The Indigenous World 2026: UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) World Heritage Convention
The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (“World Heritage Convention”) was adopted by UNESCO’s General Conference in 1972. With 196 States Parties, it is today one of the most widely ratified multilateral treaties. Its main purpose is the identification and collective protection of cultural and natural heritage sites of “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV). The Convention embodies the idea that some places are so special and important that their protection is not only the responsibility of the states in which they are located but also a duty of the international community as a whole.
The implementation of the Convention is governed by the World Heritage Committee (WHC), consisting of 21 States Parties. The WHC keeps a list of the sites it considers to be of OUV (“World Heritage List”) and monitors the conservation of these sites to ensure that they are adequately protected and safeguarded for future generations. Sites can only be listed following a formal nomination by the State Party in whose territory they are situated, and are classified as either “natural”, “cultural”, or “mixed” World Heritage sites.
Well over a hundred World Heritage sites overlap with Indigenous Peoples’ territories. Although most of these are classified as purely “natural sites”, without recognition of Indigenous cultural aspects, there are also some that are listed for their Indigenous cultural values or interlinkages between nature and Indigenous culture.
The WHC is supported by a secretariat (the UNESCO World Heritage Centre) and three Advisory Bodies that provide technical evaluations of World Heritage nominations and help monitor the state of conservation of World Heritage sites: the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM).
In 2017, Indigenous delegates attending the 41st session of the WHC created the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on World Heritage (IIPFWH) as a platform dedicated to strategizing and advocating for full respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights within World Heritage processes.[1] While the IIPFWH does not fulfil any official functions, the WHC has recognized it as an “important reflection platform on the involvement of Indigenous Peoples in the identification, conservation and management of World Heritage properties”.[2]
This article is part of the 40th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2026 in full here
47th Session of the World Heritage Committee (WHC), Paris, July 2025
The WHC’s 47th session at UNESCO headquarters in Paris (47COM) began with a scandal. At the request of Türkiye, the Dutch NGO “Save the Tigris Foundation”, which has campaigned against hydrological projects in the Kurdish region of Türkiye, was excluded from the meeting based on unsubstantiated allegations that it was politicizing technical issues and following a separatist agenda. Türkiye’s request was made just minutes before the WHC’s decision on the admission of observers and was approved by the WHC without verification of the allegations.[3] The effect of this precedent could have immense consequences for civil society participation in the World Heritage Convention.
47COM was attended by significantly more Indigenous participants than most previous sessions, in large part because the UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples for the first time supported the participation of Indigenous representatives in the WHC.[4] In total, six Indigenous participants were supported by the Fund. Ahead of the WHC session, an online training session was organized by the UN Voluntary Fund, Nia Tero, Docip, and IWGIA, aimed at increasing knowledge of the World Heritage Convention and strengthening the meaningful engagement and participation of Indigenous Peoples in World Heritage processes.[5]
The effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in the sessions of the WHC continues to be obstructed by the fact that Indigenous Peoples’ organizations and NGOs are normally only allowed to speak on an agenda item after the decision on the item has already been adopted by the WHC. This practice continues despite a 2021 “Declaration of Principles” by the General Assembly of States Parties, which commits the WHC to encouraging interventions from observers, including Indigenous Peoples’ representatives, before decisions are made.[6] Only during the discussion on some of the general items, at the beginning of 47COM, were Indigenous representatives able to speak before decisions were adopted. This included agenda item 5D (“Progress report on World Heritage Convention and Sustainable Development”), where the Chair of the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on World Heritage (IIPFWH) was invited to present a six-minute report from the podium,[7] and agenda item 5A (“Report of the World Heritage Centre”), where the IIPFWH was allowed to make a statement from the floor before the adoption of the decision.
In the statement on item 5A, the IIPFWH welcomed the World Heritage Centre’s emphasis on the need for a consistent human rights-based approach, and its recognition that “capacity-building, benefit-sharing, and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) must become standard practice in nomination processes, governance structures and monitoring mechanisms”.[8] The IIPFWH underlined that further revisions to the World Heritage Convention’s Operational Guidelines are crucially needed to ensure the effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and respect for their internationally recognized rights in World Heritage sites and processes. In this regard, the IIPFWH drew attention to the Outcome Document of the “International Expert Workshop on Recognizing and Respecting Indigenous Peoples’ Heritage Values in World Heritage Sites” (Geneva, January 2024), which outlines Indigenous Peoples’ priorities, concerns, vision, and recommendations regarding the implementation of the Convention based on a comprehensive assessment. The IIPFWH informed the WHC that the Outcome Document had been submitted to UNESCO and posted on the IIPFWH’s website.[9]
Noteworthy WHC decisions on the state of conservation of World Heritage sites
As every year, the WHC adopted many decisions on the state of conservation (SOC) of World Heritage sites in Indigenous Peoples’ territories. Several of these directly address questions regarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
For instance, the WHC’s Decision on Chitwan National Park (Nepal)[10] recalls concerns of alleged human rights abuses raised, among others, by the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, notes with significant concern that past relocations of people from the park have not been undertaken in line with international standards, and requests that Nepal engage with the affected communities to ensure that any remaining grievances are appropriately documented and redressed in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The decision encourages Nepal to engage with the Special Rapporteur in this matter.
The decision on the Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (Thailand)[11] requests the State Party to continue enhancing participatory management and governance arrangements, welcomes its focus on engagement with the Karen community in Ban Bang Kloy and the efforts to resolve conflicts, and requests that Thailand continue working closely with the affected communities to address the longstanding conflicts following a rights-based approach. The human rights situation of the Karen in the KKFC has been the subject of multiple communications by UN human rights mechanisms to the Government of Thailand, UNESCO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).[12] The decision also reiterates the WHC’s concern about the potential impacts of the proposed Nong Ta Dang dam/reservoir on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property and the already difficult relationship with the local communities.
The decision on Kahuzi-Biega National Park (KBNP) (Democratic Republic of the Congo)[13] expresses concern about the involvement of eco-guards in the commission of conservation crimes and urges the DRC to take specific measures to put an end to these acts. It welcomes the progress made in implementing measures to strengthen the rights of Indigenous Peoples in accordance with the recommendations of the 2019 Bukavu Dialogue in favour of the Batwa and the 2022 report of a commission of inquiry on alleged violations by park staff in KBNP, and urges the DRC to continue to fully implement these recommendations, while ensuring that its progress is fully integrated into park management policies. It also recalls the 2022 decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) regarding KBNP[14] and urges the DRC to implement all the measures requested in this decision, noting that they are essential not only to ensure respect for the rights of the Batwa but also for the preservation of Kahuzi-Biega’s OUV.
The decision on Salonga National Park (DRC)[15] welcomes the State Party’s efforts to promote conservation while respecting the rights of local communities and improve the relationship between the populations and the park, takes note with satisfaction of a reduction in alleged violations of the communities’ rights, and encourages the DRC to guarantee the full functioning of a recently established complaints and appeals mechanism. It also “encourages the State Party to finalize the Yaelima and Kitawala communities' supervision programme to limit the negative impacts on the park's resources… and insists that any future relocation be voluntary and in line with the principles of the Convention and relevant international standards.”
The decision on Virunga National Park (DRC)[16] notes with appreciation the “establishment of a bilingual complaint management mechanism, contributing to better governance of the property while respecting the rights of indigenous peoples…” Additionally, a general decision on the World Heritage properties in the DRC[17] encourages the DRC “to continue, at the level of all World Heritage properties in the DRC, ongoing actions to train all staff on human rights issues and to involve IPLCs in property management processes, in accordance with international standards and the 2015 Policy on World Heritage and Sustainable Development.”
The WHC’s decision on the Sangha Trinational (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo)[18] welcomes the sustained efforts of the States Parties to promote, engage and guarantee the rights of Indigenous Peoples. It calls on them to ensure the comprehensive implementation of the recommendations of the 2020 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) International independent review of allegations raised in the media regarding human rights violations in the context of WWF’s conservation work.[19]
The decision on the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) (Tanzania)[20] states that the involvement of stakeholders and rightsholders remains essential in the implementation and review of the Multiple Land Use Model (MLUM) and reiterates the WHC’s view “that the continued implementation of a MLUM… which ensures a clear human rights-based approach, is appropriate in principle.” It stresses the importance of full and effective engagement and consultation with all stakeholders and rightsholders, “including those who oppose relocation”, and asserts that further on-site engagement with UNESCO, IUCN and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) is required to ensure that the views of local communities on the MLUM review and the voluntary resettlement scheme are heard, requesting a new Reactive Monitoring mission. The “voluntary resettlement scheme” has been the subject of multiple communications by UN human rights mechanisms to Tanzania as well as the WHC and the Advisory Bodies.[21] Representatives of the NCA’s Indigenous communities underlined in a statement at 47COM that “the so-called ‘voluntary relocation program’… is far from voluntary. Our communities have faced coercion, denial of services, and restriction of traditional practices. The human cost of these relocations is devastating, particularly for women and children.”[22]
The decision on the Laponian Area (Sweden)[23] expresses significant concern that the proposed Kallak mining project near the property poses a significant threat to the cultural and natural values of Laponia, in particular in relation to the Sámi reindeer transhumance system, a key attribute of the OUV of the property, and urges Sweden not to grant an Environmental Permit for the project. The threats posed by the project were the subject of a 2022 joint communication of UN human rights mandate-holders to Sweden.[24] The decision also expresses concern over the numerous past and new development projects within the setting of the property and encourages Sweden to develop a Sustainable Development Strategy for the area, in full consultation with the Sámi, in order to better align heritage conservation and management with sustainable development goals. It reiterates an earlier request to the State Party to ensure that any further consideration of mining permits guarantees the FPIC of the Sámi, and to integrate FPIC procedures into decision-making processes concerning all future major infrastructure and industrial projects.
The decision on Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada)[25] takes note with concern of reports from First Nations and Métis regarding ongoing challenges in the involvement of Indigenous rightsholders and encourages Canada to align future strategic planning with emerging co-governance frameworks and the priorities of Indigenous Peoples during revisions of the property’s management plan and to incorporate Indigenous Peoples’ perspectives into future state of conservation reports. The decision also urges Canada to urgently complete an independent risk assessment of the oil sands tailings ponds upstream of the park, highlighting concerns raised by Indigenous rightsholders in this regard.
The WHC’s decision on Angkor (Cambodia)[26] notes the conclusions of a 2024 Reactive Monitoring mission regarding the ongoing relocation of residents from areas inside the property to new townships. The decision requests that Cambodia “continue providing incentives to legal residents and illegal occupants to accept voluntary relocation”, “enhance the living conditions of people who have been resettled in relocation towns”, and “continue to adhere strictly to international human rights standards for the relocation process… while also strengthening formal conflict resolution mechanisms”. The relocation programme was the subject of a 2024 joint communication of UN human rights experts to Cambodia and UNESCO, expressing concern about reports of “forced eviction and resettlement of at least 40,000 people, including Indigenous Peoples, from their homes and lands in Angkor.”[27] The communication to UNESCO noted that concerns had been raised over the role assumed by the World Heritage Centre in the context of the evictions.[28]
Noteworthy WHC decisions on nominations
The WHC considered several nominations affecting Indigenous Peoples’ lands, territories or resources in 2025, approving almost all of them, although the Advisory Bodies (IUCN and ICOMOS) had, in several cases, recommended a referral or deferral. This was in line with the general trend towards the WHC’s complete disregard of Advisory Body advice when it comes to assessing nominations. Out of 32 sites under consideration at the Paris session, 28 were approved by the WHC even though the Advisory Bodies had only recommended 17 for inscription, once again illustrating the politicized nature of the WHC’s decision-making.[29]
The Peruaçu River Canyon (Brazil) was inscribed as a natural site although IUCN had recommended a referral in order to enable all questions regarding Indigenous Peoples’ FPIC to be resolved. While an area subject to a pending land claim by the Indigenous Xakriabá people was excluded from the nominated area because the Xakriabá had emphasized that they would not grant their approval for the nomination before the recognition of their pending land claim, IUCN noted that no evidence had been provided on whether the Xakriabá people agreed with the reduced area being nominated, which is also of historical, cultural, and spiritual importance to them.[30] IUCN also highlighted that the Xakriabá representatives had called for the inclusion of cultural heritage in the candidacy as a World Heritage site, as a focus only on natural heritage would render the culture and practices of the Xakriabá invisible. IUCN further noted that the representatives of the Xakriabá people expressed concern that they had only been consulted after the preparation of the nomination dossier and had been asked to legitimize pre-established decisions, stressing that the consultation process should not have been limited in time.[31] The Government of Brazil committed to proposing the addition of the now excluded area to the World Heritage site should a solution to the judicial dispute be found and the consent of the Xakriabá be obtained in the future.[32]
The Murujuga Cultural Landscape (Australia) was listed as a cultural World Heritage site that bears testimony to the living cultural traditions of the Ngarda-Ngarli people and the spiritual relationship between people and landscape. The OUV of the site lies in the traditional system governing it, which manifests in unified tangible and intangible attributes that attest to at least 50,000 years of Ngarda-Ngarli using and caring for the land and seascape.[33] The Murujuga nomination process was Indigenous people-led and the management of Murujuga is characterized by a collaborative, Indigenous-led approach. In inscribing the site, the WHC ignored the advice of ICOMOS to refer the nomination back to the State Party in order to allow it to address concerns regarding the impacts of industrial development in the vicinity of the property.[34]
The Wixárika Route (Mexico), a serial property of 20 sites in north-central Mexico that connects sacred landscapes central to the spiritual and cultural practices of the Wixárika Indigenous people, was listed as a cultural World Heritage site. The nomination was a community-led initiative of the Wixárika people and collaboration with the Wixárika communities is at the heart of the management of the property. Evidence of the FPIC of the Wixárika communities was submitted as part of the nomination.[35]
Hin Nam No National Park (Laos) was listed under natural criteria as a transboundary extension to the Phong Nha-Ke Bang World Heritage site (Vietnam), in line with the advice provided by IUCN. IUCN’s evaluation[36] notes that Hin Nam No has a collaborative management system enabling strong community participation across various management levels, and both IUCN and the WHC commended Laos “for the thorough participatory approach in developing this nomination and in obtaining the FPIC, in addition to efforts to engage and include local communities in the governance and management of the property”.[37] According to the nomination submitted by Laos, the FPIC approach in Hin Nam No was “not a one-off process to secure validation of an existing design” but rather an ongoing consultation process resulting in an “FPIC Action Plan” aimed at strengthening co-management mechanisms, promoting community benefits, protecting rights, and supporting livelihood security.[38] The FPIC Action Plan officially submitted by Lao authorities represents a commitment to use the World Heritage process to respond to the concerns of “ethnic groups and local communities” and includes a strong commitment to respect and respond to the needs and rights of the area’s Indigenous Peoples (various groups of hunter-gatherers and shifting cultivators). However, given that the concept of Indigenous Peoples is not recognized by the Lao government and no Indigenous Peoples’ rights framework exists within the country, the nomination does not contain clear evidence that the Indigenous groups of the area approved of the nomination.
Other noteworthy WHC decisions
Perhaps the most significant decision for Indigenous Peoples was Decision 47 COM 11, which recognizes “the challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples when navigating the World Heritage system” and requests that the World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies and States Parties “work together with Indigenous Peoples to identify opportunities to better reflect their heritage values, including reflecting the narratives of Indigenous Peoples in the statements of OUV, and enhance their participation under the Convention and present a proposal to [the WHC’s] 48th session”. This decision provides an important opportunity for the IIPFWH and other Indigenous organizations to engage with the Convention bodies on these crucial issues.
Another significant decision was Decision 47 COM 5C, by which the WHC adopted the “Nairobi Outcome Document on Heritage and Authenticity”,[39] which identifies and explains what constitutes authenticity and integrity in an African context and similar contexts globally. The document moves the understanding of authenticity closer to Indigenous Peoples’ understandings by underscoring that “considering authenticity must include understanding the continuity of heritage values upheld by communities, who are the owners or custodians of this heritage” and that “communities define the values which determine the authenticity of heritage”. The document emphasizes: “Heritage is community-centred, pluralistic, dynamic, and evolves over time and goes beyond the tangible. Thus, its significance cannot be fossilised.” The WHC requested that the secretariat include agenda items related to the concept of authenticity at the next sessions of both the General Assembly of States Parties and the WHC.
Also noteworthy is the WHC’s adoption of a new World Heritage Capacity-Building Strategy (2025–2035).[40] The Strategy identifies a set of capacity-building priorities that provide the basis for coordinated action over the next decade. One of those priorities is “Fostering People-Centred Approaches”, which entails “promoting the full, equitable, meaningful and informed participation of Indigenous Peoples… in heritage management and capacity-building programmes”.[41]
Finally, Decision 47 COM 8A takes note of the updated Tentative Lists[42] submitted by States Parties as of April 2025. Tentative Lists are inventories of the sites that States Parties consider suitable for inscription on the World Heritage List and intend to nominate during the following five to 10 years. Many sites on the Tentative Lists are within Indigenous Peoples’ territories. Most of these sites have been included on the Tentative Lists without the FPIC of the Indigenous Peoples concerned and, in most cases, Indigenous Peoples’ perspectives and cultural values are not adequately reflected in the statement of potential OUV.[43]
Of great concern to many Indigenous representatives at 47COM was the conflation of Indigenous Peoples with local communities in some of the WHC’s decisions and working documents, a practice that creates confusion in legal and policy frameworks and may have the effect of undermining the distinct status and rights of Indigenous Peoples under international law.[44] The language used in some documents even appeared to subsume Indigenous Peoples under local communities as a broader category.[45]
18th Session of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), Geneva, July 2025
The Expert Mechanism adopted a proposal that the Human Rights Council hold a panel discussion on recognizing and respecting the rights and values of Indigenous Peoples in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.[46] The Expert Mechanism proposed that the panel discussion be organized under the title “The World Heritage Convention: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Engagement” during the Council’s 63rd session in September 2026. The proposal was made in recognition of the Outcome Document of the International Expert Workshop on Recognizing and Respecting Indigenous Peoples’ Heritage Values in World Heritage Sites (Geneva 2024).
60th Session of the Human Rights Council, Geneva, September/October 2025
In accordance with the proposal from EMRIP, the Human Rights Council decided that the theme of its annual panel discussion on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, to be held during its 63rd session in September 2026, would be “The World Heritage Convention: Indigenous Peoples’ rights and engagement”.[47]
25th General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, Paris, November 2025
Regarding the concept of authenticity, the General Assembly adopted a resolution “acknowledging the need to ensure pluralism in World Heritage processes and practices” and welcoming the “Nairobi Outcome Document on Heritage and Authenticity… [as] an important addition to the understanding of the concept, by emphasizing community-centred, community-driven custodianship, articulating tangible and intangible aspects, in the nomination and evaluation of nominations, and in the management of World Heritage properties”.[48] Authenticity in the context of the World Heritage Convention is a condition that all cultural properties must meet in order to be deemed of OUV. The concept is therefore of fundamental importance in the implementation of the Convention.
Another resolution expresses serious concern that the resources available to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are no longer sufficient to carry out the statutory activities required in the implementation of the Convention. It calls on States Parties to pay outstanding contributions and make voluntary contributions, and underlines that a definitive solution must be identified to continue to fully meet the objectives of the Convention.[49]
Developments within the IIPFWH
As a result of the relatively limited and fluctuating participation of Indigenous Peoples’ organizations in the sessions of the WHC to date, the IIPFWH continues to be in the process of strengthening its internal organization. During the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus meetings at 47COM, it was decided that the IIPFWH Steering Committee would henceforth operate through a governance structure composed of two Co-Chairs rather than a single chairperson. The Co-Chairs of the IIPFWH are selected from among the Steering Committee’s seven members, each of whom represents one of the seven socio-cultural regions recognized for Indigenous Peoples within the UN system. In October 2025, with the appointment of the regional representative for the North America region, the IIPFWH Steering Committee became representative of all seven regions for the first time.
Subsequently, the Steering Committee began with the finalization of terms of reference for the IIPFWH (including Steering Committee and Secretariat), a task that the Indigenous caucuses at the Geneva expert workshop, 46COM, and 47COM had all identified as a priority. At the time of writing, the terms of reference are still being finalized.
Stefan Disko works as advisor on conservation policy for IWGIA. He holds an M.A. in World Heritage Studies from BTU Cottbus and an M.A. in Ethnology and International Law from LMU Munich.
This article is part of the 40th edition of The Indigenous World, a yearly overview produced by IWGIA that serves to document and report on the developments Indigenous Peoples have experienced. Find The Indigenous World 2026 in full here
Notes and references
[1] See The Indigenous World 2019, p. 662-664.
[2] Decision 41 COM 7, para. 41. Available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6940/.
[3] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf-DejJkbZ8&t=2689s.
[4] See https://www.ohchr.org/en/about-us/funding-budget/indigenous-peoples-fund and https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/2758.
[5] In addition, the UN Indigenous Fellowship Program included a dedicated session on the World Heritage Convention and Indigenous Peoples, for all Indigenous Fellows, in its annual training program in Geneva.
[6] Doc. WHC/21/23.GA/INF.10, para. 9.
[7] See: https://youtu.be/uv_j8CRgGhg?t=7967.
[8] See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv_j8CRgGhg&t=2261s.
[9] The Outcome Document is available at https://iipfwh.org/international-expert-workshop-on-recognizing-and-respecting-indigenous-peoples-heritage-values-in-world-heritage-sites/.
[10] Decision 47 COM 7B.12.
[11] 47 COM 7B.15.
[12] See, e.g., communications OTH 7/2019, OTH 8/2019, THA 2/2019; OTH 22/2020, OTH 23/2020, THA 4/2020; OTH 209/2021, THA 4/2021. Available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments.
[13] 47 COM 7A.10.
[14] ACHPR, Decision on Communication 588/15, available at https://achpr.au.int/en/decisions-communications/58815-minority-rights-group-v-v-democratic-republic-congo-drc.
[15] 47 COM 7B.46.
[16] 47 COM 7A.12.
[17] 47 COM 7A.8.
[18] 47 COM 7B.45.
[19] "Embedding human rights into nature conservation: from intention to action”, available at https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/wwf_independent_review_/.
[20] 47 COM 7B.60.
[21] See, e.g., communications TZA 3/2021, OTH 262/2021, OTH 263/2021, OTH 264/2021; TZA 2/2023, all available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments.
[22] See https://youtu.be/yomnrc30V68?t=11444.
[23] 47 COM 7B.55.
[24] Communication SWE 2/2022. See https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=27057.
[25] 47 COM 7B.21.
[26] 47 COM 7B.63.
[27] Communications KHM1/2024 and OTH 136/2024, available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments.
[28] See https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=29451. UNESCO’s reply is available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=38805.
[29] Patry, Marc and Jiayao Jiang, “Measuring Divergence: The Concordance Factor for World Heritage Committee Decisions”, PARKS 31.1 (May 2025), https://parksjournal.com/2025/05/30/latest-issue/.
[30] IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2025, Doc. WHC/25/47.COM/INF.8B2, pp. 87-98.
[31] See ibid. and the records of the FPIC consultations with the Xakriabá contained in the supplementary information to the nomination submitted by Brazil in February 2025, https://whc.unesco.org/document/220509, pp. 80-104 and 178-204.
[32] See ibid. and WHC Decision 47 COM 8B.8, para. 6.
[33] WHC Decision 47 COM 8B.13.
[34] ICOMOS World Heritage Evaluations 2025, Doc. WHC/25/47.COM/INF.8B1, pp. 54-68.
[35] See ibid., pp. 295-297; and Mexico’s supplementary information of 24 October, https://whc.unesco.org/document/219023.
[36] IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2025, pp. 45-54.
[37] WHC Decision 47 COM 8B.6.
[38] The nomination documents are available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/951/documents/.
[39] Available at https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000393789.
[40] Decision 47 COM 6A.
[41] See Doc. WHC/25/47.COM/6A.
[42] The Tentative Lists are presented in Doc. WHC/25/47.COM/8A.
[43] See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/culturalrights/sr/outcome-document-iipfwh-expert-workshop-.pdf.
[44] See the July 2023 joint statement on this matter by the three UN mechanisms on Indigenous Peoples, https://social.desa.un.org/issues/indigenous-peoples/news/joint-statement-by-the-un-mechanisms-of-indigenous-peoples.
[45] See Decision 47 COM 5C, para. 9 and Doc. WHC/25/47.COM/5D, Section VIII.
[46] See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/indigenouspeoples/emrip/activities/emrip-2025-proposals.pdf.
[47] Resolution A/HRC/RES/60/13, Human rights and Indigenous Peoples, para. 16.
[48] Resolution 25 GA 9.
[49] Resolution 25 GA 8.
Tags: Global governance
