UNITAR World Heritage Training Series Report 2003-2018

U N I TA R H I RO S H I M A O F F I C E 1

World Heritage Training Series 2003-2018

Foreword 2

Based in this unique location, the UNITAR Hiroshima Office officially launched the Training Programme on World Heritage Sites in 2003 and has since implemented the training on an annual basis. We have developed this report to explore lessons learned over the past 15 years, identify good practices and areas that could benefit from further improvement and share these lessons widely with like-minded practitioners and organizations that have been striving for the development of human resources in the field of World Heritage.

Thanks go to the UNITAR Hiroshima Office for their support of the UNITAR World Heritage Training Series over the years, in particular: Nassrine Azimi, Alex Mejia, Brandon Turner, Mihoko Kumamoto, Hiroko Nakayama, Sergei Shaposhnikov, Atsushi Yasui, Sharapiya Kakimova, James Short, Berin McKenzie, Kaori Okabe, Junko Shimazu, Naoko Hashihama, Nobuaki Nishikawa, Kaori Ito, Annelise Giseburt, Kenta Matsuoka, and Nigel Gan.

We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to those who have provided UNITAR Hiroshima Office with unwavering support – Hiroshima Prefecture, Hiroshima City, the United Nations Educational Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and many other organizations and individuals.

Mihoko Kumamoto Director, UNITAR Hiroshima Office

3

It is our common responsibility to pass lessons from our history to future generations so that humanity will prosper. Hiroshima is one of the unique places in the world that has seen both the bright and dark sides of humankind, and its two World Heritage sites illustrate that dichotomy.

Itsukushima Shinto Shrine showcases the ingenuity of people. On the other hand, the Genbaku (Atomic Bomb) Dome continues to warn of the inhumanity of war and remind people not to make the same mistakes.

The UNITAR World Heritage Training Series has been providing training workshops since a pilot workshop in 2001 and then annually from 2004 to 2016. Together with an alumni roundtable held in 2018 to explore lessons learned and the links between heritage and sustainable development, it is timely to review the achievements of the Series over this time and to consider opportunities for the future.

This publication provides a record of the Series: what was undertaken, what it achieved and reflections on possible future World Heritage training by UNITAR or other organisations.

The UNITAR Hiroshima Office would like to thank all its supporters and partners of the Series.

The UNITAR World Heritage Training Series provided training for regional and, later, global participants in a range of topics related to World Heritage. In total, over 400 participants attended from 60 countries, with an average of 25 participants per workshop.

While the structure and content of the workshops has changed over the years, standard and recent elements have been: • basic aspects of the World Heritage system; • a focus on nominations; • special topics; • site visits to the two World Heritage properties in Hiroshima; and • a major group exercise.

Over the years, the workshops were noted for the enthusiasm and hard work of the participants, the expertise and good humour of Resource Persons, and the tremendous support of UNITAR staff. These were vital elements of the workshops and contributed to the longevity of the Series.

The 2016 workshop summary evaluation of participants noted: ‘Overall, the responses received where overwhelmingly positive… 100% of respondents found the Workshop “very useful,” with 100% indicating that they would recommend it to a colleague. Notably, 22% of respondents felt that they possessed high to moderately high knowledge, skills or competencies… before the Workshop, while 100% of respondents felt that they had gained such during the Workshop… All of the participants ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that it was likely they would use the information acquired.

With regard to the methodology utilised in the Workshop, including interactive lectures, after action reviews, practical exercises and study visits, 100% of respondents indicated that they “strongly agree” or “agree” that it was useful. The trainers/ facilitators of the Workshop were seen as effective at stimulating participant involvement by 92% of respondents and were seen as effective at presenting information and responding to questions by 100% of participants.’ (UNITAR 2016)

Other key comments regarding the impact of the Series include: • the positive networking between participants, including with each other and Resource Persons; • despite the focus on World Heritage, many of the lessons and techniques could also be applied to all heritage, and so these lessons and techniques were potentially beneficial to a much broader range of sites and properties; • having two quite different World Heritage properties close by for visits in Hiroshima was a great benefit, not just for the participants but also for the site custodians; • participants working on their real nomination projects were helped to go back to their countries and continue with a nomination, develop better nominations or, in at least one instance, abandon a nomination that appeared to have little potential for inscription when discussed in a workshop;

5

4

Executive Summary

The key messages arising from a range of consultations during the review of the Series held in 2018 were that: • the UNITAR World Heritage Training Series was a highly valued and valuable training program; and • such training must be continued, building on the UNITAR experience and refining the training, ideally by UNITAR or by others.

With regard to the objective, structure and content of such training into the future, suggestions related to: • topics addressing current and future issues. The World Heritage

6

concept and definitions are evolving, and training should also evolve; • there could be courses prepared for specific topics or specific participants; • the design of workshops should consider overlap or complementarity with other training programs; • UNITAR could provide a unique platform for integrating heritage management with the Sustainable Development Goals; • building the brand of UNITAR with regard to peace and heritage; and • the training design should not just be about conveying information but should consider developing solutions to the challenges faced by participants.

In terms of future participant selection: • it is imperative that the participants selected are compatible with the workshops, which means either the workshop can be adapted to participants or participants need to be selected carefully to suit a workshop; • depending on the training, there may be a range of audiences, for example based on need, demand or topic; • identifying suitable people for World Heritage training may be assisted by creating focal points at country or regional levels; and • funding support for some participants will be important.

The selection and involvement of highly credentialed Resource Persons is vital for the credibility of future training but also as a marketing opportunity. This includes high-level teaching skills. Although this does not necessarily mean that Resource Persons should only be academics – experts working in the field can bring considerable practical credibility to any training. Links to key partner organisations are also highly desirable (e.g. UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies).

7

• the great value of practical exercises, even if they are not technically perfect: the positive engagement with a practical exercise and engagement with a process being beneficial even if some technical content is not fully understood or correct; • some participants did not or could not engage very effectively with the workshop, generally because of language issues, despite the best efforts of UNITAR to ensure reasonable proficiency in English as the working language of the series; • the loss of the scholarships in recent years, requiring participants fund travel and accommodation, altered the mix of participants or countries attending; • the lead-in time for the workshops was reported by some beneficiaries to have been too short; • the alumni presented a great opportunity for further engagement, including, for example, further in-country or regional workshops, though for a number of reasons, primarily funding availability, the potential was probably never exploited very successfully; and • the possibility of focusing more on training trainers to maximise the benefits of the workshops to a much wider audience.

While the focus of these reflections is mostly oriented to using workshops as the vehicle for training, a broader consideration should be given to the range of tools, techniques and materials used in training. While some resources exist, it is not clear that there is a central or adequate reference point, comprehensive package, or lead agency. Could UNITAR package the best of its training modules for online presentation? Could UNITAR become such a lead agency?

The objective of any training would benefit from long-term collaboration with and between participants, and the alumni of the UNITAR World Heritage Training Series presents a great opportunity. This should be explored.

8

The link between heritage, including World Heritage, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) seems often to be narrowly perceived. One of the major benefits of the 2018 workshop was the opportunity to break down this perception and to foster the realisation that the goals can often be quite broadly linked to heritage.

Placing heritage in this broader context provides several benefits. It demonstrates the importance of heritage to many aspects of human societies and the environment – it is not just a narrow or elite interest.

Additionally, the priority and resourcing for heritage is often low or constrained, yet the priority for issues designated in the SDGs is often much higher (e.g. alleviating poverty or improving education). When the links to these other goals are more clearly appreciated, there is an opportunity for heritage to benefit. Engagement could take many forms or be supported by a range of measures, including broad-scale awareness training, more detailed training dealing with a limited range of goals, the development of training materials and the preparation of case studies.

‘The calibre of the presenters and lecturers was exemplary, as was the approach to the training and the content. The group exercises were stimulating and intensive, thereby ensuring that the content was understood and internalised and the time used very productively.’ (Workshop participant, 2012)

9

The logistical arrangements of previous workshops have generally been very suitable. However, in terms of future arrangements: • holding the workshop in Spring may not be the best time of year; • marketing the Series is obviously an important issue to ensure a sufficient number of quality applications from those most likely to benefit. Perhaps a simple marketing strategy should be developed, also considering the existence of other courses or training opportunities, as well as the needs of countries and regions.

Regular side-sessions at World Heritage Committee meetings may be a worthwhile investment for maintaining the visibility of the Series, for identifying needs and for marketing; and • the relatively short notice given for workshops in the call for applications may be a significant problem. A longer time period for the notice should be given, ideally one year.

Contents 11

10

FO R E WOR D 3 EXEC U TIV E S U MMA RY 4 I NTROD U C TI O N 12 AC KN OW L ED GE ME N T S 13 H I STORY OF T HE SE R I E S 14 I MPACT OF T HE SE R I E S 24 REFL ECTION S O N F U T U R E T R AINING 31 H ERITAG E A N D SU S TA I NA B L E DE V E LO P ME NT 36 ANN E X E S 44

Acknowledgements 12

Introduction

The UNITAR World Heritage Training Series has been providing training workshops since a pilot workshop in 2001 and then annually from 2004 to 2016. Together with an alumni roundtable held in 2018 to explore lessons learned from the Series, it is timely to review the achievements of the Series over this time and to consider opportunities for the future.

This publication provides a record of the UNITAR World Heritage Training Series – what was undertaken and what it achieved, reflections on possible future World Heritage training by UNITAR or other organisations, as well as a brief examination of the linkages between heritage and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

This report has been prepared by Duncan Marshall, ICOMOS, who was a Resource Person for the Series from its inception and in later years was the lead Resource Person.

The UNITAR Hiroshima Office would like to thank, in particular, the following organisations for their support: • Hiroshima Prefectural Government; • City of Hiroshima Government; • UNESCO Field Offices and the World Heritage Centre; • International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS); • International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); • International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM); • Getty Conservation Institute; • Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum; • Itsukushima Shinto Shrine; • Hiroshima University; • Hiroshima International University; • University of Hyogo; and • many other universities and research organisations who have assisted over the years.

The UNITAR Hiroshima Office would also like to recognise the tremendous contribution of the Resource Persons to the Series, including: Richard Engelhardt, Duncan Marshall, Qunli Han, François LeBlanc, Jeffrey Cody, Yushi Utaka, Katsuko Kataoka, Kumiko Yoneda, Vinod Mathur, Ryuichi Fukuhara, Leticia Leitao, Cristi Nozawa, Paul Mahoney, Takahiko Makino, Junko Taniguchi, Yasuyoshi Okada, Ilse Wurst, Norioki Ishimaru, Masanori Nagaoka, Jamili Naiz, Montira Horayangura, and Nobuyuki Uemura.

13

The UNITAR Hiroshima Office would like to thank all of its supporters and partners of the Series. The Series could not be successful without the dedicated support of many organisations and individuals, in Japan and around the world, who supported the Series in many ways.

U N I TA R

W O R L D H E R I TAG E

The United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) was established in 1965 as an autonomous body within the United Nations and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. The mandate of UNITAR is to enhance the effectiveness of the work of the United Nations and its Member States in the fields of peace and security and in the promotion of economic and social development. UNITAR provides training and knowledge-sharing services to approximately 55,000 participants per year in some 500 different types of activities, applying both face-toface and technologically enhanced learning methodologies, and seeks to position itself to make a significant contribution towards addressing capacity development needs of beneficiaries from developing and emerging countries through strategic and privileged partnerships with a diverse range of organizations.

The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage or the World Heritage Convention was adopted by UNESCO in 1972. The convention:

In 2001, the Hiroshima Prefectural Government agreed to support the establishment of a UNITAR office in Hiroshima, ‘in response to the desire of its people and authorities to contribute more actively to global peace and development.’ (unitar.org/hiroshima)

The UNITAR Hiroshima Office is the only United Nations entity in this symbolic city. It has more than 15 years’ experience in designing and conducting training in World Heritage, as well as peacebuilding, post-conflict reconstruction, human security, and disarmament, and it commands a unique understanding of the needs of beneficiaries in these areas.

‘aims at the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of cultural and natural heritage of Outstanding Universal Value.’ (Operational Guidelines, para 7) ‘defines the kind of natural or cultural sites which can be considered for inscription on the World Heritage List.

‘The Convention sets out the duties of States Parties in identifying potential sites and their role in protecting and preserving them. By signing the Convention, each country pledges to conserve not only the World Heritage sites situated on its territory, but also to protect its national heritage. The States Parties are encouraged to integrate the protection of the cultural and natural heritage into regional planning programmes, set up staff and services at their sites, undertake scientific and technical conservation research and adopt measures which give this heritage a function in the day-to-day life of the community.’ (whc.unesco.org/en/convention/)

It has been ratified by 193 countries by 2017. A major component of the convention is the creation of the World Heritage List, which contains properties of cultural or natural value considered to be of Outstanding Universal Value.

In 2018, the World Heritage List included 1,092 properties from 167 States Parties. Two of those properties are in Hiroshima: the Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) and Itsukushima Shinto Shrine.

15

14

History of the Series

The UNITAR World Heritage Training Series provides training for regional and global participants in a range of topics related to World Heritage.

A pilot workshop was undertaken in 2001, the Series was launched in 2003, and this was followed by annual workshops from 2004 to 2016, with an alumni roundtable held in 2018. In addition, one in-country workshop was held in India in 2005. The workshops were usually about five days in duration. The workshops utilised expert insight and experience, as well as exchanging know-how on best practices and case studies.

In total, over 400 participants attended from 60 countries, with an average of 25 participants per workshop. Participants all had some connection to World Heritage and a need for training. They include: • those involved in the preparation of World Heritage nominations; • potential or current World Heritage site managers; • natural and cultural conservation specialists and trainers; • decision-makers and government officers; and • representatives of academic institutions, think tanks and civil society.

Their training needs covered the wide range of topics related to World Heritage, from basic concepts and information to sophisticated technical details.

The Resource Persons from the Series were heritage experts drawn from UNESCO, two of the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Convention (ICOMOS and IUCN), as well as a range of other specialist conservation organisations, research organisations and universities.

The focus of the workshops varied over the years. From 2004 to 2010, the programme was entitled “UNITAR Series on the Management and Conservation of World Heritage Sites.” From 2011, the programme was structured around a six-year cycle of topics specifically related to World Heritage nominations, although nominations had been addressed in the previous workshops, and sought to contribute to capacity building for World Heritage by focusing on specific elements required through the process of nominating national sites for inscription on the World Heritage List. Reflecting this, the series name was changed to the “UNITAR World Heritage Nominations Training Series.” This publication refers to the entirety of the workshops as the “UNITAR World Heritage Training Series” or “the Series.”

17

16

O V E R V I E W O F T H E W O R L D H E R I TAG E S E R I E S

HISTORIC AL BACKGROUND TO THE SERIES ‘I found the session on Outstanding Universal Value to be the most important one because identifying and justifying the OUV forms the fundamental basis of any nomination. I remember sessions where, as trainees, we had to prepare statements of universal value and practice what the illustrations for each justification entailed. This was one of the most useful desk exercises. I recall that the structure was nicely balanced with interactive presentations or lectures, study tours and practical desk exercises.’ (Workshop participant, 2009)

Dr. Nassrine Azimi, founder and former director of the UNITAR Hiroshima Office The design of the Series, started in 2000-2001, emanated initially from in-depth discussions between UNITAR and Hiroshima Prefecture, with the UNITAR team trying to understand from authorities what programs they felt most strongly embodied Hiroshima’s universality.

The diversity – culturally, professionally, personally – of the team brainstorming on the World Heritage Training Series between 20012003 was key, as was the quality of Resource Persons we consulted, all of whom were world-class professionals engaged in the cause

of WHS for decades. I must mention, too, the importance of the pilot phase that UNITAR ran between late 2001 and early 2003. This period of listening, learning, adjusting and refining helped us fine tune the Series before the official opening of the office in July 2003.

Selection criteria were also strict, and the availability of about 20 full scholarships for individuals from developing countries allowed UNITAR to be highly selective in choosing the very best applicants, while having the means to reach out to countries most in need of the training (but leaving participation open to others as well).

The UNITAR team strived to cultivate diversity as well as a certain

F U R T H E R D E TA I L S A B O U T T H E T R A I N I N G S E R I E S 18

The agenda (Annex 2) for the workshops was developed by UNITAR staff and the Resource Persons.

intensity through emotional encounters with hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors), daily walks through the Peace Park, and observing traditional dances at Itsukushima Shinto Shrine. Even the season (spring) was made part of the week-long WHS training experience. It must be said that the place of Auschwitz in our consciousness was acute from the start, in parallel with place of the Genbaku Dome; participants were encouraged to think about what kind of heritage humanity should never forget.

The continuous and healthy tensions between different interpretations and priorities of World Heritage proved exciting and appropriate for out-of-the-box learning: There were ongoing

debates about tangible versus intangible, nature versus culture and later the meaning of Conservation for Peace and of the Sustainable Development Goals. The training gravitated between idealism and pragmatism, theoretical (lectures) and practical (team work to prepare nomination dossiers), indoor and outdoor, culture and nature. My one personal regret is that we did not delve enough to develop a module on the history of World Heritage and the convention itself, including where it comes from and where it is headed. A greater understanding of these roots and the philosophy behind the birth of the convention could be a binding factor for WHS communities around the world.

The basic aspects of World Heritage addressed usually included: • principles and objectives of the World Heritage Convention; • the Convention and Operational Guidelines to the Convention; • main actors under the convention, including the World Heritage Committee, World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies; and • key concepts in World Heritage, especially Outstanding Universal Value and the Criteria for the World Heritage List.

The focus on World Heritage nominations includes: • the nomination process; • format for nominations; • general tips on writing and preparing a nomination; • the comparative analysis; • evaluation process undertaken by the Advisory Bodies; and • the major group exercise, often focused on key aspects of a nomination.

These have been: • 2016 – World Heritage Nominations: Justification for Inscription; • 2015 – World Heritage Nominations: Protection and Management Requirements; • 2014 – World Heritage Nominations: Justification for the Inscription of Cultural Landscapes; • 2013 – World Heritage Serial Nominations: The Vital Role of Comparative Analysis; • 2012 – World Heritage Nominations: Justification of Outstanding Universal Value; • 2011 – World Heritage Nominations: UNESCO’s Preparing World Heritage Nominations Manual and Comparative Analysis in the Nominations Process; • 2010 – Conservation Monitoring and Monitoring Indicators; • 2009 – World Heritage Impact Assessment; • 2008 – Conservation for Peace; • 2007 – Maintaining Values and Significance; • 2006 – Managing the Tangible and Intangible; • 2005 – A Values-based Approach; and • 2004 – Management and Conservation of World Heritage Sites.

From 2011, the design of the Series changed to a structured rolling sixyear program of special topics to cover a range of priority issues with nominations, as reflected above.

19

While the structure and content of the workshops has changed over the years, reasonably standard and recent elements have been: • basic aspects of the World Heritage system; • a focus on nominations; • special topics; • visits to the two World Heritage sites in Hiroshima; • a major group exercise; and • occasional other topics.

Over the years, the workshops have considered a range of special topics.

The site visits were always a very important part of the Series; few participants had been to Hiroshima before to visit the two World Heritage properties. In different ways, they were powerful properties to visit and offered an opportunity to reflct on different aspects of Japan. In the case of the Genbaku Dome, also being able to meet a hibakusha (atomic bomb survivor) and hear the quiet and gentle but powerful story they told had a great impact on participants, which personalised the message of the World Heritage property.

In the case of Itsukushima Shinto Shrine, this remarkable and impressive shrine was another highlight of the workshops. The complexity of the property with its tangible and intangible values, the connection between nature and culture, sacred qualities and surrounding development pressures all made this a valuable training case study.

20

The major group exercise was undertaken over several days and was based on real case studies of properties being considered for possible World Heritage nomination brought by participants. The output from the exercise was a PowerPoint-based presentation (Annex 1) providing summary contextual information (e.g. description and history), analytical information (e.g. Outstanding Universal Value) and an additional focus (e.g. comparative analysis).

This exercise was often the focus of great enthusiasm and commitment by participants, who worked long and hard in preparing their presentations, sometimes well into the night.

In addition, in some years there were occasional other topics addressed, such as: • values-based management; • what is heritage?

• assessing values, authenticity and integrity; • values and attributes; • boundaries and buffer zones; • World Heritage in Japan; • Genbaku Dome and Itsukushima Shinto Shrine; • how to engage decision-makers; and • action plan development.

21

The site visits took advantage of the two World Heritage properties, and related components: • Genbaku Dome and the related components; • Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park; • Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum; • meeting hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors); • National Peace Memorial Hall; • the hypocentre, the location on the ground above which the bomb exploded; • Itsukushima Shinto Shrine and the related components; • Shrine carpenters’ workshop; and • Miyajima Town.

22

In terms of logistical arrangements, UNITAR staff undertook all such activities. This included: • preparing promotional information about the Series; • preparing and disseminating the call for applications and participant selection; • participant travel was arranged by the participants, although in the earlier years of the Series this was arranged by UNITAR; • participant accommodation was arranged by UNITAR; • meals were arranged by the participants, although in the earlier years of the Series this was arranged by UNITAR; • the venue was arranged by UNITAR, normally in the same building as the UNITAR office, but on some occasions at other facilities; and • site visits and related activities were arranged by UNITAR. Resourcing for the Series was provided from a range of sources including the support of the Hiroshima Prefectural Government, UNITAR, the host organisations of Resource Persons (e.g. UNESCO; ICOMOS; IUCN), sponsoring organisations (e.g. UN Environment; Department of Conservation, New Zealand; Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Australia) and the fees paid by participants in the later years when this applied.

23

The Series employed a range of teaching methodologies, and there was some evolution and refinement over the years. Key methodologies included: • interactive lectures – delivered by experts with key insight, experience and expertise working with UNITAR, UNESCO, IUCN and ICOMOS, providing both an overview of the World Heritage regime, incorporating current trends and discourse, while examining in detail the justification requirements of nominations; • after-action reviews (AAR) – representing a key component of UNITAR’s methodology in regard to this Series, the AAR takes place within groups, discussing the main issues raised in the previous presentations, as well as the specific frames of reference as applied to these by participants; • study tours – underscoring the theoretical introductions and analyses presented, study tours to sites form an integral part of the training methodologies utilised by UNITAR. Visits were made to the Genbaku Dome and Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, as well as to the Itsukushima Shinto Shrine; and • practical exercises – key to the facilitation of learning at the workshops was a major practical exercise whereby participants worked in small groups to analyse real world case studies and apply the theoretical and practical knowledge gained in the workshop.

The impact of the UNITAR World Heritage Training Series may be assessed in a variety of ways. The views of workshop participants, such as those on the next page, are one important source. These can be supplemented by the formal evaluations prepared after each of the workshops in the later years. The views of Resource Persons are also valuable. This section draws on all these sources.

At the conclusion of workshops, participants are asked to complete an evaluation form. The results are analysed by UNITAR and presented in a workshop report. As an example, the summary of participants’ evaluation of the 2016 workshop (Annex 3) noted the following: ‘Overall, the responses received where overwhelmingly positive… 100% of respondents found the Workshop “very useful,” with 100% indicating that they would recommend it to a colleague. Notably, 22% of respondents felt that they possessed high to moderately high knowledge, skills or competencies in regards to being able to analyse key principles and objectives of the World Heritage Convention and understand key elements of the nomination and evaluation processes before the Workshop, while 100% of respondents felt that they had gained such during the Workshop. Similarly, with regard to being able to describe best practices and lessons learned in preparing nominations, those indicating that they had a high to moderately high knowledge, skill or competency in this area grew from 11% of total respondents to 89% by the end of the Workshop. All of the participants “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that it was likely they would use the information acquired.

With regard to the methodology utilised in the Workshop, including interactive lectures, after-action reviews, practical exercises and study visits, 100% of respondents indicated that they “strongly agree” or “agree” that it was useful. The trainers and facilitators of the Workshop were seen as effective at stimulating participant involvement by 92% of respondents and were seen as effective at presenting information and responding to questions by 100% of participants.’ (UNITAR 2016)

‘The greatest amongst all workshops I ever attended! CONFIDENCE’ (Workshop observer 2007-08 and participant 2009)

25

24

Impact of the Series

‘The participants constituted a diverse mix of professionals from various countries involved in the heritage and other sectors which led to lively debates, discussions and friendships. This was most useful in terms of resource sharing and gaining knowledge in areas that one may not have been familiar with as a participant and not well versed in as a world heritage practitioner. It also complemented one’s own knowledge and understanding of World Heritage management and was one of the most significant aspects of the training. The networking and knowledge sharing are an invaluable part of this training series…

The site visits not only served as practical on the ground examples of best practice World Heritage management but were excellent examples of how heritage is our responsibility as current generation custodians for transmission to future generations of the world…

The message of peace and human development was inspiring, fulfilling and restorative.’ (Workshop participant, 2012)

‘Some practical impacts in my home country included the imparting of lessons learnt to colleagues and the team who manage the World Heritage property as well as at a national level through various forums.

Since [my country] offers no formal academic programmes on World Heritage management, this training series provides one of the best ways for World Heritage practitioners to access training in this field. ‘ (Workshop participant 2012)

The major group exercise was a challenging and rewarding part of the workshops. The Resource Persons were impressed with how much participants could achieve in outlining key aspects of a World Heritage nomination based on real case studies. It was also notable that groups struggled to define the Outstanding Universal Value of the case study properties. Even quite late in the exercise, groups were still uncertain despite a lot of discussion, or not everyone was convinced about the claimed OUV. The exercise presented obviously unrealistic conditions for the groups compared to a real nomination process, but it also reflected some of the real-world challenges faced by nominations.

Positive aspects of the Series include: • the networking between participants, including with each other and Resource Persons; • networking also among Resource Persons; • the opportunity to watch other trainers at work and to borrow from their techniques and resources; • the transmission of key messages and information about World Heritage; • sharing experiences regarding World Heritage; • exposure to nature and culture and mixed heritage practice and properties, especially for those with a single focus to their previous experience; • despite the focus on World Heritage, many of the lessons and

26

techniques could also be applied to all heritage, and so these lessons and techniques were potentially beneficial to a much broader range of sites and properties; • working with other cultures was a positive experience, even though there may have been some difficult moments; • having two quite different World Heritage properties close by for visits in Hiroshima was a great benefit, not just for the participants but also for the site custodians; and lastly • participants working on their real nomination projects were helped to go back to their countries and continue with a nomination, develop better nominations and, in at least one instance, abandon a nomination that appeared to have little potential for inscription when discussed in a workshop.

Some observations from the point of view of a Resource Person include: • that we can all learn from others – even highly credentialed Resource Persons can learn from ordinary (but who were really extraordinary) participants; • Resource Persons can also learn a lot from each other such as training techniques as well as about aspects of heritage and World Heritage; • the range of problems facing heritage, World Heritage and nominations seem to be universal. Economically rich countries and those less fortunate, east and west, north and south – the problems or challenges are widespread and sometimes remarkably similar; • a passion for and commitment to heritage can be a powerful force, and every World Heritage nomination seems to need a passionate champion to keep a nomination alive and make good progress; • property management skills seem more widespread among participants compared to assessing heritage values against criteria,

and this made it sometimes harder to develop the justification and OUV components of nominations; and • the great value of practical exercises, even if they are not technically perfect – the positive engagement with a practical exercise and engagement with a process being beneficial even if some technical content is not fully understood or correct.

However, of course not everything about the workshops was perfect.

Some of the issues to note were: • some participants did not or could not engage very effectively with the workshop, including because of language issues, despite the best efforts of UNITAR to ensure reasonable proficiency in English as the working language of the Series; • the balance of nature and culture participants – was culture always over-represented?

• the loss of the scholarships, funding travel and accommodation, and how this might have changed the mix of participants or countries attending; • was the lead-in time for the workshops too short for some participants?

• the alumni presented a great opportunity for further engagement, including, for example, further in-country or regional workshops, though for a number a of reasons, primarily funding availability, the potential was never explored successfully; • the length of the workshops – were they too short or, for that matter, too long?

• the workshop topics – should there have been more on management? and • the workshop impact – were trainers trained to maximise the benefits of the workshops to a much wider audience?

27

The workshops were noted for the enthusiasm and hard work of the participants, the expertise and good humour of Resource Persons, and the tremendous support of UNITAR staff over many years. These were vital ingredients of the workshops and contributed to the longevity of the Series.

Although some participants had more experience than others, it was evident that all of us felt privileged to be part of such an undertaking.

Participants included site managers at some of the most famous World Heritage properties, and this gave me the chance to learn from their varied experiences firsthand – an opportunity that I would never have had if not for this event. Participants not affiliated with actual sites were usually from government agencies involved in heritage conservation, and they had much to contribute by way of useful administrative policies and practices…

Thanks to excellent tips from the speakers, I was able to develop my skills first in capturing the essence, significance and unique qualities of a site, and then expressing these…

Apart from the technical knowledge and the extensive new network of colleagues gained, to which all the participants attested, the citation of excellence in OUV writing had the biggest impact on me personally. This, together with the international credibility that comes with the UNITAR certificate, boosted my confidence and served as the springboard for my future writings on World Heritage matters…

The theme for the [workshop] was “Conservation for Peace.” This intriguing concept beckoned even after the Session such that I found myself exploring its possibilities [leading to] a Rotary International Peace Fellowship – a Master’s degree scholarship in Peace Studies [taken in] in Japan [and a] concurrent fellowship from the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs while I was doing an internship at the UNESCO World Heritage Centre in Paris, [which] inspired me to look at [World Heritage site selection] through the lens of ethics. ‘ (Workshop participant, 2010)

28

29

‘[The workshop] brought together a good mix of participants and speakers from diverse cultural and professional backgrounds… personal interaction with the speakers allowed me to learn what they were experiencing at their particular [professional] stage, and this in turn taught me what to expect…

Reflections on Future Training The key messages arising from a range of consultations were that: • the UNITAR World Heritage Training Series was a highly valued and valuable training program; and • such training must be continued, building on the UNITAR experience and refining the training, by UNITAR or others.

The following reflections are based on these consultations and are structured as follows: • objective, structure and content; • participant selection; • Resource Persons; • logistical arrangements; and • broader considerations.

OBJECTIVE, STRUCTURE AND CONTENT A needs assessment should underpin any workshops or training activities, and this may relate to individual needs or site needs. Longer-term evaluation of training would also be highly beneficial to supplement the immediate post-workshop evaluation currently undertaken.

Each workshop, understandably, should start with the basics of the World Heritage concept.

Workshops could then focus on a particular topic. This is to help ensure more in-depth learning as opposed to touching a broad range of topics just to cater to a large group of participants.

Topics may include: • nomination dossier preparation; • developing and implementing conservation management plans; and • the Operational Guidelines, with the inclusion of concept of prior consent.

Maintaining a balance of nature and culture through the workshops is important, although in some instances greater emphasis may be justified for one or the other.

A focus on nominations or on management might be best kept separate, with different types of participants.

Topics should address current and future issues. The World Heritage concept and definitions are evolving, and training should evolve as well.

Training should incorporate ethical and conflict prevention and resolution approaches. It is good to expand the skills of practitioners to include the means to navigate increasingly conflict-ridden situations surrounding World Heritage site management and conservation. For best results, speakers should be versed on these topics and talks should include best- and worst-practice case studies.

Some objectives for the workshops need to be more specific. For example, values-based conservation is too broad; there is a need to focus on particular aspects of values-based conservation.

Alternatively, the workshops could just provide an overview of World Heritage, but then there would need to be further follow-up events that are more targeted.

31

30

KEY MESSAGES

32

• • • • • • •

The design of any workshops should consider overlap or complementarity with other training programs.

•

Other factors to consider include: • UNITAR could provide a unique platform for integrating heritage management with the Sustainable Development Goals; • building the brand of UNITAR – peace and heritage; • how the World Heritage process has evolved (e.g. do state of conservation issues need to be addressed in the training program), the upstream process for nominations, new topics such as smart cities, cultural heritage tourism, trans-boundary dialogue and regional dialogue; • the stories of the properties – integrating the local narrative with the OUV and how this might impact management strategies in the future; • good-practice heritage management is good governance – heritage as a tool for peace needs revisiting; • a rights-based approach for heritage management, the need for ethical practice, conflict resolution, participatory processes, consensus building; • participant presentations in a workshop are worthwhile, especially to

• •

raise site issues that may help with networking among participants; site management; managing for all values in World Heritage properties; the benefit of broad as well as specific courses; should more time be given to lectures in workshops? closely relating the content of workshops with site visits; reviewing the actual learning benefit of group exercises; could all of the six special topics be addressed in one possibly longer workshop? resources available at workshops – a collection of good, recent nomination dossiers, better documentation about the two Hiroshima World Heritage properties; resources available to take home – for example, a manual; and that people need some time for reflection to enable messages to be understood.

The design of training should not just be about conveying information but should consider developing solutions to the challenges faced by participants.

These reflections are largely focused on the delivery of training through workshops. But as noted below, other training methods, tools and resources may be needed to complement workshops, or may even replace the need for workshops.

PARTICIPANT SELECTION It is imperative that the participants selected are compatible with the workshops, which means either the workshop can be adapted to the participants or the participants need to be selected carefully to suit a workshop. Depending on the training, there may be a range of audiences, based, for example, on need, demand or topic. Funding support for some participants will be important.

Future target audiences could include, in no priority order: • emerging professionals; • policy makers, site managers and practitioners responsive to State Party needs or any gap analysis; • people working on Tentative Lists and nominations, recognising that non-heritage specialists can be key players in these processes and also need training; • site stakeholder leaders who need to understand more about World Heritage, who again may not be heritage experts; • leaders from ICOMOS and IUCN national organisations; • academics who may themselves provide training in World Heritage; • leaders of national World Heritage committees; • participants from the developing world and Africa; and • previous participants in need of refresher training.

There is a need to understand the career arc of people regarding World Heritage matters, that it may be a time-limited involvement or ongoing, that there may be continuing involvement with World Heritage in a variety of ways, and the need to target the right people. Identifying suitable people for training may be assisted by creating focal points at country or regional levels. Maintaining a balance of participants from nature and culture backgrounds is highly desirable.

33

There could be courses prepared for specific topics or specific participants: • site managers; • those preparing nomination dossiers; • consultants dealing with management; • policy-makers; and • trainers, including refresher workshops, or those developing training courses.

34

LOGISTICAL ARRANGEMENTS

B ROA D E R C O N S I D E R AT I O N S

The selection and involvement of highly credentialed Resource Persons is vital for the credibility of the training and also as a marketing opportunity. This includes high-level teaching skills. This does not necessarily mean that Resource Persons should only be academics – experts working in the field can bring considerable practical credibility to any training. The range of Resource Persons need to have expertise in the general and special topics of any workshops. Links to key partner organisations are also highly desirable (e.g. UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies).

The logistical arrangements of previous workshops have generally been very suitable. However, there are a number of issues: • the number of days for the workshops needs careful consideration, noting the content to be included and some views that more time for reflection was needed. While shorter workshops might be possible if more focused training was undertaken, in general, it may be beneficial to slightly increase the workshop length; • holding the workshops in March or April may not be the best time of year, especially for potential Japanese participants because it is the end of the financial year and a busy period. This may be a problem for other countries as well; • marketing the workshops is obviously an important issue to ensure sufficient good quality applications from those most likely to benefit. Perhaps a simple marketing strategy should be developed, also considering the existence of other courses or training opportunities as well as the needs of countries and regions.

Regular side events at World Heritage Committee meetings may be a worthwhile investment in maintaining the visibility of the Series, identifying needs and marketing; • the relatively short notice given for workshops in the call for applications may be a significant problem for some participants to arrange time and funding to attend. A longer time period for the notice should be given, ideally one year; and • the lack of a close natural World Heritage property reduces the ability of Hiroshima to provide a natural site visit, although perhaps options or alternatives could be explored.

While the focus of these reflections is mostly oriented to using workshops as the vehicle for training, a broader consideration should be given to the range of tools, techniques and materials used in training.

For example, what print or online content is available to provide or assist with training? Are there online video training resources? Could UNITAR package the best of its training modules for online delivery? Is there a lead-agency for developing and delivering such training? Could UNITAR become this agency?

Subject to the content of any workshops, there needs to be a balance between nature and culture, and some gender, geographic and cultural diversity amongst Resource Persons. The number of Resource Persons needs to be considered in relation to the number of participants at any workshop.

Developing brief selection criteria for Resources Persons may be worthwhile.

A stronger emphasis should be given to longer-term mentoring. This might involve: • Resource Persons mentoring participants after workshops; • participants mentoring colleagues in their home or other countries; and • former high-achieving participants mentoring prospective or recent participants, including involvement in workshops.

A participant in one year could become a mentor in later years, and ultimately a Resource Person.

While some resources exist, it is not clear there is a central and adequate reference point, a comprehensive package, or a lead agency.

Any training would benefit from long-term collaboration with and between participants and the alumni, and the UNITAR Series presents a great opportunity.

Another possibility is also to have satellite training workstations in different parts of the world rather than just in Hiroshima, for example Southern Africa in collaboration with the African World Heritage Fund (AWHF) and Southern African State Parties. In the past, one in-country workshop was undertaken, in India, and the model was subsequently promoted, although with no success.

The Series could continue under UNITAR or another body focused on just delivering training workshops. This would be good outcome.

But a broader strategic context with possibly different or additional approaches may deliver even better outcomes. At the least, such a broader context should be considered.

35

RESOURCE PERSONS

Heritage and Sustainable Development As part of the UNITAR World Heritage Training Series Alumni Roundtable, a special component was dedicated to a workshop on heritage and sustainable development. The workshop was held in Hiroshima on 21-23 March 2018.

The Alumni Roundtable brought together nine participants from different natural and cultural heritage backgrounds and a range of countries, as well as two Resource Persons and a visiting guest lecturer.

Res o u rc e Pe r s o ns and G ue s t Le c tu rer: • Duncan Marshall, Architect and Heritage Consultant, ICOMOS; • Leticia Leitao, Cutural and Natural Heritage Consultant; and • Peter Billie Larsen, Senior Lecturer, University of Lucerne.

Pa r t i c i p a n t s : • Qahtan Alabeed, Director, Basrah Antiquities and Heritage, Iraq State Board of Antiquties and Heritage, Iraq; • Miko Liwanag, Heritage Conservation Ethics Consultant; Trustee, ICOMOS Philippines; • Paul Mahoney, Senior Cultural Heritage Advisor, Department of Conservation, New Zealand; • Yumi Isabelle Naito-Akieda, Board Member, ICOMOS Japan; • Mags Pillay, Director, Cradle of Humankind, South Africa; • Gurmeet Rai, Vice-President, ICOMOS India; • Angie Stringer, Director, Cultural Values and Planning, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Services, Australia; • Jean Wee, Director, Preservation of Sites and Monuments, National Heritage Board, Singapore; and • Kai Weise, President, ICOMOS Nepal.

The purpose of the workshop was to explore linkages between heritage, especially but not exclusively World Heritage, and sustainable development as defined through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) developed by the United Nations.

The • • • •

agenda included: presentations given by the Resource Persons and a visiting lecturer; participant presentations; group exercises and presentations; and open discussions.

A summary of the workshop is provided below, along with conclusions and recommendations arising from the workshop.

R E S O U RC E P E R S O N A N D G U E S T P R E S E N TAT I O N S These presentations were intended to provide the participants with context about the relationships between sustainable development and heritage issues.

Leticia Leitao gave a keynote presentation about heritage and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The talk provided some of the history of the subject, and the development of both the Millennium Development Goals and the SDGs. It also provided a brief overview of the work that organisations such as ICOMOS, UNESCO and IUCN, are doing in order to contribute to the SDGs and highlight the role that heritage can play in this regard.

Peter Larsen, who attended the workshop as part of his independent evaluation of the Series, talked about sustainable development and key issues in heritage.

37

36

BACKGROUND

38

GROUP EXERCISES AND DISCUSSIONS

Prior to the workshop all participants were asked to research the links between sustainable development and heritage in their own countries.

This research was intended to encourage participants to discover any relevant policies and the practical relationship between heritage and sustainable development at the local and national level in their countries.

There were three group exercises undertaken as part of the workshop.

In small groups, the participants were asked to address three tasks: • how can heritage contribute to the various SDGs? • how to incorporate sustainable development considerations into conservation and management using Itsukushima Shinto Shrine and the Genbaku Dome properties as examples? and • consider how to develop sustainable development strategies for select participant case studies.

For example, Kai Weise discussed issues of sustainable development and heritage in relation to the current World Heritage-nominated property of Bagan in Myanmar. His presentation reflected on: • the dynamism of heritage including a changing understanding of heritage and definitions of community; • definitions of sustainability; • the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; and • achieving heritage conservation within a living community at Bagan, especially an agriculturally-based community.

Mags Pillay researched issues of sustainable development in relation to the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site in South Africa. He referred to: • the broader context of sustainable development in South Africa, including national-level planning and legislation; • the broader social challenges in South African society; • provincial level strategies to address social issues; • key sustainable development issues, such as historical issues related to land ownership and racial segregation, as well as issues specific to the Cradle of Humankind property; and • the possible positive role that World Heritage can play.

After undertaking the group work, groups reported back to the whole workshop and the results were discussed in plenary.

The 17 SDGs cover a wide range of human activities and the environment, including good health and well-being, zero hunger, life below water and climate action. On a superficial reading, it might be assumed that natural and cultural heritage might only fit into one or a few of the goals. But in exploring these goals, participants realised the potential for linkages between heritage and all of the SDGs in various ways.

Accordingly, rather than being part of a small number of goals, heritage can have a strong presence in the broader sustainable development agenda.

39

PA R T I C I PA N T P R E S E N TAT I O N S A N D C A S E S T U D I E S

The group exercise considered sustainable development issues in relation to the conservation and management of these properties.

Such issues included climate action as both properties are sensitive to extreme weather events such as typhoons or sea level rise. Quality education also has resonance with the properties, as they portray important stories and themes in human history that are a vital part of both formal education and education which arises through cultural tourism. Even such goals as affordable and clean energy are relevant to the properties. In both cases, their energy supply and use can be structured to use clean energy in an efficient way.

The major group exercise considered how to develop sustainable development strategies for select participant case studies. With each successive exercise, participants worked from the general to the specific, with the final exercise utilising properties that some of the participants were very familiar with.

All groups worked to a standard presentation format, which included background information (e.g. identification of the property, a map, values, management objectives and governance), as well as comments on sustainable development strategies structured according to relevant SDGs.

40

The Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and its Cultural Landscape in Japan was one of the participant case studies considered by one group. Some of the strategies outlined included: • Goal 1 – No poverty • Issues: ageing population and little or no work • Solutions: World Heritage creates work, young families settle in • Goal 8 – Decent work and economic growth • Issues: lack of jobs, lack of workers • Solutions: offer a varied range of jobs, broaden economic base, self-employment, diverse ages, society, and forms of employment such as remote working, creative work and commuting In addition, this group commented on the scope of the tourism brand, growing the number of visitors, visitor programs (especially activities for younger people) and the visitor experience.

41

Itsukushima Shinto Shrine and the Genbaku Dome are two World Heritage properties in Hiroshima of quite different values and character.

One is an ancient Shinto complex, the other a stark reminder of the terrible destructive power of nuclear weapons in the modern age. The workshop participants were all familiar with these properties from previous visits to the city.

The link between heritage, including World Heritage, and the SDGs seems often to be narrowly perceived. One of the major benefits of the workshop was the opportunity to break down this perception and to foster the realisation that the goals can often be quite broadly linked to heritage.

Placing heritage in this broader context provides several benefits. It demonstrates the importance of heritage to many aspects of human societies and the environment – it is not just a narrow or elite interest.

Additionally, the priority and resourcing for heritage is often low or constrained, yet the priority for issues designated in the SDGs is often much higher (e.g. alleviating poverty or improving education). When the links to these other goals are more clearly appreciated, there is an opportunity for heritage to benefit.

This workshop was an opportunity to explore the relationship between heritage and the SDGs with a group of heritage professionals working in a wide range of fields across many countries. This was one small step in what needs to be a more determined effort to engage the heritage sector with the SDGs. This engagement could take many forms or be supported by a range of measures, including further similar discussion forums with professionals, broad-scale awareness training, more detailed training dealing with a limited range of goals, the development of training materials and the preparation of case studies.

UNITAR supported this initial training activity given its strong interest in both World Heritage and the SDGs. UNITAR is well-placed to extend its training role regarding this important theme.

43

42

C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S

Annex 1: Group Exercise 45

44

EXAMPLE OF PART OF A POWERPOINT FROM A MAJOR GROUP EXERCISE IN 2007

Annex 2: Agenda A N N E X 2 : S A M P L E AG E N DA F R O M 2 016 46

Monday 18 April

08:30 - 09:00

08:30 - 09:00 Meet and Greet at Venue

09:00 - 09:30

09:00 - 09:30 Objectives of the Workshop Presentation of the Programme Participants’ Introductions and Expectations

09:30 - 10:00

10:00 - 10:30

Tuesday 19 April

09:30 - 11:00 09:30 - 11:00 World Heritage: Justification for Inscription World Heritage: Principles and Objectives Focus on the Criteria Main Actors: UNESCO; IUCN; ICOMOS; ICCROM Practical Exercise: Participants try to use and understand the criteria

11:00 - 11:30 Tea Break

09:35 - 10:00 Ferry to Miyajima Island

09:30 - 10:30 The Nomination Format

11:30 - 13:00 World Heritage: Justification for Inscription Evidence needed to support Justification

11:00 - 11:30 Tea Break

12:00 - 13:00 After Action Review

11:30 - 13:00 Practical Exercise: Justification for Inscription

13:00 - 14:30 LUNCH

13:00 - 14:10 LUNCH

13:00 - 14:30 LUNCH

14:30 - 15:30 Meeting with Atomic Bomb Survivor (Hibakusha)

14:30 - 15:30 Comparative Analysis

13:00 - 14:30 LUNCH

14:00 - 14:30

14:30 - 15:00

15:00 - 15:30

14:30 - 16:00 The Concept of Outstanding Universal Value

15:30 - 16:00

16:00 - 16:30

15:45 - 16:30 Introduction to the Atomic-bomb (Genbaku ) Dome 16:00 - 16:30 Tea Break

16:30 - 17:00 16:30 - 18:00 World Heritage: Justification for Inscription 17:00 - 17:30

17:30 - 18:00

Theory of Justification Common Issues Analysis of Good and Bad Examples

16:30 - 17:00 Green Legacy Hiroshima Walking Tour

17:00 - 18:00 Tour of Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

14:30 - 16:00 Practical Exercise: Justification for Inscription

15:30 - 16:30 World Heritage: Nomination and Evaluation Processes General Discussion: Everything you wanted to know about World Heritage but were afraid to ask!

16:30 - 18:00 Self-guided Tour of Miyajima Island

12:00 - 12:30 Reflections and Conclusions

12:30 - 13:00 Graduation Ceremony

13:00 - 13:30

13:30 - 14:00

11:00 - 11:30 Tea Break

11:30 - 12:00 Practical Exercise Feedback

Atomic Bomb Dome Itsukushima Shrine

12:30 - 13:00

09:00 - 11:00 Practical Exercise: Group Presentations

10:30 - 11:00 10:00 - 11:30 Writing and Preparing the Nomination File: Guided Tour of Itsukushima Shinto Shrine General Tips

11:30 - 12:00 Walk to Miyajima Community Center 11:30 - 13:00 World Heritage: Operational Guidelines

Friday 22 April

09:00 - 09:30 After Action Review

11:00 - 11:30 Tea Break

11:30 - 12:00

12:00 - 12:30

Thursday 21 April

08:30 - 09:30 Bus to Miyajima-guchi 09:00 - 09:30 Green Legacy Hiroshima Introduction Session

10:30 - 11:00

11:00 - 11:30

Wednesday 20 April

16:00 - 16:30 Tea Break

16:30 - 17:30 Practical Exercise: Justification for Inscription

18:00 - Ferry to City 17:30 - 18:00 Youth Ambassador Award Ceremony

47

UNITAR World Heritage Nominations Training Series 2016 Cycle: World Heritage Basics plus Justification for Inscription 18 - 22 April 2016 - Agenda

Annex 3: Evaluation The evaluation method employed for the UNITAR World Heritage Nominations: Justification for Inscription 2016 Workshop was a two-level evaluation questionnaire. A participant self-assessment questionnaire, which allowed participants to evaluate their individual pre-existing knowledge, skills and competencies on the subject matter, so as to create awareness about participant learning needs and help enhance their learning levels. The participant feedback evaluation captures individual reactions to the overall quality of the programme and allows for their feedback to be heard and incorporated in future iterations of the programme. Both questionnaires were made available to all participants from the beginning of the session and cover individual learning needs, as well as the application process, pre-workshop engagement, and the workshop itself.

The overall purpose of the evaluation is to analyse the relevance and direction of the overall content of the programme while also quantifying the performance of the UNITAR Hiroshima Office as a whole in delivering the programme. Major findings of the programme are analysed and recommendations will be incorporated when planning for the next programme.

The participant feedback evaluation examined the following areas in detail: • pre-workshop information; • learning objectives; • value, relevance, and intent to use; • methodology; • satisfaction with the quality of facilitators; • applicability of after-action review and practical exercises; and • overall satisfaction of the workshop.

Overall, the responses received where overwhelmingly positive. As outlined in the following results, 100% of respondents found the Workshop “very useful”, with 100% indicating that they would recommend it to a colleague. Notably, 22% of respondents felt that they possessed high to moderately high knowledge, skills or competencies in regards to being able to “Analyse key principles and objectives of the World Heritage Convention” and “Understand key elements of the nomination and evaluation processes” before the Workshop, while 100% of respondents felt that they had gained such during the Workshop.

Similarly, with regard to being able to “Describe best practices and lessons learned in preparing nominations”, those indicating that they had a high to moderately high knowledge, skill or competency in this area grew from 11% of total respondents to 89% by the end of the Workshop. All of the participants ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that it was likely they would use the information acquired.

With regard to the methodology utilised in the Workshop, including interactive lectures, after action reviews, practical exercises and study visits, 100% of respondents indicated that they “strongly agree”, or “agree” that it was useful. The trainers/facilitators of the Workshop were seen as effective at stimulating participant involvement by 92% of respondents, and were seen as effective at presenting information and responding to questions by 100% of participants.

49

48

OVERVIEW

PRE-EVENT INFORMATION

L EA RNI NG O BJECT I V E II

Please rate the degree to which information circulated prior to the workshop was:

Describe the main tools available for practitioners within the World Heritage regime.

L EA RNING OB J EC T I V E I

L EA RNI NG O BJECT I V E III

Analyse key principles and objectives of the World Heritage Convention.

Describe the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention.

51

50

M A J O R F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S

L EA R NING OB J E C T I V E I V

L EA RNI NG O BJECT I V E VI

Outline justification requirements within the nomination process.

Describe best practices and lessons learned in preparing nominations.

L EA R NING OB J E C T I V E V

VA L UE, REL EVA NCE A ND INTENT TO USE

Understand key elements of the nomination and evaluation processes.

Please rate the following statements using the numerical scale from strongly agree (5) to disagree (1).

53

52

M A J O R F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S

M ETHOD OLOG Y

A PPL I C A BI L I T Y O F A FTER ACTION REVIEW AND PR ACTIC AL EXERCISES

The methodology used in this workshop included lectures, study tours and practical exercises.

The assessment of learning included After-Action Reviews and Practical Exercises:

OVER ALL SAT I SFAC T I ON WI T H T H E Q UA LI T Y O F FAC I LI TATO R S

OV ER A L L SAT I S FACT I ON WITH THE EVENT

Please rate the following statements using the numerical scale from strongly agree (5) to disagree (1). The trainer(s)/facilitator(s) was (were) effective at:

Please rate the following statements using the numerical scale from strongly agree (5) to disagree (1):

55

54

M A J O R F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S

L EA R NING OB J E C T I V E I

L EA RNI NG O BJECT I V E II

Analyse key principles and objectives of the World Heritage Convention.

Describe the main tools available for practitioners within the World Heritage regime.

Rate your skill before the programme

Rate your skill after the programme

Before-After Difference (Moderate & High Responses)

Rate your skill before the programme

57

56

PARTICIPANT SELF- ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Rate your skill after the programme

Before-After Difference (Moderate & High Responses)

L EA RNING OB J EC T I V E I I I

L EA RNI NG O BJECT I V E IV

Describe the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention.

Outline justification requirements within the nomination process.

Rate your skill before the programme

Rate your skill after the programme

Before-After Difference (Moderate & High Responses)

Rate your skill before the programme

59

58

PARTICIPANT SELF- ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Rate your skill after the programme

Before-After Difference (Moderate & High Responses)

L EA R NING OB J E C T I V E V

L EA RNI NG O BJECT I V E VI

Understand key elements of the nomination and evaluation processes.

Describe best practices and lessons learned in preparing nominations.

Rate your skill before the programme

Rate your skill after the programme

Before-After Difference (Moderate & High Responses)

Rate your skill before the programme

61

60

PARTICIPANT SELF- ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Rate your skill after the programme

Before-After Difference (Moderate & High Responses)

62

63

About UNITAR The United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) is a principal training arm of the United Nations, working in every region of the world. The Institute empowers individuals, governments and organizations through knowledge and learning to effectively overcome contemporary global challenges.

The UNITAR Hiroshima Office is the only United Nations entity in this symbolic city. It has more than 15 years’ experience in designing and conducting training in World Heritage, as well as peacebuilding, post-conflict reconstruction, and disarmament, and it commands a unique understanding of the needs of beneficiaries in these areas.

UNITAR Hiroshima Office 5F, 5-44 Motomachi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima, Japan T +81 82 511 2424 F +81 82 211 0511 hiroshima@unitar.org unitar.org/hiroshima facebook.com/UNITAR.Hiroshima This report has been prepared by Duncan Marshall (ICOMOS), with support provided by Nigel Gan, Kalika Kastein and Annelise Giseburt.

64 United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) UNITAR Hiroshima Office hiroshima@unitar.org unitar.org/hiroshima