CHAPTER 5: MONITORING AND REPORTING
Monitoring and reporting requirements
5.1 Requirements for the monitoring and reporting of properties on the
World Heritage List were added to the Operational Guidelines in the annual
revison of February 1995. The Operational Guidelines state that one of
the essential functions of the World Heritage Committee is to monitor
the state of the conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage
List and to take action thereupon. [1]
5.2 The Operational Guidelines include a framework for systematic monitoring
and reporting for all sites, not just those sites that are threatened.
A distinction has been made between systematic monitoring and reactive
monitoring. Systematic monitoring and reporting involves the continuous
observation of the conditions of world heritage sites with periodic reporting
on their state of conservation, whereas reactive monitoring is used to
assess the state of conservation of world heritage sites that are under
threat.
5.3 Under the Operational Guidelines the objectives of systematic monitoring
and reporting are directed at four levels in world heritage management:
World Heritage site: Improved site management, advanced planning, reduction
of emergency and ad-hoc interventions, and reduction of costs through
preventive conservation.
State Party: Improved World Heritage policies, advanced planning, improved
site management and preventive conservation.
[World] Region: Regional cooperation, regional World Heritage policies
and activities better targeted to the specific needs of the region.
[World Heritage] Committee/Secretariat: Better understanding of the conditions
of the sites and of the needs on the site, national and regional levels.
Improved policy and decision making. [2]
5.4 It is the responsibility of the States Parties, in consultation with
site managers, to put in place on-site monitoring arrangements as an integral
component of the day-to-day conservation and management of the sites.
Managing agencies are urged to record the condition of world heritage
properties every year and report to States Parties. [3]
The reporting requirements of systematic monitoring as specified in the
Operational Guidelines are as follows:
The States Parties are invited to submit to the World Heritage Committee
through the World Heritage Centre, every five years, a scientific report
on the state of conservation of the World Heritage sites on their territories.
[4]
5.5 DEST explained that the five year program for systematic monitoring
and reporting is to allow the nominated sites to be re-examined. This
requires a review of the information on which the nomination was made,
a review of the state of conservation of the values for which the property
was listed, and an adjustment of the statements of significance attached
to the justification for listing against the criteria. In the Department's
view this is 'very constructive because over the years the criteria under
which properties have been listed have evolved'. [5]
DEST also commented on the appropriateness of a five-year timetable for
systematic monitoring in Australia.
We now have properties within Australia that are listed against criteria
which no longer appear in that particular phraseology in the Convention.
So that it will keep all the documentation for all of the World Heritage
sites reasonably current we believe that a five-year time cycle for that
is appropriate. I do not think that we could do it more frequently. It
falls slightly short of a total renomination, but it is a significant
review at regular intervals of the state of conservation and the values
of those properties. [6]
5.6 The ACIUCN supported a systematic process of monitoring of world
heritage areas.
The one that has traditionally been undertaken within the context of the
convention has been the more reactive monitoring of reporting by countries
on specific threats to particular World Heritage properties. We would
envisage that being part of monitoring, but the more systematic sort of
monitoring ... involves reporting generally on the condition of the property.
It may be a quite positive report. It certainly needs to be done on a
regular basis. If one takes a snapshot of the World Heritage property
at one point in time, one should be able to see how problems or deficiencies
have been rectified or what steps have been taken in the furtherance of
world heritage objectives. [7]
5.7 Reactive monitoring occurs when world heritage values are considered
to be under threat or when other issues regarding the conservation of
world heritage properties arise. States Parties are required to submit
to the World Heritage Committee specific reports and impact studies each
time exceptional circumstances occur or work is undertaken which may have
an effect on the state of conservation of the site. [8]
The Committee did not receive evidence to indicate that reactive monitoring
had occurred in Australia.
5.8 The World Heritage Committee can respond to reactive monitoring of
world heritage values under threat by taking no further action or recommending
that the State Party take measures to restore the property. If the values
of the property are seen to have seriously deteriorated to the point where
it has irretrievably lost the characteristics which determined its inclusion
in the list, the World Heritage Committee has the power to delete the
property from the World Heritage List. However, the World Heritage Committee
states its concern in the Operating Guidelines that all possible measures
should be taken to prevent the deletion of any property from the World
Heritage List. The World Heritage Committee offers technical cooperation
as far as possible to States Parties to prevent deletion of properties.
[9]
Monitoring Australian world heritage properties
5.9 Monitoring of the condition of world heritage properties is currently
carried out by various Commonwealth and State management agencies. DEST
explained the monitoring process in Australia:
The department does not monitor; the management agencies are responsible
for the monitoring. Most of the management plans that exist for the World
Heritage areas have some sort of monitoring arrangement as part of that
plan. The plans are customarily reviewed at finite time periods. ...
I think that, in a general sense, it is dealt with within the plans of
management and the regular reviews of those plans of management. In putting
together the next plan of management, an assessment is made by the management
agency of how well the targets established in the existing management
plan have been met and what needs to be done in the next time period.
That is how the individual properties are taken care of. [10]
5.10 Australia's own policy on monitoring does not conform with either
five-yearly systematic monitoring nor reactive monitoring. DEST submitted
that it has been a world leader in monitoring the state of conservation
of world heritage areas. [11] Since
1992 it has provided monitoring reports to the World Heritage Committee
on an annual basis:
We have asked each of the properties to provide the Department with an
annual monitoring report. We have collated the reports from the Australian
properties and provided these on an annual basis to the World Heritage
Committee. [12]
5.11 As part of its monitoring process, DEST issued a monitoring report
on Australia's world heritage properties for July 1992-June 1993. It provided
an update on the management, research, and presentation being carried
in each of the world heritage areas, based on material provided on a voluntary
basis by each managing agency.
5.12 The then Commonwealth Department of Tourism conducted some monitoring
relevant to tourism in world heritage areas. It commented that one of
the issues likely to affect the planning, development and management of
ecotourism is the impact of tourists on the areas. Monitoring tourist
impacts assists in decision-making and the effective management of the
resources used in ecotourism. [13]
In 1993-94 the Government committed $10 million over four years to the
then Commonwealth Department of Tourism's National Ecotourism Program
(NEP) for the development of ecotourism. This program provides support
for baseline studies and monitoring projects to assess and contribute
to the management of changes to natural environments caused or likely
to occur as a result of ecotourism activities. NEP funded the following
monitoring projects in world heritage areas:
- the impacts of recreational scuba diving in marine protected areas
(Great Barrier Reef, $33,000);
- the impacts of tourism on wilderness campsites at various sites in
Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania (several world heritage areas,
$19,100);
- visitor pressure and water quality at selected ecotourism sites (Wet
Tropics, $50,000); and
- the effect of boat tours on the presence and behaviour of wildlife
and on visitor satisfaction (Kakadu National Park, $40,000). [14]
5.13 The Committee received information about the monitoring carried
out at specific world heritage areas. The WTMA, for example, monitors
forest clearing which is considered to be the greatest threat to the integrity
of the area's natural heritage values. [15]
It also records visitor use patterns and monitors the biota of the area.
[16] The GBRMPA has a research and
monitoring program which collects information on the health of reef organisms
and communities to assist in the effective management of the Park. The
GBRMPA is constructing a database of all long-term monitoring programs
that have been operating since 1975. Monitoring programs carried out during
1994-95 included assessments of:
- the levels of human use at popular sites;
- the effectiveness of coral viewing platforms at tourist pontoons;
- the dugong populations south of Cooktown;
- changes in reef-flat coral communities;
- the health of inshore fringing reefs in the Whitsunday and Cairns
areas; and
- the impacts of pontoons. [17]
The GBRMPA, with the help of other agencies, is in the process of producing
the first state of the reef report, which will summarise the results of
all existing monitoring programs. [18]
5.14 The State management agencies monitor and report on the state of
world heritage areas for which they are responsible. For example, the
Queensland's DEH has recommended in its draft management framework for
CERRA that guidelines and actions be established to monitor the status
and condition of the national parks of the scenic rim - the prominent
mountain ranges to the south and west of Brisbane. The management framework
states:
A high priority must be given to establishing baseline data for monitoring
purposes and to continuing research to increase our knowledge and understanding
of the requirements of particular species. An essential component of the
management process is the monitoring and evaluation of the effects and
effectiveness of management actions. [19]
5.15 The Western Australian Fisheries Department is responsible for managing
fisheries in the Shark Bay world heritage area. The Shark Bay world heritage
area draft management plan for fish resources made 100 recommendations
designed to protect and conserve fish resources and to maintain world
heritage values. Various monitoring programs were included among the recommendations.
[20] In its submission, the Fisheries
Department requested ongoing financial support from DEST so that long-term
monitoring programs can be put in place. [21]
5.16 The Shark Bay 1994 marine reserves management plan foreshadowed
an integrated program of survey, research and monitoring to aid the marine
reserves' management by:
- increasing knowledge of natural and cultural environments;
- assessing visitor use including experiences and perceptions; and
- assessing the effectiveness of management actions.
It is planned to monitor visitation, including numbers of visitors and
boats, types of recreational activities and patterns of use. [22]
5.17 Relatively little information was obtained during the inquiry about
the quality of the monitoring and reporting carried out. The Committee
was impressed that the Commonwealth is reporting annually to the World
Heritage Committee on the status of its properties, as this puts pressure
on managing agencies to perform better than they might otherwise. However,
the Committee notes DEST's comments that these reports:
... lacked consistency in approach and had few, if any, measurable performance
indicators. DEST saw them, therefore, as being of relatively limited value
in terms of demonstrating the extent to which Australia meets its international
obligations for monitoring. [23]
In an effort to improve standards of monitoring, the World Heritage
Unit has funded a project by the Queensland DEH to systematically monitor
Fraser Island's world heritage values. DEST hopes that a best practice
model can be developed from this project.
5.18 In a report on the management of world heritage properties in Australia,
Professors Boer and Fowler recommended that the annual monitoring reports
could be expanded by the World Heritage Unit to include a more standardised
monitoring and reporting system across all world heritage properties.
In addition, an overall statistical analysis of the properties, published
on a regular basis, would be useful when management approaches and funding
needs are being considered. [24]
5.19 Participants at the Committee's workshop commented on the expense
associated with carrying out effective monitoring programs. They promoted
the involvement of users of world heritage areas, such as landholders,
tour operators and the general community, in monitoring. They believed
that at least some of the users of world heritage areas would be prepared
to make a contribution to monitoring programs without being paid and so
alleviate some of the expense needed to implement monitoring plans. The
Alliance for Sustainable Tourism also suggested that the tourist industry
could cost-effectively monitor impacts on world heritage areas because
tour operators are in the field on a daily basis. [25]
5.20 As shown above, managing agencies monitor various issues concerning
world heritage areas. All managing agencies have a role to play in checking
on the condition of world heritage values. The Committee considers that
monitoring is essential and is best performed by the local managing agencies
or local users who are familiar with the area's world heritage values
and are on-site to perform monitoring tasks. Further, the Committee is
of the view that the Commonwealth has the responsibility to coordinate
a monitoring program across all world heritage areas, playing an overseeing
and guiding role while other bodies, including state, industry and non-government
bodies, carry out the monitoring.
Guidelines for monitoring and reporting
5.21 The Committee's attention was drawn to a number of factors that
contribute to an effective system of monitoring, recording and reporting
on the state of conservation of world heritage areas. Firstly, the world
heritage values of the site to be monitored must be well identified, an
undertaking that has been discussed in more detail in Chapter
4. This was pointed out by a representative of ICOMOS to a World Heritage
Committee meeting in December 1994. If values have been well defined,
it is possible to assess how far they remain intact over time. [26]
If, in addition, standards have been set for the conservation of these
values, the information gained from monitoring can be used to guide the
future management of the area where the values are situated. As Atherton
and Atherton observed, 'site managers must be given guidance in the conservation
standards expected of them and monitoring can be meaningful only when
these standards are set'. [27] If
standards are not set, substantiated judgements cannot be made about the
outstanding universal values of a world heritage area.
5.22 Dr Kay from DEST mentioned two more important elements of effective
monitoring systems; systems must be tailored to the particular characteristics
of individual world heritage areas, and the requirement to monitor must
be written into management plans.
There is some consideration being given internationally to indicators
but, given the range of values for which different properties are listed,
in our view a generic set of standards and indicators is not achievable.
Our preference is for the management agencies, in preparing the plans
of management, to develop indicators and standards which are specific
to the property and updated as circumstances in world heritage properties
change. I think that is really the only way that it can sensibly work.
[28]
5.23 Participants at the Committee's workshop also emphasised that monitoring
programs should be implemented when management plans are first drawn up
and information derived from monitoring programs should be fed back into
the development of management plans. They claimed that, in the past, monitoring
had been a 'poor cousin' when it came to putting management plans in place.
The World Heritage Committee has also stressed the need for monitoring
methodology to be flexible and locally appropriate. [29]
5.24 Guidance on how monitoring should be carried out and reported are
important if monitoring is to be used to maximum advantage. The format
that has been proposed for reports to the World Heritage Committee is
set out in paragraph 5.5. Furthermore, at its
meeting in December 1994, the World Heritage Committee invited the World
Heritage Secretariat, in collaboration with the advisory bodies, to 'develop
a format for monitoring reporting as an aid to the States Parties and
to facilitate the processing of the reports and the information contained
in them through a computerized data base'. [30]
As for the annual reports from managing agencies to the Commonwealth,
there are no formal requirements for what should be included at this stage
but, as noted above, a best practice model is being developed. The Committee
considers this to be a topic that deserves attention.
5.25 In addition to monitoring and reporting on the status of world heritage,
it was suggested to the Committee that the way in which managing agencies
expend government funds should also be tracked. The Committee noted, for
instance, the concerns expressed by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust and
The Wilderness Society (Tasmania) that:
In general, at least where the Commonwealth's role in WH management is
indirect, there has been a deplorable lack of monitoring of how federal
funding is employed; essentially throwing money at problems without any
monitoring or follow up. [31]
5.26 As the ACIUCN pointed out, the Commonwealth is the obvious body
to perform monitoring on world heritage areas because of its responsibilities
and duties under the Convention. However, it maintained that monitoring
should be done in a consultative and cooperative way that involves all
groups with interests in the world heritage property. It also suggested
that bodies such as the ACIUCN, which is independent of both government
and non-government spheres, could carry out some of the monitoring. [32]
The use of spot audits would also be a useful way to monitor the conservation
status of world heritage areas.
5.27 The Committee supports the use of monitoring to assess the status
of world heritage values and assist with their management. It acknowledges
the usefulness of including monitoring and reporting requirements in management
plans and the need to develop performance indicators and appropriate standards
for world heritage value conservation for each property, within an established
overall framework. It considers that DEST is the appropriate agency to
manage the coordinated framework for monitoring and reporting, as required
on an annual basis under the Convention. This enables DEST to act as the
watchdog that ensures that standards are maintained, although both it
and the managing agencies are to be encouraged to work with other groups
that have an interest in world heritage protection.
5.28 The Committee recommends that:
(30) before agreeing to world heritage area management plans, the
Commonwealth Government ensure that the management processes include
annual monitoring of the status of world heritage values.
(31) the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, in
consultation with managing agencies, monitor the status of world heritage
values as defined in management plans.
(32) the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, in
consultation with managing agencies:
a) establish guidelines for monitoring and reporting on all world
heritage properties; and
b) review monitoring and reporting guidelines every five years and
revise them as necessary.
(33) the Commonwealth Government require managing agencies to include
in their annual world heritage reports to the Commonwealth Government
information on :
a) their monitoring arrangements and the results of monitoring strategies;
and
b) how Commonwealth Government world heritage funds are being used.
Footnotes
[1] UNESCO, Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, February 1996, paragraph
3(ii).
[2] UNESCO, Operational Guidelines, paragraph
69.
[3] UNESCO, Operational Guidelines, paragraph
70.
[4] UNESCO, Operational Guidelines, paragraph
71.
[5] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, transcript, 27 November 1995, p 323.
[6] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, transcript, 27 November 1995, p 324.
[7] Australian Committee for IUCN, transcript,
1 November 1995, p 156.
[8] UNESCO, Operational Guidelines, paragraph
75.
[9] UNESCO, Operational Guidelines, paragraph
54.
[10] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, transcript, 27 November 1995, p 323.
[11] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, submission (number 62) p 8.
[12] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, transcript, 27 November 1995, p 323.
[13] Commonwealth Department of Tourism, submission
(number 68) p 2.
[14] Commonwealth Department of Tourism, submission
(number 68), appendix D.
[15] Wet Tropics Management Authority, Annual
Report 1994-95, p 23.
[16] Wet Tropics Management Authority, Annual
Report 1994-95, pp 10,19.
[17] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,
1994-95 Annual Report, pp 53-5.
[18] A summary of the report is available in
State of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Report, Technical
Workshop Abstracts and Program, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,
November 1995.
[19] Queensland Department of Environment and
Heritage, Parks of the Scenic Rim - Draft Management Framework,
August 1994, p 21.
[20] Fisheries Department of Western Australia,
Shark Bay World Heritage Area Draft Management Plan for Fish Resources,
Fisheries management paper No. 72, November 1994, pp 3-11.
[21] Western Australian Fisheries Department,
submission (number 67) p 4.
[22] Department of Conservation and Land Management,
Shark Bay Marine Reserves Draft Management Plan, 1994, pp 121,
123.
[23] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, submission (number 78), p 5.
[24] Ben Boer & Robert J Fowler, The
Management of World Heritage Properties in Australia: A Report to the
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Part II, undated,
issued May 1996, pp 127-8.
[25] Alliance for Sustainable Tourism, submission
(number 84), p 2.
[26] Papers from 18th session of World Heritage
Committee, Thailand, 12-17 December 1994, pp 13-14.
[27] Trudie-Ann Atherton & Trevor C. Atherton,
'The power and the glory: national sovereignty and the World Heritage
Convention', The Australian Law Journal, vol 69, August 1995, p
642.
[28] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, transcript, 27 November 1995, p 324.
[29] Papers from 18th session of World Heritage
Committee, Thailand, 12-17 December 1994, p 13.
[30] Papers from 18th session of World Heritage
Committee, Thailand, 12-17 December 1994, p 15.
[31] Tasmanian Conservation Trust and The Wilderness
Society (Tasmania), submission (number 21), p 2.
[32] Australian Committee for IUCN, transcript,
1 November 1995, pp 155-6.
|
