Assessing impacts on World Heritage as part of a wider environmental and social impact assessment

For many years, the World Heritage Committee has requested impact assessments to understand the consequences of proposed actions in or near World Heritage properties, and there is a great deal of professional expertise and guidance in this field. However, concerns have been raised about the rigour of these assessments on properties’ Outstanding Universal Value. A thorough understanding of OUV and other heritage/conservation values, and of the attributes that convey OUV, is crucial to conducting impact assessment for World Heritage.

Using the process outlined in Table 4.1, this section explains how a wider impact assessment should address World Heritage in order to meet the requirements of the World Heritage Convention.

Local communities, along with environmental and heritage authorities, should be involved as early as possible during World Heritage decision-making and impact assessment processes, so that their views can be heard and they can have a meaningful influence on the process. A human rights-based approach should be used – for example, if the impact assessment process would not normally include this kind of participation, it should do so to meet the requirements of the World Heritage Convention. Additionally, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that Indigenous peoples have the right to free, prior and informed consent prior to approval of any project affecting their lands, territories or other resources: this approach should be used for Indigenous peoples and should be considered for all local residents. The UNESCO Declarations, Conventions and Recommendations, including the 1972 Convention, contain important provisions regarding human rights, participation, community stewardship and customary practices governing access to culture and benefit sharing. The active involvement of local communities, Indigenous peoples and other rights-holders in all aspects of cultural and heritage life is also guided by the 2018 UNESCO Policy on Engaging with Indigenous Peoples.

➜ See also sections 2 and 6.2.

Proactive problem solving involves considering the proposed action throughout its development, to determine whether it is needed, whether an alternative approach would be more sustainable, whether any negative impacts could be avoided or minimized, and whether any positive impacts could be produced or enhanced.
➜ See also section 6.3

World Heritage properties are of international importance and should always be considered as sensitive and valued. In cases where a proposed action may affect a World Heritage property – either directly, indirectly or cumulatively with other actions – an impact assessment on the property and its OUV should be carried out. This applies even if the proposed action would have no other impact.

The proponent should prepare a brief screening report based on existing information, which includes:
i. The World Heritage property’s name and a map showing its boundary, buffer zone and (where appropriate) wider setting, as adopted by the World Heritage Committee12
ii. The World Heritage property’s Statement of Outstanding Universal Value
iii. The attributes that contribute to the OUV of the World Heritage property
iv. Other heritage/conservation values of the property
v. For each attribute or value, a preliminary assessment as to whether the proposed action will significantly affect that attribute or value.

Further information on these points will be collected and documented at the baseline assessment stage.

Tool 1 provides more information on identifying values and attributes, and Tool 2 provides guidance on identifying impacts. This will give the proponent an early indication of whether the action can go ahead and, if so, what measures might be required to protect the OUV. Mineral, oil and gas exploration or development is in all cases incompatible with World Heritage status. A number of industry leaders have adopted a ‘no go commitment’ not to explore or exploit for oil, gas or minerals in World Heritage properties, and ensure activities outside World Heritage properties do not negatively affect the OUV.

As the Secretariat of the World Heritage Convention, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre may ask a State Party to provide an impact assessment for a specific project or action, for example after being notified of a proposed or ongoing action, in line with Paragraph 172 or 174 of the Operational Guidelines. The World Heritage Committee may also request a State Party to carry out an impact assessment, notably upon reviewing a report on the state of conservation of a property and/or the outcomes of a Reactive Monitoring mission. If the Committee requests an impact assessment, for the State has the duty to provide this assessment in the timeframe required by the Committee.

In case of uncertainty, States Parties should contact the UNESCO World Heritage Centre early, to ensure that an activity that might negatively impact a World Heritage property’s OUV does not proceed. This can also help the proponent to better understand any concerns related to World Heritage and enable them to adjust the preliminary proposal before the formal screening steps of impact assessment.

➜ See also sections 3.3 and 6.4.

The process used to prepare the screening report in Step 1. will inform the scope of the assessment: the geographical boundary of the assessment (Figure 5.1), the topics analysed, and any possible alternatives. Appendix 1.1 provides a scoping checklist. Consideration should be given to what information is available and, should essential information not be currently available, a decision needs to be made if a valid assessment is feasible based on existing information sources. The scope of the assessment may go considerably beyond what might usually be assessed in order to fully address the World Heritage property’s OUV.

➜ See also section 6.5.

In addition to the standard description of heritage assets, the impact assessment baseline should discuss the World Heritage property’s OUV, other heritage/conservation values, attributes, boundary, buffer zone and wider setting. The identification and breakdown of OUV and attributes should be included in the management planning documents for the World Heritage property, to provide the baseline for all management actions. However, in the case that these are not readily available, this can be done through the use of Tool 1.

Although the baseline assessment concerns the current situation, it may be useful to revisit the condition of a World Heritage property at the time of its inscription, so that subsequent changes to OUV and the property’s state of conservation can be measured and potential vulnerabilities identified. It will also be necessary to consider likely future changes without the proposed action, such as other planned projects, emerging plans, and national or regional trends (e.g. improving air quality, worsening traffic, climate change). This can include a discussion of changes and threats that are less likely, but which would have a significant impact on the World Heritage property and its OUV, e.g. flooding, conflict, population displacement or landslides. This discussion of potential future change is particularly useful for identifying and evaluating cumulative impacts, showing where the effects of a proposed action may be more significant due to its connection to other actions in the past, present and foreseeable future.

➜ See also section 6.6.

The proposed action should be described in detail, including any associated works such as infrastructure. If necessary, further information should be sought, or additional documentation should be prepared to ensure that the nature and full extent of potential effects of the action can be understood – particularly how the action might affect the attributes that contribute to the OUV. It will often be useful to map the area of influence of the proposed action in relation to the attributes of the World Heritage property (Figure 5.1). Alternatives to the proposed action should be considered in order to establish the most sustainable option that both protects World Heritage and achieves the objectives of the proposed action. The option not to proceed should always be included. Alternatives should be assessed and compared on the same basis as the proposed action.

➜ See also sections 6.3 and 6.7.

The scoping stage identifies the range of impacts that should be considered in the impact assessment. Tool 2 shows how an action’s impacts on the attributes of a World Heritage property can be identified: each of the impacts identified needs to be explored in more detail in the impact assessment. During impact identification and prediction, it is important to remain aware of how a World Heritage property is interconnected with its buffer zone and wider setting, and that it cannot be viewed in isolation.

➜ See also section 6.8.

World Heritage should always be considered as a highly sensitive environment. World Heritage is inscribed on the premise that places are of Outstanding Universal Value for the entire global community. The international importance of OUV, and the fact that stakeholders are global, needs to be considered when evaluating the significance of any potential impacts. Impacts on OUV and its attributes should be considered separately from other heritage impacts: an action may, for instance, have limited impact on heritage/conservation values generally but a significant impact on OUV, or vice versa. It is often helpful to grade or rank the level of impact, particularly in cases where there may be less harmful alternatives. It is not acceptable to lose, damage or alter OUV because OUV is irreplaceable.

Tool 3 provides more information.

➜ See also section 6.9.

It is always preferable to avoid, rather than minimize, impacts on a World Heritage property’s attributes. Any loss of, or damage to OUV is unacceptable, which means that rectification, reduction (to less severe but still significant) or offsetting of impacts is inappropriate in a World Heritage context. However, it may be possible to enhance management of the OUV, for instance by providing patrols to prevent illegal activities or removing an obstruction to a view of the World Heritage property.

In cases where the data or technologies available are insufficient to predict potential impacts on the OUV, the Precautionary Principle should be applied: alternatives or appropriate mitigation measures should be identified that ensure that the OUV of a World Heritage property is never put at risk. This might mean taking the decision not to proceed with the proposed action due to a lack of information. Any proposed mitigation measures should be put forward in such a way that they can act as planning conditions on the proposed action, and integrated into a future implementation strategy (e.g. Environmental and Social Management Plan).

➜ See also sections 6.3 and 6.10.

Although various elements of World Heritage may be included in the impact assessment report (e.g. biodiversity, landscape, heritage), there should be a separate section to address the proposed action’s potential impacts on World Heritage and OUV. This section should:

• Present information on OUV, attributes and other heritage/conservation values
• Recommend alternatives, avoidance and mitigation measures, showing how these can be used by the relevant authorities to i) impose conditions on approval, and ii) link them to a future implementation strategy
• If necessary, recommend that the proposed action should not go ahead if impacts on OUV are likely to be significant.

The non-technical summary of the impact assessment report should include key points related to World Heritage.

➜ See also section 6.11.

The impact assessment report should be made available to rights-holders, other stakeholders and the wider public. If requested by the World Heritage Committee, or if the action may affect the OUV of the World Heritage property, then the impact assessment report would be submitted to the World Heritage Centre and reviewed by the Advisory Bodies. In any case where the potential impacts on OUV are not fully addressed, the State Party would be asked to revise the assessment.

➜ See also section 6.12.

As part of their obligations under the World Heritage Convention, States Parties are expected to take decisions on proposed actions that might have a potential impact on World Heritage properties in the light of their obligations under the World Heritage Convention; the impact assessment should help inform those decisions. An impact assessment in a World Heritage context is intended to ensure that a proposed action’s potential impacts on OUV are fully considered in decision-making, with the objective of safeguarding these exceptional places. Proposed actions that are not compatible with this objective should not be approved. Where an action is considered broadly compatible with the protection of World Heritage, mitigation measures specific to the protection of OUV should be identified.

➜ See also section 6.13.

Should a proposed action be approved, there must be a clear implementation and monitoring strategy for the mitigation measures identified in the impact assessment. For a minor project (such as changes to a single building) this may simply be an agreed list of implementation recommendations or commitments. For more complex actions, the mitigation measures should form the basis of a draft Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP), to be included in the proponent’s tender documentation when seeking contractors. The impacts of the proposed action and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures should also be monitored. Information on impacts and mitigation measures linked to the World Heritage property should be overseen by the environmental and heritage authorities, and the management team for the World Heritage property. The National Focal Point is also expected to follow up on implementation of the World Heritage Committee Decisions and Recommendations of the Advisory Bodies in this regard.

➜ See also section 6.14.