World Heritage Sites Developing a Successful Management Plan

Debborah Donnelly
University College Dublin
World Heritage Conservation
October 21, 2016

D. Donnelly

Introduction
The scope and effectiveness of a high-quality World Heritage mixed site (natural and cultural)
Management Plan is dependent on a variety of factors including the ability of the working groups
to identify and understand clearly the purpose of the document and how it should be useful to
the end users in the actual management of the site. The process should include following the
minimum requirements laid out in the World Heritage Operational Guidelines, with particular
focus on what makes their site unique.
There are no specific templates developed by UNESCO for use in creating a Management Plan,
and no one way that has been identified as a best example. Following are the descriptions and
reasons for including certain topics within a Management Plan, that can take into consideration
both the heritage and ecological aspects of a mixed site. Examples provided have been drawn
from a variety of plans, either natural, cultural or mixed, to demonstrate the importance of
including them in this register.
Challenges to creating a high-quality plan will also be identified in the hopes that when compiling
a plan they can be taken into consideration in order to minimize those potential impacts.

Minimum Guidelines
The World Heritage Convention (1972: 6) Article 5(d) specifies that States Parties must ensure,
to take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures
necessary for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of this
heritage ...
In addition to the Convention, World Heritage properties are also guided by specific principles
under the Operational Guidelines (2015: Sections 108119) with regards to Management
Systems.
Section 108. Each nominated property should have an appropriate management
plan or other documented management system which must specify how the
Outstanding Universal Value of a property should be preserved, preferably through
participatory means (UNESCO, 2015: 21).
To be noted in the above, are the terms documented and participatory, which are relevant to
the process of development of a management plan. Although, it should be noted that the term
should renders this optional.
In 2008 the IUCN issued guidelines for Natural World Heritage properties, that suggest the
following components be included in a management plan:

A commitment to implementing the plan to fulfil the obligations of the World Heritage
Convention.
An initial assessment and factual statement of the condition of the propertys natural
values,

D. Donnelly

including its features of Outstanding Universal Value, and an indication of their

relationship to its other characteristics.
The issues and challenges facing the property.
The long term ambition for the property, i.e. its vision and objectives.
The means of delivering the ambition, i.e. the range of management policies and
associated actions for the property, including the spatial expression of these policies
through, for instance, zoning plans or spatial analysis of natural and cultural factors
within and surrounding the property (IUCN, 2008: 16).

Key Components
In developing a starting point for creating a superior plan, it is best to start with the guidelines,
and then add components from experience, and examples from successful World Heritage
Management plans. While it is important for a management plan to be concise and therefore
useable, specific key components are required of a high-quality management plan. The
necessary items for a mixed site are more extensive than that of just a cultural site or of a natural
site, to ensure that the plan addresses both the cultural and ecological qualities of a property.
The following lists the recommended topics for coverage in an operative World Heritage mixed
site management plan, each topic is covered in more detail in the next section. The main points
to be covered are:

Purpose
Vision Statement
International, National and Provincial Frameworks
Ownership
Considerations for Public Participation
Context
Significance and Integrity
Heritage and Ecological Surveys
Heritage and Ecological Inventories
Risks and Risk Management
Conservation Program
Sources and levels of Finance
Sources of expertise and training in conservation and management techniques
Minimum Staffing levels
Sustainable Tourism
Regional Education Opportunities
Reporting Program - Monitoring and Evaluation Schedule

Development of a Plan
A description and reason(s) for including the preceding items as significant to a mixed site
Management Plan are explained below.
Purpose
o

The purpose statement should simply and briefly describe what are the goals and
objectives of the Management Plan and may include a note on:

D. Donnelly

Accountability for the mandate of the site

Framework on stakeholder collaboration

The Quttinirpaaq, Nunavut1 plan provides an excellent example of a purpose

statement:
A management plan is the central document that guides Parks Canada in the
protection, management, and operation of a national park. As the key
accountability document for the park to the Canadian public, the management plan
outlines how Parks Canadas legislated mandate of protection, education, and
enjoyment of the national park will be met. The plan also provides the framework
for how Parks Canada, Inuit, stakeholders, and the general public will work
together to manage the park for the long term. (Parks Canada, 2009: 1)
Vision Statement
o

A vision statement should be broad enough to ensure that the focus is not only on the
present condition of the site but should ensure the continued maintenance (of the
outstanding universal value) and development of the site for the future.

It should also specify the intent for safeguarding both the cultural knowledge and
materials, along with the natural ecosystems and biodiversity.

A well-written vision statement should provide some basis of structure for the rest of the
plan. For example, the Kakadu National Park Management Plan (2016: iii) includes the
following points:

Cultural and natural values of the park are protected;

The people of the Bininj/Mungguy culture are respected, and involved in all aspects
of managing the park, and shall make sustainable social and economic gains;

Knowledge of country and culture shall be passed down to succeeding generations;

Tourism is conducted in culturally, environmentally, socially and economically

sustainable ways;

And, disturbed areas are rehabilitated and reintegrated into the park.

From this example, you can see that the intent is for relevant stakeholders to be included,
that significance and integrity are being addressed, educational opportunities explored,
resources analysed and risk management and conservation programs will be considered.
International, National and Provincial Frameworks
o

Existing regulations, legislative authority, initiatives, partnership programs, and

resources need to be acknowledged within a plan so that actions can be taken and goals
made that are realistic, and can be reflective of these defining factors. This is a section
that provides context (outside of the geographic and historic) that is necessary for
efficient and effective management of a site.

Canadian tentative World Heritage List for a mixed property.

D. Donnelly

A good example of this is demonstrated by the Willandra National Park Plan of

Management (NSW, 2012: Section 2.1, p. 2) which details:

The management of national parks in NSW is in the context of a legislative and

policy framework, primarily the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act),
the NPW Regulation, Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and
the policies of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).
Other legislation, international agreements and charters may also apply to
management of the area. In particular, the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) may require the assessment and mitigation of
the environmental impacts of any works proposed in this plan. The Comonwealth
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) also
applies in relation to actions that may impact threatened species listed under that
Act.

Ownership
o

It is important to include a clear description of (all) the ownership of the land in question
(public a/o private). Not only does this help define the primary stakeholders, but also
ensures that consideration of the relationships between the different owners and access
to communications with them and between them are established.

The natural site of the Ogasawara Islands of Japan provides a clear and succinct
description under Ownership in their Protection and Management of the Property section
of their nomination file (Government of Japan, 2010: Section 5a, p.152). It states:
National forest, which is under the authority of the Forestry Agency, accounts for about
80% of the nominated property. Other than the national forest, the property includes
state-owned land administered by the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of the
Environment (MOE), etc., and land owned by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government
(TMG) and Ogasawara Village, as well as privately owned land. Contact information for
the MOE, the Forestry Agency, the TMG and Ogasawara Village, which are the major
owners of the land, is listed in Section 8.
This statement also provides information on the differing administrative bodies of the public
lands, which is even more important when you have the possibility of several diverse
ministries responsible for different areas of a site (i.e. cultural versus natural).
Considerations for Public Participation
o

Section 111 of the Operational Guidelines (2015) stipulate that, common elements of
an effective management system should include: a thorough shared understanding of
the property by all stakeholders, including the use of participatory planning and
stakeholder consultation process.

The Ivvavik National Park of Canada Management Plan (Parks Canada, 2007: 61), a
tentative mixed site, has a section entitled Partnership and Public Involvement. It discusses
both the formal and informal aspects involved in collaborative activities, to accomplish park
objectives. It provides the following examples:

D. Donnelly

collaborating with other government agencies on research and monitoring

operations;
working with a school principal to develop educational resources for Aklavik
youth;
cooperating with Inuvialuit and government agencies to develop tourism
products.

Context
o

A thorough geographical and historical background of the site should be highlighted in

the management plan. It shall provide context for users of the plan who may not have
all the important background information. Knowledge about the physical and social
history of the site ensures that decisions can be made that are reflective of this site,
which is unique in its basis. It is often from this information that makes it possible for the
reader to understand the reason for the site being granted outstanding universal value.

A concise example of context can be found in the Terrestrial Area Management Plan for the
Gwaii Haanas tentative mixed World Heritage site.2 This plan is also referred to by the
SGang Gwaay cultural site in Canada which was inscribed in 1981.
Gwaii Haanas lies in the southern part of Haida Gwaii, approximately 130 kilometres
off the British Columbia coast and 640 km north of Vancouver. The area encompasses
138 islands, including a large part of Moresby Island, and numerous smaller
islandsAccess is by boat and aircraft. Gwaii Haanas is known for its intact
ecosystems, distinct island flora and fauna, and outstanding Haida heritageThis rich
environment and Haida heritage have made Gwaii Haanas a protected area of
international importance (Archipelago Management Board, 2004: 2).
Significance and Integrity (Statement of OUV, Criteria for Inscription)
o

As delineated in the Operational Guidelines (2015), and the IUCN Resource Manual
(2008), this component is considered necessary. It should consist of the criteria and
integrity for which the site is nominated and/or inscribed.

Heritage and Ecological Surveys

o

Complete surveys of heritage sources and ecosystems should be established as a

baseline.

Ecosystem surveys should include terrestrial, freshwater and marine systems,

and include ecological stressors.

Note that this document was also submitted (under SGang Gwaay) as an example of Best Practice in the 2011
WHC request to
further explore ways of recognising and rewarding best practice through a one-off initiative at the closing event
of the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention in 2012.

D. Donnelly

Archaeological and other cultural sources should be delineated clearly and

often this whole section will include extensive maps and photos. Land use and
its patterns should also be specified here.

Heritage and Ecological Inventories

o

This section should include detailed inventories of current cultural resources on the
site, including changes that have been noted over a period of observation (if possible).

Identification and numeration of all species on the site with specific attention given to
those species identified on national lists (Species at Risk Act Canada) and/or the
IUCN Red List. These inventories help to determine if there are particularly sensitive
areas of the site that may need extra care.

Risks and Risk Management3

Under Section 111. c of the Operational Guidelines (2015) it is important to include an,
assessment of the vulnerabilities of the property to social, economic, and other pressures
and changes, as well as the monitoring of the impacts of trends and proposed interventions.
This speaks directly to Risk Analysis and Risk Management, through identifying hazards and
developing a risk matrix in order to determine which risks are most important to deal with to
reduce damage through mitigation efforts (for example).
o

Type of Hazards4

There are distinctions made on types of hazards based on how they may occur
which

includes

identifying

them

as

natural,

human-induced,

or

indirect/secondary (see examples in Table 1 below).

This process should include a comprehensive analysis of the property and

surrounding area to determine the type of hazards that may have an influence
on the site. On World Heritage sites, some obvious hazards would be tourism
use of the site, invasive species, neighbouring land-use, etc.

Identifying the impacts of differing pressures can help in making decisions about
which path to choose for changes to the environment, and would include things
like footprint (size of the site impacted), nature (e.g. development of a road
versus a trail), and type and intensity of activity associated with the pressure
(e.g. walking, biking, snowmobiles, ATVs) (Ontario MNR, 2014: 25).

Table 1. Example of risk relationships between natural and human-induced hazards

(UNESCO, 2010: Table 1, p. 9)
3

Risk: A potential event that, if it materializes, may have a positive or negative impact on the achievement of
UNESCOs objectives. Risk is as much a potential threat as a missed opportunity (UNESCO, 2016: 2)
4
Hazard: Any phenomenon, substance or situation, which has the potential to cause disruption
or damage to infrastructure and services, people, their property and their environment. (UNESCO, 2010: 58)

D. Donnelly

Risk matrix

An analysis of risk helps to determine priorities for action for a specific site. The
process includes listing the hazards (natural and human-induced), identifying
existing vulnerabilities, analysing a cause and effect relationship, and then
determining the potential impact (qualitatively and/or quantitatively). All of this
information is placed in a matrix which can help organisations to focus their
resources on those risks that have a high probability of occurring with the
maximum potential damage.

UNESCO has defined a qualitative Risk Assessment Scale (UNESCO, 2016:

Annex III) that describes likelihood and impact as follows:
-

Likelihood:
F
O
S

Frequent: likely to occur very often or continuously

Occasional: likely to occur several times
Seldom: is possible and would probably occur only once

Impact:
C
M

Critical: infers serious consequences

Marginal: infers minor consequences

D. Donnelly

Negligible: infers a minimal effect

Table 2. Risk Matrix

Impact

Likelihood
Frequent

Occasional

Seldom

Critical

Marginal

Negligible

Risk Management Cycle

-

It is very important to have an understanding of the Risk Management Cycle (see

Fig. 1) and to comprehend that the process of Risk Management is not static.
There should be ongoing work to monitor risks and evaluate changes to the
property, and to respond to new risks by analysing them (updating the matrix) to
reflect the new reality. Often risks may not be well understood until they occur,
but if there is a process in place to develop new procedures to mitigate the risks
on an ongoing basis then the ability to respond to a disaster will be improved.
Fig. 1 Disaster Risk Management Cycle (UNESCO, 2010: 13)

D. Donnelly

Conservation Program

Following the risk analysis and development of a risk matrix, a specific conservation
plan needs to be established that describes the Intervention, restoration, protection and
maintenance processes to be taken either as preventative actions or in response to a
problem (e.g. an insect infestation causing damage to cultural property or destroying a
natural habitat).

Sources and levels of Finance

o

By defining current funding streams, this helps to organize and keep goals in
perspective. Whatever funding is initially available is what is going to constrain the
operations of the site.

Government, UNESCO, private donors

Admissions, art sales, educational programs, guided tours

By specifying the intended direction for the planning to diversify and secure future
funding helps to initiate strategies that will help meet requirements to obtain that
funding. This can be directed by specific protection policies, creating fundraising
proposals, completing grant applications, etc.

Sources of expertise and training in conservation and management techniques5

o

This section and the next have not always been included in management plans, but the
Government of Japans nomination file for the Ogasawara Islands (2010: Section 5.g)
includes these sources in their management section but not within the actual
Management Plan. It should be noted that the nomination file works well in collaboration
with the Management Plan, and it for this reason that I feel it should be included within
the body of the Management Plan.

It spells out what resources in conservation techniques are available in the area and
connected directly with the site, so that if the need arises there is an easy way to access
these skills. Whether in a maintenance fashion or with regards to disaster planning or
response this is a useful section to incorporate.

The Ogasawara Ranger Office for Nature Conservation and the MOE's Kanto
Regional Environment Office are staffed with employees well-versed in the nature
protection systems and conservation management techniques(and) office staff
seek advice from outside specialists and universities as necessary, thereby securing
higher levels of expertise (Government of Japan, 2010: 175-176).

Government of Japan (2010: 175-178)

D. Donnelly

10

Minimum Staffing levels6

o

Section 5j of the Ogasawara Islands nomination (Government of Japan, 2010) file

includes numbers of staff and the specialty available to provide professional, technical
and maintenance work. It is broken down by government department or agency. Further
to this, it would be prudent to include minimum staffing levels for different areas of the
park, with seasonal fluctuations. This would all aid again in planning, budgeting and
emergency response efforts.

Sustainable Tourism
o

Identifying the numbers and types of expected tourists, how they travel and their needs
at the site are necessary in establishing sustainable tourism standards. There needs to
be a balance between economic gain and protecting the property, while still providing
opportunities for the tourist to engage with the site.

The Government of Australia (2010: Section 6.1) Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park
provides quotes by aboriginals as background to the Visitor Management section and
stipulates that the direction for the park concerning tourism is to:

offer visitors memorable and diverse experiences and insights into the parks
natural and living cultural landscapes

build strong and successful partnerships between Anangu, government and the
tourism industry to achieve sustainable tourism

provide meaningful and realistic opportunities for Anangu to engage in, and benefit
from, tourism.

This acknowledges the needs of the tourists, the need to be sustainable and protect the
environment, as well as including opportunities for the local populace.

Monitoring and Reporting Program

o

Section 111 of the Operational Guidelines includes the following as a requirement of an

effective management system:

a cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback.

This is necessary as no management plan is a static document, but must change to

reflect changing needs, philosophies, regulations, response to damage and
deterioration, etc. Like the Species at Risk cycle demonstrated in Fig. 2 below, there is
also need for the entire plan to be revised on a regular basis.

Government of Japan (2010: 186)

D. Donnelly

11

Fig. 2 Foundational Elements of the Species at Risk Conservation Cycle (Canadian Ministry of
the Environment, 2014)

Challenges
The number and type of stakeholders involved in assessments and management is vastly
increased on a site that covers both cultural and natural resources. The type of technical
expertise is particularly relevant in order to ensure that the cultural and scientific aspects are
fully explored and carefully managed.
The challenge with mixed site Management Plans is the need to balance the differing interests
and stakeholders involved.
Other challenges include:
Language and traditional methods of communication
There exist several challenges with both language and communication that can be a hindrance
to complying with the UNESCO World Heritage List Operational Guidelines. A country must
supply their nomination and all other communications to the World Heritage Committee in either
English or French, which is costly for translation particularly if neither English or French is in
common use in the country.
Another barrier is the reliance on some countries to communicate and manage under
conventional methods including oral traditions. While these methods may have been proven
effective in the long term in some jurisdictions, it can be a hindrance for ensuring that the goals
of meeting written requirements are made. For example, the nomination file for the Ennedi
Massif in Chad specified a reliance on traditional chieftain management structures.

D. Donnelly

12

Des formes de gestion traditionnelle ont garanti la conservation des ressources

naturelles et le bientre de la population jusqu ce jour. Ce systme est encore vivant
et fonctionnel et est garanti par les structures sociales traditionnelles de la chefferie
(Rp du Tchad, 2015: 5).
This form of management was recognized as insufficient by both IUCN (2016: 101-102) and
ICOMOS (2016: 32) conducting evaluations on the site, however this did not defer the
inscription which was granted in July 2016.
Examples of Management Plans
Examples of mixed sites Management Plans are limited on the World Heritage List. Of 34 mixed
sites, only 22 or 64% have a documented plan (see Table 3). Of the 22 plans referenced as
existing, only 12 were located. Many are not accessible through the World Heritage List website,
or elsewhere online. References to plans are noted in the table below, but actual documents
were not always found. Plans may exist in other languages and have not been translated, or if
submitted to the WHC, have not been uploaded. Where found, the plans have been included in
the bibliography.
Table 3. Existing Plans for Mixed World Heritage Sites
Site

Inscription

Kakadu National Park,

Australia
Willandra Lakes
Region, Australia
Tasmania Wilderness,
Australia
Uluru-Kata Tjuta
National Park, Australia
Ennedi Massif, Chad

1981

Plan/
No
Plan
Yes

Date
of
Plan
2016

Government of Australia (2016)

1981

Yes

2012

NSW Government (2012)

1982

Yes

2002

Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service (2002)

1987

Yes

2010

Government of Australia (2010)

2016

No

Mount Taishan, China

1987

Mount Huangshan,
China

1990

Yes

2007

Mount Emei, China

1996

Yes

Mount Wuyi, China

1999

Pyrnes - Mont
Perdu, France/ Spain

1997

Information

IUCN (2016: 103) There is currently neither fully functioning

management, nor budget and adequate management plan
available for the nominated property.
The Periodic Report (2003) invites China to submit a
management plan but nothing is posted, and an online search
was unsuccessful.
ICOMOS Advisory Body evaluation (2012: 3) of Mount
Huangshan references, the Master Plan of Huangshan
National Park, which was approved by China's State Council
in 2007 not found
IUCN Advisory Body evaluation (1996: 24) references, A
General Plan, approved by the State Council, together with
specialized conservation and management
plans,
An overall management plan does not appear to exist;
however, the nomination file provides several appendices with
legal protections for different sectors dating back as early as
1985 (PRC, 1999: Appendices 1-10)
38 COM 7B.57 (2014) requests the two States Parties to
continue their collaboration to complete the joint Management
Plan as soon as possible.

D. Donnelly

13

Lop-Okanda, Gabon

2007

Yes

2006

Rpublique Gabonaise (2006) Plan de gestion du parc national

de la Lop 2006 2011.; The 2015 State of Conservation
Report notes that A draft management plan for 2013-2017 is
pending approval but has not been uploaded. It appears the
management plan is out of date.
Periodic Report, Second Cycle (2014) 4.3.1 There is no
Management Plan, although one was in preparation in 2006
WHC-12/36.COM/7B.Add (2012) Lack of overall management
plan covering both the natural and cultural values of the
property
A request was made in 1994 to prepare a management plan
and it was not funded by international assistance. (UNESCO,
1999)
Republic of India (2016) Nomination File Appendix 18. / IUCN
(2016: 127) The KNP Management Plan (2008-2018)
provides overarching guidance and zonation is a key
management instrument.
Republic of Iraq (2014)

Meteora, Greece

1988

No

Mount Athos, Greece

1988

No

Tikal National Park,

Guatemala

1979

No

Khangchendzonga
National Park, India

2016

Yes

2008

The Ahwar of
Southern Iraq
Blue and John Crow
Mountains, Jamaica

2016

Yes

2014

2015

Yes

2011

Wadi Rum, Jordan

2011

Yes

Maloti-Drakensberg
Park, Lesotho

2000

Yes

Cliff of Bandiagara
(Land of the Dogons),
Mali

1989

Yes

2006

Calakmul, Campeche,
Mexico
Tongariro National
Park, New Zealand
Rock Islands Southern
Lagoon, Palau
Machu Picchu, Peru

2002

No

1990

Yes

2006

Part of the nomination file (2015) Section 5e states the current

management plan is for the period 2011-2016 and is included
in Appendix II as 4 separate plans.
State of Conservation Report (2016) reiterates its request to
the State Party to ensure that the revised Management Plan
provides legal measures and policies, backed by the
necessary staff and financial resources
Nomination File (2000) Appendix 5 (undated plan); State of
Conservation Report (2015) notes that the State Party is in the
process of updating the Cultural Heritage Management Plan
and then requests the State Party continue to develop a
Biodiversity Resources Management Bill and provide to the
WHC.
State of Conservation Report (2016) Requests the State Party
to commence the process for the updating of the management
and conservation plan with the active participation of all
stakeholder
WHC16-40com-7BAdd (2016) Factor noted in 2014 included a
lack of an integrated Protection and Management Plan
New Zealand Dept. of Conservation (2006)

2012

Yes

2012

Koror State Government (2012)

1983

Yes

Ro Abiseo National
Park, Peru

1990

Ibiza, Spain

1999

No

Laponian Area,
Sweden
Ohrid Region,
Macedonia

1996

Yes

2015

In 1991 $40,000 was approved for the preparation of a Master

Management Plan, and there is a reference to an update of the
Master Plan which was concluded in December 2014 (State of
Conservation Report 2015) could not locate a copy
State of Conservation Report (1994) recommends a coherent
development plan for the Park, aiming at conserving both its
natural and cultural resources, should be maintained but again
was not accessible
Periodic Report Second Cycle (2014) 4.3.2 The
Management Plan for the site "Ibiza, Biodiversity and Culture"
is currently being drafted.
Government of Sweden (2015)

1979

Yes

2014

Ohrid (2014)

D. Donnelly

14

Greme National Park

and the Rock Sites of
Cappadocia, Turkey
Hierapolis-Pamukkale,
Turkey

1985

No

1988

No

St Kilda, UK

1986

Yes

2012

Ngorongoro
Conservation Area,
Tanzania

1979

Yes

Papahnaumokukea,
USA
Trng An, Viet Nam

2010

Yes

2007

2014

Yes

2003

Periodic Report Second Cycle (2014) 4.3.1. No

management plan has been submitted yet and no on-site
manager/coordinator appointed.
Periodic Report Second Cycle (2014) A Steering Group was
set up to prepare a plan in 2000, and it was identified as a
priority in 2004, but they still have no plan.
Periodic Report Section II St Kilda (2014) 4.3.1 There is a
St. Kilda World Heritage Site Management Plan 2003-2008,
agreed by the National Trust for Scotland with its partners. /
The National Trust for Scotland (2012)
State of Conservation Report (2015) notes a 1979 financial
grant for establishment of a management plan; but that also
the State Party plans to commission a consultancy for the
development of General Management Plans and Conservation
Plans a 10-year General Management Plan is to be submitted
for review in 2016.
US Fish & Wildlife Service (2007)
Government of Vietnam (2014) Nomination File Item 5e refers
to Management Plans. State of Conservation Report (2016)
Notes with significant concern that the State Party has not
included adequate measures in the revised management plan
concerning the management of tourism and cultural heritage

Relevant to the data that can be extrapolated from Table 3 is that existing and accessible mixed
site plans for use in comparisons and for emulating are all from the past decade and generally
have been found to be well-represented on either culture or nature, but rarely both.

Conclusion
While the selection of components for a mixed property comes from a vast array of topics, the
items specified are the minimum necessary to ensure not only the effectiveness of the plan, but
provide background and guidelines for changes that may be anticipated or may occur without
notice. A plan is a document that provides a starting point for the development and management
of a site.
The main challenges for many who have to create a plan for a World Heritage property is that
cost, communication, overload or lack of information, can prevent a plan from meeting those
main two requirements of being both useable and effective. While the opportunity to glean
examples from ever more mixed properties arise, there is an opportunity to revise and develop
a standard template that would make the whole process easier.

D. Donnelly

15

References
Archipelago Management Board (2004) Gwaii Haanas National Park and Reserve and Haida
Heritage Site Management Plan for the Terrestrial Area. http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pnnp/bc/gwaiihaanas/plan/plan1.aspx
Canadian Ministry of the Environment (2014) National Framework for Species at Risk
Conservation (NFSARC). http://www.registrelepsararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=236A2A34-1
Government of Australia (2016) Kakadu National Park Management Plan 2016-2026.
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1f88c5a3-409c-4ed9-9129ea0aaddd4f33/files/kakadu-management-plan-2016-2026.pdf
Government of Australia (2010) Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Management Plan 20102020.
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/f7d3c167-8bd1-470a-a502ba222067e1ac/files/management-plan.pdf
Rpublique Gabonaise (2006) Plan de gestion du parc national de la Lop 2006 2011.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1147/documents/
Government of Japan (2010) Nomination of the Ogasawara Islands for Inscription on the World
Heritage List. UNESCO World Heritage website
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1362.pdf
Government of Sweden (2015) Laponia: Tjuottjusplna Frvaltningsplan / Management plan.
http://laponia.nu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Laponia-forvaltningsplan-eng-web150327_2.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-58,848
Government of Vietnam (2014) Trng An Landscape Complex Ninh Bnh, Vietnam.
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1438.pdf
ICOMOS (2016) Evaluations of Nominations of Cultural and Mixed Properties to the World
Heritage List ICOMOS Report for the World Heritage Committee 40th ordinary session,
Istanbul, 10-20 July 2016. WHC/16/40.COM/INF.8B1.
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2016/whc16-40com-inf8B1-en.pdf
ICOMOS (2012) Mount Huangshan (China) No 547.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/547/documents/
IUCN (2016) IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2016: IUCN Evaluations of nominations of
natural and mixed properties to the World Heritage List. WHC/16/40.COM/INF.8B2.
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2016/whc16-40com-inf8B2-en.pdf
IUCN (2016a) World Heritage Nomination IUCN Technical Evaluation
KHANGCHENDZONGA NATIONAL PARK (INDIA) ID 1513.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1513/documents/
IUCN (2011) IUCN Evaluation Report (Asia/Pacific): Ogasawara Islands, Japan.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1362/documents/
IUCN (2008) Management Planning for Natural World Heritage Properties: a Resource Manual
for Practitioners. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/whmanagement.pdf
IUCN (1996) World Heritage Nomination IUCN Summary Mount Emei and Leshan Giant
Buddha (China). http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/779/documents/

D. Donnelly

16

Japan Ministry of the Environment, Forestry Agency, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Tokyo
Metropolitan Government, Ogasawara Village, Japan (2010) Ogasawara Islands Management
Plan (English translation for World Heritage nomination)
http://www.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/en/attachement/kanrikeikaku_eigo.pdf
Koror State Government Republic of Palau (2012) Rock Islands Southern Lagoon Management
Plan 2012-2016.
http://www.palaupanfund.org/pdf/managementplan/koror/Rock%20Islands%20Southern%20La
goon%20Area%20Management%20Plan%202012-2016%20latest%20July%2018.pdf
NSW Government (2012) Plan of Management: Willandra National Park. NSW National Parks
and Wildlife Service.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/planmanagement/final/20120913WillandraFinal.
pdf
New Zealand Department of Conservation (2006) Tongariro National Park Management Plan
2006-2016. http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/policies-and-plans/national-parkmanagement-plans/tongariro-national-park/tongariro-national-park-management-plan.pdf
Ohrid (2014) Management Plan of the Municipality of Ohrid for World Heritage property: Natural
and Cultural heritage of the Ohrid region 2014-2020. http://www.southeasteurope.net/document.cmt?id=785
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2014) Guideline to Management Planning for Protected
Areas in the Context of Ecological Integrity. Peterborough. Queens Printer for Ontario.
https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/4 789/prov-gl-planningguideline-app-uc-finals.pdf
Parks Canada (2009) Quttinirpaaq National Park of Canada: Management Plan.
http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/nu/quttinirpaaq/plan.aspx [12 Oct 2016].
Parks Canada (2007) Ivvavik National Park of Canada: Management Plan.
http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/yt/ivvavik/plan/plan1.aspx [12 Oct 2016].
Peoples Republic of China (1999) WHC Nomination Documentation Mount Wuyi.
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/911.pdf
Republic of India (2016) Nomination of Khangchendzonga National Park for inscription on the
World Heritage List. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1513.pdf
Republic of Iraq. Ministry of Environment (2014) The Ahwar Marshlands of Southern Iraq. The
Consolidated Management Plan for the Protected Areas of the Huwaizah Marshes, the Central
Marshes, East Hammar Marshes and the West Hammar Marshes.
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1481.pdf
Rpublique du Tchad (2015) Proposition dinscription du Massif de lEnnedi paysage naturel et
culturel sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial TCHAD
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1475.pdf [10 Oct 2016].
Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service (2002) Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area
Management Plan 2002. http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=7091
The National Trust for Scotland (2012) St Kilda World Heritage Site Management Plan 20122017. http://www.kilda.org.uk/St%20Kilda%20Management%20Plan_ENGLISH_dpsFINAL.pdf

D. Donnelly

17

Thomas, L., Middleton, J. (2003) World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Guidelines for
Management Planning of Protected Areas. IUCN, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. http://dlistasclme.org/sites/default/files/doclib/PAG-010.pdf
UNESCO (2016) UNESCO Risk Management Policy (final draft). August 2016,
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/BSP/pdf/DraftRMpolicy.pdf [13 Oct
2016]
UNESCO (2016a) Progress Report on the Development of the Management Plan for Mixed
Property ANCIENT MAYA CITY AND PROTECTED TROPICAL FORESTS OF CALAKMUL,
CAMPECHE. whc.unesco.org/document/140563
UNESCO (2015) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention - WHC.15/01 8 July 2015. UNESCO Website http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/
UNESCO (2012) Managing Natural World Heritage. World Heritage Resource Manual.
UNESCO, Paris. http://whc.unesco.org/document/117412
UNESCO (2012a) WHC-12/36.COM/7B.Add. World Heritage Committee Thirty-sixth session.
Mount Athos, Greece pp. 87-89. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2012/whc12-36com-7BAdden.pdf
UNESCO (2010) Managing Disaster Risks for World Heritage.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/managing-disaster-risks/
UNESCO (2010a) Risk Management Training Handbook. Bureau of Strategic Planning.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001906/190604E.pdf
UNESCO (1999) State of Conservation Report Tikal National Park (Guatemala).
http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3047
UNESCO (1972) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) Papahnaumokukea Marine National Monument
Management Plan.
http://www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/management/mp/MMP_FinalScopeRepSum092507.pdf
World Heritage Centre (2014) Periodic Report Section II Meteora.
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/periodicreporting/EUR/cycle02/section2/groupb/455.pdf

Word count (excluding footnotes and references) 4861