kulon National Park Indonesia 1991 (vii)(x)
609 Komodo National Park Indonesia 1991 (vii)(x)
547 Mount Huangshan China 1990 (ii)(vii)(x)
494rev Tsingy de Bemaraha Strict Nature Reserve Madagascar 1990 (vii)(x)
506 Banc d'Arguin National Park Mauritania 1989 (ix)(x)
335bis Nanda Devi and Valley of Flowers National Parks India 1988 (vii)(x)
475 Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park Central African Republic 1988 (ix)(x)
405 Sinharaja Forest Reserve Sri Lanka 1988 (ix)(x)
487 Henderson Island United Kingdom of Great Britain 1988 (vii)(x)
402 ManÃº National Park Peru 1987 (ix)(x)
410 Sian Ka'an Mexico 1987 (vii)(x)
452 Sundarbans National Park India 1987 (ix)(x)
407 Dja Faunal Reserve Cameroon 1987 (ix)(x)
355 Iguaçu National Park Brazil 1986 (vii)(x)
337 Kaziranga National Park India 1985 (ix)(x)
340 Keoladeo National Park India 1985 (x)
Safari Areas
303 Iguazu National Park Argentina 1984 (vii)(x)
219 Srebarna Nature Reserve Bulgaria 1983 (x)
Scandola Reserve
227 Comoé National Park Côte d'Ivoire 1983 (ix)(x)
196 RÃo PlÃ¡tano Biosphere Reserve Honduras 1982 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
199 Selous Game Reserve United Republic of Tanzania 1982 (ix)(x)
186 Lord Howe Island Group Australia 1982 (vii)(x)
195 Taï¯ National Park Côte d'Ivoire 1982 (vii)(x)
25 Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary Senegal 1981 (vii)(x)
156 Serengeti National Park United Republic of Tanzania 1981 (vii)(x)
153 Niokolo-Koba National Park Senegal 1981 (x)
155bis Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire 1981 (ix)(x)
137 Kahuzi-Biega National Park Democratic Republic of the 1980 (x)
Congo
136 Garamba National Park Democratic Republic of the 1980 (vii)(x)
Congo
8 Ichkeul National Park Tunisia 1980 (x)
35
CRITERION X
Reference
Congo
64 Tikal National Park Guatemala 1979 (i)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x)
Tatshenshini-Alsek
9 Simien National Park Ethiopia 1978 (vii)(x)
1bis Galápagos Islands (extension) Ecuador 1978 (vii)(viii)(ix)(x)
36
ANNEX 3: NATURAL AND MIXED NOMINATIONS NOT INSCRIBED OR WITHDRAWN
UNESCO Name of nominated property Nominating State Not With- session actual_date_re
Reference Inscribed drawn ceived
6 Djebel bou Hedma National Park Tunisia N Y 01BUR 04/04/1978
7 Djebel Chambi National Park Tunisia N Y 01BUR 04/04/1978
73 Madeleine Islands National Park Senegal Y N 03COM 28/02/1979
123 Kaingi lake National Park Nigeria Y N 04COM 28/05/1979
178 Lal Sohanra National Park Pakistan N Y 06COM 27/04/1981
281 National Park of Maiko Democratic Republic of the Y N 08COM 08/04/1983
Congo
283 National Park of Kundelunga Democratic Republic of the Y N 08COM 08/04/1983
Congo
290 Nyika National Park Malawi Y N 08COM 14/09/1983
305 Serra da Arrabiba Portugal N Y 22/12/1983
386 Medicinal Baths of Szechnenyi, Budapest Hungary N Y 31/12/1985
423 St Helena United Kingdom of Great N Y 23/12/1986
Britain and Northern Ireland
636 Tatransky Narodny National Park Slovakia Y N 16COM 24/09/1991
628 Berezinsky Biosphere Reserve Belarus Y N 16COM 01/10/1991
667 Fossil Findings of Ipolytarnóc Hungary Y N 17COM 07/10/1992
767 Vodlozero National Park Russian Federation Y N 22COM 29/09/1995
771 Mt Soraksan Nature Reserve Republic of Korea N Y 20BUR 29/09/1995
834 Fossil Forest of Dunarobba Italy N Y 21COM 01/07/1996
858 The Ravines of the Slovak Paradis and Slovakia Y N 22COM 27/06/1997
Dobsinska Ice Cave
879 Bashkirian Ural Russian Federation Y N 22COM 21/07/1997
878 The Palace Cave Uruguay N Y 22BUR 21/07/1997
953 Lena River Delta Russian Federation N Y 24BUR 13/08/1998
33-627bis Belovezhskaya Pushcha/ Bialowieza Forest Poland Y N 23COM 14/09/1998
(extension)
33-627bis Belovezhskaya Pushcha/ Bialowieza Forest Belarus Y N 23COM 14/09/1998
(extension)
964 Kopacki Rit Croatia Y N 24COM 10/06/1999
991 National Park of Abruzzo Italy N Y 24BUR 30/06/1999
1023 Natural System of "Wrangel Island" Sanctuary Russian Federation N Y 23/06/2000
1051 Podillian Ridge Ukraine Y N 25COM 30/06/2000
1050 Karadag Ukraine Y N 25COM 30/06/2000
1047 Holy Tops (Svyati Gory) Ukraine Y N 25COM 30/06/2000
1048 Polissian Swamps and Slovechno-Ovruch Ukraine Y N 25COM 30/06/2000
Ridge
1045 Group of Caves containing Speleothems in France N Y 25BUR 30/06/2000
Southern France
1049 Kaniv's Hills (Kanivski Gory) Ukraine Y N 25COM 30/06/2000
1057 Kaieteur National Park Guyana N Y 25BUR 19/07/2000
1064 Archipelago of La Maddalena Italy N Y 26BUR 05/01/2001
606bis Serra da Capivara National Park Brazil Y N 27COM 29/01/2002
954bis Saint Catherine Area Egypt Y N 27COM 31/01/2002
1117 Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture Portugal Y N 27COM 31/01/2002
1128 Corcovado National Park and Isla del Caño Costa Rica N Y 28 COM 30/09/2002
Biological Reserve
1129 Rock Cities of the Bohemian Paradise Czech Republic N Y 28 COM 07/10/2002
1133 Primeval Forests of Slovakia Slovakia N Y 28COM 20/01/2003
1151 Ilhas Selvagens Portugal N Y 28 COM 29/01/2003
1089 Hohe Tauern National Park (core zone) Austria N Y 31/01/2003
Carinthia, Salzburg, Tyrol
900bis Western Caucasus (Extension to include the Russian Federation Y N 28COM 31/01/2003
Teberdinskiy Reserve)
1124 Cajas Lakes and Ruins of Paredones Ecuador N Y 28 COM 31/01/2003
1179 Glarus Overthrust Switzerland N Y 29COM 19/01/2004
1190 Mbaracayú Forest Nature Reserve Paraguay Y N 29COM 29/01/2004
1174 Serrania del Chiribiquete National Natural Park Colombia N Y 29COM 29/01/2004
632bis Solovetsky Islands with the adjacent water area Russian Federation N Y 29COM 02/02/2004
290rev Nyika National Park Malawi N Y 30COM 03/11/2004
1177 Site of Marvao Portugal N Y 30COM 15/11/2004
1041rev Makhteshim Country Israel N Y 29COM 06/12/2004
1210 Baltic Klint Estonia N Y 30COM 21/12/2004
1045 Speleothems of French Limestone Caves, France N Y 31COM 24/01/2006
Outstanding Records of Karst Processes and
Archives of Palaeo-climates
1261 The Mediterranean Shore of the Pyrenees France/Spain N Y 31COM 31/01/2006
1266 Prince Edward Islands South Africa N Y 31COM 01/02/2006
Note: This table does not include withdrawn sites included in new or revised nominations in 2008
or 2009.
37
ANNEX 4: KEY IUCN REFERENCES ON OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE
IUCN (2006): The World Heritage List: Guidance and Future Priorities for Identifying Natural
Heritage of Potential Outstanding Universal Value. Paper prepared by IUCN for the 2006 World
Heritage Committee. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. (also available in French)
IUCN (2005): Special Expert Meeting of the World Heritage Convention: the Concept of
Outstanding Universal Value. Background paper prepared by IUCN for the expert meeting from 6-9
April 2005 in Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. (also
available in French)
IUCN (2004): The World Heritage List: Future Priorities for a Credible and Complete List of Natural
and Mixed Sites. Paper prepared by IUCN for the 2004 World Heritage Committee. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland. (also available in French)
Dingwall, P., Weighell, T. & Badman, T. (2005): Geological World Heritage: a Global Framework.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Magin, C. (2005): World Heritage Thematic Study for Central Asia: a Regional Overview. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.
Magin, C. & Chape, S. (2004): Review of the World Heritage Network: Biogeography, Habitats and
Biodiversity. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Smith, G. & Jakubowska, J. (2000): A Global Overview of Protected Areas on the World Heritage
List of Particular Importance for Biodiversity. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK and IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
Thorsell, J. & Hamilton, L. (2002): A Global Overview of Mountain Protected Areas on the World
Heritage List. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Thorsell, J., Levy, R.F. & Sigaty, T. (1997): A Global Overview of Wetland and Marine Protected
Areas on the World Heritage List. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Thorsell, J. & Sigaty, T. (1998): A Global Overview of Human Use of World Heritage Natural Sites.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Thorsell, J. & Sigaty, T. (1997): A Global Overview of Forest Protected Areas on the World
Heritage List. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Wells, R.T. (1996): Earth’s Geological History: a Contextual Framework for Assessment of World
Heritage Fossil Site Nominations. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Williams, P. (2008): World Heritage Caves and Karst: a Thematic Study. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
38
ANNEX 5: LANDMARK CASES RELATED TO WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATIONS
Noted below are seven cases which illustrate the application of different models and approaches to
the inscription of natural world heritage properties
Serial properties
Landmark Case 1: Gondwana Rainforests of Australia (name changed 2007 from 'Central
Eastern Rainforest Reserves (Australia)' (Australia) Decisions at 10 COM, 1986 and 18 COM,
1994
This property was one of the first serial properties and provided the standard by which other
properties have been assessed by IUCN and considered by the World Heritage Committee. It
identified the principle that serial properties will: include component parts related because they
belong to the same ecosystem type and that it is the series as a whole and not necessarily the
individual parts of it which are of Outstanding Universal Value. This also provided the standard by
which IUCN assessed future properties and, in particular, the questions asked by IUCN in relation
to every serial nomination after 1986:
(a) what is the justification for the serial approach?

(b) are the separate elements of the property functionally linked?; and
(c) is there an overall management framework for all the units?
Transboundary properties
Landmark Case 2: Transboundary Rainforest Heritage of Borneo (Indonesia) Decision 30

COM 8B.23, 2006
The property was put forward as a transboundary property between Indonesia and Malaysia and
was agreed by the Committee of having outstanding biodiversity, particularly in relation to the high
number of globally threatened and endemic plant and animal species, including the endangered
Bornean Orangutan. The Committee however noted that the Conditions of Integrity had not been
met and that there were no effective joint bilateral frameworks and management strategy between
the two countries. This established an important standard regarding the need to have in place
effective joint management and planning frameworks.
Deferral as a tool to improve the quality of nominations
Landmark Case 3: Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary (China) Decision 30 COM 8B.22, 2006
The Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary includes more than 30% of the world's population of giant
Panda and constitutes the largest and most significant remaining contiguous area of panda habitat
in the world. It also has other important natural values. This property was finally inscribed in 2006
after being earlier deferred by the World Heritage Committee in 1986 and in 2000. In both cases
the Committee noted the importance of the property for the panda conservation but deferred the
proposals to enable the State party to bring forward a larger nomination as well as to address a
number of management issues. The nomination brought forward in 2006 was much larger and
demonstrated that many of the management issues had been addressed. This property provides
an excellent example of how deferral can be a useful tool to improve the quality of nominations and
to address management issues.
39
Extension of properties
Landmark Case 4: The Kvarken Archipelago (Finland), an extension to the High Coast
(Sweden, 2000) Decision 30 COM 8B.27, 2006
The 2006 World Heritage Committee approved the extension of the High Coast (Sweden) to
include the Kvarken Archipelago (Finland). This property is inscribed on the basis of its geological
features, in particular its isostatic uplift. This property represents a model of an extension as it is
based on a thorough and systematic assessment of values which could complement those present
in an existing property. Further this case demonstrates an excellent example of cooperation
between two countries in relation to the joint management of a property, with the associated
development of clear management frameworks.
Involvement of Customary Landowners in natural World Heritage properties
Landmark Case 5: East Rennell (Solomon Islands) Decision of the 22nd World Heritage
Committee, 1998
East Rennell is part of Rennell Island, the southernmost of the Solomon Islands group. Rennell,
was inscribed on the basis of demonstrating significant on-going ecological and biological
processes and as the largest raised coral atoll in the world. This was the first natural World
Heritage property to be inscribed while being under customary ownership. Lake Tegano, within the
property, is regarded as property common to the people from four lakeside villages in the Solomon
Islands. For this property, the rights of customary owners in customary law are acknowledged in
the Constitution of the Solomon Islands. There was considerable debate at the 1998 World
Heritage Committee meeting as to whether customary protection and management was sufficient
for inscription under the terms of the Operational Guidelines. However the Committee inscribed
this property and noted that a property protected by customary law is breaking new ground, and
that the inclusion of this type of property is in line with the Global Strategy. Propertys from other
States Parties, which are under traditional management and customary law, and may provide
examples for general application. This case established an important standard and precedent in
relation to the acceptance of customary law and management as a sufficient basis for the
management and long term protection of natural World Heritage properties.
Landmark Case 6: Tongariro National Park (New Zealand) Decision of the 17th World
Heritage Committee, 1993
In 1993 Tongariro became the first property to be inscribed on the World Heritage List under the
revised criteria describing Cultural Landscapes. The mountains at the heart of the park have
cultural and religious significance for the Maori people and symbolize the spiritual links between
this community and its environment. The park has active and extinct volcanoes, a diverse range of
ecosystems and some spectacular landscapes. It set an important standard in relation to the
application of the Cultural Landscapes criteria to natural properties and underlined that many
natural World Heritage properties have very significant cultural values for local communities and
customary owners.
40
ANNEX 6: OTHER SIGNIFICANT CASE STUDIES RELEVANT TO THE CONCEPT OF

OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE
CASE 1
Site Ecosystem and Relict Threshold in relation to the need for a comprehensive comparative
Cultural Landscape analysis to demonstrate OUV. Referred back twice (2005, 2006) with the
of Lopé-Okanda recommendation that an improved comparative analysis be developed..
Date considered 2007

Country Gabon
Decision Inscribed
31COM 8B.54
Criteria ix, x
Themes Referral to improve
comparative analysis.
Cultural and natural
values.
CASE 2
Site Jeju Volcanic Island Evaluation and decision stressed the increasingly limited potential for
and Lava Tubes further inscriptions of volcanic sites as they were already relatively well
Date considered 2007 represented on the World Heritage list, and notes standards for future
Country Republic of Korea nominations.
Decision 31 COM 8B.12
Criteria vii, viii
Themes Thresholds of OUV
for volcanic sites
CASE 3
Site South China Karst Decision welcomed the recognition of the importance of the meaningful
Date considered 2007 involvement of local people in the management of the nominated property;
Country China and requested that particular consideration to the further involvement of
Decision Inscribed local people and the maintenance of the traditional practices of the
31 COM 8B.11 indigenous communities concerned.
Criteria vii,viii
Themes Indigenous
management;
Maintenance of
traditional practices
CASE 4
Site Jungfrau-Aletsch- Commended for development of management strategy through an
Bietschhorn exemplary participatory process. Quote: “The preparation of this
Date considered 2001, nomination is a model case study in the "bottom-up" approach based in
2007 (extension) the Swiss legal system … Support for the nomination at the local level was
Country Switzerland first registered in community votes in favour of proceeding with the
Decision inscribed nomination, followed by approvals by the Cantons before reaching the
25 COM Federal authorities.”
31 COM 8B.18
Criteria vii, viii, ix
Themes Participatory
development of
management
strategy
CASE 5
Site Trans Border Property put forward as a transboundary property between Indonesia and
Rainforest Heritage Malaysia and agreed by the Committee of having outstanding biodiversity.
of Borneo The Committee however noted that the Conditions of Integrity had not
Date considered 2006 been met and that there were no effective joint bilateral frameworks and
Country Indonesia /Malaysia management strategy between the two countries. This established an
Decision deferred important standard regarding the need to have in place effective joint
30 COM 8B.23 management and planning frameworks.
Criteria -
Themes Transboundary The evaluation report also makes reference to indigenous cultures and
properties community rights.
Joint management
Indigenous culture
Community rights
41
CASE 6
Site Malpelo Fauna and Important example of decision to inscribe only a part of a serial nomination,
Flora Sanctuary IUCN’s evaluation noted that functional links between the two areas in the
Date considered 2006 original proposal were not sufficient to justify a serial approach.
Country Colombia
Decision 30 COM 8B.28
Criteria Inscription (Malpelo)
vii, x
Deferral (Gorgona)
Themes Partial inscription of
a serial nomination
CASE 7
Property West Norwegian Exemplary 10 year process of property selection undertaken by the
Fjords Norwegian authorities in close cooperation with other Scandinavian
Date considered 2005 countries through the Nordic Council. This approach has allowed a
Country Norway collective overview of the World Heritage potential and most outstanding
Decision Inscribed landscapes of the wider region. Beyond this regional view, a local
29 COM 8B.7 consultative process with stakeholders and county officials led to broad
Criteria vii, viii support of the nomination.
Themes Property selection;
Stakeholder
consultation
CASE 8
Site Hawar Islands Example of deferral to encourage a transnational approach that could
Date considered 2004 identify a site of OUV. IUCN recommended the World Heritage Committee
Country Bahrain not to inscribe Hawar Islands on the World Heritage List and highlighted
Decision Deferred the need for a marine transnational serial approach. The Committee
28COM 14B.4 deferred the examination of the nomination to allow the State Party to
Criteria - consider an appropriate extension to the IUCN highlighted the need for a
Themes Transnational transnational serial approach/ WHC an "appropriate extension".
approach
CASE 9
Property Purnululu National The Purnululu traditional owners actively supported the World Heritage
Park nomination for the park. The World Heritage Committee recognized the
Date considered 2003 importance of the relationship and interaction between the Traditional
Country Australia Owners and the natural environment of the property and requested to the
Decision Inscribed State Party to update the management plan of the Park, including clearer
27COM 8C.11 arrangements for the governance of the nominated property, particularly in
Criteria vii, viii relation to sustaining traditional Aboriginal communities in the Park.
Themes Involvement of local
communities
CASE 10
Site Jaú National Park, The IUCN evaluation for this 2.3 million ha. site, when inscribed in 2000,
later extended to recommended that two adjacent protected areas also merited study as
form Central Amazon possible extensions of the site. The State Party responded with a proposal
Conservation to more than double the size which made it one of the largest World
Complex Heritage properties. The management plan of Jaú NP included the
Date considered 2000, objective to integrate local people with conservation activities. These
2003 (extension) included periodic meetings, training for professionals, volunteer
Country Brazil environmental protection agents from local communities. High commitment
Decision Inscribed, from local people towards conservation of the site was verified. Jaú NP
27 COM stressed the need for a consultation process with local communities and
Criteria ix, x indigenous peoples before inscription of further sites and was
Themes Size, extension recommended as an example to provide a framework for future
Integration of local consultation for a subsequent nomination. The evaluation report of the
communities and 2003 extension stressed that there should be a written agreement with
indigenous peoples communities obtained prior to listing.
42
CASE 11
Site Cocos Island This nomination is a good example of an extension to enhance outstanding
National Park universal value following the original inscription of the property. In 1997
(extension) the World Heritage Committee commended the Government of Costa Rica
Date considered 1997 for its initiative to incorporate the marine environment into the National
2002 (extension) Park and encouraged it to extend management from 8km to the 15km legal
Country Costa Rica limit around the island. In 2002 the World Heritage Committee approved
Decision Inscription, the State Party’s expansion of the marine protected area surrounding
26 COM 23.4 Cocos Island from 15km (8.33 nautical miles) to 22km (12 nautical miles) in
Criteria ix, x order to increase the protection of the marine resources.
Themes Extension of marine
site
CASE 12
Site Brazilian Atlantic Fernando de Noronha National Marine Park was nominated by Brazil in
Islands 2000. IUCN’s evaluation report (2000) noted that the information provided
Date considered 2001 in the nomination document is not sufficient to justify inscription.” The World
Country Brazil Heritage Committee noted that the State Party requested deferral. In
Decision Inscribe February 2001 the State Party submitted a serial nomination of Fernando
Criteria vii, ix, x de Noronha with the Atoll das Rocas Tropical Insular Complex. This larger
Themes Marine sites serial site was inscribed on the list the following year.
Serial sites
CASE 13
Site Central Sikhote-Alin IUCN’s evaluation noted weaknesses in part of the nominated area and
Date considered 2001 requested an “effective and integrated collaborative management regime
Country Russian Federation for the entire Bikin catchment with the full involvement of indigenous
Decision Inscribed peoples in this process”, and recommended deferral of this part of the
25 COM nominated property but inscription of the remaining parts. The Committee
Criteria x followed this recommendation and encouraged the SP “to improve
Themes Partial inscription/ management of the Bikin River protected areas before nominating it as an
partial deferral of extension” (but without specially referring to the indigenous peoples).
serial nomination;
Indigenous people
CASE 14
Site Cerrado Protected This nomination is a good example of a successful serial nomination
Areas: Chapada dos revised after referral of a first proposal. It is also an important case in
Veadeiros and Emas focusing on ecological functions and services of the site – the outstanding
National Park universal value was recognised based on its importance as the last
Date considered 2001 refugee for a number of species to survive the predicted impacts of climate
Country Brazil change and for the conservation of a unique ecosystem.
Decision Inscription
25 COM
Criteria ix, x
Themes Referral to improve
management.
Serial nomination.
Climate change.
CASE 15
Property Fertö-Neusiedler Although the site was originally nominated as a mixed site, (with natural
Lake criteria vii, ix and x), the Committee did not inscribe it under natural criteria.
Date considered 2001 This case showed that some cultural sites could have very high natural
Country Austria/ Hungary values and still not qualify as natural sites in their own right.
Decision inscribed
Criteria v
Themes Cultural/ natural
values
CASE 16
Site Kopacki Rit This site was not inscribed as the Committee noted the natural values were
Date considered 2000 more significant at the regional (European) rather than the global scale This
Country Croatia demonstrates an approach often applied by the Committee.
Decision Not inscribed
Criteria -
Themes Global scale of OUV
43
CASE 17
Site Gunung Mulu IUCN recommended that the nomination be referred back to the State
National Park Party for clarification of various points, including assurance that the new
Date considered 2000 management plan addresses issues relating to local peoples’ use of and
Country Malaysia benefits from the park as well as the new contractual arrangements for
Decision 24 Com management of the park. The Committee inscribed the site in 2000. In
(26COM 21B.15) 2002, Dec. 26COM 21B.15 noted that still no decision regarding the
Criteria vii, viii, ix, x possible extension of the property and also recommended to raise the
Themes Local communities; issue of the participation of indigenous people.
Boundaries;
extension and buffer
zone
CASE 18
Property uKhahlamba / The KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Service fosters a good neighbour
Drakensberg Park relations policy with communities adjacent to its borders. This involves the
Date considered 2000 development of community based programmes and “partnership forums”
Country South Africa which assist local development objectives. These are important in
Decision Inscribed developing a more positive image of the park within local communities. It is
24 COM important that such programmes build ownership, awareness and support
Criteria i,iii; vii,x for the protection of the natural values of DP. These local community
Themes Recognition of programmes also include provision for sustainable harvesting of various
indigenous practices. grasses and collecting seed for medicinal plants within DP. It is important
Linkages to that the long term impact of such programmes on natural values be
surrounding carefully monitored.
communities.
CASE 19
Site Plitvice Lakes Example of extension for reasons of integrity (preventing deleterious
National Park developments in the surrounding catchment area), though the area on its
(extension) own would not meet the criteria. The Committee approved the extension of
Date considered (1979) Plitvice Lakes National Park site by the nominated area of 10,020 ha as
2000 this would contribute to the integrity of the site.
Country Croatia
Decision extended
24 COM
Criteria -
Themes extension for
reasons of integrity
CASE 20
Site Greater Blue In regard to this case, there was considerable debate on IUCN’s
Mountains Area assessment and the importance of the eucalyptus habitat on a global
Date considered 1999, 2000 scale. IUCN's advice was to defer the nomination, as recommended by the
Country Australia Bureau in 1999 in favour of a possible serial site. IUCN noted however,
Decision 24 COM that this was a finely balanced case. The Delegate of Australia informed
Criteria ix, x the Committee that the world's most eminent experts on biodiversity and
Themes Thresholds of OUV; eucalypts have stated the outstanding universal value of the Blue
Biodiversity & Mountains. Whilst the Greater Blue Mountains has been inscribed as a
evolutionary stand-alone site, Australia recognized that there may be other important
processes key sites of outstanding significance representing the evolution of the
eucalyptus. The Australian Government was shortly to introduce legislation
to allow listing of places of national heritage significance. These places
would be protected to the same level under Commonwealth law currently
provided to World Heritage properties.
CASE 21
Site Miguasha National The SP produced a comparative analysis on fossil values that is
Park considered best practice in global comparative analysis for criterion viii on
Date considered 1999 major stages of Earth’s history. The World Heritage Committee
Country Canada commended the Government of Canada for the rigorous comparative
Decision Inscribed assessment applied to this nomination and noted it as a model for future
23 COM fossil nominations.
Criteria viii
Themes Fossil values
44
CASE 22
Site Puerto Princesa The evaluation of this nomination in 1993 (submitted as "St Paul
(Saint Paul) Subterranean National Park"), was deferred noting that the size of the park
Subterranean River (5753 ha) was inadequate and that the legal status was also weak. In 1998
National Park the State Party re-submitted a revised nomination for the new park area of
Date considered 1999 20,200 ha which was confirmed by a Presidential Proclamation declaring
Country Philippines the legal boundaries. The deferral thus led to five years of planning and
Decision Inscribed resulted in strengthened proposal that was accepted by the Committee.
23 COM
Criteria vii,x The park’s territory and surroundings are the ancestral lands of the Batak
Themes Deferral as a tool for and Tagbanua communities. The evaluation noted that the needs of the
increasing size and local communities are being considered through the preparation of the
improving legal previously mentioned management guidelines.
status;
consideration of
local communities
CASE 23
Property Greater St. Lucia The nomination process here was held back by the State Party until a
Wetland Park decision was made by the South African Cabinet in 1996 over whether to
Date considered 1999 approve sand mining in the area or to proceed with a conservation regime.
Country South Africa When the decision was made not to allow mining, the nomination was
Decision inscribed submitted and inscribed in 1998. The Committee commended the State
23 COM Party for “the decision to ban sand mining in the area and to subsequently
Criteria vii, ix, x nominate the area for World Heritage.”
Themes withheld nomination
to ensure integrity; The evaluation and Committee decisions also refer to traditional activities
community in the property and key role of community conservation programmes in
conservation balancing local use with conservation.
programmes.
45
World Heritage Studies
 Outstanding Universal Value: Standards for Natural Heritage: A Compendium on Standards for Inscriptions of
Natural Properties on the World Heritage List, IUCN World Heritage Studies, Tim Badman, Bastian Bomhard,
Annelie Fincke, Josephine Langley, Pedro Rosabal and David Sheppard, 2008.
 World Heritage Caves and Karst, A Thematic Study: Global Review of Karst World Heritage Properties:
present situation, future prospects and management, requirements, IUCN World Heritage Studies, Paul
Williams, June 2008.
 World Heritage and Protected Areas: an initial analysis of the contribution of the World Heritage Convention to
the global network of protected areas presented to the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee, Québec
City, Canada, in July 2008, IUCN World Heritage Studies, Tim Badman and Bastian Bomhard, 2008.
 Natural World Heritage Nominations: A resource manual for practioners, IUCN World Heritage Studies, Tim
Badman, Paul Dingwall and Bastian Bomhard, 2008.
 Management Planning for Natural World Heritage Properties: A resource manual for practioners, Interim
version, IUCN World Heritage Studies, IUCN Programme on Protected Areas, 2008.
 Serial Natural World Heritage Properties: an initial analysis of the serial natural World Heritage Properties on
the World Heritage List, IUCN World Heritage Studies, Barbara Engels, Phillip Koch and Tim Badman, 2009.
 World Heritage in Danger: A compendium of key decisions on the conservation of natural World Heritage
Properties via the list of World Heritage in Danger, IUCN World Heritage Studies, Tim Badman, Bastian
Bomhard, Annelie Fincke, Josephine Langley, Pedro Rosabal and David Sheppard, 2009
 World Heritage Volcanoes: a thematic study: a global review of volcanic World Heritage properties: present
situation, future prospects and management requirements, IUCN World Heritage Studies, Chris Wood, 2009.

IUCN - OUV Standards For Natural Heritage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IUCN - OUV Standards For Natural Heritage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IUCN - OUV Standards For Natural Heritage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Outstanding Universal Value

Standards for Natural World Heritage

A Compendium on Standards for inscriptions of

IUCN Protected Areas Programme - World Heritage Studies

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

Layout by: Delwyn Dupuis

Produced by: IUCN Protected Areas Programme

Printed by: IUCN

Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)

A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available.

A Compendium on Standards for inscriptions of

2. THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL NOMINATIONS 2

3. WHAT WAS THE THRESHOLD FOR SUCCESSFUL INSCRIPTION? 19

6. INFLUENCE OF THE GLOBAL STRATEGY 26

• the application of the relevant criteria for successful nominations;

2. THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL NOMINATIONS3

• A global approach is emphasized by stressing that this heritage is to be preserved for

• Outstanding: For properties to be of Outstanding Universal Value they should be

78. To be deemed of outstanding universal value, a

Applying Outstanding Universal Value to natural and cultural properties

Cultural Properties Natural Properties

Trends in numbers of nominations and

No. properties not inscribed

Figure 1: Trends in numbers of World Heritage nominations and inscriptions

Trends in success of natural site inscriptions

• the increasing number of properties deferred or referred, many of which have

Uses of World Heritage Natural Critera (All Inscriptions)

NUMBER OF CRITERIA NATURAL CRITERIA NATURAL MIXED SITES NATURAL

One Natural Criterion 33 viii 12 1 13

Two Natural Criteria 86

Four Natural Criteria 19 vii, viii, ix, x 19 1 20

TOTAL 166 166 25 191

2.17 Two observations should be made in relation to the interpretation of Table 2:

Use of Natural Criteria

Four Natural Criteria

Two Natural Criteria

Combinations of natural criteria used in inscriptions (all sites)

Use of World Heritage Natural Criteria (Mixed Sites)

Use of natural WH criteria by year

Relative use of natural criteria

Criterion (vii): Contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural

Inscriptions using criterion vii

Criterion (viii): Be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history,

Inscriptions using criterion viii

• Significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms -

• Significant geomorphic or physiographic features - This subset includes landforms that

Box 3: IUCN Fossil Site Evaluation Checklist

(vii) How international is the level of interest in the site?

Criterion (ix): Be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and

Inscriptions using criterion ix

Inscriptions using criterion x

Trends in decisions to not inscribe World Heritage properties

Sites Not Inscribed or Withdrawn

Wider trends in inscriptions

2.34 An important case in relation to transnational properties is the Transboundary Rainforest

Potential Implications for the World Heritage Committee

3. WHAT WAS THE THRESHOLD FOR SUCCESSFUL INSCRIPTION?

Potential Implications for the World Heritage Committee

• to continue to develop the body of experience in relation to thresholds for successful