By Toby McIntosh
Any day now a gush of documents will be released about which new sites should be added to the UNESCO World Heritage List.
The documents will reveal site evaluations and recommendations developed over the past year during a largely secret process. The impending disclosure of documents will precede a UN World Heritage Committee (WHC) meeting to be held in mid-July in Korea.
The 21 WHC members meeting in Korea will rely heavily on recommendations from three committees that are advised by expert consultants and UNESCO staff members.
During the process, many site evaluation reports are prepared for the committees, but are not disclosed. The committee meetings are non-public and the members are discouraged from discussing the deliberations.
Impending Transparency
Then, about two months before the WHC meeting, the process becomes more open.
Right now the website says, “Relevant documents regarding the session will be put online as soon as they become available.”
Soon to be posted, however, will be many documents that summarize the evaluations and the advisory committees’ recommendations.
From that point, the process becomes more transparent.
The WHC meetings are live-streamed. Observers are admitted to the meetings, although their participation is limited.
In sum, it’s a complex system that’s difficult to follow. Until the very end.
“Transparency, or rather the lack of it, is one of UNESCO’s most critical shortfalls, preventing any meaningful participation by civil society,” according to Stephen Dömpke, chairman of the Berlin-based World Heritage Watch, a coalition of experts from academia and nongovernmental organizations.
How widespread this opinion is was hard to determine. EYE contacted more than a dozen groups and experts who watch the heritage site selection process, and while some expressed similar concerns about UNESCO’s transparency, others didn’t reply or declined to comment.
Readers: For reliable notification of new EYE postings please sign up for free using “Subscribe” in the right column. No deluge, usually several articles a month on a variety of global transparency topics. And please share this article.
The Basics About a Long Process
The WHC’s decisions have significant impact. The prized UNESCO imprimatur fuels tourism and investment.
UNESCO’s World Heritage List currently includes 1,248 properties. Twenty-six cultural and natural properties were added in 2025, and even more may be added this year.
Some 38 sites are on the preliminary list of candidates to be considered in Korea. The list was announced at the previous WHC meeting, an indication of how long the process takes.
The nominations, made by governments, must be well-documented before running the gauntlet of review.
If all goes well, however, the World Heritage Committee is advised to “inscribe” (in UNESCO lingo) a nominee to the World Heritage List.
The WHC oversees the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, an international agreement signed by 192 countries. The signatories elect the 21 members of the WHC, which also governs the %7 million World Heritage Fund.
In addition, the WHC decides what sites should be on the list of sites “in danger,” now 53. This task requires increasing attention.
UNESCO periodically issues public statements on endangered sites. This March there was statement about a temple in Iran and another about a Ukrainian monastery.
The 48th session of the WHC that will take place in Busan, South Korea, July 19-29, 2026, will culminate a long process for prospective sites.
Opaque Mechanism
The designation process begins when countries (“State Parties” in UNESCO lingo) submit inventories of important natural and cultural heritage sites. A Tentative List is public (scroll to country listings). (See UNESCO description of the process.)
After proposing their lists of candidate sites, countries may urge approval of specific nominations. It is not uncommon for governments to announce their ambitions. For example, the Nepal’s Gandaki Province government in April announced its intention to get the Lomanthang Palace on the World Heritage List, according to a newspaper report.
The nominations go to UNESCO’s body that administers the process, the World Heritage Centre, which based in Paris, as is UNESCO. The website shows that the Centre has 76 employees, led by Lazare Eloundou Assomo, the Director of World Heritage.
The Centre helps countries prepare nomination files, “which need to be as exhaustive as possible, making sure the necessary documentation and maps are included.”
In advance of the 2025 meeting, the Centre received 37 nomination dossiers (24 cultural, 10 natural and three mixed) by the deadline.
Out of these, 32 (22 cultural, eight natural and two mixed) were considered as “complete,” meaining in conformity with Paragraph 132 and Annex 5 of the Operational Guidelines, according to a UNESCO document (Paragraph 85) issued after the 2025 meeting. The guidelines give detailed rules on which nominations are processed, and the total number is also limited.
Once a nomination file is complete, which can take years, the Centre sends it to the appropriate advisory committee for evaluation.
One testament to the length of the deliberative process is that the likely candidates for review at the 2026 meeting this July are already known.
They are listed in a document dated May 25, 2025, that was presented before the 2025 annual meeting. There are 38 sites on the list, with 33 of the nominations labeled “complete.”
These nominations were beginning the final year of their journey.
Advisory Committees Important to Process
Nominations get sent to advisory committees for evaluation, a critical part of the process.
There are three advisory bodies.
The two main ones are the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), which evaluates cultural sites, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) for nominations of natural sites). A third advisory group, the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) was created to promote the conservation and restoration methodologies of all forms of cultural heritage.
ICOMOS looks at nominations of cultural heritage sites, which can be tangible, such as monuments, town sites, archaeological sites, and works of art, or intangible, such as the French baguette or the Congolese rumba.
ICOMOS is “a non-governmental organisation working to conserve and protect cultural heritage sites around the world,” according to its website and an advisory body to the AHC. For detailed information there’s a 195-page Member Handbook, which summarizes, “ … ICOMOS evaluates nominations and advises on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List.”
Organizationally, ICOMOS is composed of representatives from institutions with expertise in cultural heritage and expert professional members. ICOMOS is also undergirded by a system of International Scientific Committees (ISCs), 29 of them. These include the International Polar Heritage Committee, the International Scientific Committee for Stone and the International Committee on Intangible Cultural Heritage.
The ICOMOS “General Assembly,” with 500-1,000 voting members, meets annually to consider its budget and operational matters. Every three years the Assembly sets overall goals and elect officers. The current president is Teresa Patrício from Belgium, a professor and consultant on conservation.
The resolutions and draft minutes of the General Assembly meetings, are public, but the “working documents” are not released.
For example, when the General Assembly made changes to the ICOMOS ethical rules, the language of the 2020 amendments were not made public. An ICOMOS spokesperson told EYE, “This is also standard practice – the working documents are kept within the ICOMOS membership.”
So the ethics code is public, but it is not possible to see the amendment to learn what was changed.
In addition, there is a 21-person ICOMOS “Board.” And also a seven-person “Bureau of the Board” that “prepares the Board meetings and effects the decisions of the Board.”
No public minutes exist for the Board, which is “standard practice,” an ICOMOS spokesperson told EYE. She continued: “The meetings of the Board might deal with personnel, finances, legal issues and strategic issues. (Full) transparency at that level is quite uncommon.”
Special Panel Evaluates Sites
The site-related action is with another body, the ICOMOS World Heritage Panel.
“ICOMOS’ recommendations for new nominations are prepared and decided upon by the ICOMOS World Heritage Panel, which consists of some representatives from the ICOMOS Board, some invited representatives of ICOMOS International Scientific Committees and other expert organisations, and a number of invited experts, selected to reflect the nature of the nominations to be assessed during the cycle for that year,” according to the ICOMOS Handbook.
It also states:
“The ICOMOS President acts as the Chair of the Panel or appoints the Chair or co-Chairs, who then appoint the Panel members each year so as to achieve gender and regional balance as well as appropriate expertise. The nominations are presented to the Panel by a group of advisers without voting rights, who are then tasked with preparing the evaluation texts in accordance with the Panel’s decisions. ICOMOS recommendations provided within the framework of Upstream advice are also presented to the World Heritage Panel for its consideration.
So in preparation for the July 2025 WHC meeting, the ICOMOS World Heritage Panel of about 30 persons met for nine days in November of 2024, as described in an ICOMOS press release issued July 2, 2025, after the WHC meeting.
Then, in March of 2025, the panel reconvened “to discuss the responses received from the States Parties and adopt the final recommendations for all nominated sites.” The panel member’s names are listed.
Their recommendations are among the documents made public in advance of the annual World Heritage Committee meeting.
Confidentiality Is an Institutional Value
Maintaining confidentiality about the process is emphasized in the ICOMOS handbook, which has sections on the “work ethic of board members” and the “code of conduct for board members”
The work ethic to which all Board members subscribe includes: “Maintaining the confidentiality of Board discussions” and “Working openly and transparently where confidentiality is not an issue.”
The Code of Conduct for Board includes restrictions such a “Interacting with or instructing the Director-General, the Secretariat, the press or the public on behalf of ICOMOS only when authorised by the Board to do so.” And “Not judging the performance of Secretariat staff outside Board meetings.” Also, “Supporting Board decisions regardless of one’s personal views.”
The overall goal is reflected in another passage abut speaking with “one institutional voice.” It states:
As with any community of experts, there may be differences of professional opinion among ICOMOS members on World Heritage matters. Nevertheless, in its role as an Advisory Body, ICOMOS must speak with one institutional voice, in a balanced and coordinated way that reflects broad international experience and expertise. Moreover, in order to maintain the credibility of its institutional advice, that advice and the process for formulating it must be demonstrably free from bias or influence. The objective of this section is to clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of ICOMOS and its Committees and members in World Heritage work, and to define good practice rules.
A Case Study: Malawi
Insights into how the process works in practice can be gleaned from looking at the documentation about sites that made it through the vetting process. Look at the World Heritage List. Pick a site and then look under “Documents.”
For example, the Mount Mulanje Cultural Landscape in Malawi was the subject of an ICOMOS report dated March 12, 2025. The nomination has a long history.
The area had been placed on the tentative list on May 17, 2000. The nomination went to the WHC in 2014, but was deferred “with the advice of ICOMOS, IUCN and the World Heritage Centre.” Malawi was asked to supply considerably more information about the nomination.
Fast forward to 2024, when it was yet again deferred by the WHC.
The ICOMOS report gives a detailed procedural recap.
An ICOMOS “technical evaluation mission visited the nominated property from 12 to 21 August 2024.” After that, ICOMOS asked for more information. “A letter was sent to the State Party on 20 September 2024 requesting further information about the cultural landscape, tangible expressions of intangible cultural heritage, integrity, regional status, comparative analysis, protection, land ownership/land uses, threats, and management.” Malawi replied on Nov. 11, 2024.
“An interim report” was provided to Malawi on Dec. 19, 2024, “summarising the issues identified by the ICOMOS World Heritage Panel.” And further information was requested: maps, buffer zone, threats: mining and tourism, and development projects. “Additional information was received from the State Party on 28 February 2025.”
Also, the document says, “Desk reviews have been provided by ICOMOS International Scientific Committees, members and independent experts.” And, “Comments on the natural values of this nominated property, their conservation and their management were received from IUCN in March 2025 and have been incorporated into the relevant sections of this report.”
None of the referenced documents are public. However, the 43-page 2024 ICOMOS report to the WHC analyzes the nomination in detail, ending with recommendations for further actions by Malawi and concluding that the nomination should be deferred.
Staying in Malawi, but for a different site, the World Heritage Centre supported Malawi in the preparation and submission (March 2025) of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the rehabilitation of staff houses within Lake Malawi National Park, according to a UNESCO document. HIAs evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project on the property’s OUV [Outstanding Universal Value] and will undergo technical review by IUCN. The report indicates that “there is a noticeable increase in their preparation and submission to the World Heritage Centre.” HIAs are not disclosed.
The Malawi example highlights the variety of reports preparing during the process, many of which are not disclosed.
UNESCO procedures do not mandate public consultations about nominations, leaving that the countries.
But reports on nominations do occasionally commend countries. One document, for example, states that UNESCO, “Commends the State Party of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic for the thorough participatory approach in developing this nomination and in obtaining the free, prior and informed consent, in addition to efforts to engage and include local communities in the governance and management of the property.”
WHC Disclosures Made 60 days Before Meeting.
As the annual meeting approaches, a key seven-member subgroup of the World Heritage Committee, the Bureau, plays a gatekeeper role in deciding what nominations go on the annual meeting agenda. It consists of the WHC Chairperson, the five Vice-Chairpersons and the Rapporteur, all elected by the committee.
“They hold immense power over what actually reaches the floor for debate and how it is framed,” according to one representative of an environmental group who has attended WHC meetings. There are no records of Bureau decisions, such as minutes of their meetings.
The outcome, however, is revealed when the agenda and many documents are placed online, typically about 60 days before the meeting.
In 2025, the list of nominations forwarded to the AHC was made public May 26, about 40 days in advance of the July 6 start of the AHC meeting. (See document here.)
So the next reveal date should be soon, in early late May or early June.
Documents about nominations and existing sites are made public only if they are brought before the annual WHC meeting. Disputes may delay a nomination’s progress, and release of related documents, noted an observer who has followed the process.
WHC Faces Long Agenda
The World Heritage Committee is made up of 21 states parties, elected by signatories of the convention and the annual meeting runs 10 days.
Every two years, half of the members are elected, then the other half after another two years, and each of the six world regions elect their own committee members. Each region has a defined number of committee members that it can elect.
The 47th session was held in Paris July 6-16, 2025, at UNESCO Headquarters. (See recordings of last session.) Documents for the 47th session are here, including a 418-page summation report dated July 23, shortly after the close of the session.
The public agenda for 10 days of meetings will likely be full. Around 200 decisions were made in 2025 when 26 new sites were added to the list.
Three properties — located in Madagascar, Egypt and Libya — were removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. In placing sites on the endangered list, the committee often asks countries to report back by a specific deadline.
Documents Posted Online; Some Exceptions
Many other documents are available. Such as (for the 2025 meeting):
- List of state of conservation reports proposed for discussion
- State of conservation reports of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
- Tentative Lists submitted by States Parties as of 15 April 2025, in conformity with the Operational Guidelines
- Nominations to the World Heritage List
The last item, the nominations list, includes a “brief synthesis” about the site and proposed recommendations for the WHC, usually including conditions. Underlying documents are not linked.
The original advisory committee reports are used, but modified. A prefatory note explains: “In the text below, IUCN Recommendations and ICOMOS Recommendations are presented in the form of Draft Decisions, drawn from documents WHC/25/47.COM/INF.8B1 (ICOMOS) and WHC/25/47.COM/INF.8B2 (IUCN). 9. Though the Draft Decisions are based on IUCN and ICOMOS Recommendations, in some cases few modifications were required to adapt them to this document.”
Also disclosed are reports on ”reactive monitoring missions,” such as one about Angkor in Cambodia.
However, a password protected section of the website for the annual meetings has a tab for “nominations.”
What’s in that category? Communications from governments.
A UNESCO spokesperson said, “This is a private access for UNESCO, States Party and Advisory Body members which features all documents which have been submitted by these stakeholders in relation to the ongoing nomination process.”
During and after the annual WHC meetings, press releases are issued on key site decisions by the committee.
Post Hoc Disclosures
After decisions have been made, the UNESCO website is populated with many, but not all, of the documents used during the process.
Records of AHC actions on sites can be found on in the World Heritage List. (Pick a site and then look under “Documents.”)
Also available are State of Conservation reports, advisory body evaluations, country requests for international assistance (if applicable), reports on UNESCO missions, management plans, periodic reports from countries, photos, and links to national agencies (sometimes).
“State of Conservation Reports by States Parties” are published on a State of Conservation
Information System (SOC) page that includes statistical analysis, such as a map showing World Heritage properties impacted by extractive industries over the past 10 years. Many other factors negatively affecting sites are listed, with sites named. So, for example, six properties at list as being impacted by “Changes to oceanic waters,” 29 by “war” and 67 by “mining.” (The SOC page in some instances was not as up to date as the documents section on the list page.)
The risk categories may not be reflective of the total picture. For example, a July 2025 report by UNESCO and the World Resources Institute found that 73% of World Heritage sites are highly exposed to water-related hazards, such as drought, water stress, or riverine and coastal flooding.
Observers Frustrated
Accredited outside observers “sharing the same objectives as ICOMOS” are allowed in to the AHC meetings by a vote of the committee, but their participation is limited.
Those admitted in 2025, more than 110, are listed in this document. There is quite a variety. The observers list mainly includes nongovernmental organizations and international organizations. For example: the United Nations World Tourism Organization, the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization from Tunisia, the African Wildlife Foundation from Kenya, the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs from Denmark, and the Yinchuan Xixia Imperial Tombs Management Office from China.
But they are not full participants in the discussions.
One long-time observer from a CSO said:
In the general sessions, NGOs and observers are theoretically allowed to intervene. However, in my experience attending numerous committee meetings, we are almost always called to speak after the decision has already been taken. This turns our technical expertise and “on-the-ground” updates into a mere formality rather than a contribution that can influence the outcome. It feels like the space for genuine NGO participation is shrinking every year.
Another veteran observer said, “It amounts to a derision of civil society and their knowledge of, and contributions to, the World Heritage Convention.”
Requesting Documents Through UNESCO Access Policy Untested
UNESCO has an access to information policy, but its use to gather information about the heritage site designation process seems largely untested.
When a requester asked for a 2020 ICOMOS technical review document, the request was denied. Who asked for it and when was not disclosed. What’s more, the reasons for denying the request were not made public.
The denial was appealed, but the seven-person appeals panel, mostly made up of UNESCO employees, denied the appeal. UNESCO kept that decision confidential.
EYE sought access to the decision of the appeals board, but the request was rejected. EYE appealing that decision. (See EYE article.)
On April 16, the appeals panel denied the appeal, saying that one reason it could not release its decision, was because it had not written as actual decision.
However, the panel said it will consider recommending “the proactive disclosure of its decisions and reasoning” in the future. (See EYE article.)
Request for Site Inspection Report Pending
What documents might be available through the request process is unclear.
On April 8, EYE made a request for UNESCO reports on a site inspection in March on Preah Vihear, a World Heritage site in Cambodia damaged by armed conflict.
The inspection mission is cited in a KiriPost article saying that following a site inspection in March, UNESCO “is preparing an emergency fund of an undisclosed sum for Cambodia to repair the temple.”
UNESCO said a Cambodia official had “repeatedly requested UNESCO to send officials to see the real situation on the ground.” In early March, UNESCO sent two officials to evaluate the damaged sites. The Cambodian said, “They clearly saw and felt shocked.”
Responding to EYE’s document request, UNESCO said April 9, “A response will normally be provided within 30 calendar days of receipt.”
EYE on May 14 asked about the status of the request.
